Lords Sitting of 16 July 1963

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

CIGARETTE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
2.35 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the approximate rate of increase in the last forty years of cigarette smoking and of lung cancer respectively, and what steps are being taken to help the public to realise the danger involved in this form of smoking.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, between 1920 and 1962 sales of cigarettes in the United Kingdom rose from about 36,000 million to about 110,000 million. Deaths assigned to lung cancer in Great Britain rose from 592 to 26,383. Some part of this increase may be due to more accurate diagnosis. Noble Lords will realise that lung cancer deaths in a particular year are related to the rate of consumption of cigarettes during a period of many years preceding it. Deaths from lung cancer are now running at the rate of about 500 a week, or one every 20 minutes.
In order to keep the public constantly aware of the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and other diseases, and to discourage children and young people from starting to smoke, campaigns of health education are being conducted by local authorities, with the encouragement and help of Her Majesty's Government, who are supplying a large range of publicity material.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the interesting information he has given us. May I ask whether
110
among the information being given to the local authorities for the purpose he has mentioned there is included a pamphlet recently published by the Chelsea Borough Council, which probably he will agree with me in thinking is an excellent one?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the pamphlet recently produced by the Chelsea Borough Council is a most excellent one. I understand they have distributed it to every household in their borough. So far as I am aware, we have not distributed it ourselves; it is not our publication. But I am grateful to my noble friend for giving this booklet the publicity he has, and I have no doubt that if other local authorities want copies that can be arranged.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as this campaign seems to have had little effect on middle-aged tobacco addicts, can the noble Lord say precisely what is done in schools?—because in my opinion the most effective thing would be to bring this matter home to school children. Could we be told in detail how the sixth forms of the country are handled in this matter?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the important thing is that this form of health education, which it is, should be directed mainly at the young to prevent them from starting to smoke cigarettes. I cannot tell her exactly what is done by schools to interest sixth forms particularly, but I can say that over one million posters have been distributed by us free of charge to local authorities, Government Departments and others, for display in schools, clinics, youth clubs and such places. Our film, Smoking and You, which was released in the second half of April, has already had hundreds of showings to audiences totalling about 30,000, mostly in schools. The three mobile vans presented by Her Majesty's Government to the Central Council for Health Education are booked up, in two cases until June, 1964, and in the third case until the end of this year. Approximately 200 local authorities have requested visits.
As regards what the noble Baroness said earlier about the effect of the campaign on what she called the middle-aged

111
addict, I am not in a position at the moment to say what effect the campaign has had, but we are in the process of collecting reports from local education and local health authorities on their campaigns, and the Central Office of Information has started a series of social surveys to assess the effects of the campaign.
LORD MABANE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give similar figures for the decline in the incidence of tuberculosis for the same period?
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, not without notice.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that a great many other things have increased in exactly the same proportion, or in some cases in a greater proportion, during those years—betting, crime and all sorts of other things—and does he understand that statistics really cannot be used in this way?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend about that at all. I would say that the other things he listed as having increased in recent years do not cause lung cancer.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, ought not the appeal to the middle-aged take the form of urging them to refrain from setting a bad example to their children? Whilst smoking is forbidden in schools but continues at home, there is always the tendency to want to break the rule as soon as school is left. Would it not be a good thing to bring into the propaganda this aspect of setting an example?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend has set a good example by asking that question. I might tell him the example I set to my children is the one that he would consider good.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there has been any change in the attitude of the advertising industry, which it will be within your Lordships' recollection refused to publish posters issued by the Ministry of Health on this matter, and which was the subject of a statement by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House some time ago?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should not like to answer that question without
112
notice, but I suspect the answer would be in the negative.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, is the noble Lord quite sure that the three Government vans he is sending round are not emitting diesel fumes to add to the harmful effects?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I deprecate all these veiled attempts by noble Lords to try to throw doubt on this causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. I am not for a moment saying that there are not other causes of lung cancer, but I stand by the opinion of the Royal College of Physicians, that smoking, and particuarly cigarette smoking, is the most likely cause of all of the very sharp increase in lung cancer deaths we have seen in this country in recent years.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, why does the Royal College of Physicians try to give the impression that every statistical record of death by lung cancer is effected by cigarette smoking where those concerned are known to have smoked cigarettes? Where is the medical proof that a particular person died from lung cancer because he was a cigarette smoker?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am not here to answer for the medical profession. All I am doing is retailing to your Lordships, as has been done many times before, what is the considered opinion of the Royal College of Physicians, and I am not concerned to dispute it. All I would say in reply to the noble Earl is that the nature of the relationship between the drug thalidomide and its effects is also unknown, but I do not think anyone would doubt that this relationship does exist.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, would it be contrary to Government policy to allow the public some freedom of choice?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Earl must know perfectly well that the public have complete freedom of choice to smoke or not as they think fit. All I am hoping is that they will not think fit to use their freedom of choice in this way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the House his assurance that Her Majesty's

113
Government are as interested in the emission of obnoxious smoke from diesel engines and the automobile as they are in this popularity-catching campaign against cigarette smoking? I do not uphold cigarette smoking, but we in this House have for years been speaking against the obnoxious fumes from diesel engines and other exhaust gases, and nothing of any substance has been done.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, that may be so; but I do not think that question arises from the original Question on the Order Paper. Even if it did, it would not fall to be answered by me.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, while heavy spirit drinking does not necessarily always cause cirrhosis of the liver, nevertheless heavy spirit drinking does not promote good health?
LORD NEWTON: That also is another matter.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord say that it is the case, after a slight fall in the sale of cigarettes, that the number of them now being sold is even larger and that this is the result of this advertising and discussion about cigarette smoking and the desire for freedom in the matter?
LORD NEWTON: I do not know about that. I think that no doubt it is a possible explanation.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that his publicity material is being uses in the right places? Surely, it is imperative that the dangers of cigarette smoking should be given prominence equal to its attractions; and surely the Government might consider applying sufficient of their revenue from the tobacco tax to put themselves in the position to advertise the dangers of cigarette smoking alongside the advertisements for cigarettes in newspapers, magazines, on hoardings and on television programmes.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I doubt whether it would be appropriate at the moment to go quite so far as that. We are aiming our campaign at the young, in places such as schools and in the local health authority clinics where mothers take their children, and where local authorities can exhibit our posters whereas commercial interests cannot
114
advertise theirs. I think we have to see how this goes. That is why the Central Office of Information is embarking upon a series of social surveys. But I can tell your Lordships that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, this campaign will go on and on, however long the process may be.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may we take it that if we confine ourselves to smoking pipes and, when we can manage them, cigars, which are the nicest of the lot, we are all right: that we should keep clear of cigarettes?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord can smoke what he likes, but I am not going to be drawn into expressing a professional opinion. The noble Lord had better read again, if he has not already done so, the report of the Royal College of Physicians. So far as I am concerned, the advice I ought to give to your Lordships is that it is better not to smoke anything.

PAPUANS IN WEST NEW GUINEA
2.47 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in regard to the arrangements for the self-determination of the Papuan inhabitants of West New Guinea under the agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are confident that the Secretary-General has this matter in mind, but they are not aware of any progress since the decision mentioned in the reply that I gave to the noble Lord on May 7.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. May I take it that this disposes of rumours, and, I think, even reports in the Press, to the effect that the Indonesian Government had torn up the whole agreement?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have not heard any such rumours, and certainly there is no official report to that effect.

THE UNITED NATIONS AND WEST NEW GUINEA
2.48 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received any further information from the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the regular transmission by the Government of Indonesia to the United Nations of information of an economic, social and educational nature in regard to West New Guinea as required by Article 73(e) of the Charter of the United Nations.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the noble Lord's Question of May 22.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I take it from my noble friend's reply that when the new session of the United Nations General Assembly takes place in September he will give instructions to our delegates to raise this issue on the Fourth Committee, with a view to ensuring that the proper transmission of information to the General Assembly should take place in accordance with Article 73(e) of the Charter, as in the case of all other colonial powers?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly ask for inquiries to be made. As I think I informed my noble friend the other day, it is not certain whether there is any legal obligation under Article 73 of the Charter to do this.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, if there were a legal obligation, would it not be the responsibility of the Secretary-General to ensure that these reports were submitted?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, that is so.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I pursue this point with my noble friend? I can remember well on the Fourth Committee that, year after year, we had to argue the case whether we were required to transmit information or not. It happened again and again. It happened in the cases of Holland and Belgium and of other Powers. Should not the same issue be raised, and should not the Indonesian Government be required to argue their case in exactly the same way as if they were a European colonial Power?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is the case that we generally do so, and that the Netherlands Government did. I think it is right for me to make sure that I do not mislead my noble friend on the question of legal obligation.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL
2.51 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

PEERAGE BILL
2.51 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after Clause 6 to insert the following new clause:
Establishing succession
"For the purposes of this Act the day on which any person who is over the age of 21 succeeds to a peerage shall be—

(a) the day on which he is known to have succeeded or

(b) the day on which any competent authority establishes a fact of which one of the consequences is that such person succeed."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is not the same as, but not very different from, the Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage of the Bill. On that occasion, your Lordships will remember, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admitted the validity of the point I had raised, but said that it would very seldom occur, and he disclaimed, with extreme modesty, his own capacity as Lord Chancellor to decide the point. I did not altogether share his own modest opinion, but, I will not counter it on this occasion.
On the question whether it is possible or frequent for a person to inherit a Peerage without knowing it, I think I can make it clear that it is not so uncommon as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor seems to imagine. If your Lordships will go into the Prince's Chamber and then go 43 yards into the
118
Royal Gallery you will there see three books which contain the names of those noble Lords and Officers of the House and their relatives who are put down as having been killed in the last two wars. Those names are put down as having been killed, but it is by no means certain that they were killed. We believe, and have good reason to believe, that the bearers of those names are all dead, but a great many of them have merely disappeared from the human canon.
I could give your Lordships many instances from the recent war, but to do so would raise feelings which I am not anxious to raise. It is almost equally true that in the First World War a great many people disappeared and were shown as killed, though nobody really knew. To give one example, my old friend the late Duke of Atholl broke his heart, I think—it certainly affected the course of his life—in his passionate efforts to find out what had become of his brother Geordie, who was the heir to the title. I do not think any mortal man has ever known for certain what became of George Stewart-Murray. We all believed him to be dead and he has never reappeared, but that is all that is known. There are other noble Lords whom I could instance from that war. I look up their names in Burke, I find against their names the date on which they died, but I am quite certain that there is no man who really knew that that was so. I therefore point out that this is not so uncommon as is believed, and it is quite possible for people to inherit peerages and to possess them for a long time without knowing they have done so.
To turn to another side of this matter, this Bill, a statesmanlike measure, has two objects, as I see it. In the first place, I do not think that any social system has a right to keep anybody in prison. It was for that reason that I voted against Lord Boothby's Amendment at the commencement of the Committee stage on this Bill, because I thought that it would operate unequally as between Members of your Lordships' House. However, I will leave that matter there.
There is an ancillary object which is equally important, and which can be attained by this Bill. It has long been considered a blot on the English Constitution that there should exist what I

119
would call the William Pitt dilemma. Your Lordships will recall the fact that in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars the position of William Pitt as Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons was threatened by the serious illness of his brother, Lord Chatham. For a long time it was thought that he would have to leave that position, and that he would succeed and come to your Lordships' House. We all know how inefficiently William Pitt was succeeded by the following Government, and I daresay that many of your Lordships remember the rhyme in connection with that. As a matter of fact, Lord Chatham recovered and I believe outlived his brother, but that was a very serious dilemma. At that time we were fighting for our lives and we were in danger of losing irrevocably the pilot who weathered the storm.
That is not the only time that we have been fighting for our lives. We have been fighting for our lives on two occasions since. I remind your Lordships that on the second occasion the pilot who weathered the storm was Mr. Winston Churchill. I have not calculated the number, but your Lordships will realise that, by a certain number of deftly planted bombs, Hitler might have taken away from us Mr. Winston Churchill and presented us with a perfectly good Duke of Marlborough. I do not know what would have happened if that had happened. I do not know whether his friends could have restrained him from following his ancestor, Corporal John, and leading our troops in the field. But it would have been a very awkward juncture for us in the middle of the war.
I ask your Lordships to consider the matter a little further. Let me put a suppositious case to you which will take a very short time. Let us suppose that a Peer has three sons and that each of those sons has one son. The son of the elder line succeeds to the Peerage, the son of the second line becomes a soldier, and the son of the third line goes into politics and actually becomes Prime Minister at the time of a great war. The son of the elder line dies and the Peerage lapses; the son of the second line disappears at the front and nobody can tell what has happened to him. Now it is suggested that that would not matter; that the Prime Minister could execute an anticipatory deed of disclaimer under this
120
Bill. That might have very great difficulties. He will be heartening his relatives, his cousins, trying to keep their courage up and trying to keep their hopes alive. Yet if there is no anxiety shown in public as to his position, they will know that he must have entered into a deed of disclaimer secretly and not told them. It sems to me very much better to have the position put perfectly clearly in the Bill that we have before us to-day. I do not insist on the virtue of my wording. If Her Majesty's Government will accept the point and put their own words in at a later stage, that will perfectly content me. But I think this matter ought to be cleared up.
There is one small point which I will add; it is only a small point but I think it is worth considering. I do not think that under the Bill as it stands at present, a deed of disclaimer entered into by a Peer who had not succeeded, but who anticipated that he might succeed, would be irrevocable; and it is one of the purposes of this Bill to make such deeds completely irrevocable. I think that point might be considered, too. It is a very small point, and I only just put it in like a grocer puts in a little extra when you make a purchase. With those few words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Saltoun.)
3.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): The little bit that the grocer puts in extra was certainly not asked for by the customer, and certainly, so far as I can see, has little connection with the Amendment now under discussion. The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, was quite frank about its purport: that it is really to reopen a discussion that took place in the earlier Committee proceedings. I must say that I wondered, as I listened to him really replying to what I said on that occasion, whether he was not getting into possible danger with regard to the Standing Orders, which provide that an Amendment to a Bill must not be inconsistent with a previous decision given on the same stage of the Bill. But, however, that may be, I will deal with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord and I must advise your Lordships not to accept it.

121
The noble Lord, in moving it, said very little indeed about the actual Amendment, but it is open to many criticisms and I will put them quite shortly. Your Lordships will see that it provides for two alternative dates in paragraphs (a) and (b). Of course, a Peer in fact succeeds on the day of the death of the previous holder of the Peerage. The next matter is to establish proof of succession, and the proposal in this Amendment is that
"For the purposes of this Act the day on which any person who is over the age of 21 succeeds to a Peerage shall be—
(a) the day on which he is known to have succeeded".
Known to whom? The Amendment does not provide the answer. Known publicly? Known to the heir himself, to the Lord Chancellor, to the House of Lords? There is simply no such day, unless one specifies a particular person. The only person who can in fact be specified is the heir himself, and that is what the noble Lord's earlier Amendment did.
Then this Amendment goes on to provide an alternative:
(b) the day on which any competent authority establishes a fact of which one of the consequences is that such person succeed."
What is "any competent authority" within the meaning of that paragraph? Does it, for example, include a Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons, or the Lord Chancellor, neither of whom is competent to adjudicate finally on this issue? If it does not include a Committee of Privileges, a sitting Member of Parliament who succeeded to a Peerage could, without disclaiming, defer indefinitely his disqualification as a Peer: all he would have to do would be to avoid making any claim to the succession.
Secondly, proof of succession may depend upon the establishment of a whole series of facts. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment appears to have the effect that if a "competent authority" establishes one link in the chain, time begins to run forthwith, notwithstanding that the other links may not be established until later. Then, again, one assumes it is possible for paragraph (a) to be satisfied and also for paragraph (b) to be satisfied; they are expressed to be in the alternative. And if that did occur,
122
one would not know from which date the relevant periods ran.
These defects, and defects about the drafting, are sufficiently serious to justify my asking your Lordships to reject this new clause. But they really only reflect a fundamental objection to the noble Lord's thesis, which arises from the fact that succession to a Peerage is not established by any formal or public step, unless the successor has on his own initiative set the appropriate machinery in motion. To make disqualification for the House of Commons depend on the successor's initiative would be a simple and to some an attractive solution to the whole problem, but it was not the solution adopted by the Select Committee, nor is it the solution proposed in the Bill. It is for those reasons that I invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment
LORD SALTOUN: I should have greatly preferred it if the noble and learned Lord had argued this matter on the merits, because I think the merits are outstanding. I do not particularly hold with the wording. I quite admit everything that the noble and learned Lord said against this Amendment. I say that such an Amendment as this could, and should, be drawn and put into the Bill. If your Lordships will support me and put this Amendment into the Bill, we can be quite certain that the Government will move it out at the next stage and will put in an Amendment satisfactory to themselves covering the point. I therefore feel that I should like to ask your Lordships to support me in this Amendment. I admit that it may not be right in form, but I do not think I have been answered one word on the merits.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.11 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE LORD CLITHEROE moved, to insert the following new clause:
Degrees of life peerage
"Life peerages may be created in any degree of the Peerage."
The noble Lord said: I shall keep your Lordships only a very short time over this Amendment. It may be that the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell me that the words of the proposed new clause are not appropriate to do what I want to do, but I think they are at any rate sufficiently clear for noble

123
Lords to understand my intentions. It may be that the Lord Chancellor will tell us that this clause is unnecessary, and he may say—and I think there are grounds for saying—that the Crown already has the right to create Life Peerages in a higher degree than that of Baron. There have been 27 creations of Life Peerages in degrees above that of Baron, starting with that of Huntingdon in 1377 and going down to that of Brandon in 1758; so there have already been 27 Life Peerages created as Earldoms. There is therefore nothing very new about the proposal, but I must admit that it has not been done very recently, and the Life Peerages Bill, which created Life Peerages, provided that these Life Peerages should be Baronies.
It seems to me that, particularly in the light of the rejection by the Government of the Amendment to exclude Clause 3(2) of this Bill, there is great merit in the proposal I am putting forward. In the first case, I do not see why there is the slightest difficulty in having a Life Peer in any degree of the Peerage; secondly, it might be very convenient on some occasions for that to be the case. Suppose the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had not wished to undertake the responsibilities of an hereditary Peerage. He could, if this clause had bean law at that time, have become a Life Earl, which would have been extremely appropriate for an ex-Prime Minister. Furthermore, it may be that some noble Lord who goes from this House to the House of Commons and becomes Prime Minister there might, in the fullness of time, be retiring from his Prime Ministership and might want to enter the House of Lords. He would then be able to enter only as a Life Baron, and I do not see any reason at all why we should not make it possible for him to enter this House as a Life Earl. I cannot see any very great objection to this proposal, and it seems to have certain advantages and certain conveniences. Therefore, I have every confidence in commending it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clitheroe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I listened very carefully to what my noble
124
friend said about this Amendment, and my answer to it falls really into two parts. So far as the actual creation of Life Peerages is concerned—and I can elaborate on this in a moment or two—it is, I think, clearly the law as it stands that it is possible for Her Majesty to create a Life Peerage in any degree of the Peerage; but that does not mean that any of those Life Peerages would carry membership of your Lordships' House. The point that my noble friend touched upon at the end of his speech was, as I followed the argument, that he thought that a Life Peerage of a higher rank should enable the holder of that Life Peerage to sit in this House. The Amendment would not, in fact, be effective to do that, and I would remind your Lordships that Parliament deliberately decided in 1958 that Life Peerages carrying membership of the House of Lords should rank as Baronies only. I do not think it would be right to use this Bill as a vehicle for amending the Life Peerages Act in that respect.
I can deal with the law as it stands at present quite shortly, I think. In the Wensleydale Peerage case in 1856 it was established, as my noble friend will remember, that a Life Peerage under the Prerogative carries no right to a seat or a voice in the House of Lords, and Lord Campbell, who rejected Lord Wensleydale's claim to a Writ of Summons, said there was no doubt but that the Crown could create a Peer for life; and Lord Brougham expressly disclaimed any intention of denying that the Crown had such powers. In Anson's Law and Customs of the Constitution, 5th Edition, Vol. 1, at page 225, it is stated:
"The rule of law seems clear. The Croon can confer such dignities and with such limitations as it may please, but a Lord of Parliament must be an hereditary Peer, except in the special cases of the Bishops and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary."
That, of course, was written before the passage of the Life Peerages Act.
Now during the Committee stage of the Life Peerages Bill the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, expressed the view that this right of the Crown remained unimpaired, and that, I think, is borne out by the wording of the patent for a Life Peer under the Life Peerages Act. My noble friend referred to a number of cases in which Life Peerages were granted. He said there were some 27

125
of ranks higher than that of Baron. In fact, I think he put the figure a little low. I am told that there were some 30 cases between 1377 and 1758 of subjects being granted Life Peerages, including 10 Dukedoms, 1 Marquessate, 20 Earldoms, 3 Viscountcies and 10 Baronies, and in some cases the same grantee received several Peerages of different degrees. But no Life Peerage under the Prerogative alone has been conferred on a man since 1606, when Sir James Hay, later made Earl of Carlisle, was created a Baron for life without a seat in the House of Lords. All subsequent Life Peerages under the Prerogative were conferred on women. That, of course, was before the passage of the Life Peerages Act.
I would just say this in answer to a further point in the argument advanced by my noble friend: that if the Crown wished to ennoble a retiring Prime Minister who had previously disclaimed, he could, under the law as it stands and under this Bill, be made a Life Peer under the Act of 1958, and have conferred on him a higher rank for life under the Prerogative without offending against Clause 3, subsection (2). No doubt he would rank as a Baron in this House, but, in the same way as a Scottish or Irish Peer who sits under an inferior title, he would be addressed and referred to by his superior title. For those reasons, I do not think this Amendment is necessary or desirable, and in the light of what I have said I hope my noble friend will think fit to withdraw it.
LORD CLITHEROE: Of course, I shall, before I sit down, withdraw this Amendment, since the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor has told me the wording does not do what I want to do, but I should like to say I am very grateful to him for his careful answer to this question. I think that the answer which he has given satisfies me in that it would be possible for a Prime Minister coming to this House in the rank of Baron to be given an Earldom, although that Earldom would not carry with it the right to a seat in this House, and would not be hereditary. I am sorry if my calculation of 27 was wrong. I am prepared to discuss that with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at a later date. There may be a certain amount of dubiety
126
about one or two of the cases. I still think 27 is about right. I am very sorry that the House of Lords came to the conclusion that it did in the Wensleydale case. I do not know if it is against the Rules of your Lordships' House to comment on decisions made by the House of Lords so long ago, but I am bound to say that I think most people now think that that was an extremely bad decision and had unfortunate consequences. I now have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Short title, commencement and repeals]:
3.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack having found fault with the wording of the two previous Amendments, I hope he will not rule me out on that ground; at any rate, I want to make the purpose of the Amendment quite clear. It is to raise the issue as to whether this Bill is to come into effect on the giving of the Royal Assent or whether it is to come into effect at the end of this Parliament. A similar Amendment was moved in another place in the same terms and, so far as I can gather from the records, no fault was found with it there. But I am hoping for the best.
The position, as noble Lords are well aware, is that a Bill normally comes into effect when it is given the Royal Assent. I have looked into all the Bills that were passed last Session and I can assure the Committee that the vast majority of them came into effect either wholly or partly on the giving of the Royal Assent. It is only when there are good reasons for the contrary, or where it is not practicable for the whole or part of a Bill to take effect on the giving of the Royal Assent, that some later date is given; and there are numerous Bills of which various parts come into effect at various dates. In this case I want to submit that there is no reason why this Bill should not come into operation on the giving of the Royal Assent.
So far as I know—and I have discussed this with a number of members of the

127
Joint Select Committee—none of us ever suspected that this Bill was not going to come into operation immediately. Let me say at once—and this point was made in another place—that the Government have stated that this Bill would be passed and come into operation at the end of the present Parliament. They have stated that. But certainly my interpretation of that was not that it might be passed this Session and that it would hang over until the end of Parliament. I understood it to mean that there was some doubt as to whether, in view of the congestion of Business, we could get this Bill through this Session; but in any case, whether we did or not, it would come in at the end of the present Parliament. If it were the intention to pass the Bill in this Session and hold it over until the end of Parliament, then I think there was an obligation on the Government to make it perfectly clear that that was their intention. They never did.
Let me deal with some of the effects if we were to pass this Bill and it did not operate until the end of Parliament. We may, of course, have an Election in October, and there will then be no special effect at all; but, on the other hand, we have been assured—I do not know how far we can accept these assurances—that there will be no Election this year. If we accept that assurance it means therefore that there will be an Election in either May or October of next year. Assuming the longer period, that means fifteen months from now. I submit that this may involve hardship on a number of persons which I should hope we would want to avoid.
First of all, let me be quite frank and say that it would involve hardship on Mr. Wedgwood Benn, who is virtually the father of this Bill. He will be unable to take a seat in the House of Commons; though every one of us now accepts the fact that he ought to be entitled to take a seat. If this Bill came into operation in this Session, I understand that he has an assurance from the present Member of Parliament for Bristol that he would resign and enable a by-election to take place. I think it is right that that should be so, and I think it honourable on the part of the present Member, because he knows he is not representing the constituency and is not the person they wish; he was defeated by a very large majority.
128
So this would enable the hardship to Mr. Wedgwood Benn to be removed and he would be enabled to fight a by-election and, if he won, to take his seat.
But there are other hardships: for instance, where the son of a Peer is at present in the House of Commons. If his father were to die within a very short time he may wish to renounce his Peerage and continue in his seat; but he would not be able to do so. He would have to give up his seat; somebody else would step in and fight at the by-election and obviously, assuming the other candidate won, the person who would wish to renounce the Peerage would have lost his opportunity. It may be a constituency with which he had been associated for a number of years; he may have very special reasons for desiring to represent that constituency; but his chance would have gone. I do not know whether there would be many such cases. I hope, for the health of this House, that there will be none at all: but one never knows.
There is another type of case. There are some noble Lords who may be contemplating renouncing their Peerage when this Bill comes into effect with a view to going into the House of Commons. I know that it has been stated that there is nothing to stop them from going round as Peers and announcing their intention, when this Bill comes into operation, of renouncing their Peerage; but it is a very undignified way of doing things and it is asking a lot to expect a noble Lord to say, "I am still a Peer, but will you adopt me as your candidate? When the time comes I undertake to give up the Peerage". It is putting him at a very definite disadvantage with the proposed constituency, and they would have to be very keen on having him to accept him on those terms. If there are Peers here to-day who intend to give up their Peerage then I think it is unfair to put them in that position.
What are the reasons that have been given up to now for not allowing this Bill to come into operation at once? It has been vaguely suggested that it would be more convenient (it has not been put higher than that), from a constitutional point of view, if the changes took place at the end of the present Parliament. I am no authority on the

129
Constitution. But the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is a constitutional lawyer, and this is what he said on this point [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 251 (No. 107), col. 1083]:
"The only other point, and the only point which I think raised any difficulty, is the provision about the date of operation. I myself do not pretend that there is any profound constitutional necessity to do it one way or the other."
There we have it. If the noble Viscount who leads the House does not think that there is any profound constitutional necessity for doing it one way or the other, and, as he goes on to say, that we should do what is to "the balance of public advantage", then I submit that it is to the balance of public advantage that the normal course be taken and that this Bill should take effect at once.
I do not know whether I need elaborate this point, but the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who spoke on Second Reading, referred to three important constitutional measures vitally affecting this House which were introduced and took effect in between Parliaments. The Life Peerages Act, about which we have just been talking, took effect between two Parliaments and in practice it made a more substantial change in the constitution of this House than I imagine this Bill is likely to do. And the two Parliament Acts also took effect in the same way. So I cannot think that there is a particular constitutional reason for it. Then there was something said, both here and in another place, about the difficulty in relation to Scottish Peers. But Mr. MacLeod said that these difficulties could be overcome. In any case, even if they were insurmountable, which they are not, it would be possible to have a specially appointed day for Clause 4, which deals with Scottish Peers. I imagine that if we decided that we could get over the difficulty, we should not need to have a specially appointed day, but I am directing my attention to the specific question of the disclaimer of Peers of this House.
So we are left with only one other point, that we have had notice of this proposal from various speeches of Her Majesty's Ministers. I do not think we had noticed that it was their intention, whether we pass this Bill this Session or not, that it should be held over until the end of the present Parliament. Cer
130
tainly none of us understood it that way. And we made matters easy for Her Majesty's Government from this side of the House by withholding a number of Amendments which we might have moved, and by accepting the broad principles set forth in the Report of the Joint Select Committee. By doing that, we have facilitated the passage of this Bill and therefore we understood—certainly we on this side did and I think that noble Lords on the other side of this committee who were on the Joint Select Committee understood the same—that this would not mean that of necessity the Bill would stand over. For these reasons and emphasising that I am asking the Committee to take the normal course and allow this Bill to come into operation when it is passed, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, leave out subsection (2).— (Lord Silkin.)
3.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: As a member of the Joint Select Committee, I must in unqualified terms support from this side of the House the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has moved. There is no Party question here, and I should have thought that the whole convenience was to do what certainly was the clear, plain understanding of the Joint Select Committee. Dealing with an Amendment I moved earlier in this debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that one would require very strong arguments to overrule or vary the findings of the Joint Select Committee. Therefore we did not put into our Report, in terms, that the Bill should come into force in the normal way when it received the Royal Assent because it never occurred to us that it would do anything else.
The Government were able to put their views before the Joint Select Committee. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House put in two extremely effective memoranda, expressing, no doubt, his own personal point of view, but also, I am sure, with the general support of his colleagues. But, more than that, the noble Earl whom we invited to become Chairman of the Joint Select Committee was, until he was succeeded by the present holder of the office, Lord Chancellor, a senior member of the Government, who,

131
but for a wind of change, would be piloting the Bill through the House now. I have not had an opportunity—he is not in the House now—of talking to my noble and learned friend, but I feel certain that he never contemplated anything else. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, whom I have had a full chance of consulting, and I are in complete agreement about this matter. Indeed, every member of the Joint Select Committee with whom I have had a chance of speaking takes exactly the same point of view. And we certainly expected that the normal course would be followed.
I need not elaborate or repeat the arguments which have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and by my noble friend and myself on the Second Reading of this Bill. I leave out Mr. Benn, if he be a bone of contention; but if we are passing this Bill, let us see what could happen to anybody else. After all, people do die, however excellent their health is. I hope that no father of a Member of another place will die in the next whatever number of months it is—I do not know—but if one did, what a fantastic situation arises! How very unfair to the Peer himself! How very unfair to his constituents, who may have elected him by a colossal majority and who want nothing more than that he should continue to represent them! And the whole purpose of this Bill is to enable him to go on representing them.
That we meant this Bill to come into force at once is obvious from the provision that we made that this should operate very rapidly; that in the case of anybody sitting in another place he would have to make up his mind within a month. Of course, he would make it up much more quickly, and for the moment he would be suspended from his activities in the House; but assuming that he made his declaration in the proper statutory form and lodged it with the Speaker, then he would go back to his duties in the House of Commons. It was said, and I think said with some reason, that people ought not to job in and job out; that a man should not have the best of both worlds. But if we are going to say that in this period of limbo before the next Election he is not to have the chance, if he should succeed to a Peerage, of using the benefit of this Bill, and that he must lose his
132
seat, that seems to me to be giving him the worst of both worlds.
I respect the arguments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the constitutional side, though I did not think that he put them with great force. Perhaps he did not feel that there was great force in them. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, also a distinguished lawyer, said that he did not see that it matters much one way or the other from the constitutional point of view. So far as the Scottish Peers are concerned, I cannot see that there is anything in it. You could put in an Amendment to say that that clause should come into force on an appointed day. After all, if you do not, what will happen? It will not affect any Scottish Peers who have been elected to sit here by the Peers in Scotland. They just go on sitting here. All it will do will be to add half a dozen who will be able to come here. No one will have his seat taken away. Therefore, I cannot see that there is much force in the Scottish Peers argument. There is nothing concerning the Irish Peers, because they are not here at all, and their complaint is that the Select Committee did not recommend that they should come here.
What other constitutional argument is there? Reference has been made to these great Parliamentary changes, and, of course, there are the great Bills cited by my noble friend Lord Salisbury. What has been the rule in these cases, as I understand it—and it is practical convenience that dictates it—is this. Where there is some large constitutional change, or some large electoral change—perhaps involving electoral boundaries, which affects the whole country; perhaps a new franchise Bill to enfranchise women or young persons—or where there is a redistribution Bill which (I was going to say gerrymanders, but I am sure it would not do that) varies the boundaries of a number of constituencies, then obviously there must be an appointed day, and it must be on the Dissolution because it affects all the constituencies alike and all the electors alike. It must come into force after the Dissolution and when Members are being elected for a new Parliament. But surely that does not apply here. What is being done here is to give to a few Members,

133
half a dozen or so, who are sitting in another place and may succeed to this House, and also to future Members who may succeed to this House, and to some who are sitting in this House now, an option to sit here or to disclaim their Peerage and go to another place. Surely there is no reason why that should not come into force in the normal way on the Royal Assent.
There is one other consideration. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will think twice—he said he would rather like to consider the suggestion I made, because it would be varying what we on the Joint Select Committee did. But I can see that there is an argument of convenience, and indeed an argument of equity and justice in saying that a Peer who is now sitting here should have the same time to make up his mind as the Peer who succeeds. We were all agreed that the Peer who succeeds should have twelve months. I do not see why the Peer who is now sitting should not have twelve months. He would not have to wait twelve months; he could exercise his right, if my Amendment were carried (and I now have it in the proper form), to-morrow morning, or he could wait.
If we carried the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which I am bound to say fully gives effect to the intention of the Report by the Joint Select Committee, and if on Report the House were willing to accept my suggestion that everybody should be given twelve months to make up his mind, then it seems to me that we should be doing what is fair to people in another place, and what I believe we all want; we should be acting in a reasonable way, and should be able to go forward with that full measure of agreement which characterised all the deliberations—although we had our differences—of the Joint Select Committee. I hope the Government will reconsider their position on this.
LORD REA: As another member of the Joint Select Committee, I should like to give my unqualified support to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, speaking again from these Benches, the third Party in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that the intentions of the Joint Select Committee were quite clear. The Bill has virtually passed both Houses without much altera
134
tion; it is the will of Parliament that it should go into operation, and unless there is some peculiar tactic that I, as a member of a junior Opposition Party, do not understand, I cannot see why this delay should occur. It may be that in Party politics there is some reason why it would be more convenient for one or other of the big Parties to delay or accelerate the implementation of the Bill, but I do not think that consideration should come into account here. The Bill has virtually been passed; it has our approval, and I suggest that, like all other Bills of a similar nature, it should go into operation as soon as Parliament has approved.
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply now to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. May I say straight away that I can find no fault whatsoever with the drafting of this Amendment? The noble Lord began his speech by rather suggesting that the Government had not made their position clear with regard to this. If I may, I would remind the noble Lord of the fact that in the debate on the Motion to take note of the Report of the Select Committee on March 28, when opening the debate, I said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 248 (No. 63), col. 268]:
"I want to make it clear, on behalf of the Government, that we shall do our best to secure the passage of any legislation that may flow from the expressed resolve of Parliament. The House will not expect me to be precise on the question of timing, although it would clearly be difficult to fit such an important Bill into the timetable for this Session."
Then I went on to say:
"If, however, such legislation were desirable, we would bring it forward in this Parliament so that it might be in operation for the coming General Election."
That is what I said; and what is interesting, in view of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is that it was never suggested in the debate on that Motion that the Joint Select Committee had come to anything in the nature of a unanimous conclusion on this matter. That was the pledge. The only person who suggested in the course of that debate that the Bill should come into force on the date of enactment was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. After dealing with

135
that point, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said (col. 277):
"I can promise the Government, on behalf of my noble friends, that we will put no difficulties in the way of getting an early decision on that Bill so that it could be put into operation before the House rises for the Summer Recess. While I do not expect the noble Viscount who is to reply to give me a firm decision, I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered."
If it was in fact the case, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has asserted to-day, and asserted on Second Reading, that the Joint Select Committee were unanimous in thinking that legislation should take effect immediately, it strikes me as curious that no suggestion to that effect was put forward in the course of the debate on March 28, 1963. I then outlined the particular matters on which the Government thought we should depart from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I did not speak on that occasion, but my noble friend Lord Salisbury did. That was a debate on whether we agreed with the Report of the Joint Select Committee. I thought that what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was on at that time was the undertaking that they would find time for the Bill, so as to make sure it came into force not later than the Dissolution of Parliament. It was never an issue in that debate whether the Bill should come into force on enactment or at some other time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if what I said on that occasion was not said as clearly as it might have been. But the matter does not rest there, because on May 15, when the Government announced their decision in the light of that debate, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House said—and I quote from Hansard of May 15, column 1316:
"…and I can therefore state that it is our intention to introduce legislation to give effect to them"—
that is, the proposals—
"in time to take effect at the next General Election."
He repeated that twice. Again, the only Member of your Lordships' House who raised any point with regard to that was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who suggested that the proposals ought to become
136
law well before any General Election takes place. He did that on the ground, which he advanced again to-day, of the undignified position in which a Peer would be placed who wished to go round looking for a constituency.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that my noble and learned friend replied to him that there was nothing to stop a Peer who wished to disclaim from "prospecting"—that was the word my noble friend used. He went on to say (col. 1320):
"We wish to make it effective by the Election …"
Whatever may have been the position after March 28, certainly the Government's position was made perfectly clear beyond dispute on May 15. On May 15 the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition spoke. He did not claim that the legislation should be made effective before the next General Election. Nor did Lord Rea. I do not know whether my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Swinton were present, but if they were they did not intervene.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Was there any need, in view of the statement from the Government that the legislation would be introduced in time for the General Election? On the Bill as it now stands, we are arguing that there is no reasonable time for possible candidates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That point was put on May 15, and it was made perfectly clear that my noble friend's view on that differed. I do not think one can possibly say that it was not made perfectly clear that our intention was to introduce legislation to give effect to these proposals in time to take effect at the next General Election. This cannot be construed as meaning taking effect before the next General Election.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It cannot possibly be construed in plain English as not taking effect before the Dissolution of Parliament. There is no pledge made in those statements that this Bill would come before us in final form and not to operate until the Dissolution of Parliament. I think we are playing with words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think we are playing with words, because

137
it was said, both in this House and in another place, that it was our intention—I repeat it again—to introduce legislation to give effect to these proposals in time to take effect at the next General Election. I do not think anyone can construe those words, reading them fairly, as meaning in time to take effect, say, next September, October or November, unless there is going to be the next General Election then. That was our pledge, and I only make this point. I think it was perfectly clearly stated by the Government, and it is a pledge which we embodied in the Bill. The point I am making is that in relation to that (and I think this is also a perfectly fair point) the noble Earl did not claim then that the legislation should be made effective before the next General Election. Nor did Lord Rea. And no point was raised to suggest that the Select Committee had considered this matter and had reached a conclusion upon it. I say that because it is past history.
I put this forward as a Bill which implemented our pledge in full: that this legislation, which we were then contemplating, would be in effect before the next General Election. I make the point that that was never suggested to be a departure from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. I have read the Report of the Joint Committee many times. Of course I did not serve upon the Committee. My noble friend Lord Swinton did, and he has consulted some members. I have consulted some members. I can find no trace of this question having been considered by the Joint Committee. I think that is perfectly true. I do not know that they ever, as a Committee, applied their minds to it. They may have assumed one thing or another. What they were doing was working out a coherent scheme which we have done our best to embody, subject to one or two Amendments which the House in Committee has accepted, in this Bill.
I have begun by saying this in order to deal with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we had not made our position plain. I do not think that is founded. You may disagree with the position, but I think it was made plain what we intended to do.
LORD SILKIN: I do not wish to be offensive at all to the noble and learned
138
Lord, but there was a complete misunderstanding as to what was the intention of the Government. I myself understood what they were saying to mean that, "We may not be able to introduce a Bill this Session because of pressure of Business, but whether we do or not we undertake that it will go through in the course of this Parliament." That is all I thought they were saying. I did not think they were saying: "Even if we introduce a Bill this Session, it will not operate until the end of the Parliament." There may have been a misunderstanding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept that it is always possible to have a misunderstanding. I myself thought that, whatever may be said about the words I uttered on March 28, there was not much room for doubt about what my noble and learned friend said on May 15. I fully appreciate that there may have been a misunderstanding. What I am responding to, and trying to deal with, is the suggestion that there has been some change of practice or some failure to disclose on the part of Her Majesty's Government. There was certainly no intention of doing that. Now the Bill comes here with, as we thought, our promise implemented in it in Clause 7(2). It has come to us from another place, and in the course of its passage through that House, as the noble Lord said, an Amendment to precisely the same effect as that now under consideration was moved and rejected by a substantial majority.
So the position as it stands to-day is that your Lordships are now being asked to reject a decision arrived at on this point in another place. Of course it is open to your Lordships to do so, but for a number of reasons I hope that you will not. One reason—it is not the only one, but I want to put the reasons as clearly as I can before your Lordships—is this. We are now approaching the end of this Session. I myself should like to see this Bill enacted as soon as possible, and I think it is true to say that any Amendment made to it by your Lordships must delay that; and if it were the case that the other place did not agree to an Amendment made by your Lordships, the delay might be considerable. That is one reason, but that is not the only reason why I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.

139
So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, of course its membership does not alter with, or depend on, Parliamentary elections. Changes in its membership could be made at any time, though I must point out that, if the Bill took effect immediately upon Royal Assent, not only would there be a considerable addition to the membership of this House, but also the Representative Peers of Scotland would no longer be entitled to sit as Representative Peers of Scotland. I have never suggested that that was an insuperable difficulty, and I am not seeking to put any real weight upon it. But I felt it right in the earlier debates to draw your Lordships' attention to that point; and, indeed, to avoid the risk of their being temporarily excluded from this House it would, I think, be necessary to issue to them Writs of Summons. That could be done, although it would look a little odd, and I do not think there would be any need for any amendment of the Bill to provide for the position of the Scottish Peers should this Amendment be carried. Earlier speakers referred to the position of Scottish Peers as if I were founding an argument upon it. I am not basing any argument upon it and I have not put it forward as an insuperable objection, but I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to that position.
The real impact of this Amendment, as I hope your Lordships will agree, is not upon the membership of this House but lies in its effect upon the membership of the other House, and the argument has been advanced that if this Bill does not come into effect on Royal Assent, a Member of the other House who succeeds to a Peerage before the Dissolution, whenever that takes place, will not be able to avail himself of the provisions of this Bill. That, of course, is perfectly true. But that is more, I would suggest, a matter for the other place than it is for your Lordships, and, as I have said, this Amendment was rejected in the other place. I cannot refer, and I do not think it would be in order for me to do so, to how a particular Member of the other place voted in the Division List, but it might be not without interest if some of your Lordships cared to look to see how at least one of those who might succeed to a Peerage voted on that Division.
140
My noble friend Lord Swinton has again to-day expressed the view that the Select Committee expected the Bill to come into force and to operate when it received the Royal Assent. The last time he spoke on this matter he based his argument on two recommendations of the Royal Commission. I really do not think that much weight can be placed on the use of the present tense in their recommendations. The Select Committee, as I said, were devising a scheme, and the use of the present tense in outlining their scheme does not seem to me as consistent only with the view that the Bill should take effect on Royal Assent. I cannot see anything in the Report which shows that the Committee gave any consideration to this suggestion. If they did, and held the view that the noble Earl has expressed, then I must say that I think it is remarkable that none of the members of the Committee, if they applied their minds to this question, either on March 28 or May 15 drew attention to the fact that the Government at least were preparing to depart from the views of the Select Committee. But that was never suggested.
I want to turn to the precedents, and I hope when I do so I shall not be accused of special pleading. First, there is the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act, 1918, which made women eligible for the House of Commons. That came into force on Royal Assent. That Assent was given on November 21 and Dissolution followed on November 25. So that Act did not take effect until the Elections for the next Parliament; and that, I must say, would seem to have been the intention. The next Act was the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which, among other things, gave the vote to women. It contained a provision preventing it from affecting current Parliamentary registers, Parliamentary elections or the constitution of the House of Commons until the next Dissolution, unless in the meantime a new register should have been compiled.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Did that Bill include redistribution?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot say, on memory, whether it did or did not.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It did.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the event, the Dissolution came first before the new register was compiled. Then there was the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, 1918. That was intended to be effective at the earliest possible moment. Two more Acts I should like to refer to are the 1948 Representation of the People Act, which abolished the University seats; but the section doing that did not come into force during the current Parliament. The last Act is, of course, the Life Peerage Act.
Views may differ as to the weight to be placed on these precedents. Reference has been made to the view expressed by my noble and learned friend, and views were expressed in another House, but there are, I think, only two precedents among those which I have cited which really have any relevance: one was the 1918 Act, which made women eligible for election to the House of Commons, and the other was the 1948 Act dealing with the University seats. They took effect only at the following Election and they both affected the composition of the House of Commons. But I would submit to your Lordships that, as a matter of principle, while it is permissible to make changes in who may vote during the lifetime of a Parliament—and that was done by two of the Acts to which I have referred—it is wrong to make changes affecting the composition of the Elected Chamber during the currency of a Parliament. That would seem to have been the view in 1918 and in 1948 when the Representation of the People Act was passed. I can find no precedents the other way. No precedent has come to my notice which supports the view that a change in the composition of another place, the Elected Chamber, should be made during the currency of a Parliament.
I have little more to say on this question. The arguments have been fully advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend, and it seems to me that the question for decision really turns on this: whether it is right to make people eligible for election to the other House who are not eligible now, during the currency of this Parliament. This seems to me to be primarily a matter for the other House, and it is a matter on which they have reached a decision. That decision having been reached by another House, and for the reasons I have put
142
forward, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: This so far has developed into a debate between members of the Select Committee on the one hand (not on the one side, because of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin) and the Lord Chancellor. I should just like to say a few words as one who was not a member of the Joint Select Committee but who has taken an interest in this Bill, which I regard as a matter of considerable constitutional importance. I am not very impressed by the precedents which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has put before us. There are, of course, reasons, and the Lord Chancellor enumerated some, why certain Bills have not come into operation as Acts of Parliament, for one reason or another, on Royal Assent but came in on an appointed day. But he knows very well, as a very conscientious and admirable Attorney General in another House when I was in office, that a great many Bills are negotiated through that place, and it is perfectly obvious to me why this point as to when this Bill should come into operation was perhaps overlooked. I, for one, at any rate, and I am sure many of your Lordships here, would say that it was due to the fact that one took it as a matter of course that, unless there were some outstanding reasons to the contrary, a Bill, on receiving the Royal Assent, became an Act and came into operation. That is the reason why this small point has been to some extent overlooked.
As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would agree, the original debate in this House on this proposal took place without the Bill being in print before us; therefore we could not read the clause. We could talk for as long as we liked but we did not have the Bill; and this all hinges on whether the operative word is "at" or "before" the Dissolution. That is the only difference. It seems to me there is no oustanding reason why this Bill should not become an Act and come into operation on the Royal Assent. I am sure many of your Lordships in all parts of the House will be with me when I wonder whether, time permitting, this was not an occasion when the usual channels might flow in rather an abnormal direction to get in touch with the channels in another place.
4.10 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, this is certainly not a Party political matter; with that I entirely agree. It is a matter of judgment and of common sense, as we see it in the circumstances of the case. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, has just made a further speech from that side in support of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Silkin has moved, and we are much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. What I want to do is to try to simplify the argument as it was left on the side of my noble friend Lord Silkin, and as it was left on the side of the able speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He gave some precedents showing that big changes do take place at the end of a Parliament. But, if I may say so with every respect, I do not think the examples he quoted were conclusive or convincing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not suggesting they were conclusive. I thought it right to draw your Lordships' attention to such precedents as I could find and comment upon them. The absence of precedents the other way is perhaps more significant.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I quite understand, and the noble Lord will not mind if I, in the same spirit of enlightenment, draw the attention of the House to certain other considerations in relation to the precedents he quoted, no doubt for the purpose of influencing the Committee, as he had a perfect right to do, in the direction he wished the Committee to go. Take, for example, the Representation of the People Act, 1918. I gather it was the case that it came near to an Election. That was pretty inevitable, because the First World War did not finish until 1918, and it would have taken the Government and Parliament all its time to get legislation through. If that was the case, then it would not be unnatural.
With regard to the University seats, it really would have been unjust if the Government, which happened to be a Labour Government, or the Parliament which brought in the Representation of the People Bill which proposed to abolish University seats—there was plenty of quite understandable controversy about that—had proposed to exclude university
144
M.P.s forthwith although they had been elected to that Parliament. Therefore it was natural, it was just, that the exclusion of university M.P.s should not take place until the end of the existence of that Parliament.
As to the admission of women to the House of Commons, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, I think quite accurately, that that Bill was not passed until almost the eve of an Election. But that, I suggest, was fortuitous; it happened that the legislation passed about the eve of an Election; and, in any case, that was a change of a different order in which it could have been argued with force—I do not say I should have agreed with it—that it should not take place until the beginning of another Parliament, although changes of the electorate could take place in the middle of a Parliament. But this is not a Bill of itself which radically changes the composition of Parliament. Up to now we know for certain of only one case which would change the composition of this House in relation to what would happen in the normal course of things and modifies the composition of the House of Commons. But it is not a Bill of very great changes.
The other argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor boiled down to this: the Report of the Select Committee did not say that this change should operate earlier than a General Election; and in regard to the various statements that the noble and learned Lord quoted he had the same criticism—that they did not stipulate that the proposals should operate before a General Election. But the onus is surely upon the Government to show that they themselves throughout stipulated that this Bill should not operate until the Dissolution. Then they would have a reasonable case. We approached the subject, both in the proceedings of the Joint Select Committee and in the subsequent debate in the House, on the basis that what we were anxious about was that if possible a Bill should be brought in in this Session of Parliament. The Government at first were apparently rather unwilling to bring in a Bill in this Session of Parliament, no doubt owing to the Parliamentary programme, an unwillingness which I understand; but they were pressed, and in the

145
end they decided to bring in a Bill in the present Parliamentary Session, and we were glad about that decision.
The pressure was that this problem should be solved not later than the end of the life of the present Parliament. That was really the argument that was impressed upon the Government, and we are not bound to prove any more. But because we said it ought to be operative not later than the end of the Parliament does not mean that we did not also have in our minds that if the legislation was passed in the present Session of Parliament it should be operative forthwith, as is the normal case with legislation unless the Bill provides otherwise. The heavens will not fall, whatever happens, but I can see a great deal of inconvenience to people who are affected, and particularly to constituencies. A Member of another place may succeed to a Peerage and not be sitting there, as in the case of Bristol, where a Conservative M.P. sits although he was defeated on the vote (and, if I remember rightly, he gave a public undertaking that if the Government altered the law in this matter or acted in the way that has turned out to be the general will of Parliament he would resign, because he was not too happy himself in the position of a Member who had been defeated on the vote of the electorate). When this Bill is passed that question may arise for the honourable Member for Bristol. South-East: that he may feel he is in honour bound to resign. If so, what is going to happen? On the Bill as it stands Mr. Wedgwood Benn—I do not want to keep harping on his name as it might affect other people as well—would normally be the Labour candidate at the by-election. I gather he has been selected as the prospective Labour candidate. But he could not, unless this Bill was operative—unless he again ran the risk of being disqualified on appeal to the High Court.
Therefore, Bristol would have to choose another Labour candidate, if they were willing so to do. That candidate would have to accept it on the understanding, which could not be constitutionally binding, that he would not run at the General Election. That is rather undignified for the man who runs; he would have to say, "I am merely the caretaker pending the time when somebody
146
else is available to run in the General Election". I suggest that the Government will lose nothing by letting the Amendment of my noble friend pass. It has been supported by influential noble Lords on both sides. The Government will lose nothing. The Constitution will not rock to its foundations. In fact the Constitution, jolly old thing, will hardly notice what has happened at all. It shows what a strong and powerful thing this unwritten Constitution is.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: There is the difficulty of another place agreeing to our Amendment.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I agree about that. There were times when the noble Viscount and I could speak with greater authority for another place. But my impression is that if your Lordships were to pass this Amendment it would be readily accepted in the House of Commons, I should have thought on both sides, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, says, there is no Party view in this at all; it is a matter of good sense. Therefore it is perfectly right for the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, to raise the point, but I do not apprehend any difficulty in another place especially if the Government move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment". They have sufficient authority in another place to get it through, but I think they will get it through with general assent and general good will.
Therefore, I urge the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who has addressed us in his usual persuasive style, to think again about this matter and, on reflection, to see that there is a substantial body in this Committee—possibly a majority—who would support this Amendment. I hope, for the sake of good feeling, and moreover for the supreme sake of settling a little constitutional difficulty by good will and agreement all round (which is a great thing if it can be achieved), the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor will be able to think again about the matter in the light of the debate, and see whether he cannot accept the Amendment that my noble friend has moved.
LORD CONESFORD: May I add a few considerations in support of this

147
Amendment? On the first point, on what the Government have previously said, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor appreciates that nobody is accusing the Government of any breach of faith. The question is simply what we all understood. I think the words quoted by my noble and learned friend this afternoon in his reply just now—I think I got them down aright—were
"in time to take effect at the next General Election."
Well, of course, they are not really conclusive either way. Speaking for myself, all I can say is that I understood the matter in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
As nobody is suggesting that the Government are guilty of any breach of faith in the matter, I pass at once to the merits. When we consider the merits, I think it is the business of this House to try to see that legislation goes through in such a form as not to make Parliament ridiculous. Suppose we passed this Bill in the form in which it now stands, and thereafter, in the lifetime of this Parliament, one of those events occurred to which noble Lords who have previously spoken drew attention, and it was found that a recently passed Statute was quite inadequate to deal with the problem which then arose and which anybody could have foreseen. What would be said about Parliament and what would then be the prestige of both Houses? Since the argument on the merits seems to me to be overwhelming, it seems to me to be important that Parliament should not make a fool of itself. I thought that, in giving the precedents, my noble and learned friend laid an astonishing reliance on the 1948 Statute abolishing the University seats. It would have been a bold step, even for that Government, to pass an Act which promptly expelled from the House some dozen Members, including Sir John Anderson and Walter Elliot, not to mention Kenneth Pickthorn and myself. I doubt whether it would have paid them.
Now I come to the only point on which I wholly agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—namely, that this matter is principally one for another place. There, I think he is quite right. There has been a Division in that other place, but it was a
148
Division with the Whips on. It may, I think, be improper for us to speculate on what may be the view of another place, but if we pass this Amendment, believing as we do in its merits, it will then be for the other place to decide whether it agrees with us or not. If it does not, late in the day though it is, we may have a chance to say whether or not we insist on our Amendment. If, on the other hand, the Commons agree with us, then cadit quœstio. For those reasons, I hope with the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Swinton, that even at this late stage the Government will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
4.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am going to be brief, because I think we have heard all the arguments adduced on both sides, and I think we are all ready to come to a decision, if a decision in the Lobby is necessary. But I would appeal most earnestly to the Lord Chancellor and to the Government to think again and to accept this Amendment. As I listened to the noble and learned Lord, I felt sorry that he had to defend such a poor case as he had. He did his best, but he was really trying to defend the indefensible. I am sure we all listened to him with great interest, in the hope that he would, at long last, divulge the really powerful reasons which had led the Government to depart in this particular case from the usual procedure by which a Bill comes into force immediately after the Royal Assent. There may be arguments which convinced them in favour of the course they have adopted, but they certainly have not divulged them to us. The noble and learned Lord quoted certain rather remote precedents where the coming into force of Bills has been delayed, but I think far more important precedents have been quoted this afternoon from the other side by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; precedents which, to my mind, easily outweigh those which were quoted by the Government.
The noble and learned Lord also reminded us of what I can only call certain rather sibylline utterances he made on May 16, which convinced him absolutely that the Government had made it clear to your Lordships that what they meant was that the Bill should not come into force until the Dissolution of Parliament.

149
If I may say so, they may have convinced him, but I do not think they convinced a single other Member of this House. I think we all came to the conclusion that what was meant was that the time which should be given for people to make up their minds should be by the General Election, and not at the General Election. He said, that at any rate none of us here protested at that time against what he said. None of us at that time had seen the Bill, and we had no idea that the interpretation which he put upon his words was one which we might even expect to understand.
In view of all these arguments, I must say that I remain convinced that the case in favour of this Amendment is really overwhelming. By postponing the coming into force of this Bill until the General Election we shall not only be doing something which is quite contrary to the usual practice of Parliament, but also, quite gratuitously, creating all sorts of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, drew attention in the speech with which he moved his Amendment. The question of the coming into force of the Bill was never raised at the Select Committee, and the Amendment therefore does not in any way upset the delicate balance of compromise between widely differing views. There is one last thing I should like to say to the Lord Chancellor. One argument he used was this. I do not think it has been referred to by subsequent speakers, and perhaps I misheard him, but I understood him to say that, because this Amendment had been rejected in the House of Commons, we had absolutely got to do the same thing in this House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say that at all. I said exactly the contrary: that it was perfectly open to us to do as we wished. While I am on my feet, may I correct one other observation? I am sorry if I am so frequently
misunderstood, but in fact I did not make the announcement on May 15. The statement was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I, of course, withdraw if I have misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord has said. But the position is exactly the same whoever made the statement. It has been interpreted by the Lord Chancellor as meaning one thing and by the rest of us as meaning another. As for the argument about our not standing up against the House of Commons, I will read Hansard to-morrow, but the impression made on me was that we ought to be very careful before we disagreed with the House of Commons. That is an argument which, if it ever were made in this House, none of us would accept. We are unwilling to be regarded as a rubber stamp for the other House. We always take our own view, and I hope that we always shall. I would appeal to the noble and learned Lord, even now, to accept the overwhelming view of this Committee and accept the Amendment. If he cannot do that, then I am afraid that I, like a great many other noble Lords, shall have to go into the Lobby in its support.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am a Scots elected Representative Peer. I do not want to say more on this subject, but will confine myself to saying that, while I do not think Clause 4 of this Bill will affect my position in any way, I am ready to accept any sacrifice that it may involve in order that we may get what I think to be a perfectly proper and fair amendment of this Bill.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Braye, L.

Coutanche, L.

Addison, V.

Brocket, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Burden, L.

Crook, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Darwen, L.

Albemarle, E.

Champion, L.

De La Warr, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Chorley, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Attlee, E.

Clwyd, L.

Eccles, L.

Auckland, L.

Cohen, L.

Effingham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Colyton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Barnby, L.

Conesford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Longford, E.

Salisbury, M.

Fortescue, E.

Lucan, E.

Saltoun, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sandford, L.

Furness, V.

Mabane, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Gosford, E.

Mansfield, E.

Shepherd, L.

Grantchester, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Silkin, L.

Grenfell, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sinha, L.

Hailes, L.

Mersey, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Merthyr, L.

Stonham, L.

Hawke, L.

Meston, L.

Strang, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hereford, V.

Morrison, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Summerskill, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Moyne, L.

Swinton, E.

Inman, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor, L.

Jessel, L.

Radnor, E.

Terrington, L.

Killearn, L.

Rea, L.

Teynham, L.

Lambert, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Twining, L.

Latham, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Walston, L.

Lawson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lilford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williams, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Listowel, E.

Windlesham, L.

Lloyd, L.

St. Just, L.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Dundee, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lothian, M.

Chelmsford, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mills, V.

Craigton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Newton, L.

Denham, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

St. Oswald, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jellicoe, E.

Spens, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BILL
4.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, this is a short Bill compared with some of those which have occupied your Lordships' House lately, and I hope it will command general support. The Bill has two principal clauses, the first of which is to
152
amend the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1959, so as to widen the present sphere of operation of the Colonial Development Corporation; and the second is to make a further provision for funds under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The first clause has become necessary due to the steady process of constitutional advance, which has transformed what was in 1948 a large colonial empire, when the Colonial Development Corporation was set up, into an expanding Commonwealth of independent nations.
Under the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, by which the Colonial Development Corporation was constituted, the operation of the Corporation was concerned with the development of the resources of colonial territories. I know that it is felt that the activities of the Corporation ought to have been extended to cover independent Commonwealth countries a long time before this, indeed, as far back as 1957 when Ghana became independent. Noble Lords will remember that this matter was debated at that time, and it was thought logical that forms of assistance designed and intended only for Colonies, should cease

153
to be available to them when they became independent. In the light of the number and difference in circumstances of the territories which have become independent since then, the arguments advanced in 1957 have, I think, acquired much greater force: and that is the reason for this Bill.
In the meanwhile we have been supplying very substantial assistance to independent Commonwealth countries by other means. My right honourable friend announced, almost exactly a year ago, that is was the intention to restore to the Corporation its powers to operate in territories in which it had been able to operate when it was originally set up, but for a number of reasons the preparation of this Bill has, I am afraid, been delayed. Although I am sorry it has not been possible to introduce it earlier, I am glad to be able to commend it now to your Lordships.
In doing so I should like to pay my tribute to the successful operations of the Corporation over recent years. If it were judged only by its operating surplus, which I suppose we might call a gross profit, it would be seen from its annual report that the Corporation is going from strength to strength. Your Lordships will have seen from its recent reports that it is becoming more self-sufficient financially. Last year it was able to provide from its own resources about one half of the money which it had invested. It has brought a number of projects to fruition, and has been able successfully to dispose of a number of them to interests which will carry on what the Corporation founded. This is proof of the successful work of my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale and of his colleagues, as well as of the staffs of the Corporation both at headquarters here and overseas. Noble Lords will have seen the recognition which the Corporation paid in its annual report to the work of Lord Reith, who did so much to establish the foundations upon which it has built its present successes.
As regards the detail of the first clause, Clause 1(1)(a) provides that any territory which was within the Corporation's field of operations in 1948 shall again come within its sphere, so that the Corporation will be able to start new projects there. At the moment, once a territory becomes independent all the Corporation can do is to carry on any projects which
154
it has begun before independence, or it may provide managerial or advisory functions if asked by the Government of the country to do so. Up to the present time, the managerial and advisory services have. I understand, not been asked for.
Clause 1(1)(b) would bring the New Hebrides into the scope of the Corporation. As your Lordships will know, the New Hebrides is an Anglo-French Condominium in the Pacific. It was formerly excluded because it did not come within the definiton of "colonial territory" in the 1948 Act, as it was not within the field of Colonial Development and Welfare assistance. Since 1955, however, the islands have been able to receive Colonial Development and Welfare help, and it is now intended to make it possible for the Corporation also to operate there. Clause 1(2) will change the name of the Corporation to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Clause 1(3) enables my right honourable friend to give directions to the Corporation requiring it to obtain his approval when he so specifies before it performs functions in any independent country. This is so that the Secretary of State may ensure that the Government of the independent country concerned concurs in the intention of the Corporation to seek out and develop projects in its country. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a proper provision, as the countries in which it is now intended to enable the Corporation to operate are independent.
Clause 1, subsection (4), is to make a consequential change, arising out of the change of name of the Corporation, in the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Subsection (5) is simply a tidying up provision resulting from the liberty which the Corporation will now have to operate in Southern Rhodesia for the benefit of the inhabitants of that territory alone, instead of for the benefit of the Federation as a whole, which is what it can do at the present time.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959. This Act, which was a consolidating one, provides for two types of assistance to Colonial territories. The first takes the form of funds, which are usually given as grants, for schemes for promoting the development and welfare of the Colonies. This is the system which was first established in 1940. The provision

155
of these funds has been dealt with on a cumulative basis from April 1, 1946, each succeeding Act having simply extended the period in which the funds were to be spent and increased the aggregate amount. The second type of assistance is Exchequer loans, which are made available for the purposes of development programmes of colonial Governments. These loans were introduced in 1959, when the colonial Governments were experiencing difficulty in gaining access to the market. They have proved of invaluable use, and I think undoubtedly will have a continuing part to play.
Under Clause 2(2) of the Bill, the period in which funds may be spent on Colonial Development and Welfare schemes, and in which Exchequer loans may be approved, will be extended from March 31, 1964, to March 31, 1966. The effective period, therefore, is nearly three years, there being nearly a year's overlap with the existing Act, which ends on March 31, 1964. This overlap enables funds to be allocated to colonial Governments before they have spent their existing allocations. As your Lordships know, many colonial territories rely almost entirely upon assistance provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts for their development expenditure, and for others it is the most important single source of finance. Knowing in advance what assistance they are going to get from this source enables colonial Governments to frame realistic development plans. Previously the period of assistance of Colonial Development and Welfare Acts has been live years. We have chosen a period of only three years this time, not because we think that the need for assistance is coming to an end but because of the difficulty of assessing requirements for longer periods ahead.
Clause 2(2)(a) increases the aggregate amount of funds available for Development and Welfare schemes from £315 million to £340 million. Since about £431, million of the existing provision was unspent at March 31, 1963, a total of about £68½ million is available for expenditure in the three years up to March 31, 1966. Exchequer loans, like the Development and Welfare monies, are also to be dealt with on a cumulative basis. Thus, Clause 2(2)(c) increases the total of loans that may be approved from
156
£100 million to £105 million. At March 31, 1963, £36 million remained unissued from the orginal provision, so that the additional provision made by the Bill will raise the further issues which can be made to £41 million. The aid made available by this Bill covers, of course, a much smaller number of territories than in 1959. Since then, Cyprus, Jamaica. Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, Tanganyika, Trinidad and Uganda have all become independent. North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore are to enter the Malaysian Federation on August 31, and Kenya is due to become independent on December 12.
When a territory becomes independent, it ceases to qualify for assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. There are however, of course, other means by which we can and do give assistance to these territories. The range of activities covered by the Bill has also become narrower. Research activities benefiting the Colonies and technical assistance to them have been taken outside its scope. These are now financed, as your Lordships know, by the Department of Technical Co-operation, whose functions in these fields extend beyond the colonial territories. The change does not mean, of course, that any less importance is attached to these activities.
After taking account of all these factors, the scale of assistance provided by the Bill does, in fact, show an increase of about 28 per cent. compared with the provision made in 1959, and a large proportion of it is in the form of free grants. This Bill provides for commercial projects to be undertaken by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in both dependent and independent countries, and it gives assistance for social and economic development in the dependent territories also. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will welcome a Bill that does what many of us have been asking the Government to do for a very long time; and we are all grateful to the noble Marquess for introducing it in such a clear and skilful

157
manner. It was, as the noble Marquess pointed out, almost exactly a year ago, in July of 1962, when the Secretary of State told Parliament that he would allow the Colonial Development Corporation to operate in independent Commonwealth countries, and that he would introduce a Bill. We had been urging the Government to do this for quite a number of years—indeed, whenever the Annual Report of the Corporation was debated in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will remember that very well; and in those days, when he had not his present official post on the board of the Corporation, he played a very efficient and useful part in these annual debates.
The noble Marquess referred to a criticism which I think he correctly anticipated. It is that this decision should have been taken as far back as 1957, when Ghana became our first African Colony to reach independence. This failure to act earlier is bound up with what I believe to be one of the cardinal defects of the Government's Commonwealth and colonial policy: the withdrawal of the United Kingdom's financial support as soon as a Colony becomes independent. It is due to the fact that the Government's policy in relation to the new developing countries in Africa and elsewhere had been, until not very long ago, the same in principle as its policy in relation to the old Commonwealth countries which became independent before the war. The basic assumption was that when a Colony becomes politically independent it also becomes economically viable. We all know that this is not the case, and we only regret that the Government did not act up to the basic facts of experience a good deal earlier.
It has taken the Government five years to accept this basic British economic responsibility. I wonder how many opportunities for development in these countries have been missed by the delay in widening the field of the Corporation—opportunities for the Corporation, as well as for the countries concerned. Clearly, the Corporation would have benefited if it could have been taken up usefully and profitably in the Colonies after they had achieved independence. The decision, as we have heard, was taken in July; but we have had to wait
158
a whole year for the Bill. The noble Marquess is apologetic for the delay, but I do not blame him: no one but the Government know what caused the delay, though I believe that some of us can give a pretty accurate guess.
I believe the difficulty is that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is a Minister who has far too much to do. A Minister who has as much to do as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is inevitably obliged to neglect the less urgent matters in both the Departments of which he is master, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office; and of course, the less urgent matters for which he is responsible include the economic side of the Colonial Office. I do not blame him at all. I do not think one can expect anything else of a Minister who is doing the work of two full-time Cabinet Ministers. Most of us believe—and we have expressed this opinion on former occasions—that when the time comes the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office should be one Department under one Minister. The time has obviously not yet come; indeed, they are still separate Departments. The great mistake of the Government, of which this very belated Bill is an example, has been to place them too soon under a single Minister.
Look at the activities of the unfortunate Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the last couple of weeks: a date for independence for Kenya (which we were debating yesterday); the setting up of the Malaysian Federation; constitutional talks with British Honduras and Malta; and a crisis in British Guiana. The unfortunate Secretary of State is arriving home to-day from a strenuous tour of British Guiana, judging from the evening newspapers, and he goes straight into constitutional talks of the utmost importance with representatives of Malta. Of course the Government should have waited to make this change—one Minister in charge of these Departments—until more Colonies had hived-off into independence. In this way the Secretary of State for the Colonies would have been relieved of the sort of work he has done up to now. But it seems unreasonable to expect any man to undertake all this work at the same time.

159
The effect of this is that he is trying to deal with the most urgent political problems and issues as they come along at the moment. Everything of secondary importance must be shelved, including something that I regard as of great importance: the routine visits of the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth to the Commonwealth countries. I believe that the noble Earl the present Foreign Secretary, when he was at the Commonwealth Relations Office, visited all the independent Commonwealth countries. This I thought was a good thing. I met him in Africa when he visited that continent, and I know how much good he did by that visit. I am sure that no Commonwealth Secretary can do his job unless he has first-hand experience of all the Commonwealth countries and of the leading personalities in those countries. It is quite impossible for Mr. Sandys to go around and visit the Commonwealth while he has these burning political issues to deal with at home.
The result of this situation is drift and delay in the two Departments for which he is responsible; and they both suffer. I have no doubt, for example, that if the Colonial Office had had its own Secretary of State to fight for this Bill it would have been in the legislative programme for the early part of this Session. It would have been introduced last autumn. If agreement had not been reached between the Colonial Office and the Treasury about money allocation for colonial welfare, another Bill could have been introduced to deal with this matter as soon as the agreement had been reached. But I cannot see any reason why, if the Commonwealth Secretary had been able to direct his attention to the Bill (which he promised last July and which is really uncontroversial) it should not have been introduced much earlier.
My second complaint, not of the Bill itself, but of the method of dealing with it, is that the policy behind the Bill fails to implement what I regard as the most important recommendation of the Sinclair Report on the financial structure of the Corporation. Your Lordships will remember that the Sinclair Report wanted the bulk of the Corporation's capital to be an equity stock, like the bulk of the capital of any private company. The Report took the view that the Corpora
160
tion would be enormously handicapped if all its funds were tied up in fixed interest-bearing stock. But that is still the position. It has not been altered by the present Bill. I cannot see the point of the Government's asking experts to advise them about the financial structure of the Corporation if their most important piece of advice is ignored. It is like asking a doctor to take your temperature and then refusing to take the medicines to bring the temperature down.
The argument against adopting the recommendation of the Sinclair Report is that there would be a risk of subsidy if the rate of interest earned by investments of the Corporation was less than the rate of interest at which the Government borrow. But this financial loss would be more than offset, in the long run, by the rapid economic development of the countries concerned. All these countries need a good deal more risk capital if they are to become economically viable. The Corporation should be allowed to be one of the institutions to provide this risk capital. I have no doubt at all that the relatively small amount of the Corporation's new investment last year—between £4 and £5 million—was due to the fact that it cannot take the risk of putting money into marginal development projects.
My third and final criticism of the policy behind the Bill is that it limits the operation of the Corporation to part only of the Commonwealth—namely, that part which has become independent since 1948. There might have been something to be said for excluding India, which already gets the lion's share of British aid, but there is no case for excluding Pakistan and Ceylon, which are really, economically and financially, in the same position as any one of the Commonwealth African countries that will be helped under this Bill. Why do the Government not allow the Corporation to cover the whole Commonwealth, or at least all the developing countries of the Commonwealth? Not all the Commonwealth countries, of course, need this sort of help: some do not want it, and the Corporation is not the instrument for providing them with capital investment. The Bill is only permissive: it does not oblige the Corporation to go anywhere. But why not give the Corporation an opportunity of going into, say, Pakistan and

161
Ceylon, if it so wishes? I regard this matter as being of such importance that, if I receive any support from other noble Lords, I shall come back to the point during the Committee stage of the Bill.
Just a word, if I may (and this is my last argument on the Bill), about ministerial responsibility for the Corporation. The Corporation, of course, is still under the Colonial Office, although the responsible minister is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The Colonial Office is a political department dealing with the political relationships between this country and the Commonwealth countries and was never intended to handle economic development. Therefore, it is quite natural that these economic matters are regarded as of secondary importance, and that the economic side of the Colonial Office—which includes, of course, the Corporation and the expenditure of the Colonial Development and Welfare funds—is handed over by the Secretary of State to a ministerial subordinate in his Department. I am delighted that he hands it over to the noble Marquess in this House. These matters could not be dealt with more competently than they have been by the noble Marquess, but I still wish that we had with us a Secretary of State, preferably in the shape of the noble Marquess, rather than a Minister of State.
Surely the time has come for the Government to take a new look at overseas development. It is becoming increasingly important as a function of Government; and, as the noble Marquess himself pointed out in his concluding sentences, responsibility for economic development overseas is divided between a number of Ministers and several different Government departments. Should overseas development not be regarded by the Government, like an expanding home economy, as one of our major national interests? It is a field in which our national interests in increasing world trade and the humanitarian desire of the British people to help their fellow men exactly coincide. I have heard Ministers express some fears on this aspect. The Government wonder why they have failed to capture the loyalty of youth. I suggest that, if they really want to touch the idealism of the young, they should appeal for support for an overseas development programme.
162
No people in the world have stronger humanitarian feelings than the British. Look at the success of the Freedom from Hunger campaign, in which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, took a leading part. I believe that the sponsors have raised far more money than they expected. Look at the success of the United Nations appeal for refugees. We raised more money in World Refugee Year than any other country in relation to our resources. There is no doubt that the Government could have public support, if they were to make overseas development one of their major policies. Nothing would underline the importance of this more effectively than the appointment of a Minister for Overseas Development. And I think that "development" is a better word than "aid", which suggests charity.
Such a Minister should have a seat in the Cabinet. He would be responsible for the whole of our overseas aid, in money and technical skill. This would not be creating a new department. I know that anyone who has had ministerial responsibility is very chary of creating new Government departments. Nor would it necessarily add to the number of Cabinet Ministers. Again, nobody would wish to do that unless there was a strong reason. The Department of Technical Co-operation, which is already responsible for technical aid, could be expanded and made responsible for capital as well as technical assistance overseas. A Cabinet Minister without a Department—for example, the Lord Privy Seal, who presumably has less to do, now that he is no longer trying to get us into Europe—could be put in charge of such an expanded department and made responsible for all non-military Government expenditure in developing countries. This, after all, is the system already adopted to-day in the principal donor countries. In the United States, capital and technical aid are under the same agency in the State Department and the Secretary of State is responsible for dealing with overseas aid and with providing both technicians and money. In France, there is a Minister for Cooperation, who deals with almost all financial and technical aid given by the French Government overseas.
A new Minister for Overseas Development would, I think, have four main jobs.

163
None of these is a job for which any one Minister is responsible at the moment. First, in the Cabinet, like the heads of other spending Departments, he would fight for his share of Government expenditure. Secondly, he would be the salesman of British aid—to Parliament, the public and the Press. Thirdly (and this is where we come to matters dealt with in this Bill), he would decide priorities in relation to the limited amount of capital and technical aid available, and would co-ordinate both money and technical skill. I need not go into the haphazard way these matters are decided at the moment, by a tug-of-war between different Departments, such as no doubt took place on this Bill, when officials of the Treasury and officials of the Colonial Office dealt with this matter during the past year. Nor need I go into the waste of technical skill, when experts are sent overseas by the British Government without the equipment they need for their work. I know very well that this happens.
Fourthly, and finally, this Minister would be the mouthpiece of the Government in receiving representatives of the recipient countries and of international aid-giving bodies. There is no single Minister now to welcome a Minister from a developing country when he arrives in London, or a representative of one of the United Nations aid-giving agencies. Someone might have to go from the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office, or someone from the Treasury or the Board of Trade. My Lords, I am certain that our reputation in the outside world would be enormously enhanced if we had a single Minister of the highest standing dedicated to aid in all its forms. That is why I should like to see the Commonwealth Development Corporation receiving the highest ministerial priority, which it would get if a Minister of that standing were responsible for it.
We hope that your Lordships will support this Bill, but we also hope that some of the matters which I have mentioned in the course of my remarks will be regarded by your Lordships as matters that might well be taken up at Committee stage.
5.18 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, although this Bill is in some aspects a formality, it is very necessary to enable a valuable
164
machine to work more efficiently in British overseas Commonwealth interests than it has been able to do hitherto. The limited resources and financial stringency under which the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been operating have obviously reduced considerably the great possibilities of which it is capable. These possibilities and potentialities, given adequate funds to implement them, are of particular importance at this juncture, when the whole image of the British Commonwealth is rapidly changing from the conception of an Imperial Colonial Empire to a new and constructive consortium of emergent and largely self-governing communities with whom we now seek to work as a partner and a brother, rather than as a manager and a master.
Our aims are joint aims towards communal advance, and it is at this stage of change that there must emerge many situations where, on the one hand, the line of advance can confidently be left to the resources of the territory concerned, but where, on the other, unforeseen opportunities arise which can be exploited only by substantial help from the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is because these opportunities must not be allowed to slip away (with results which may not only be negative, but may even engender political as well as economic difficulties) that the Commonwealth Development Corporation must be given more power and more elbow room to exploit new schemes and new ideas.
The sum involved in this Bill is admittedly not small, and one cannot expect, as the noble Earl said, that the Treasury will treat the proposed increases in this Bill as in any way trivial. But the cause is a good one and should repay handsomely the expenditure which this Bill will make possible. By enlarging the scope of potential of the Corporation in financial terms, it is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will also enlarge the ambit in which the Corporation may work. It is unsatisfactory that in regard to such places as Pakistan, Ceylon, and possibly India, too, the Corporation should be confined to a mere agency status. And it is unsatisfactory that it has not been possible for the Corporation to integrate some of its valuable activities with other international organisations, such as the International Bank and many other individual

165
bodies whose activities lie parallel to those of the Corporation. In supporting the Bill, I would ask Her Majesty's Government not to lose sight of those aspects, which are not merely financial, and to back up the Corporation in every way in this very wide field of vast potentialities.
5.23 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, we have awaited this Bill for a long time, and, in fact, for so long that I have forgotten the remarks which I had intended to make had it been brought in when it should have been, some years ago. Admittedly, the questions involved have been somewhat complicated, and this has caused delay; but, even if it is belated, it is none the less welcome. There are only a few points I wish to make. In the past, the C.D.C. has experienced some bouts of growing pains, and it is good to know that it is now so firmly and successfully established. Its history can be divided into three phases. In the first phase over-enthusiasm led to projects which were not always wisely selected, and an attempt was made for the Corporation to manage these schemes itself. For these reasons, there were a number of failures, and losses amounting to about £12 million were made.
The second phase covered the period when the Chairman of the Corporation was the noble Lord, Lord Reith. Some drastic changes in policy were made: the top-heavy headquarters staff was streamlined, and emphasis was placed on the desirability of going into partnership with private enterprise, who could supply the management and "know-how". The third phase has covered the period during which my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale has been the Chairman, and has been notably successful. The lessons of past experience have been learnt, and the rationalisation of policy and organisation has enabled the Corporation to operate profitably. The operating surplus has increased from £1,869,000 in 1959 to £4,361,000 in 1962. This is a notable achievement, and all who have contributed to it deserve to be congratulated.
The Governments of the countries in which the C.D.C. now operates have gained confidence in the Corporation and turn to it for participation in many projects they are anxious to launch. I am
166
particularly glad to note that the C.D.C. is participating as an equal partner with the Tanganyika Government and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in establishing the Tanganyika Development and Finance Company Limited. I understand that a similar arrangement is being negotiated with the Kenya Government. I should like to see this sort of arrangement entered into elsewhere.
In some areas—East Africa is a notable example—the doubts about political stability have led to a lack of interest being taken by private enterprise in investment possibilities. These countries, particularly those that have gained independence, are very anxious to attract private capital for industrial and economic development. A finance and development company sponsored by a local Government, and in which one or more other Governments are participating, can offer private enterprise partnership with a measure of security which should give confidence. I believe that this sort of activity can go a long way to speed up economic development in these newly independent countries. In previous debates in your Lordships' House on the activities of the C.D.C. I have expressed the hope that everything will be done to encourage local private investment in projects in which the Corporation has an interest. There are difficulties, especially as the number of people who are in a position to buy shares is at present small. But the advantage of local participation is great, and steps should be taken to make it possible.
Finally, my Lords, may I make a plea for increased investment by the C.D.C. in the "Little Seven" in the West Indies? These small islands are anxious to gain independence and, if possible, to federate; but the development of their economic resources is slender, and this makes the prospect of independence hazardous. If some industrial enterprise could be established in these islands, with the considerable Caribbean market in view, it would go a long way to strengthen their economy.
5.26 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to add a few words of welcome to this Bill. It is a change in the activities of the C.D.C. which many of us on this side of the House, also, have

167
urged for many years. I remember doing so when I was still at the Colonial Office some seven years ago. It has always seemed to me to be completely illogical that the emerging Commonwealth countries should be excluded. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that this decision should have been taken in 1957. In my view, it should have been taken in 1948, when the Bill was originally introduced, so as to cover at that time India and Pakistan. The criticism that I wish to make of this Bill—and I think it is a serious criticism—is that it excludes Commonwealth countries which were independent before 1948. It seems to me that that introduces a completely unreal distinction between the Commonwealth countries which I personally could not accept. The late Mr. John Strachey, who was an old friend of many of us from schooldays, and whose untimely death we deeply regret, made an eloquent speech on this subject in another place the other day in which he set forth the arguments in favour of including India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
I really wonder why they were excluded! India was perhaps excluded, as the noble Earl said, because it was too big. But surely that does not apply to Pakistan and Ceylon. I suppose it may be argued that India and Pakistan were never technically Colonies. But that, again, does not apply to Ceylon, which came under the Colonial Office until its independence. Another argument might be that if you include India, Pakistan and Ceylon, then you must include the older Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I do not think that this is a serious argument. This Bill is purely permissive. It need not be extended to any Commonwealth country unless it is the view of the Government and of the C.D.C. itself that this aid should be extended. I should like to see it made to apply to all Commonwealth countries so that there should be no distinction between them.
In the back of my mind, I rather wish that it could be turned into a two-way traffic, so that the C.D.C. itself should become a Commonwealth operation to which the more wealthy Commonwealth countries could contribute to help the others. This is something that I should have always liked to see, and if it could
168
be extended (not under this Bill, of course, but in some way), in that sense I think it would be a good thing. I understand that the Chairman of the Colonial Development Corporation, my noble friend Lord Howick of Glendale, is himself quite willing to take on India, Pakistan and Ceylon. I hope that the Government will reconsider this point and perhaps introduce an Amendment to cover it on the Committee stage.
5.30 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, most of your Lordships who have spoken so far in this debate have confined your remarks to the Colonial Development Corporation, and I do not wish to repeat what has been said by other speakers, other than to say that I agree, I think, with everything that they have said. In particular, I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, say appreciative words about our friend John Strachey, not only for his remarks about India and Pakistan, but also for the rôle he played in earlier days, some not altogether successful, but all of vision and imagination in this concept of developing the different parts of the Commonwealth. I should also like, with my personal interest in the West Indies, to support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Twining, for additional attention to be paid to the "Little Seven" in the West Indies, a group of islands which undoubtedly can make good use of any assistance which may come their way, but where the rules imposed upon the Commonwealth Development Corporation, as it will now be called, concerning risk taking make it more difficult for it to give help in those areas where help is so much needed.
The only other point I would make concerning the C.D.C.—and I am sorry we have not the opportunity to-day to go in more detail into their operations, which are so admirable—is one of minor criticism or, at least, of warning, to them. In their Annual Report they give an interesting set of figures, among many others, concerning the proportion of their money which is invested in continuing projects. It is divided into three headings: that of basic development, primary production and processing, and commerce and industry. They rightly devote more than 50 per cent. of their resources to the first of these three—that is, to basic development—but it is a little disturbing

169
to note that there has been in the past twelve months, comparing 1961 with 1962, a drop in the proportion of their funds devoted to basic development of just over 1 per cent., from 54·8 to 52·7 per cent., with a virtually similar rise in the proportion devoted to commerce and industry from 10·8 to 11·8 per cent. That is not a very big shift of emphasis, but I think that if it went any further it would be a rather disturbing one, because commerce and industry, important though it is to developing countries, is something which can rather more safely—and I put it no higher than that—be left to private industry and other forms of investment, whereas basic development and primary production and processing are something for which it is much harder to raise capital. Therefore, I hope that the C.D.C. will give increasingly sympathetic attention to those basic and primary projects, and turn their backs perhaps a little more, in spite of the attractive returns and the greater security they may get from such things, on these projects which they describe as "commerce and industry".
Now I should like to deal just a little more than has been done already with the other sections of this Bill: those concerning the Colonial Welfare and Development Fund. The noble Marquess explained to us the good and important work which had been done by this Fund, and told us of the arrangements which were being made for its future continuation. Those, I think, are good. It has done valuable work in the past, and there is a great deal needed for it to do in the future. It is interesting to see how its activities have increased since 1946, when it first started its operations. In that year it disposed of something like £3½ million—getting off to a rather small start—rising to just over £5 million in the next year. In 1949–50 it had a large jump in the amount of money that it disposed of. That rose to about £13 million, and rose steadily from there until 1959–60, when it went to over £25½ million; in 1960–61 it increased to £26 million, and in 1961–62 it was about the same. That is a good indication of the important work which it is doing, and the great need there is for it.
As the noble Marquess has said, the number of Colonies which now rank for grant from the C.D. & W. funds is contracting. Therefore, I would not, much
170
as I should like to, make a plea for an even larger amount to be given to those who remain, because if one holds the balance properly between the various applicants for money from this country, the increased amount which this Bill envisages for the small number of remaining Colonies is satisfactory. But what is not so satisfactory is the fact that there are a large number of Colonies (as we have seen with the Colonial Development Corporation) who benefited from the C.D.C. but who were, as they attained independence, and will be until this Bill becomes an Act, debarred from benefiting from these C.D.C. funds. So there will be an equal number of Colonies which have benefited, as these figures I have quoted show, from the C.D. & W. funds which will be cut off from them on attaining independence, just at the time when their need for those funds is greater than in the past.
Certainly, as the noble Marquess said, there are other means of helping these newly independent countries. It is true that there are other means. We make grants from this country for special purposes to such newly independent former Colonies. They can go to the World Bank and raise funds there. But I believe it would be of the greatest assistance to them—and we were talking only yesterday of one Colony, Kenya, shortly to become independent, to take that as an example—if, during the initial years of independence, the type of support which had been coming from the Colonial Development and Welfare fund could be made available to the newly independent countries. I should like to see exactly the same change which we have asked for for several years now, and which has now been given us—of changing the "C" of C.D.C. from "Colonial" to "Commonwealth", similarly changing the "C" in C.D. & W. from "Colonial" to "Commonwealth".
Noble Lords who have spoken have welcomed this Bill so far as it goes. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said how much better it would have been if this had been done in 1948. I ask the Government not to wait until an irresistible pressure for this change builds up, but to give their urgent consideration to it at the present time. I should also urge them to give very close consideration to

171
the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Listowel for bringing together the whole of our aid to developing countries in whatever form it may be. I am quite sure that it is right both on the grounds of administrative convenience and on the grounds of impact upon the public here and upon the world at large. If the very considerable, though still increasing, amount of aid that we do give were all under one Department I believe that the world at large would realise that we are not so backward in this as some countries sometimes think; though I hope the noble Marquess will not take this as indicating that we, at any rate on this side of the House, feel that there is not a great deal more that we should do in this context.
After all, this form of assistance embraces a great many activities and functions. What is needed in these countries is, first of all, the purely basic requirements. Before a country can start to embark upon economic expansion it must have its roads, bridges, water supplies and power; and those are things—certainly roads and bridges—which cannot ever be regarded as in themselves bringing in a profit. They only contribute to future profits made, more usually, by private undertakings. Water and power may be profit-making but never to the extent which would encourage investment in normal circumstances in such countries. So, first of all, what is needed is capital—considerable capital, long-term capital and permanent capital—for these basic requirements.
We then need capital for the more direct economic development of the country; for clearing land, drainage, irrigation; for possible clearing of suitable sites for the erecting of factories, and even for putting up workshops for repairing the new machinery which is essential for modern cultivation; for docks and harbours, and needs of that kind. That is the second need. Third—though it does not come third in chronological order—is the need for very considerable and long-term investment in education; for investment in the lowest level of primary schools in the small villages scattered miles from anywhere throughout these developing countries and, in this case, under-developed country; for investment in buildings for the teachers
172
and for the training of teachers, without whom, however good the schools, they will be valueless; and for investment in colleges of technology of one kind or another, engineering and agricultural, in universities and research stations. All these things are needed. They are done to a certain extent by the Government at the present time, but very largely by different and disconnected Government Departments and organisations. On top of all that, personnel are needed to do all this, to help with this development.
There I would come back to another of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, made concerning the Commonwealth aspect of this whole question of aid. We are the major giver of aid, but we are not the sole givers and, as time goes on, while I hope we shall give greater aid, there will be other members of the Commonwealth who will equally be in a position to give aid from their own resources. And although to give aid of a material and a financial kind may be very hard for many of them because they are short of finance for their own development, aid in personnel is not in some cases, even at the present time, so difficult. There are technicians, scientists, university professors and research workers in many parts of the Commonwealth who, while needed at home—and we need all our own here—are needed even more in the less developed areas of the Commonwealth itself. That is where I envisage that a Department, as outlined by my noble friend, could play perhaps its largest part, not only by acting as a dispenser of help to other members of the Commonwealth but by encouraging them to help each other and, where they are asked to do so, by co-ordinating inter-Commonwealth aid: for instance, between Canada and the West Indies, where there are traditional links and where they have much in common; between Australia and Malaysia; between India and Africa; and in reverse in all these cases.
So, while welcoming this Bill and accepting it as a step in the right direction, I hope the Government will not feel that they have now done their job and can concentrate on their own other important matters to the exclusion of this great subject of help to all members of the Commonwealth, but will still very actively pursue the suggestions which

173
have been put to them, in particular the suggestion for one central Government Department with a Cabinet Minister, not only to co-ordinate but actually to initiate and encourage all forms of aid of the kind about which we have spoken.
5.46 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and the more so that they have welcomed this Bill, although of course, as one would expect, with certain qualifications. The principal one was, I think, the complaint that this Bill has been brought in too late. This is a matter of opinion, but, as I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, circumstances have, as I think we shall all agree, changed since 1947, and the arguments for extending the scope of the Corporation are far stronger now than they were at that time. None the less, I do concede that there are strong arguments in favour of having brought this measure about earlier.
I should like particularly to deal for a moment with some of the observations made by, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Colyton, about extend-in the sphere of activity of the Corporation to countries which were independent before 1948. Here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. Clearly, one could not exclude India and include Pakistan and Ceylon. It would have to be a question of all three of these countries being included, or none. I think probaly we all agree on that. I did point out that, within the scope of the Corporation, there is power for these countries to call upon the managerial and advisory functions of the Corporation, and this, of course, India, Pakistan and Ceylon are perfectly entitled to do, but, so far as I am aware, they have as yet not done so.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, said that this Bill is to a certain extent permissive and it might be possible to include Pakistan, India and Ceylon within its scope, at the same time one would have to reflect that this might disturb the balance of the activities of the Corporation. Certain noble Lords referred to the speech of the late Mr. John Strachey, whose death I also lament, who said that he did not himself think that India would be suitable to be
174
included. This, I think, was a view shared by the noble Earl. Mr. Strachey also went on to say that he did not advocate an increase in the ceiling of the fund of the Corporation, but I should think it is possible that if India, Pakistan and Ceylon were included it might be necessary to increase the ceiling if other countries were not to get less than perhaps we should wish them to have. I think that, in considering whether the "pre-1948" independent countries should be included, this is something perhaps we should bear in mind.
I was very interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on the question of equity capital, and he referred, of course, to the very exhaustive Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. The Report of this Committee was considered, as the noble Earl knows, very carefully, and the conclusion reached by the Government at that time was that the arrangements which the noble Earl suggested were not really suitable. I think it is possible that the information available to the Committee at that time was of a nature which was perhaps less encouraging than the information which they might have had now, so possibly they might have come to a different conclusion—I do not know—if the situation of the Corporation when the Committee was sitting had been what it is to-day. But I think it would probably be unwise at this stage to make a further alteration of the structure of the Corporation, although certainly I myself will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said, and, of course, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to it.
Both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, have advanced an idea which I think is not new to many of us and one about which I have myself often thought, the idea of a central department and a Minister who would be entirely responsible for dealing with overseas development. We have talked about the type of inter-departmental war which, of course, does happen; and the noble Earl, with his great experience, knows how it happens. But this is part of our democratic system. It is one of the checks and balances which prevent anybody from getting an undue share. So I think one would have to be

175
very careful before centralising all this in one person. None the less, I am with the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in thinking that this is an interesting idea which one should perhaps consider further. At the same time, I would voice this word of caution on the danger of having too much power centred in one Department. This is something that one would want to watch very carefully.
I think that basically your Lordships blessed this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, regretted it did not go further—in fact, he asked for more. He wanted what we have provided for the Colonial Development Corporation to be extended also to the Commonwealth Development Acts. As the noble Lord is well aware, I am sure, where there are Colonial Development and Welfare schemes in train, they are carried on into the period of independence so that they can be completed. This is something we should think about very carefully. I would remind your Lordships that the aid which would have been available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, does not get cut off on the schemes already in train, when a country becomes independent. But I think perhaps one would think very hard before going the full length the noble Lord asked for.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I rather wondered, when he was speaking, whether he fully appreciated the extent to which the Corporation does, in fact, co-operate with other partners. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who is a distinguished member of the Corporation, would be perhaps better fitted than I am to explain this to the noble Lord. If he would be good enough to look at page 10, paragraph 62, of the current Report, he will see that it states clearly the terms on which the Corporation invests, and it can operate with any partner. It grows pines and make card paper pulp in Swaziland with Courtaulds, for instance. I think that ample provision is made for a very wide degree of co-operation by the Corporation with other partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Twining, may be interested to know that we are now on the point of approving the C.D.C. investment in the Kenya Development Finance Company. Mention was also made of
176
assistance badly needed by the "Little Seven". I can assure your Lordships that the Corporation already has numerous projects in that part of the world, and is always ready to look for more. I do not think it is necessary to remind the Corporation about the needs that are there.
That, I think, covers all the points that have been raised by noble Lords. There is a further point concerning the C.D.C. on which I should like to make something of a correction to what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. I think that the percentage figures which he gave for C.D.C. investments in "basic development" might lead to a wrong conclusion, if not taken in their proper context. The noble Lord (I think I am right) referred to the drop to 53·7 per cent. If the noble Lord will look back, he will see that the figures, in fact, were as follows: 1959, 47 per cent.; 1960, 51·4 per cent.; 1961, 54·8 per cent; and then, indeed, as the noble Lord said, 1962, 53·7 per cent. The reason for this—and I expect the noble Lord may have forgotten it for the moment—is that in the year 1961 very large investment is included for the Kariba Dam; and this, of course, somewhat set the picture out of balance. I just wanted to draw the noble Lord's attention to that point in case he got a wrong impression.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and assure them that all the constructive observations they have made will be noted both by myself and by my right honourable friend. I should perhaps say, when referring to the activities of the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary, that sometimes I think some of his subordinates also feel that they are overworked. I feel I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that, despite the tremendous responsibility he has, the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary has, none the less, managed to visit a very impressive list of countries. Since he became Secretary of State he has visited Ghana, Rhodesia, India, Pakistan, Malaya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Tanganyika and Cyprus; and within the last twelve months he has been to India and Pakistan twice; to Jamaica, Uganda, Tanganyika and Trinidad. So I do not think we could describe him as a stay-at-home Secretary of State. I thought I should

177
remind your Lordships of that. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL
5.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 3:
Unlawful weapons, etc.
(2) Subject to the next following subsection, if any person—

(a) discharges any firearm, or projects any missile, from any mechanically propelled vehicle at any deer; or

(b) uses any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purpose of driving deer;

he shall be guilty of an offence.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved, after subsection (2)(b), to insert:
(d) organises or takes part in any driving of deer for the purpose of shooting such animals;".
The noble and gallant Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is not in the House, I beg leave to move this Amendment. I was not quite prepared to do so, but I know his views. This Amendment refers to the practice of driving deer in order for them to be shot at, and this is a practice which results in a very high proportion of animals being wounded to those that are killed. For one thing, it is quite impossible to legislate as to the range at which guns should fire at the deer. Of course, if one can get within 15 or 20 yards of a stag, almost any charge of shot will bring it down, if it is hit in a mortal place. But when it comes to long-range shooting—by which I mean up to and around 50 yards—small shot is of course not lethal; it simply serves to wound the animal. If larger shot in a shot-gun is used, the larger the shot the worse is the pattern, because they spread out widely and you cannot guarantee to put
178
shot into a vital part of the deer. Of course, scatter guns are not used at all, but shot-guns with lethal bullets or with rifled slugs require excellent marksmen to hit a deer in a vital place with a single bullet.
Lord Crook and I moved this Amendment in order to prohibit the practice of driving deer in order to shoot them. We think it is much more preferable that the general practice of the Forestry Commission should be adopted—namely, to shoot deer with a powerful rifle from a high seat, or to stalk the deer individually and shoot them while they are at a standstill. I think that covers what I have to say on the subject, and I would ask the Committee to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Dowding.)
6.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is with considerable regret that I have to ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment. In dealing with this whole question of deer, we have to consider it not only from the point of view of cruelty to deer, but also from the points of view of agriculture and forestry. There is no doubt whatsoever that if deer drives are not permitted there are many areas where deer will increase to such an extent that they will do considerable damage to agriculture and/or forestry. It is perfectly correct, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, says, that the ideal thing is, when they are stationary to shoot them from a high platform; but that can be put into operation only on a property where deer are regarded as game and where they are objects of the chase. In many cases deer are found in areas which are not the property of anyone who worries much about them—it may be, in places where they are not usually seen. In dense young woods it is not possible to stalk them with any prospect of success. The ground in which they come out to feed is often inaccessible, and again all too often it is much too dangerous to use a rifle. For that reason I am afraid that this well-intentioned Amendment is one which is impracticable and undesirable.
6.5 p.m.
LORD CROOK: I put down this Amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding who has been

179
with me in this matter, for moving it so excellently. I would say straight away that I have learned since I put it down that there are difficulties which people like myself, who are not possessed of lands, would not always appreciate. I had a conversation with the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, on Friday, after the passage of other Amendments, and I knew of the reasonableness of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who was with me on some of the other matters.
Like my noble friend Lord Dowding, what I want to do is to stop the cruelty. After the proceedings on Friday, when I talked to one or two noble Lords who have estates with trees on them, I understood that there are things that they must do if they are to look after their estates and if they are to see that the trees, and various other things, are safeguarded. But what I was after in this Amendment—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding for supporting me—concerns the organised drives which are for the special purpose of people wanting sport, and not for the kind of protection of estates to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has referred.
I referred on Second Reading to reports which had appeared in the Manchester Evening News, and the like, of organised deer drives in the North, where it was regarded as a new status symbol for people who had now got a better standard of life to be able to spend 8s. an hour as the cost of chasing deer during a week-end. They are the people who lead to the production of the kind of article that is written in the Field. I should like to read to your Lordships from a recent issue of the Field. After all, that is a magazine which knows the subject, whilst I do not. When I moved the two Amendments on Friday and managed to persuade your Lordships to be good enough to carry them, I knew exactly what I was concerned with; but here (this I admit) I can go only upon this kind of material.
The Field says:
"These drives result in the finding of facial shotgun bullet wounds on all of the twelve roebucks shot by a stalker in the South-East last summer; in local people becoming familiar enough with the sight of wounded deer; to like them less warmly, and to think less warmly of those who clamour for their destruction; and of the deer being harried
180
about the countryside so that the appropriately equipped stalkers have greatly reduced chances of finding them."
That is a description of the kind of drive that I am trying to speak about—drives that I referred to in the Second Reading debate, conducted like pheasant shoots, with deer being sent forward in a panic and hasty shots fired.
I had some criticism to offer on Friday on the other two Amendments of people who miscall themselves sportsmen. I am bound to say to noble Lords who go in for the sport of stalking that I am talking about, that although I should not want to do it, they are entitled to do it; and I believe—I think the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, is with me in this, whatever he may have had against me on Friday—that the stalking should be carried out in England with some of the precision and care that there is in Scotland under the Act that we put through two or three years ago.
This method of indiscriminate shooting is something which I find absolutely abominable, as I believe do the majority of your Lordships. I do not seek to interfere with the skilled stalker. He relies on his skill to close in to killing range. I am satisfied that he will not take any chancy shots. He does not want to injure the deer; he wants to kill it. He does not want to take chances that might injure members of the public. The real sportsmen have such an approach that they regard it as a matter of honour that, if a poor beast has been wounded, the first job is to follow it up quickly and put it out of its misery. For those reasons I believe that I can look for support on this Amendment from those who share that view. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, is not here at the moment. I told him that I was going to say something about this, as I know he has about 2,000 deer roaming in his own forest.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is the sponsor of the Bill will be speaking on this matter. It would be advantageous if, in the course of the views he has to offer on my Amendment, he will try to agree with me that he and I and others of my friends, and Lord Mansfield, Lord Fortescue, and Lord Exeter, could try to get together to see whether there is some way in which we can put down

181
words which will achieve the objective I and, I believe, other noble Lords have in mind, without cutting across other objectives which they have. All these Amendments have been drafted by me, and I am no skilled draftsman. So if someone can help me to draft a form of words which will achieve what we both want, I shall be most happy.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will very nearly cover his point if he is able to carry his Amendment No. 14, to Schedule 2, which, as I read it, would make it illegal for anyone to shoot deer with a shot-gun. While I think that it may, on occasions, be permissible to shoot a roe deer with a shot-gun, I think that his Amendment is certainly right so far as fallow deer and red deer are concerned. I have every sympathy with him on that Amendment. I feel that nowadays people organise deer drives only if they propose to shoot them with a shot-gun at the end of it. I could not agree mare that this is an extremely cruel thing and ought to be stamped out; but if they are going to use a rifle, they take enormous care about it, for obvious reasons—because it is very dangerous, and an exceedingly skilled matter. I do not think the noble Lord can realise how skilled it is to get driven deer to go into a place in which one can shoot them with a rifle and, at the same time, not put other people in danger. They have to be driven with great care and skill. I feel that the present Amendment goes too far, because it would stop people guarding their crops and young woods. But, as I have said, I think that the noble Lord's Amendment No. 14 would very nearly have the effect he desires.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to point out that in my experience no sportsman ever shoots driven deer with a shot-gun. People who follow this practice are certainly not sportsmen. I imagine that they are the sort of people who have just bought a gun for the first time and are quite ignorant about the pursuit of sport. One has to differentiate between moving deer by experts and deer-driving. Before the war, on my estate in Argyll-shire we had about 8,000 or more deer, and in a part of the estate there was a "punch bowl" in the hills in which it
182
was impossible to stalk because the wind went round and round. All the big stags gathered in there, and we had to drive them out once or twice a season. Those stags were driven out by two or three men giving them a touch of the wind from a mile away and moving them at a walk out through the passes. One would have perhaps four men with rifles, and they might shoot three old stags, past their prime, which were very carefully selected. There cannot be any objection to that sort of driving.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, say that the Forestry Commission do not drive. I am sorry to contradict the noble Lord, but in the New Forest the Forestry Commission do drive deer. The Scott Henderson Committee, in paragraph 208 of their Report pointed out—
LORD DOWDING: I did not actually say they did not drive. I said that their normal method of killing deer was by shooting from the high seats.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The noble Lord is quite correct there. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The Forestry Commission have found it necessary to drive deer in the New Forest.
I tried to explain during the Second Reading of this Bill—but apparently did not explain it very well—that this Bill is a compromise. It has taken a long time, over a year, with all sorts of organisations, to come to terms. Among those involved are the Nature Conservancy, the Council for Nature, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Animal Welfare Society, the National Farmers' Union and the Forestry Commission. We cannot have everything in this Bill that we want, but it is a compromise. While I agree that if one has a farmers' deer-drive, with shot-guns and lots of beaters, one may get indiscriminate killing without selection, and wounding, this is a compromise Bill and we cannot overrule the farmers. The farmers are the greatest industry in this country and we have to run along with them. I agree also with what the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has said on the cruelty aspect of mass drives with shot-guns.
My noble friend the Duke of Atholl is quite right in saying that one should shoot deer with rifles if they are being

183
driven. But you cannot do so in England. It is too restricted. I have done so in Austria and Germany, and all over Europe. I have taken part in many boar and deer drives where one shoots with a rifle; but that has been in extremely lonely country, where there were very few people about. It would be quite impossible in England and Wales. So, while expressing every sympathy with the sentiments that have been voiced, I should like to refer to my noble friend Lord Mansfield's speech and to say that it would be quite impracticable in this Bill to accept the Amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will see fit to withdraw it.
LORD CROOK: If nobody else intends to speak to your Lordships, may I say that the only thing I regret about the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is that he did not refer directly to my suggestion of consultation, with a view to securing some form of Amendment that could be put before your Lordships at Report stage, with the agreement of a number of noble Lords who have spoken. I cannot think that the cause here is one which ought not to be pursued. I am well aware that it does not rank, even with me, with the two Amendments that I asked your Lordships to agree to on Friday last, but it still involves enough suffering, enough belief that it can be stopped even by those who want to take part in this sport, to make me believe that some gathering together of people could help.
Since I am now at the stage of replying, I have to make up my mind whether or not to withdraw, and I am clear in the light of my own observations that I ought at this stage to withdraw, in order that your Lordships may have a well-considered Amendment to look at. I will therefore ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment, indicating to your Lordships that, if my noble friend Lord Dowding and my other noble friends agree, I will try to get together with the noble Lords to whom I referred a few minutes ago to see whether it is possible to put down a considered Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Close seasons]:
6.25 p.m.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved to alter the start of the close season for red deer (hinds) from 1st March to 1st February. The noble Lord said: I should like to ask whether I should be in order in speaking to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13 together because they are all precisely similar in intention. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how glad I am to see this Bill, almost in any form, because it is almost incredible that there has been no close season at all in England and Wales. There are just two points on which I think the Schedule could be improved, and the first one is by advancing the opening date of the close season from March 1 to February 1. In Scotland, I believe, the close season begins in the middle of February, and as the females as a rule drop their fawns somewhat earlier in England than they do in Scotland, owing to the variations in temperature, there is a good case for beginning the close season earlier than in Scotland rather than later.
I do not know why the sponsors of this Bill chose March 1. I think it may possibly be because they wished to allow the practice of hunting hinds, often pregnant, to continue as long as possible. I suppose that if it is to be hunted to death at all, it does not much matter to a hind whether it is pregnant or not. But there is in our rather muddle-headed attitude to animals a tendency to spare their lives during pregnancy. So I hope that the earlier date suggested in the Amendment may be accepted.
Amendment No. 11 refers to the roebuck, and proposes that the roebuck shall be allowed to enjoy the same period of immunity as other male members of the deer tribe. I know that the roebuck is a very destructive little animal in woodlands, but there is the point that an open season for roebuck all the year round may quite possibly destroy the effect of the close season for other deer. Anybody found in woodlands with a gun could always claim that he was after roebuck, and even if he had shot another type of deer he could always plead that he had made a genuine mistake and thought it was a roebuck. For these reasons, I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("1st March") and insert ("1st February").—(Lord Dowding.)
LORD CROOK: First of all, may I thank my noble friend Lord Dowding for moving this Amendment. When I put it down I had no idea that he would be delightful enough to associate himself with it. He has so ably moved it that I have little to a dd. So far as the females are concerned, the first effect of this Amendment would be to protect the pregnant hind, who under the Scottish Act is already protected from February 16, as the noble Lord said; so less protection is given in England where we should have thought more was needed. In addition, I understand from those associated with deer that the erratic nature of the breeding season is such that it is possible for a hind to have with her last year's fawn and the younger one, to be born in the summer; she can have a babe at the same time as she is pregnant. There are many difficult problems associated with this throughout. Every single society in any way connected with animals is in favour of this Amendment, and a number of people—in fact, most of the people connected with sport to whom I have referred—have also expressed their belief in the Amendment which I have put down.
The four Amendments relate to the females, and, as the noble Lord has said, the middle one only refers to the male. I will speak on that now, if I may, since the noble Lord did, in order to save time when we come to putting it. The page 5, line 10, Amendment refers to the one poor male who got left out. I do not think he got left out by accident. If I may say so to your Lordships, he was left out of the close season from May to July, which is given to all the other male species, because the stalking of the roe is at its best from May until August, sportsmen tell me, and it is during this time that sportsmen like to shoot the buck. Indeed, among the Press cuttings on this subject which I have accumulated over the last few years I have one by the field-sports correspondent of The Times which makes this very clear. He said.
"The does during this period have their family responsibilities. In fact, one of the greatest joys of roebuck stalking is the fact that it can be practised in the spring and early
186
summer months, when there is virtually no other form of shooting available to the sportsman."
That is not an unskilled, ignorant person like myself trying to express a view to your Lordships: it is one of the authorities, the shooting correspondent of The Times, who is trying to express a very real point of view. I hope that this is not a series of Amendments that we shall have to fight through. I hope that the sportsmanship of the noble Viscount responsible for the Bill and those associated with him is such that they will find it possible to rise and say that they will accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has moved, and which I support.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I say something before the noble Viscount replies? What seems indefensible about the date in the Bill is that the date for the start of the close season in England is to be a fortnight later than the date in Scotland. Surely, that cannot be reasonable. If the forestry and agricultural interests in Scotland are satisfied with the date at which the close season starts there, in the middle of March, then surely the forestry and agricultural interests here in this country should be prepared to accept as reasonable a date the same as, or approximate to, the date in Scotland. I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he would consider the possibility of a compromise which at any rate brings the two dates closer together. One possible compromise would be that there should be the same date for England as for Scotland, and that the date should be the middle of February. In any event, I hope that he will be willing to reconsider the date that stands in the Bill at the moment, because it seems unreasonable that the close season should start later in England than it does in Scotland.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Regarding the first Amendment moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, you have to take into consideration the difference between the type of country in the Highlands of Scotland and that in England. In the Highlands the majority of the deer are out on the bare hillsides, and you can therefore have a longer close season for the hinds because it is far easier to

187
control them. Personally, I never shoot a hind in Scotland after January 15; but, of course, in this Bill we are dealing with England and Wales. If you brought the close season back to February 1, you would then have only three months of open season to control the hinds and the does. A great many people think it is too short a time in England and Wales where, of course, the majority of the deer country is heavily-wooded country.
The hinds are, as I think your Lordships know, served until the end of October. You cannot really say that they are heavy in pregnancy in February, because they do not calve until the end of June. I do not think that there is a great case for altering the date for England and Wales, but I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, and will have consultations with the interested parties. We will see whether something can be done in the future to alter this; but I must ask the noble Lord if he will withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I will do everything I can to have consultations and see if the date can be made the same as that in Scotland. May I now go on to the question of the roebuck?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I just ask the noble Viscount a question? I was trying to follow him, and I am very sorry I was late. I did not realise the debate had started. He was saying, rather lightly, that he did not think there was any harm in hunting the hind in February because she would not give birth until June.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I never mentioned hunting.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is what we are discussing. I thought the noble Viscount felt that we should not perhaps exercise too much care with regard to her because she would not give birth until June. Is that not right?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The end of June.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thought I followed him. Then he said he was talking about February. How many months pregnant would she be then, in February?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: At the end of February she would be four months.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble Viscount. I wanted him to tell me it was four months. Can he tell the Committee how he can reconcile this Bill, which ostensibly is to protect deer, with the fact that he is prepared to see the hind hunted when it is four months pregnant?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: You cannot make one law for one part of England and another law for other parts of England; you must have a law applicable to the whole of England and Wales. The only county which hunts the red deer is Devonshire, on Exmoor, and you cannot make one law for people there and another law for the farmers, the landowners and the other interested parties all over the rest of the country. That is surely obvious to the noble Baroness. The point is, as I have already explained, that the terrain in England is completely different. Owing to the heavily wooded habitat of the deer in England, the experts in all the organisations, who have conferred over the various clauses in this Bill for over a year now, have come to the conclusion that if you put back to February 1 the close season for hinds you will have only a three-months open season, which is too short for the farming and other interests to control the deer population. It is the opinion of experts. It has nothing to do with hunting, so far as I am informed. It is just the opinion of all the experts of these organisations and, as I told the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I will certainly have consultations with the interested parties to see what can be done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount has quoted in defence of his speech all the organisations who support the Bill. Those organisations which have the interests of the animal at heart do not support the hunting of pregnant animals.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have already named all the organisations who support the Bill. Does the noble Baroness want me to name them again?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like the noble Viscount to tell me of one

189
organisation which has the welfare of animals at heart and which has proclaimed that they support the hunting of pregnant deer.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The noble Lady came in late. The organisations that support this Bill in the interests of animal welfare are the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Council for Nature and the Nature Conservancy.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Have they specifically said that they support the hunting of pregnant animals? Would the noble Viscount tell me what pamphlet I can refer to where that is specifically stated? Can he give me the names of the officials of these organisations who have publicly said they are prepared that this shooting should take place?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: They have supported the clauses in this Bill. As I have tried to explain, this Bill is a compromise. I do not know if they support hunting of pregnant deer; but they have supported this Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount has admitted it.
LORD CROOK: May I add the point that I made on Second Reading and on Friday last? Of the eleven bodies that were consulted with regard to the Bill, not one was an animal protection society. The R.S.P.C.A. were not consulted, nor was the League against Cruel Sports.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The point made by the noble Viscount, that there might be too little time for killing hinds or does if only three months of the year is open, is met by Clause 10(3), which permits the occupier of land, pasture or woodland, or someone armed with his authority, to kill such deer if undue damage is being done; and I must say that I, myself, should not in any way object to the close season being lengthened. So far as the noble Baroness is concerned, it must be remembered that her point is a narrow one, dealing with one species in a small part of the country. If we were to say that there should be no killing and taking of female deer in a state of pregnancy, very few female deer would be
190
killed, because the mating season of the roe is in August and that of the red deer in September and early October. That is to say that a large number, probably most, roe does when shot are pregnant, as are almost all red deer hinds. But, of course, while I appreciate the question in regard to hunting, it is no crueller to have them shot, in a respectable fashion, when pregnant than when they are not.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank my noble friend for his remarks with which I agree. It is no crueller if a hind is slightly pregnant to have her shot or hunted.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But the noble Earl did not say that. He differentiated between shooting and hunting. I was putting the point of the hunting.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thought he said it was no crueller. Of course, pregnant hinds in February are certainly far from being heavy in pregnancy. There is very little there.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount has never been pregnant.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Nor am I likely to be. Regarding the Amendment for roebucks, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, spoke, the object of the close season for male deer is to have a close season for them when in velvet. Of course the roebuck is not in velvet between May 1 and July 31: he is in velvet during the winter. But on the Continent, which is far ahead of us in this question of deer preservation, they have a close season for the roebuck in the winter. So the noble Lord's Amendment is rather illogical, since the object of this Bill, as regards the male deer, is to protect them when in velvet. During this time the roebuck is not in velvet. But perhaps some day we may have a close season for roebuck during the winter; but I cannot speak about it here. The Amendment says "1st May to 31st July"; and the whole object of having a close season during that time would be defeated. The object is to defend the deer when it is least able to take care of itself. To defend the roebuck during the time when he has shed velvet would be pointless.
6.48 p.m.
LORD CROOK: This is not the first time that the noble Viscount has said that something is nonsense and illogical when it is far from nonsense; it is the most utter common sense that has ever been put in front of your Lordships. The Bill for which the noble Viscount is responsible clearly says that for red deer, fallow deer and Sika deer there shall be a close season, for stags, from the 1st May to the 31st July. I put down my Amendment No. 11, to which he is now referring, to provide for the buck of the roe deer a close season from 1st May to the 31st July, inclusive; for one reason to agree with the date that the noble Viscount has already included in the Schedule. "Ah", says the noble Viscount, "three kinds go into velvet at one time and the other goes into velvet at a different time". This is the value of the observation which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, made. What is the good of trying to put three kinds into the close season and leaving out the fourth?—because all this does is to provide a godsend to anyone who wants to go illegally shooting. He will say, if he is caught, "I am sorry, I didn't know it was that kind; I thought it was the other". Is the noble Viscount seriously suggesting that a fellow going to try to take a pot-shot looks to see which kind of deer he is shooting at before he shoots at it? The noble Viscount has to tell me something more than that if he is to convince me. Of course, these experts on hunting can tell right away.
On an earlier Amendment, the noble Viscount, if I may say so with all respect, made no attempt to deal with the valuable point which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made about why there should be a change in the close season for the female. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 10(3), on which some of us pin our hopes. May I read it to the noble Viscount?—because it seems to answer him:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence against section 1 or section 2 of this Act by reason of the taking or killing by means of shooting of any deer on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if that person proves—

(a) that he is the occupier of that land, pasture or woodland, or that he acted with the written authority of the occupier; and

192

(b) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, pasture or woodland."

When we first saw the Bill we thought that that was extraordinarily well drafted to give exactly the effect the noble Viscount wanted. Now it seems perfectly clear that he could agree to the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Dowding moved, which I have seconded and which my noble friend in front of me supported. Perhaps at this late hour we might be making a grave mistake if we went on unduly what I might call "flogging the issue". I accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Listowel that, in the period between now and Report Stage, those who have talked about getting together on earlier Amendments should get together on this question of the female deer and see whether we can secure some compromise.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This question of the proposed close season for roebucks, which I did not deal with in my previous remarks because I was trying to keep them strictly to what was-then being discussed, I view with somewhat mixed feelings. As my noble friend said, the roebuck is a perfectly worthy object of the chase during the summer months, when his horns are completely clear of velvet. On the other hand there are a few considerations. The first is that I think there is a general feeling that it is not very nice that this extremely attractive little animal should be left to be shot at at any time without any close season.
Furthermore, we have to hear in mind, certainly so far as forestry is concerned, that the roebuck does no damage at all then with his horns to young trees, which is the principal cause of offence, because his horns have shed their velvet and are no longer itchy, and he does not rub them against the trees. If he does do damage, it is by biting off the tops of newly planted trees, but he could do that only so long as they were not more than four or five feet high at most. Or he may start to damage crops. Then he could be dealt with under Clause 10(3), as before. So I must say that, on balance, I am rather brought down in favour of this close season for roebuck, although I have some slight qualms about it.
LORD DOWDING: As regards the close season, the compromise of a consultation between now and Report stage is quite sensible to me and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, would agree with that also. As regards roebuck, I think that it is a "this way, that way" question, as I thought all along. But with the support we have just had from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I should be reluctant to withdraw the Amendment as regards the roebuck.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
6.57 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "of less gauge than 12 bore". The noble Lord said: In this Amendment I am moving into a field where I have no experience, but I am very much heartened by the sympathy I have had from noble Lords on the other side who have the experience and knowledge and who have told me that I am on the right lines. I particularly refer to the support I received earlier in the evening from the noble Duke, the Duke of Athoil. The Amendment I am moving and the next one try to stop the use of shot-guns for gunning deer and to put down some definition.
On the Second Reading I listened with awe almost to the learned disquisitions on the size of bore and shot to be used, from those noble Lords who hunt. I am not going to try to set myself against their views, which are based on knowledge. My knowledge is not of the ability to fire guns, but of the cruelty inflicted upon deer by the use of shot-guns. I understand that the shot-gun is prohibited in Denmark and in Germany, and yet good hunting is done there. I rely upon the sponsor of the Bill supporting me on this, because I know that he shoots deer and wild boar in Germany, but he would not dream of going there with a shot-gun.
I should like to quote Kenneth Whitehead, who I believe is an acknowledged expert on deer. He wrote, in an article on this Bill, in the Shooting Times of March 1:
"I am very much disturbed that the Bill has not banned the shot-gun firing shot even as large as LG and SSG, for it is the use of
194
shot of any size on deer that has resulted in so much cruelty and suffering in the past."
He goes on:
"… just as the wildfowler firing BB shot on the foreshore is tempted to take long shot at duck or goose, so, I am afraid, will the same occur with the man using LG or SSG, and the consequence will be that a deer fired at, at, say, 30 or 40 yards will get away more severely wounded than if he had had at a similar range a charge of No. 6 shot in his backside."
The inexperienced person who merely wants to try to stop cruelty cannot do better than rely on experts of that kind. He makes his own recommendation, and quotes Holland and Sons, the leading gunsmiths, who do not recommend that 12 bore guns be used on deer. I am backed in my own view by the remarks of some noble Lords who do what I do not—that is, go shooting deer. I hope the noble Viscount responsible for the Bill will accept this Amendment, and, if not, that your Lordships will insist on its acceptance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("of less gauge than 12 bore").—(Lord Crook.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thought my noble friend was a little unfair to me when he said it was impossible to use a rifle in England. I would not go so far as that. In fact, I am convinced that, if you are properly positioned and are sufficiently skilful, you can with a rifle shoot red deer or fallow deer in any country, except in the most built-up parts. Roe deer are a different problem, and I should be much more happy about the Amendment if the noble Lord excluded roe deer from its provisions, as I think there may be occasions when you must shoot them with a shot-gun in the interests of safety, and also because they have different habits from the red deer and the fallow deer, which are much harder to get out into the open where it is safe to shoot them. But if my noble friend thinks it so unsafe to shoot with a rifle in England, why has he excluded the.22 from his list of firearms which can be used? A high velocity.22 is certainly a perfectly good weapon against a roe deer, and I have known one or two people who have used it against a red deer—though I would not do it myself. It seems to me extraordinary that he should consider a.22 weapon cruel, and yet retain the 12 bore for any form of deer, including the red deer.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: As I said earlier, I am afraid it is quite impracticable to try to do away with the use of the 12 bore. I entirely agree with my noble chief that it would be a good thing if it could be prohibited for use on red deer or fallow deer. But as the Bill is at present drafted, and the Amendments, that does not come into it. I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment at the present time because it would certainly mean that a great many roe deer would exist in places where they are far too numerous and they will not be able to be kept down safely.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The real difficulty here is the granting of a firearms certificate. As your Lordships know, anyone having a rifle must have a firearms certificate. The authorities are not keen on a great number of extra people acquiring firearms certificates, for obvious reasons. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl said that rifles are not dangerous if they are used properly in a restricted area; and he is quite right. But how are you going to guarantee that they will be used properly?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: By giving firearms certificates only to people who know how to use the weapons.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Then you have to introduce a law, and have tests, the same as you have driving tests, for anyone having a rifle. But you cannot introduce it in this Bill; you would need a new Bill for that. I agree that if you had only experts shooting deer there would be no trouble at all. The other point against the Amendment is that there would be an outcry from the farmers. The average farmer owns a shot-gun, but does not want to go to the expense of buying a rifle. Perhaps your Lordships will say that he should be made to go to that expense. But here, again, farmers are a big body in this country, and we have to abide, to a great extent, by their wishes. But I understand that the real reason against the Amendment is that the police do not want to have a great increase in the granting of firearms certificates. I agree that shot-guns can be cruel, but I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I find on most occasions that farmers who want
196
the deer dealt with are encouraged to ring up the keeper of the estate concerned. Nearly everywhere where there are deer there are keepers, and in most cases I think you would find that the keeper has a rifle.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Viscount's arguments sound to me confusing, but perhaps I am a little illogical. Here, in the name of humanity, in a wider context, he still argues that, although the shot-gun is more cruel, he is prepared to allow it to be used on the ground that the farmer might not be able to afford a rifle. Does he not think that is a very cruel argument? Is he prepared to allow this continued cruelty on those grounds?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have already explained that this is a compromise Bill between all the organisations. It is not my Bill; I am only the spokesman. In this country we are a democracy, and we have to abide by the various interested parties. The great point about having shot-guns is, as I have said, that the police do not want to have thousands of people owning rifles. That is quite understandable. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl asked why the ½22 was excluded by the Schedule. The reason is that the ½22 in the hands of somebody who is not really expert, even with such a small deer as a roedeer, can wound it very badly. You may not even know that you have wounded it, because the bullet is so small that the deer will hardly jump at all. He may go away wounded, and the person will not know he has wounded him. That is why the ½22 is excluded.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I said a high velocity ½22.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have seen people using a high velocity ½22. I have taken people out stalking and have told them not to use it, but they have used it, and they have fired three or four times. It has had very little effect, and I have then had to shoot the stag. I cannot agree with my noble friend, and I have had experience of these matters.
LORD SANDYS: I should like to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and I am moved by very much the same sentiments as he

197
is. I am not an expert, but I feel there is a strong reason why 12 bore shot-guns should be excluded. After all, as I understand it, the background to the Bill is the focusing of attention upon a very malicious form of activity—namely, the chasing and driving of deer by night with searchlights and shot-guns. This seems to me thoroughly against the tradition of sportsmanship in these islands, and I would heartily support the Amendment. For that reason, I would also venture to suggest that perhaps the word "pistol" might be added. There are such things as small bore pistols. If you are driving in a Land Rover or a Jeep it is quite possible to make use of pistols to kill or maliciously wound the beast, and I would suggest that pistols should be brought into this highly important section of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I point out that under Clause 2 no night-time shooting is allowed?
LORD SANDYS: I agree absolutely with the noble Viscount, and I quite understand that point. I was directing my remarks to prohibiting firearms.
LORD CROOK: In the whole progress of this Bill there has never been agreement before. The police do not want to issue thousands more licences; the noble Lord does not want them to, and I do not want them to. I am perfectly happy that the police shall not issue them. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to stop cruelty, to stop filling the face of the deer with all this little shot. The noble Viscount, whether he speaks, as he says, as the spokesman for people in another place who are merely the manipulators of the wires, or whether he speaks for himself, cannot deny the cruelty. I must admit the logic of what the noble Lord has said. If this House wants to deal with the licensing and use of firearms in general (which we could easily do if we were not careful) then we should need a separate Bill. I am not certain that one of the preoccupations of the noble Baroness and myself might not give your Lordships the chance of saying whether we want to go on with one kind of firearm or the other. As it is, I see no alternative at the moment but to withdraw this Amendment, both in the knowledge that there are further Amend
198
ments on the Order Paper—although the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is not here to move his—and in the knowledge that having got the two Amendments I wanted last Friday, I do not want to press the other House too much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I point out that small shot cannot be used, as the noble Lord will see in the Schedule?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Might I point out regarding this Amendment, that though I am moving it, I propose to withdraw it. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has power to amend by order the weapons clause, so it is not necessary to move this Amendment. But I should like to explain the reason for it. As I pointed out to the noble Duke, the reason the ½22 has been excluded is that the weight of the bullet is too small. Under this Amendment the weight of the bullet is specified as not to be under 75 grains. I hope that this will be taken note of by the proper authorities in due course, and that the weapons clause will be amended to ensure that no deer is shot with a bullet weighing under 75 grains. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert—
("5. Any cartridge for use in a rifle other than a cartridge—

(a) loaded with a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet weighing not less than 75 grains; and

(b) sufficient to cause that bullet to be discharged from that rifle with a muzzle energy of not less than 1,700 foot pounds"),—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This Amendment is quite an important one. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will read these debates carefully, because there are few things more likely to cause suffering to deer—and that is what we are all, on both sides of the House, trying to avoid—than the use of unsuitable rifles.
These very small calibre rifles, even if they have very high velocity, are quite unsuitable for the purpose, because a small bullet, travelling at high velocity,

199
may go right through a deer, inflicting a wound which may or may not eventually be mortal, but in no way stopping it, so that the unfortunate animal may go on for hundreds of yards or even miles. The ideal bullet is one with a soft or hollow nose, so that when it hits the skin of the animal and penetrates it sets up; that is to say, the bullet widens until its surface area as it goes through the animal is several times its original diameter. The result is that tremendous shock is caused, and if the bullet comes to rest against the skin on the far side of the animal the greatest effect is achieved. One wants that the animal should be shot through head, neck or heart so that it collapses and never knows what has happened to it. Unfortunately, even the most expert shots err a little. One wants to have this tremendous shock effect. If it is not killed at once, it will be so much shocked that it is possible to approach it and finish it off. That is why the whole question of calibre is important, and why muzzle velocity is not important, but muzzle energy is, because on that depends the force with which the animal is struck and the probability of its being brought down immediately.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene
200
and Ferrard, was willing to meet my noble friend Lord Crook between now and the Report stage of the Bill to discuss the next stage. It is a sound practice of your Lordships' House that the sponsors of a Bill and its critics can meet together to discuss it between the different stages through the House. I hope that the noble Lord who represents the Minister may be willing to meet with us at the same time, and to give us the Government's view about the prospects of the Bill in another place. We all want the Bill to go through. That is the common interest both of noble Lords who promote and support the Bill and of the critics of the Bill, in all parts of the House. That is a matter we have to consider at the same time as any Amendment about which we may be able to agree before the Report stage of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.