Lords Sitting of 25 February 1964

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

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON GRANTS FOR OVERSEAS SPORTS
2.35 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 why, on the Advisory Committee set up under the chairmanship of Sir John Lang as principal adviser on sport to the Lord President of the Council to make recommendations for giving financial support to British amateur teams enabling them to take part in international sporting events abroad, and comprising in addition to the Chairman the general secretary of the British Olympic Association and the general secretary of the Central Council of Physical Recreation, it has been considered necessary to add two representatives from the Ministry of Education.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, as I explained on 12th February in answer to an earlier Question by the noble Lady, the representatives of the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department are the official members of the Committee because their work, particularly through Her Majesty's Inspectors, gives them great experience of the work of national sporting bodies.
1026
I might add that in the original announcement in your Lordships' House on November 14 last year it was specifically stated that the Advisory Committee would consist of both officials and non-officials. Since the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department have closer associations with the governing bodies of sport than any other Government Department, it seems appropriate that the official representatives should be drawn from these two Departments. I do not think that either the noble Lady or the organisations concerned questioned this arrangement at the time.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it seems quite incredible that anybody would give him such a stupid Answer to bring to this House for a second time.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I am sorry if noble Lords do not like it. I would ask them to believe that that is an understatement. Referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT for November 14 last, Vol. 253, col. 124, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that when the reference was made to officials and representatives there was not one person in the sporting bodies who even dreamt that the word "officials" meant representatives from any particular Ministry. May I ask him what on earth he thinks Ministry of Education officials know about, or have to do with, adult teams competing in international sport overseas?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, as I have, I think, previously explained, it would not be right, as I believe the noble Lady implies, that the overseas Departments, whose Ministers must take decisions on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, should themselves be members of it. In any event, neither of the overseas Departments has the same knowledge as the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department of the importance of a proposed visit to the sports movement in this country, as well as knowledge of the standing of the sponsoring body, and so on.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister

1027
whether he has ever heard of the advice that a civil servant once gave to a Minister, to the effect: "If you cannot answer the Question on the Order Paper, answer another"? May I ask him whether he does not feel that this is really Whitehall dogma at its most blatant? —and I thought the Government was opposed to this. Does he not realise that the sports organisations felt they really at last were going to get some help on international events, and they had no idea that this help was to be vetted and approved by any Ministry? And is he not aware that the sports organisations in this country regard this as a point of principle, and they would rather do without the money than have it given on political grounds, whichever Government is in power?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us whether the sports bodies have informed him which officials, in their view, do not belong to any Ministry?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am not quite clear about that question. There are two officials representing the Ministry of Education and the Scottish Education Department, and in an advisory capacity there are also officials from the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in my quiet way I was trying to support the Minister. I understood the noble Baroness to say that she was well aware there were to be officials on this body but they ought not, in her view, to belong to any particular Ministry. I was wondering what officials there were who do not belong to any Ministry.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I think in the circumstances it would perhaps be better if the noble Baroness answered that question. But I consider that if the Ministry of Education member and the Scottish Education Department member were present as advisers rather than full members, the result would be that the Committee, which, after all, advises on the spending of Government money, would comprise two non-officials, with a chairman who might perhaps be classed as an official but who is really intended to act impartially as chairman. I think in this case there
1028
would be an inevitable tendency to submit the Committee's recommendations to officials for them to express a view on advice to which they would not be parties, although they would, of course, have taken part in the discussions. It might not perhaps be wrong to do this, but undoubtedly delay would be involved, and if the desire of the noble Baroness and your Lordships is that time should not be wasted, I am sure the composition of the Committee should be left as it is.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I think a great deal of time has been wasted, and I think the Minister is completely lost; but might I ask him whether he would be good enough to inform his noble friend Lord Conesford that the officials were taken to be officials of the sporting organisations, and the last time the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, intervened the sporting organisations did ask me whether the noble Lord was serious in his comments.
LORD CONESFORD: I wonder what the noble Baroness replied.

AID FOR OVERSEAS SPORTS EVENTS
2.43 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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, in view of the considerable interest felt by the governing bodies of sport on the question of grant-aiding teams taking part in overseas sports events, they will outline the considerations likely to be taken into account when applications are received by the Advisory Committee concerned.]
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, the considerations likely to be taken into account by the Advisory Committee will be as follows: (a) the prestige value of the competition in which the team is to take part; (b) the value of the competition from the standpoint of relations between Great Britain and the country or countries

1029
concerned; (c) the importance of the event; (d) the popular appeal of the sport in question; (e) sponsorship or support by a national sporting organisation; (f) status of the applicant organisation in the sporting world, at home and overseas; (g) ability of the sponsoring body to attract substantial support from other sources (the aim of the Government scheme being to encourage and not to replace, voluntary contributions); and (h) the general programme of overseas competitions covered by a sponsoring organisation. The Committee may well find that with experience other criteria emerge or some of the above considerations may need to be modified.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having sent me the application form for which I asked, enumerating all these points. But is he aware that it is the "other criteria" of which I am slightly nervous? Could the noble Earl just assure the House on two points? First, will it be a question of athletic ability that determines whether teams take part in events overseas, or will it be a case of political opinion on the part of a Ministry or Department concerned? The second point is this: does the noble Earl recall that on this list asking for information from the organisations, "schools excluded" is expressly stated, so that the Ministry of Education would seem to be superfluous?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, of course athletic considerations will be fully taken into account. In regard to the adjective "political" which was used by the noble Baroness, I am not quite clear what she means; but I suppose that it relates to the sort of relations which we may have with the country concerned—I think that is probably correct. This was one of the reasons underlying the Government's decision of November 14: that they accepted the argument that visits of United Kingdom sports teams to overseas countries could sometimes be of value in regard to good relations with overseas countries, and the likely value of a particular visit should therefore be taken into account.

SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES FLIGHTS via PRESTWICK
2.47 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in considering the application of the Scandinavian Airlines System for a renewal of their licence to operate their North American routes through Prestwick, due regard has been paid to the tourist industry of Scotland, and especially to the amount of tourist literature which S.A.S. produce and distribute at their expense.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the Scandinavian Airlines System operates trans-Atlantic services through Prestwick under rights granted by our Air Services Agreements with the Scandinavian countries. There is, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, no question of cancelling the grant of these rights, but we are strongly of the opinion that the frequency of the Scandinavian Airlines System flights has for some time been excessive, and in the course of lengthy discussions between representatives of the three Governments this view has been urged on the Scandinavians. Discussions are still in progress, and in fact there is another meeting this very afternoon.
Her Majesty's Government have certainly paid full regard to Scottish interests, and particularly to the tourist industry, in deciding their attitude in the matter. The action they contemplate will leave ample capacity between Prestwick and North America, and there would also be ample capacity for the traffic between Scotland and Scandinavia, although admittedly the service would be less frequent. It is true that the Scandinavian Airlines System have conducted admirable publicity for Scotland and produce excellent tourist literature. There is no adequate reason why this should not continue if the Scandinavian authorities accept Her Majesty's Government's proposals.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend

1031
for his reply, especially for the part saying that full consideration has been given to the tourist industry in Scotland. I should just like to ask him whether he would consider it a suitable subject for discussion if I were to put down an Unstarred Question in about a month's time, when these negotiations are over?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should always be pleased to try to accommodate the noble Duke. I should think that would be quite suitable and, quite frankly, this whole matter is so complex that it could be much more easily answered through an Unstarred Question than on a Starred Question.

HOSPITAL ENGINEERS
2.49 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 why no effective action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Study Group appointed by the Minister of Health in January, 1961, to consider the grading, training and qualifications of hospital engineers, and when the relevant Whitley Council will resume discussions on the salaries of hospital engineers.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the recommendations of the Study Group involve a thorough review of the grading structure, appropriate qualifications, training, and status of hospital engineers. Many of the recommendations could not be implemented until after a revision of grading and salary scales, which are matters for the appropriate Whitley Council. Meetings between the management and staff sides have been taking place since December, 1962, the most recent being on February 19, when remuneration was further discussed. Agreement on all the issues involved, some of which are complex, has not yet been reached.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the recommendations of the study group have now been under consideration for rather more than two years? Although it is appreciated
1032
that these must be carefully considered, does he not think that the consideration has been over-long? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware that many qualified hospital engineers are now receiving salaries less than those enjoyed by many unskilled workers? The good hospital engineer can save many times his annual salary. Therefore, can the noble Lord not give some assurance that this matter will now be dealt with as a matter of urgency?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is true that the negotiations in the Whitley Council have been going on for a long time, but they have made a good deal of progress. As I said in my original reply, there are one or two aspects of the negotiations which are very complicated indeed. We certainly hope that agreement will be reached as soon as possible. Indeed, yesterday my right honourable friend said in another place that he would like to see a solution as soon as possible and is ready at any time to do what he can to help speed up matters, if that is possible.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful for that further reply. Would the noble Lord approach his right honourable friend to see whether his helpfulness could be extended to, say, an interim advance in salary scale? Would he also try to make it his business to find out why the management side is reluctant to discuss salaries? On January 24, when writing of the meeting of February 19, they said that they could not guarantee to continue to discuss salaries. Would the noble Lord look into this, as it is obviously important?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I understand that remuneration was discussed at the meeting on February 19, and I understand a further meeting has been provisionally arranged for March 13. These are matters which have to be negotiated in the Whitley Council between the two sides, and I do not think that I ought to say anything at all which might prejudice the outcome of the negotiations.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord bear in mind that this matter is a serious embarrassment to hospital management committees who have the job of appointing qualified staff to carry out these extremely important duties, and that

1033
this is another aspect which must be taken into consideration?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, that may be; but this is a matter for negotiation under the recognised machinery, which is the Whitley Council.

STAFFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WORCESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SAINT JOHN'S CHURCH, SMITH SQUARE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (REVOCATION) ORDER, 1964
2.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Revocation) Order, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on January 30, 1964, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to revoke, as from March 31, 1964, the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1958, made under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, which imposes a levy on the lace industry to finance scientific research by the Lace Research Association. If this Order is approved, the last period for which the levy will be collected is that ending December 31, 1963. The Order
1034
also revokes the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1955, and the two Orders amending that Order. Charges under the 1955 Order as amended ceased on December 31, 1958, but the Order has not been revoked.
Your Lordships will no doubt like to have a short explanation of the reasons. In recent years there has been considerable change in the lace industry. A relatively new method of making lace on Raschel machines now produces the largest output, and this Raschel type of lace has been outside the scope of the statutory levy. The prosperity of the traditional sections of the industry has meantime declined. Changes in fashion and demand have led to a marked reduction in the sales of some types of products such as lace furnishings and plain net, and the output of lace generally (apart from the Raschel section) has fallen off. The Lace Research Association formally notified the Board of Trade last year that all levy-paying sections of the industry were opposed to continuing the statutory levy.
The 1947 Act requires the Board of Trade, before making an Order, to consult organisations representing substantial numbers of persons carrying on business in or employed in the industry. This they have done. There was unanimity among lace manufacturers in favour of terminating the compulsory levy, and no objections were made by the trade unions representing the majority of the workers. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research also raised no objections, on the understanding that alternative voluntary arrangements would be made to continue industrial support of the Lace Research Association.
Arrangements have been made for the Lace Research Association to continue with a new structure and revised programme, financed by voluntary contributions from the trade, including a contribution from one of the trade unions. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has agreed to continue grant-in-aid to the Association for the next five years, and it is expected that the work of the Lace Research Association will continue on much the same

1035
scale as during recent years, if this Order is approved. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Revocation) Order 1964, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, it is now a little less than four years since I moved the Second Reading of the International Development Association Act in your Lordships' House in May, 1960. That Act authorised the British Government to fulfil our part of the international agreement under which this new Association was set up. The headquarters of the Association are in Washington. It is under the same management as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (which I prefer to call the World Bank); but whereas the World Bank is obliged to charge interest at prevailing world interest rates on the money which it advances to its clients, the International Development Association is permitted to charge less, and in practice charges no interest at all. As for the capital which it lends, when that capital is eventually repaid to the Association it will not be handed back to the countries which have subscribed it; it will be used for making further loans again. So our subscription and the subscription of other industrial countries to this Association is, in effect, a gift.
The amount originally designed to be raised in 1960 was, as your Lordships may remember, 1,000 million dollars. Under the Articles of Agreement the members of the International Development
1036
Association were divided into two groups—Part I members and Part II members—the Part I members being the industrial nations who were expected to do most of the lending; and the Part II members being the less developed countries who were likely to get most of the loans spent upon them. There were then seventeen Part I members and 51 Part II members. Of the 1,000 million dollars to be raised, 237 million dollars were in the form of subscriptions from the Part II countries, but they consisted only of deposits of credit notes in the currency of the depositing country and were not convertible into other currencies. The International Development Association has not told us—and so I do not know—whether any of these deposits have yet been drawn upon by the Association, but if they have been drawn upon to any small extent they could have been used to be spent in only the country which had made the deposit because they are not convertible. But the remaining 763 million dollars (it has been slightly reduced by reason of the fact that Belgium—and Luxembourg, to begin with—did not come in as they had been expected to do, but now they have come in) was contributed by the Part I countries, and that had to be deposited either in gold or in convertible currency.
The British share of this 763 million dollars was 131 million dollars or a little more, which is the equivalent of £47 million. That was payable in five annual instalments the first instalment of £11 million being in 1960, and after that £9 million for each of the four subsequent years. That compared with 320 million dollars from the United States, and just under 53 million dollars each from France and Germany. One of the small criticisms which was made by your Lordships when this Bill was under discussion was that our contribution was very much higher in relation to our resources and to our gross national product than that of anybody else. It was much higher proportionately than that of the United States, and much higher, both proportionately and absolutely, than the contributions of France and Germany. But that was an arrangement to which we all agreed in 1960.
In the little over three years' life of the Association its lending policy has been extremely lenient. The only charge

1037
which it makes is three-quarters of 1 per cent. as a service charge. No interest is charged, and no capital is repayable for the first ten years. After that there is a further 40 years, making a period of 50 years altogether, during which the capital is repaid by gradual, easy instalments. On the other hand, the Association is very careful indeed to see that the money which it advances is not wasted. As your Lordships may easily imagine, that acts as a slight brake on the rapidity with which the money can be either committed or spent. Very great pains are taken by the Association to make sure that any project of which it approves will bring about a real and substantial improvement in the economy of the country to which the money is lent, and also that the money is expended in a reasonably economical manner. There is, of course, always a certain time lag between the time when the project is put forward and the time when it is approved; and there is then another interval before the money actually begins to be spent and before the work actually begins to be carried into effect.
Of the 763 million dollars provided by the Part I countries, about 600 million dollars has been committed; and of that sum about 130 million dollars has actually been spent so far. But we have only another 150 million uncommitted dollars in the kitty up till the end of 1964, and it has therefore been agreed in the Association that the time has come to authorise further amounts by the Part I countries. The Part II countries, by the way, have now increased from 51 to, I think, 76, because a whole lot of new nations have come into being since 1960. But under this new arrangement, which, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, will be authorised by this Bill before your Lordships, no further deposits or subscriptions of any kind are required from the Part II countries. It is only the Part I countries that will agree under this new arrangement to contribute a further sum of 750 million dollars; but this time it is to be spread over only three years, instead of five. The first subscription will become payable in November, 1965; the next in 1966, and the third in 1967. This time, my Lords, the amount which we have agreed to contribute, instead of
1038
being 17 per cent. of the total, is 13 per cent. But the annual amount will be greater because it is spread over three years.
The amount of the British contribution under the new Agreement is 96 million dollars, which is about £34 million. That will be paid in three instalments of £11½ million each year— 1965, 1966 and 1967. That compares with a United States contribution of 312 million dollars, a German subscription of 72 million dollars and a French subscription of 61 million dollars. Here, again, although our proportion is reduced I think your Lordships will be interested to know that our contribution is still substantially more in relation to our gross national product than that of anybody else. It is a great deal more, proportionately, than that of the United States, and it represents 0·04 per cent. of our gross national product, compared with 0·03 per cent. of France's and 0·027 per cent. of Germany's.
I do not think anybody here will grudge that because, as I have already indicated to your Lordships, this is only a very limited field of aid to underdeveloped countries. If this were a comprehensive plan, a world plan, for giving all the aid that everybody needs, then we might perhaps feel it necessary to ask that our contribution to it should be more in proportion to our means; but, as it is, this is only a very limited field, and the £11½ million a year which we have agreed to contribute is, of course, a very small fraction of the total amount which we are spending upon aid to underdeveloped countries as a whole. Your Lordships will find particulars in the White Paper Aid to Developing Countries which was published last December (Cmnd. 2417).
My Lords, as we are contributing proportionately more than others, your Lordships may be interested to know that it so happens that a fairly high percentage of the money so far committed by the Association has been for the benefit of Commonwealth countries. That has not been by any particular design; it has merely happened to be so. About 70 per cent. of the 600,000 million dollars already committed by the Association is for various Commonwealth countries, and 54 per cent. is for

1039
India. But we want to see a great deal more spent on other, non-Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa, and also, we all hope, in Latin America. As for the scope, the kind of thing on which the Association is spending this money, about 30 per cent. of the whole lot already committed is for roads, about 20 per cent. is for other kinds of transport, another 20 per cent. is for irrigation, and the remaining 30 per cent. is for education, electricity, industry and other projects.
My Lords, we should like to see the scope of the Association's activities widened, and we should also like to see the rate of spending speeded up, and I think this will in fact happen. In order to bring the picture up to date, I should like to tell your Lordships that, at the instance of the President of the World Bank, Mr. Woods, the International Development Association is now reviewing the scope of their activities. It is probable that its reappraisal will lead to a widening of the purposes for which these loans or I.D.A. credits are made available. That is something which we in this country have very much welcomed, and we have expressed strong support for Mr. Wood's initiative. In particular, we want to see more help given to agriculture and education, both of which, I think, are vital to many of the developing countries, including, as we well know from our own experience, some of those which have recently proceeded to independence. I am sure that your Lordships will heartily approve both our support of the Association's activities and also our desire to broaden its field of work, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
3.14 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, we certainly do not grudge any of the money which it is proposed to spend to help our contribution to the I.D.A., and I can assure the noble Earl that he need have no fears on that score. But we do criticise the fact that in all these matters of aid the Government appear to work far too much in watertight compartments and to deal with this vastly important subject far too much on an ad hoc basis. After all, if one looks at
1040
these figures it soon becomes apparent that a very large part of the money which is made available through the I.D.A. is, in fact, no more than money which has been given to make up for past mistakes. In other words, it has been used to pay the interest charges on loans which have been advanced in the past by the World Bank. It is admirable that loans should be given, and it is quite right that there should be some international body which should give these loans; but we cannot look on this as being a great and worthwhile contribution to this very pressing problem when we realise the burden of debt charges which loans through the World Bank in past years have imposed upon these developing countries.
It has been calculated by the World Bank itself that the interest and repayments on debts incurred by developing countries up to the third quarter of 1963 totalled £1,100 million, of which £280 million represents interest charges alone. The money which is to be advanced, and is being advanced, by I.D.A. does little more than meet a proportion of those charges which are being repaid by the developing countries to the developed countries through the World Bank. The total resources of the I.D.A., as the noble Earl has said, including new contributions, come to just over £500 million, of which £215 million is already committed. In other words, there is less than £320 million now available, or just over one year's interest charges.
These repayments of principal and interest on these loans constitute an appalling strain upon the economies of these developing countries, and therefore, while I fully support the fact that we ought to do all that we can to relieve these strains, I do not think we ought in any way to fool ourselves into thinking that any scheme of this order will help to solve this problem. It is a palliative, and a very small palliative, to amend some of the burdens which have been placed by the loans which have already been given. Do not let me give your Lordships the impression that I am saying we should not have given those loans in the first place. All I am saying is that the loans which we have given, and the interest charges and the repayment conditions which have been imposed through the World Bank, are such that it has become absolutely

1041
essential that the I.D.A. should do something to ease this strain. It is not in any way helping the developing countries from their baseline: it is only making up some of the handicaps to which this borrowing of money has subjected them.
My Lords, it is not only a question of money with which we should concern ourselves when we are talking about helping the underdeveloped countries. Of course, they need money, but they also need manpower. They need the right sort of technical manpower to enable them to spend that money wisely, and to get the benefits from it which we all believe they should get. Simply making money available is by no means the end of the problem. The White Paper which the noble Earl mentioned—I think he said December, 1963, whereas I believe that it was in fact September, 1963—referred to a target for our total aid of something between £180 million and £220 million in the current year. That is a good figure, and I am not criticising it; but on present form it is highly unlikely that we shall get anywhere near that target.
The latest available figures show that we are running at the rate of something under £150 million a year. This is a long way from £180 million to £220 million; and, what is more, if we compare it with the previous years it shows that we are just about level with last year, 1962–63, and, in fact, rather below the 1961–62 figure of £160 million. I mention these figures only to point out that it is not enough simply to say that we wish to spend this amount of money which we have made available; but that we must at the same time help to provide the people who are going to make it possible to spend that money wisely. The sad fact is that the number of British technicians and civil servants in developing countries has fallen and is still falling.
There has appeared to-day—and I have not yet had the chance to read it in full; I have merely glanced at it and I hope that we may have the opportunity to debate it later—a White Paper entitled Technical Assistance from Britain in Agriculture, Animal Health, Forestry and Fisheries, Overseas. Report of the Advisory Committee. In paragraph 8 of that document is stated:
1042
"The Committee deeply regrets the fact that many trained people with much hard-won experience in these countries are now leaving, for such people are specially needed to train local staff. Everything should be done to retain their services, but even if the current rate of resignations can be slowed, the need to recruit new graduates will continue."
Again, in paragraph 11, the Committee say:
"To provide a continuing service of technical assistance from Britain to developing countries requires immediate and radical changes in the basis of recruitment."
I hope very much that the Government will not rest on such small, and not particularly green, laurels as they have acquired by this extra contribution to I.D.A., but will realise that the taxpayers' money from this country which is being offered will to a very large extent be wasted unless they pay heed to what others have said before, and what this Government Committee says to-day, about the need for recruiting new people and retaining old people to help in wise expenditure.
We have at the present time something like 14,000 technical officers and civil servants in overseas countries under the Overseas Aid Scheme. That is fewer than when this scheme started in 1957–58. That number is decreasing at the rate of something between 1,000 and 2,000 a year. In other words, in another five or six years we shall find, under this Scheme, that there are precious few people to carry out this overwhelmingly important job. On the other hand, it is perfectly true that there are new recruits coming to the Department of Technical Co-operation; but the number that is recruited, normally for a period of only one or two years, is 1,600 a year. That is not enough—especially as they are going to remain for only two years—to replace this steady drain.
What we are engaged in now is nothing more than a holding operation; a slowing down of the rate of disappearance of these trained men who are essential to solve the problems of underdeveloped countries. We are in no way creating an increasing number of the experienced men who are so vitally needed in order to solve some of the problems which are confronting these countries and the whole world. The real fact of the matter is that the

1043
Government are approaching this matter on an entirely wrong footing. They are not looking at the problem as one of equal importance to that of our foreign relations, as conducted through the Foreign Office, or of our defence programme as conducted through the Ministry of Defence. They are looking on it purely as a rather tiresome duty that we must fulfil here and there to help a few people who were at one time, dependant on us, or as the fulfilment of certain international obligations that, because of our standing in the world, we cannot entirely ignore.
Until that attitude is changed, until we realise the importance of this problem, we shall never make any progress in it; and such money as is put up by the taxpayers through Her Majesty's Government either will not be spent (as is the case with a proportion of it at the present time) or, when spent, will not achieve the results that we all insist should be achieved. We must have an overall plan for these developing countries; and the Government Department which is going to consider this plan should consult with other Departments concerned if it is going to play its dynamic part in fulfilling it. Of course, there will never be enough money or enough people to do all that should be done. It would be idle to pretend that this country, even with greater prosperity than at the present time, could achieve that rôle in the world. It is too much for any individual country, and certainly too much for this country.
We must, therefore, have a system of priorities; we must decide where we wish such money as we can afford to go; where we wish such trained people and such experience as we can contribute to go. We must decide where they will make the biggest impact, where they will do the most to alleviate suffering, where they will do the most to promote economic growth, where they will do the most to achieve political stability. This needs the very closest co-operation not only with the Treasury but also with the Foreign Office, with the Commonwealth Relations Office, with the Colonial Office, with the Ministry of Defence and, probably, with the Board of Trade, too. That is how our decisions should be taken; but that is not how
1044
they are being taken at the present time. They are now being taken on far too parochial a basis.
I will give only one example. I had a letter a few days ago from Swaziland, a country about which we spoke in this Chamber not very long ago and where, I believe, most of your Lordships will agree that there are problems (because of its actual position in Southern Africa) which outweigh its relatively small size and relatively small economic significance. The Government of Swaziland put in an estimate for its requirements on a five-year basis. The demands they made were for £2 million for loan expenditure and £4½ million under the Colonial Development and Welfare grants. This was to be spread over five years. This was not a very large amount, a little over £1 million a year, for a development plan in this vitally important British Colony. But that plan was turned down out of hand; and, in place of that £2 million over five years, they have been given £600,000 over three years. This is something like £200,000 a year in loans and £2·3 million (instead of £4½ million) in grants from Colonial Development and Welfare funds. Whether this is the right amount or not, I do not know; although I would be extremely surprised if it were. But what is manifestly wrong is that a decision of that type should be taken without the fullest consultation with the Government Departments which are concerned with their entire relationship with Southern Africa, our relations with South Africa itself, with the grave problems of that area, and with Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the whole complex of that extremely difficult and important area. Until we have a Government Department which can deal with these things, we shall never get the right answer.
I would say also that this new Government Department must consider other areas which, as things are at present, are entirely ignored or omitted by I.D.A.— for instance, the Windward Islands and the Leeward Islands, which are important parts of the Commonwealth, still Colonies, and greatly in need of more money of the sort that I.D.A. should provide. But I.D.A. are not prepared to grant loans of less than a million dollars, or to grant loans to countries which have

1045
less than a quarter of a million inhabitants. In other words, all these small islands are automatically debarred from any funds from I.D.A. because they are too small. Surely that is something which should be looked into in the new discussions which the noble Lord mentioned, and I hope that this situation will be put right.
Above all, we must consider the whole economic situation of the developing countries. What they want is what we wanted in the days after the war: trade, not aid. They want capital with which to finance their infrastructure, their education and their economic development. Some of that money could come from the profits of their own products, if they made sufficient, and also from the confidence engendered in the outside world by such profits. What is needed is increased profitability for their primary products and increased stability.
Many people will ask: If we pay more for these primary products, what about the effect that is going to have on our balance of payments, which is difficult enough as it is? But people who say that do not always have a complete appreciation of the picture. The total imports from developing countries, excluding petrol, which is a special item, and copper, which is already pretty well stabilised, amounted in 1962 to £1,130 million. If we paid 10 per cent. more to those countries for all their imports—not only primary products but also manufactured goods—it would cost us less than £100 million, or little more than 5 per cent. of the amount we are proposing to spend on armaments in the current year. And if we were to confine this to the developing countries of the Commonwealth it would cost us—since we find that the total imports in 1962 amounted to £693 million—only £69 million, or 3 per cent. of our total expenditure on armaments. Surely this puts the matter in a rather better perspective and makes us realise that a relatively small increase in our national expenditure within the sterling area, as it would be in almost every case, would have very beneficial effects upon the developing countries, especially in the Commonwealth (and I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that 70 per cent. of I.D.A. loans were going to the Commonwealth), and very small effect indeed upon us.
1046
But what these countries need is not only higher prices, but also more stable prices. How is it possible for any country that is dependent to a large extent on one single crop to plan its development, attract capital and be able to repay that capital and the interest charges on it, with the violent fluctuations that take place over a few years in the amount received for its primary products. For instance, cotton, an important product in a good many developing countries, has fallen to 67 per cent. of its price twelve years ago, a drop of one-third. Coffee has fallen 55 per cent. in ten years, a drop of nearly half. Cocoa, the main export of Ghana, for instance, sold in 1954 at a maximum price of 562s. 6d. per cwt. In the course of three years, the price fell to well under half, to 178s. 9d. per cwt. Even with I.D.A. or World Bank loans, with cheap loans or expensive ones, how can we expect these countries to develop in the way we all want them to, so long as there is this instability in their national income? If we are serious in our desire to help these countries, this is one of the problems that we must study with the utmost urgency.
I do not think there is any need to remind your Lordships of the words of the present Prime Minister, when he stressed that poverty is a greater threat to world peace than the hydrogen bomb. The Prime Minister has also said that he would rather have a fat Communist to deal with than a thin Communist. Some people may disagree with that view. I do not. And I do not think anybody would disagree that to have a large area of the world populated by people who do not have enough to eat is a far greater threat to world peace than anything we are likely to encounter in the next 50 years from the hydrogen bomb or anything else. I should like to read one comment from the statement by the Secretary for Technical Corporation in the new White Paper. Technical Assistance for the Development of Natural Resources Overseas:
"… the increase in world population is so explosive that, if present conditions continue, the number of hungry or malnourished people in the world could well rise to three billion by the end of the century."
My Lords, that is the scale of the problem that we have to face to-day.

1047
The Economist, in its issue of February 15, had an article on this subject, at the end of which was written:
"The penalties of ignorant inertia could be so fearfully much greater than"
what the article referred to as the failure to follow internal Keynesian policies in the 1930s. And the writer asked:
"How can pressure be mobilised on slow-moving western politicians to make them realise this?"
On occasions of this sort, it is our duty to exert pressure on the slow-moving politicians and I hope that what has been said on this occasion will make the noble Earl and his colleagues move rather less slowly and realise that the contributions we are discussing under this good but very small Bill are in no way an answer to the colossal problems confronting us.
3.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches and myself, I welcome this Bill, which, as previous speakers have said, provides for a contribution by the United Kingdom of £34½ million over three years to the International Development Association, or more if the exchange rate goes against us, or less if the exchange rate goes in our favour. The need for this Association is of interest. It shows, in fact, how economists can plan something with an open mind and the best intentions and then find that what they have planned is not sufficient.
In the beginning, when the World Bank, the I.B.R.D., was set up, it was assumed that what had to be done in the international sphere was to set up something like the Midland Bank and then everything would be all right and nothing more would need to be done. So they set up the World Bank on strict banking principles. The loans which were borrowed had to be borrowed for fixed terms; they had to be repaid in the currency in which they were borrowed, which was, of course, dollars; they carried a high rate of interest, and market rates, as the noble Earl said, had to be paid. It was very soon found that this situation did not suit many of these countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, the late President of the World Bank himself came out with a statement that what was happening was that in many of these countries a large number of projects were being half finished because the countries
1048
had not the necessary finance to finish them, and large sums were being expended in interest every year to service these half finished projects, which were like a lot of, not extinct volcanoes but volcanoes which had never come into operation scattered about the world.
Something had to be done about this. The first step was to provide the International Finance Corporation, which was able to invest in shares and take an equity. But that was not enough, and eventually the International Development Association was, quite rightly, created. I do not go all the way, by any means, with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who has put up a somewhat cynical view of the International Development Association. He says, in effect, that all it is doing is to service the loan from the International Bank. I know that this is said in certain quarters, but it is not true. This is an important element in international aid, because, first of all, the people borrow the money and can repay in soft currency; they are not bound to repay in dollars or in the currency in which the loan is made. Secondly, interest can be forgone—and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made an interesting statement when he said that no interest is charged in most cases. Thirdly, the loan is for a long period: 50 years, the noble Earl said, is allowed for repayment in most cases. Those are quite important elements. And the loans from the International Development Association have, I understand, been given mainly to provide finance for infrastructure or basic development projects such as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, instanced to-day.
There are a number of new problem children in the international field. There are countries now which are too poor for the World Bank—they do not come up to the World Bank minimum provisions—and too rich for the I.D.A. What will happen to these I do not know; but in future I suppose we shall have to look at their problems, as well as those of the richer and the poorer ones: there is this medium grade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said, the question of international assistance is not merely one of finance. In my view, management is at least as important as finance, and the question which is now being raised in the international

1049
sphere, as in many others, is: how does one get good management? Those of your Lordships who are conversant with industry and commerce will know the difficulties of obtaining good management. These difficulties are increased a hundred times in many of the underdeveloped countries, where there is no tradition or experience of management whatsoever. This is a great problem, and it is a twofold problem. The first aspect of it is in the urban areas, where what is needed is the provision of light industry, of housing, hotels and matters of that kind. It has often been said in this country that the only way to get an hotel to pay is by having at least two bankruptcies. That is perhaps a rather pessimistic outlook; but it is difficult to get a new hotel to pay. Nevertheless, quite often it is found in these new countries, and particularly in the urban areas, that one of the things the people want most is the provision of an hotel; they feel that they cannot get development going until an hotel is started. In the rural areas there is no question that agriculture is the dominant feature, and that is the field in which assistance must be provided. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, the World Bank is rapidly coming round to this view, and particularly under the enlightened presidency of Mr. G. D. Woods, who has stressed the necessity for the Bank, the I.D.A. and other international and national organisations to get into this field.
I would stress that in this field there are no certainties. We are dealing with unknown quantities all the way through, and there is no guarantee of success. There is a real risk capital, in a sense in which real risk capital is not employed in this country. When you know very little about soil, water, labour, markets and finance in a country, that is real risk capital. There is a tendency, I think, particularly on the part of international associations and organisations, to overlook the fact that there are no certainties and you cannot guarantee anything.
Agricultural development, including forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries, can be of the utmost assistance; and even quite a small project can revolutionise a territory. If I may give an example, in Bechuanaland, which is a
1050
vast country about the size of France, or even bigger, with a scattered population, the people are almost entirely dependent on ranching—on cattle. Until recently, the Bechuanaland economy was based on cattle and depended on the Johannesburg butchers. They depended on their cattle going down to the Rand. The animals had to go by hoof or by rail, and a lot were lost on the way; if there was any question of foot-and-mouth disease or rinderpest or any of the contagious diseases, possibly the whole of the Johannesburg market was cut off; and in the case of drought, many scores of thousands of head of cattle were lost.
The British started in Lobatsi an abattoir and a cannery. The abattoir is now putting through 110,000 head of cattle a year, and that has completely revolutionised the whole economy of the country. It is quite a small matter in the way of finance, but it has brought about a complete revolution. I am glad to say that a great deal of the cattle, after slaughter, goes not only to South Africa, but to other parts of Africa, and to Europe, including this country. So what is done does not necessarily require the spending of vast sums of money, but it does require a considerable amount of imagination and intelligence to see what is wanted and where things can be got moving.
Above all, what is needed in agriculture is the provision of smallholding schemes, such as the oil palm scheme at Kulai, in Malaya, which is a smallholding scheme; the sugar smallholding scheme in Swaziland and various others throughout the world. These smallholding projects are most important, because they help to raise the standard of living and provide useful steady employment for a growing population. But there is a need for pilot schemes; it is not good to go ahead without a pilot scheme. And what is needed is not only a pilot scheme, but a scheme which is going to continue, which is run by good management and will provide adequate finance, skill and marketing techniques.
Economic development does not exist in a vacuum, and it cannot be isolated from the political situation of the country in which such development is taking place. So that recent events, as in East Africa, naturally have an effect on the

1051
stability and creditworthiness of the country. This is where there is great need for patience, understanding and help from the Western World. We must not be discouraged by these factors. Because of them I think these countries need more and not less help. I think we need not be too much discouraged or worried about one-Party rule. Our own system was built up over hundreds of years, and is a highly exceptional system. In my view, it suits the English and those people who have been at one time or another colonised by the English. I am not so sure that it suits what the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, called the "tribal areas", quite so well. Whether the Scots, Irish and Welsh would ever have had anything like this, I rather doubt.
But one-Party rule very often lends itself to the tribal system. In the tribe they are used to tremendous arguments, and finally the elders come to some sort of rough-and-ready agreement. The chief announces the decision, having collected the voices from the tribe: that is the decision of the tribe, and it is carried out. The idea of a perpetual Opposition which is recognised and paid is quite foreign to tribal ideas. Therefore, we should not be discouraged about one-Party rule. I have no doubt that it is far more in touch with tribal opinion than our own, and I am quite certain that in time—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Is the noble Lord's present advocacy of one-Party rule entirely consistent with the Liberal Party's advocacy of Proportional Representation in order that there shall be innumerable Parties in the British Parliament?
LORD OGMORE: No: I am not in favour of one-Party rule. I am explaining for the benefit of the Labour Party, who do not always see these things through a glass clearly, but see them through a fog dimly, why things are happening in East Africa, and why we need not be too discouraged that one-Party rule should have occurred so soon after the grant of independence. In this country we have many hundreds of years' experience, and I am hoping we shall come on to a more just and satisfactory development in Proportional Representation. After all, Mr. Sandys recently said that the British system was
1052
quite inapplicable to British Guiana; that it only produced chaos and bloodshed there, and he decided, wisely and rightly, to introduce Proportional Representation in British Guiana. I sent him a message saying that, as he had conferred these benefits upon Her Majesty's subjects in British Guiana, no doubt he would do the same thing to Her Majesty's subjects in Great Britain. However, he has not replied yet. The telephone line is not so good between here and Whitehall, I am afraid.
There is one point that I should like to make on this general question. I think it is unfortunate that both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party (not officially, but by a number of prominent and important people in both these Parties) are continually pressing for tied loans: that when we make loans to these various countries they should be tied to the countries making them. This has the worst effect on the people who are receiving the loans. They say, "What is the aid for? You put it down as aid to underdeveloped countries. Is it for us, or is it for your own manufacturers?" The answer is that "It is for your own manufacturers, and not for the people." That is quite unnecessary and has an extremely bad effect. Britain has the best record of any country in the world in this field, and I hope that neither the Members on the Labour Benches nor the Conservative Back Benches will persuade Her Majesty's Government to depart from their excellent record in this respect.
There is only one other point that I should like to make. In addition to finance and management, these countries need skilled assistance. I welcome the announcement, made to us only a week or two ago, on expanding voluntary overseas service, sand I regret the tendency which has been mentioned in the Fourth Report of the Scholarship Commission, presided over by our own colleague, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir. They report that there is a growing tendency for overseas students to stay on in this country when they have completed their period of study here, whereas, of course, they are required overseas. This is a sort of "brains drain" in reverse. It is one which, while highly complimentary to

1053
us, is unfortunate so far as their own countries are concerned.
In conclusion, may I say that the only thing to which I would draw attention with regard to the international organisations themselves is the tendency which they, in common with all organisations, have towards "empire-building" and inflated staffs. They must realise that the funds come from countries which have high taxation. Britain is now providing £34½ million. We are very highly taxed. We gladly provide this money, but we feel that it should be spent properly, and that the people who spend it—that is, the headquarters of the organisations—should be as careful and as prudent over staff numbers, salaries and expenses as if they were a normal commercial concern. We also think that they should be careful to ensure that their statutes give them sufficient latitude to meet the changing needs and that they will not allow themselves to be hampered by the ideologies of some of their members, which may have relevance to developed Western countries but no relevance to sparsely populated underdeveloped African or Asian countries. That is all I have to say on this Bill. I trust that the money which the British taxpayer is going to provide will in every way be to the benefit of the people who need it so badly.
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I shall do so only very briefly, because I do not want to stand between the House and the extremely important Amendments we shall soon be discussing on the Defence Bill. I shall also, for that reason, resist a temptation to reply to the somewhat misleading references made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to the policy of the Labour Party.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I should like to ask him just two questions. He said, with considerable pride—and I think he was entirely entitled to do so—that we give a larger proportion of our gross national product to the International Development Association than any of the other countries which contribute to it—taking, of course, the annual figure. But does he not agree
1054
that our total capital aid (and this, of course, is the broad position which I think is of great interest to your Lordships, and to people generally) as a proportion of our gross national product is a good deal less than that of some other countries? I am speaking, of course, of our total capital aid in loans and grants from public money, and not of private investment overseas. That is the first question I should like to ask the noble Earl, because I think it most desirable that we should all be absolutely clear about the benefits of British aid to developing countries.
The second question I would ask him is this. My noble friend Lord Walston referred to the rate at which current capital aid is running. He said, I think, that it was running at about £150 million a year. The noble Earl will be aware that it is Government policy to increase the amount of capital aid, and that the forecast of the Ministers was that this year it would be running at about £180 million to £220 million, which would be a very substantial increase on last year and on preceding years, and one which we should all welcome. May I ask the noble Earl whether that is still the policy of the Government; whether they intend to step up the amount of capital aid during the current year in this way, or whether they are, in fact, reviewing overseas expenditure, in the light of these unfortunate symptoms, of which we are all aware, which show a certain danger to our balance of payments and may possibly mean a reduction in the amount of capital aid for the current year? Is it still their policy to reach the figure which they announced last year?
4.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have very little to add, I think, except to thank your Lordships for your support of the Bill and also for the three speeches which your Lordships have made which have all interested me very much, although it seemed to me that their connection with the Bill was often extremely tenuous. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke very generally of co-ordinating our aid programme as a whole. He referred to the burden of indebtedness which many underdeveloped countries undoubtedly have. I do not know where he got the figures from, but his suggestion that underdeveloped countries were paying more in

1055
interest and repayment charges to the World Bank than they were receiving from the I.D.A.—
LORD WALSTON: I believe that I did say while I was quoting these figures that they came from the World Bank itself.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: You would naturally expect that, if the previous loans which they were repaying had been economically justified, the results should have been such that their economy should have been able to bear the burden of repayment. But, of course, there are many other factors which affect them and one is the factor which the noble Lord himself mentioned later on, the fall in commodity prices. It may be that some of these loans were raised before the fall in commodity prices took place, which would naturally reduce the capacity of the borrowing countries to meet their obligations. We are very much alive to that problem. I think that most of the international organisations which have so far been set up for the purpose of trying to stabilise commodity prices in the world, the prices such as for coffee, wheat, tin, and many others, have their headquarters in London and I often have to defend them against the objection that their personnel have certain immunities, not against the law, but in connection with rates and so on, which I think are well worth while.
I would also just refer to paragraph 45 of the White Paper in regard to debts, which mentions, as your Lordships will see on page 14, that we have joined the other donor nations on the Development Assistance Committee in studying all debt burdens and debt servicing capacity of developing countries, and we shall make it our particular concern to keep under review the position of the independent nations of the Commonwealth, consulting their Governments as necessary.
I also agree with the noble Lord that technical assistance is of the highest importance, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also rightly said that management was just as important as money. I would again refer your Lordships to paragraphs 101 to 140 of the White Paper. We have not time to go into this question now, and it is not directly relevant to the Bill, but I think perhaps some critics are inclined to underestimate the amount
1056
we are doing to encourage the brain drain of talent from this country to the underdeveloped countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that there were some countries which were too poor to avail themselves of ordinary World Bank loans but perhaps too rich to merit I.D.A. interest-free loans on these very easy terms. The World Bank, whose officials and directors also manage the I.D.A., are conscious of that possibility. I have not any particular countries which I can give as examples for the moment, but the directors of the World Bank and I.D.A. do sometimes try to do both. If there is a country too poor for one and too rich for the other, they try to compromise by giving it some assistance under the World Bank rules and some under I.D.A. rules.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me two questions, very shortly, and said nothing more. The first one was about the relationship of capital aid to our gross national product. He reminded me that the I.D.A. figures, which can be exactly compared, show—and nobody grudges this—that we are giving more to the I.D.A. in proportion to our gross national product, and I pointed out that this was, however, a very small proportion of the total amount we are spending on aid.
In regard to the wider question, there are two reasons why it is impossible to give a really clear answer to the noble Earl. One is that all countries in the Development Assistance Committee resolved last year that none of them would publish percentages showing the comparison of their help to underdeveloped countries with their gross national product, and I think the reason why they did that is that different countries often adopt such very different standards in calculating the amount of foreign aid they claim to be giving. For instance, one country in one year, last year, purchased a very large number of World Bank bonds, which could hardly be described as a direct contribution in aid to any underdeveloped countries, because these bonds are liquid security in the world financial market and are bought and sold in the world exchanges and that all went down in their own computation of what they were spending on aid. There are many other respects in which the bases on which different countries contri

1057
bute are not really comparable with each other.
I would, without going into any figures at all, be inclined to agree that France is certainly contributing a larger proportion of her gross national product than we are, chiefly to her ex-African colonies which are now independent. They have been fairly successful in solving the problem of keeping their ex-officials there and a great deal of their aid does, of course, come back to France due to the fact that it is paid to their own officials—but I think they are doing very well.
The other question which the noble Earl asked is also one on which I obviously cannot give a clear answer without having the gift of prophecy. I can only say that the figures in the White Paper are the target which we have set, and if present trends make it possible that we cannot hit that target, it is not due to any lack of will on our part but simply to the fact that it is not always easy to find profitable—I do not mean financially profitable—methods, which are of value to the countries concerned, in getting people there to agree on carrying out schemes of capital development which really are worth while.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, can I assume here from what the noble Earl has said that the money which the Government intend to allocate in the current year, which will be available and which will be spent, will go up to £200 million in loans and grants?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if the projects found are really worth while, then I certainly would say that the money would be available, but I am a little doubtful myself of the wisdom of publishing estimates of this kind because they do depend so much on factors which are outside our control. I think that is all I ought to say now in reply to the noble Earl, and I am grateful to him for being so short.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WAR DAMAGE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
UGANDA BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

DEFENCE (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL
4.10 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Transfer to and discharge by, Secretary of State and Defence Council of certain statutory functions
1.—(1) If Her Majesty is pleased to make arrangements—
(b) for the establishment of a Defence Council having powers of command and administration over Her Majesty's armed forces, and of a Navy Board, an Army Board and an Air Force Board to be charged (under the Defence Council) with the administration of matters relating to the naval, military and air forces respectively;
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1)(b), to leave out "Navy Board" and to insert "Admiralty Board." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, to apologise to your Lordships for his inability to be present to-day, owing to illness. In moving this Amendment for the second time, I do so with a sense of responsibility and after very careful thought indeed. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with all the arguments in favour of the retention of the word "Admiralty". I had hoped, and I still hope, that Her Majesty's Government will now be prepared to accept the Amendment. But for the benefit of those of your Lordships who were not present in the House during the debate on the Committee stage, perhaps I should refer to one or two of the main arguments in favour of this Amendment. The intention of this Amendment is to substitute the words "Admiralty Board" for "Navy Board" in Clause 1, and it is followed by two consequential Amendments.
As I have previously stressed in your Lordships' House, we must be careful to

1059
guard against the tendency of planners to forget the greatly different roots and traditions of the Armed Services. This applies particularly to the Royal Navy. There is, of course, a fundamental difference between the Navy and the other Armed Services. A soldier has his loyalty to his regiment, but in the Navy the unit is the man's ship, and nowadays, with short service commissions, it is becoming more difficult to build up a similar loyalty to his ship. Therefore I maintain that something higher is required which the sailor can look up to as a focus of his loyalty, and this must be the Admiralty.
The word "Admiralty" goes back many centuries, long before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and of course long before the old-time Navy Board, which was engaged in handling supplies for His Majesty's ships. I suggest "Navy Board" is not a very attractive name to revive. In fact, the Navy Board made such a mess of things that it was wound up. It is not a name which conveys any great respect or meaning to the Navy or in the country. But I am sure that the disappearance of the great, historic name of "Admiralty" would come as a very great shock to the mass of the British people who at present may know little or nothing of what is envisaged in this Bill.
During the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty argued that because the new Navy Board will be discharging many responsibilities at present exercised by the Board of Admiralty, not in its own right but as devolved upon it by the Ministry of Defence, the term "Admiralty" could not be used because it might cause confusion. With all due deference, I must say that this is a very weak argument. The retention of the word "Admiralty" could not possibly, I suggest, have that effect. Another very important point is that the Committee stage of this Bill was not taken on the Floor of the House in another place but went upstairs, and many of the points were not fully discussed; and I would suggest to your Lordships that this Bill is essentially one which, for those reasons alone, should be sent back to another place for further discussion.
I now come to a matter which I think should be disclosed to the House. It has been said in some quarters that I am the leader of a plot to maintain the present set-up of the Admiralty and its powers, in spite of the Bill which is before your Lordships and which has already been accepted in principle. I can assure Her Majesty's Government that this is quite untrue. I have not even formed a committee about the matter, and the whole support is spontaneous. It was implied in this House during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Navy did not really care either way and were prepared to accept the name "Navy Board". I have had letters, not only from naval officers but also from civilians employed at the Admiralty, fully supporting my efforts to retain the word "Admiralty" in accordance with my Amendment; and I am now going to read an extract from a letter I have received, in fact this morning, from a past Deputy Secretary of the Admiralty. It reads as follows:
"I am deeply distressed that a Conservative Government, whose pride it should be to conserve all that is good in our national heritage, should be a party to this wanton act."
I had the honour last week of attending a dinner at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, at which some 300 officers of all ranks were present, and I was left in no doubt that they all fully supported my Amendment. The sea, I would say, is in the heart of every Briton, and the world "Admiralty" means a lot more than Party politics. And I venture to suggest that this debate is not about Party politics. I would end by saying that I think it would be a sorry day for England if the time-honoured word of "Admiralty" is allowed to disappear into the limbo of forgotten things. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("Navy Board") and insert ("Admiralty Board").—(Lord Teynham.)
4.18 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I fear that at our Committee stage I was not able to imitate the admirable brevity of my noble friends who moved and supported this Amendment. I hope

1061
to do better this time, but I must apologise in advance if the arguments which I deploy against the Amendment are perhaps fairly familiar to your Lordships. My excuse is that my noble friend the Leader of the House and I have already adduced at the Committee stage most of the very good arguments which we believe support a good case.
There is first, I would remind your Lordships, the functional argument. The Navy Board, whether we like it or whether we do not like it, will in fact be a very different animal from the present Board of Admiralty. It will, of course, have considerable management powers, because—and here I think I can reassure my noble friend Lord Selkirk—it is my right honourable friend's intention to secure a real measure of decentralisation. But—and this is the vital distinction—these responsibilities of Admiralty which it will discharge will be delegated to it by the Secretary of State or by the Defence Council. It will not discharge these responsibilities, as my noble friend has just said, as does the present Board of Admiralty, of its own right. It is for that reason that we believe it would be illogical and inconsistent, and indeed actively misleading, to retain the old and, indeed, very revered title.
My noble friend said just now that this is a weak argument. Well, your Lordships must decide on that particular point. But if we are making a considerable change in our arrangements—and this is indeed a considerable change—then I think there is something to be said for the argument which I am putting. If you are making a considerable change, you can confuse things considerably if you are not prepared in the last analysis to change some titles. Noble Lords are asking us to substitute "Admiralty" for "Navy". "Admiralty" is indeed a splendid name; but so, I suggest, is "Navy". I should feel quite differently about this, of course, if "Navy Board" were not an old and honourable title, with, indeed, greater claims to antiquity than has "Board of Admiralty".
I know that this point was queried by my noble friend Lord Colyton (who I am sorry is not here to-day) at our Committee stage. He suggested that "Board
1062
of Admiralty" or "Admiralty Board" was, in fact, the older. I do not believe that he was right, and I am fortified in my belief by a letter in to-day's Times which caught my eye this morning while I was shaving. It seemed to me a wholly admirable letter, if only because it referred to "the First Lord's admirable résumé of historical background" to all this at our Committee stage. As the writer of the letter pointed out—and it is quite true the term "Navy Board" goes back to 1546, while the term "Admiralty", in the sense of "Board of Admiralty" as we know it, or approximately as we know it, dates only from 1628. Both go back a long way, but one goes back to Henry VIII and the other only to Charles I. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, told us at our Committee stage that the term "Navy Board" had not been in use for a long time. All I can say is that it was, in fact, in use for almost 300 years; and that, in all conscience, is a fairly long time.
Moreover, despite what my noble friend Lord Teynham has said, I should like to reaffirm that, given this proposed reorganisation of our overall structure of defence, there is, I believe, no general concern among those who serve the Navy at present about reverting to this old title of "Navy Board". I do not think that there is this lively concern which my noble friend has suggested exists. Indeed, from such soundings as I have taken, the majority opinion is that this new title is more appropriate to the sort of functions which this new Board will be discharging.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, could we know where the soundings were made? Which channel was it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not wish to shelter behind that, but those are the soundings that I have taken, and I prefer to leave the matter there. This is open to argument. It may be that my noble friend's soundings in this respect are deeper and more accurate than mine. That is the historical argument, and it is, I would suggest, at least marginally supported by what I should like to call the phonetic argument. To me, "Navy Board" comes rather better off the

1063
tongue than "Admiralty Board". I would agree that "Board of Admiralty" comes better off the tongue than either. But, of course, noble Lords are not suggesting that we should retain "Board of Admiralty."
I made it clear, or tried to, at our Committee stage, that my view of all this would be quite different if I believed that this change would in any way impair the loyalty of the men in the Navy to the Navy, or would, as my noble friend Lord Colyton said, have "a damaging effect on morale in the Royal Navy". I would seriously suggest that those of your Lordships who may put this argument this afternoon are rather over-yolking the egg here. I am reminded of the jingle, familiar to many of your Lordships, in Ruthless Rhymes:
"I was playing golf the day
That the Germans landed.
All our troops had run away,
And our ships were stranded.
And the thought of England's shame
Very nearly spoilt my game."
THE EARL OF SWINTON: "Almost put me off my game".
EARL JELLICOE: I am glad to stand corrected. I thought it was "almost". I checked the point and my information was incorrect. I do not believe that if we make this change to "Navy Board" the Royal Marines will, in fact, run away, or that our ships will strand. I really do not believe that, whether your Lordships accept this Amendment or reject it, one Admiral will sleep less happily tonight in his hammock or that one able seaman will sleep less easily in his bunk.
My Lords, I should like now to come to the real crux of this matter—the contention of my noble friend and those who support this Amendment that it will not in any way interfere with the idea of integration embodied in the Bill which is before your Lordships. Here, I should like your Lordships to consider two points most seriously. First, it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government (who of course, in the last resort, have the responsibility here) that this Amendment is logically incompatible with the concept of a unified Ministry of Defence, or at least could be represented (which, in certain respects,
1064
can be just as important) as being incompatible with that concept. If this were not so, the change of title would have been accepted at the Committee stage, when the strength of many of your Lordships' views became apparent, and we should not be here arguing this matter again to-day.
Secondly, I would ask my noble friend Lord Teynham, and those who support this Amendment, to recognise that at least some noble Lords opposite who support the Amendment, or who spoke at Committee stage in support of it, have made it pretty clear that although they are not prepared to offer outright opposition to the principle underlying this Bill, they are not particularly enamoured of that principle. I would suggest to my noble friend that these noble Lords may be more logical in their opposition to "Navy Board" than my noble friend and his friends, because they, at least, oppose, or incline to oppose, the fact of unification rather than the trimming.
Finally, I would ask your Lordships to believe that I am no less jealous than my noble friend and those who support this Amendment for all that the term "Admiralty" has meant, or for all that the term "Navy" means and will always mean. My noble friend was kind enough to withdraw his Amendment at our Committee stage, given the undertaking by my noble Leader that he would look at this most carefully again in the light of the arguments which were advanced at our Committee stage. My right honourable friend and his colleagues have, in fact, reconsidered this matter most carefully, most fully, and, I would claim, most responsibly. It is only in the light of that careful reconsideration that, for the reasons which I have sought to advance to-day, and which I advanced at our Committee stage, I must once more ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, should my noble friends wish to press it.
4.28 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we find ourselves, as a House, in a most unfortunate position to-day on this important question. I, at any rate, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in the light of all the circumstances that he has arranged to put this Amendment down again to-day. I rather resent the

1065
suggestion from the noble Earl who has just spoken that those of us on this side who supported the Amendment on the last occasion, while not exactly being against the general principles of the proposed new organisation of the Ministry of the Defence, were nevertheless not so enthusiastic about the support of proper integration of the Services and were therefore taking this line upon this Amendment. That is quite unjustifiable.
Let me tell the noble Earl, first of all, that before the war, in peace time, we never had an adequate Ministry of Defence. The first Government to set up such a thing was the Attlee Government at the end of 1946. I happen to be the person who was the first Minister of Defence. I was all for the proper integration of general defence policy. That does not mean to say one should look for such results as appear to be coming out of this Bill—where one is going to have a very faint and inefficient copy of the Pentagon, yet without leaving some of the liberties with the Service Departments, liberties which still exist in the United States under the Pentagon.
We now learn that there is to be a central building for the Ministry of Defence, and that something like 25,000 staff are to be transferred there. Undoubtedly, there is going to be duplication in the performance of certain duties. The noble Earl the other day very kindly wrote me a letter—and I am obliged to him for it—explaining his attitude on this matter. But in certain posts there was an addition on April 1 of about 70. Whilst he has told me that he thinks it will be adjusted and wiped out as it goes on, nevertheless the kind of administration which has been going on up to the present in those respects will not, in my view, be assisted by the changes which are being made. Nor is there any real justification for the argument he has again deployed this afternoon with regard to the actual use of the title proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, instead of the one in the Bill.
I hesitate to pass judgment upon phonetic sounds, but I have been president of the Pitman institute and so I have paid a great deal of attention to
1066
phonetic sounds in my life, and am still capable of studying the best means of using phonetics. I can see nothing less phonetically excellent about the term "Admiralty" than I can see about the word "Navy". "Admiralty" is certainly, in my view, a little more majestic. Not only does it mean something to our own citizens, our sailors and marines in the Service, but it has left a lasting impression upon peoples all over the world. From that point of view, I prefer my view of the phonetics to the view expressed by the noble Earl—and I am certain his father would have agreed with me.
I should like to say a word or two about the results which the nation ought to expect from the complete integration which the noble Earl feels is best expressed, in the case of the Navy, by the Navy Board. What examples have we in the last twelve years of Conservative Government as to the results? We are in a very difficult situation. Now that these papers are before us in relation to the new Ministry of Defence we know that we are going up to a total defence bill of £2,000 million; and with far fewer personnel, having regard to the kind of situation which we have to meet all over the world. I am not yet impressed by the results of what the Government consider to be the best methods of integration today. I very much want a central policy on defence, and do not want it to be handled in such a way that the country pays far more money for far less efficient provision. This is why I feel, from long experience at the Admiralty, that the confidence felt in the name of "Admiralty", a matter which is being pursued in the Press, is a factor involved.
The noble Earl has referred to the history of the use of the term Navy Board and the history of the period in which there were Lords Commissioners of the Board of Admiralty. Well, I cannot speak from a wealth of detail on this as I was not prepared for this kind of argument to be presented, but I fancy that some aspects of naval history might show a little less righteousness in administration by the Navy Board than has on the whole been the case with the Lords of the Admiralty since they were instituted. Certainly I think the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have far more respect both

1067
from the Service and from the public than was the case in the early days of the Navy Board.
It is a curious thing that we again face discussion of this matter with your Lordships' House occupied, it seems to me, in the same way as when the matter was discussed before. It was then clearly recognised by the Leader of the House to be in such a frame of mind that, if there were to be a vote, the Government would be defeated. It was pretty clear in the minds of those present that he had to make a very able, clever and moving speech in support of the argument of his noble and gallant friend. I feel that the House to-day, having listened to the rather inadequate arguments of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty, feels disappointed that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has, one supposes, tried to get the Government to change their opinion but has failed. He promised us that he would have this matter thoroughly reconsidered. Therefore, it looks to me as if the efforts that have been made have been turned down in other quarters. It would be better for the dignity of the House, and for the country as a whole, if the House, irrespective of Party, were this afternoon to reaffirm the decision which it clearly was going to affirm on the last occasion, when we were asked to withdraw the Amendment so that the matter might be reconsidered.
4.38 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I have had to draw many organisation charts in my day and have often succeeded in achieving a symmetrical and logical picture, but have found that this meant that I would have to throw overboard old traditions and old habits. I have then had to say to myself, "Am I drawing this chart for the sake of producing a pretty picture, or am I drawing it in order to produce an organisation which will work smoothly?" Generally, when I have reached that point, I have had to sit with a wet towel round my head and find means and methods of retaining some of the old traditions—what some people rather unkindly call "old Spanish customs". I have found that when I have done that the organisation really does work smoothly.
This is where the planners have failed. They have got a reasonably tidy chart for this new Ministry of Defence, but I
1068
do not think they have quite succeeded in clarifying the duties of the three Ministers of Defence, who started originally as Secretaries of State for Defence. We have heard a lot about duties across the board, but it is not at all clear in my mind what these are going to do. But this is nothing to do with this debate and I must leave it.
No, my Lords, I think it is purely in the interests of symmetry and logic that the Government have dropped the term "Admiralty", without giving due weight to the fact that for years and years the word "Admiralty" has had a worldwide significance which I tried to explain when I spoke on the Committee stage of this Bill. I, too, have read the interesting historical letter in The Times. Although I can still shave in a rolling ship, I am quite unable to do so when reading The Times, and, in fact, I read it in your Lordships' Library. But whilst historically it is true, I must say I agree with the noble Earl who leads the Opposition. I do not think the Navy Board had an impressive enough record in the past, and I still think that "Admiralty" is the right word.
It has been suggested to me outside this House—and, in fact, it was suggested in the House during our debate on the Committee stage—that the retention of this historic word "Admiralty" in the organisation will prevent the Navy from thinking afresh and possibly co-operating properly or integrating itself properly with the other Services. My Lords, I reject this utterly. Since time immemorial the Navy has been in the forefront of inter-Service co-operation. The last time I spoke I mentioned the Civil War of 1642. May I mention Peel's Naval Brigade in the Indian Mutiny, the Naval Brigade in the Crimea, the Naval Brigade in South Africa, Percy Scott and his 4½7 guns? In passing, I may mention that I had the pleasure of serving with two of those guns in a small ship in the First World War. Last, but not least, Nelson's sailors hauled their guns ashore and up the cliffs in Corsica, to help out the Army in the seige of Bastia. More recently we come to the R.N. Commandos in Borneo and East Africa and, my Lords, it was "Bulwark" or "Albion" which steamed 12,000 miles off her station to fetch a squadron of

1069
R.A.F. helicopters from Libya to Borneo.
I do not think there is any evidence, either in our past or recent history, to show that the Navy will not collaborate or integrate itself with the other Services. It must do so. We are a maritime country and we must always follow a maritime strategy if we are to survive. It follows from that that the Navy must always be in the forefront of every single operation we have to carry out. To cut out the term "Admiralty" from the Bill is unnecessary and breaking with a tradition of world-wide significance. I think it would be a most unwise thing to do. The only thing more unwise that I can imagine is to launch this great reorganisation on April 1, which I spoke about in the Second Reading debate. My Lords, I support my noble friend's Amendment. With him I nail my colours to the mast. If we go down we go down, but I do not think we shall.
4.44 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I support this Amendment, maybe only for sentiment or for antiquarianism. I believe in preserving things of great tradition and not for going in for the kind of iconoclasm which is a feature of the present Government, who are always pulling things down or destroying them. I do not think the arguments against this Amendment are very strong. We have heard about logic, but who ever applied logic to British institutions? We have heard about function, but who ever thought that the title of anything here had anything to do with its function? About twenty-odd years ago I was Lord Privy Seal. Your Lordships may ask what my function was. My function was to affix the Privy Seal to certain conveyances of personal property. If I did so I exposed myself to all the perils of prœmunire. We keep the title "Lord Privy Seal" and we do very well. I like the old titles; I like our connection with the past. I do not see any real reason for destroying such a good word as "Admiralty". "Navy" is all right, but "Admiralty" is better. I strongly support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this
1070
Amendment and I will certainly do so if it is carried to a Division. I am old enough to remember when there was no Army Council and when there was no Air Council. I do not know what they were called, but the Admiralty was the Admiralty, as it has remained since. I think it would be a thousand pities if it were abolished, and I cannot help feeling that if it were changed it would have a very disastrous effect on the country. I entirely support the Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I was unable to be in my place last week when this matter was discussed, and I hope I shall be in order now if I put my views very briefly. It was argued by some noble Lords last week and, again, it has been argued to-day by my noble friend Lord Teynham, that with the rather shorter periods that ships now have in commission the officers and men want something outside their ship on which to focus their loyalties, that something being the Admiralty. My Lords, being an Irishman by birth, I suppose I may be a little bit contrary, but I cannot agree with this view of loyalties. In all the years I spent at sea, I doubt very much if 1 per cent. of the bluejackets or 10 per cent. of the officers knew or cared who was at the Admiralty or whether, indeed, it served any useful purpose. It was far too remote and, being manned partly by civilians, it was regarded with a good deal of mistrust and suspicion.
I am not suggesting for a moment that those views are fair; I am quite certain that they are not. But I believe that, by and large, the sailor in a big ship looks not to his captain as a rule—the captain is a remote creature—he looks to his divisional officer or his head of department. In a small ship where the captain is less remote he looks to his first lieutenant and to his captain. But in neither a large ship nor a small ship would he ever regard the Admiral of his squadron as of any great interest or importance, except on the one odd day of the year when the Admiral might come on board to carry out an inspection or some such duty. Though commissions are now shorter than they were, I cannot believe that that will make any appreciable difference. A sailor's loyalty will always be

1071
to the officers of his own ship and, in my view, that is the proper place for it to be.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He is an old friend and I think the last time I met him on duty he was Flag Officer and Rear Admiral at Gibraltar. I believe I am right in saying that. Well, I do not think his arguments apply very well. I know perfectly well that he was highly respected at Gibraltar, and that all the sailormen who were then on shore with him, as well as those at sea, would not have quite the feelings he is now expressing.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the kind things he has said about me, but I rather doubt whether they are correct. From this point of view, I can see little objection to changing the name from "Admiralty" to "Navy Board". Of course, I fully appreciate the value of the old name of "Admiralty", though I myself have no particular affection for that establishment. Of all the many years I spent on the Active List, I suppose that the ones I enjoyed least were the two years I spent as Director of one of the Naval Staff Divisions at the Admiralty. It seems to me that as the proposed title "Navy Board" is in line with the proposals for our other two Services, and with the Commonwealth and with some foreign countries, we had much better accept it and forgo the admitted advantages of the old and traditional name of "Admiralty". I do not believe that, by doing so, the efficiency of the Royal Navy will be diminished in the slightest degree, and I believe that the public may well appreciate that a change of name also means a change of function. My Lords, if this Amendment goes to a Division I will certainly vote against it.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should not have intervened if I had not thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, had missed the entire point of this Amendment. The object is a perfectly simple one: to preserve a generally accepted, well-understood term, and not, because there is reorganisation, to abandon something which is very much part of our current tradition. We fully accept that the term "Navy Board"
1072
is a very ancient one. On Sunday, I went to the Science Museum, where there is a picture of the Navy Board and a picture of the Admiralty Board and a clear explanation of the difference between the two. But, traditional as we are, we do not have to go back to the seventeenth century for our arguments.
This is not merely a question of loyalty to the Admiralty (it is very probable that the noble Lord, Lord Ash-bourne, if he were to become the Director of a Division in the new Ministry of Defence, would dislike it even more), but I would strongly urge that we can do what we like with words. The word "Admiralty" is a concept; it is an abstract phrase; and it is one that means something to us. Why should we not call it "Admiralty" if we want to do so? The fact that its functions are changed does not alter the argument. Whether we accept the change or whether we do not—and to a large extent I do—the fact remains that many noble Lords, including myself, would like it to continue to be called the "Admiralty Board". I hope that in this matter we shall follow our own feelings, and not consider arguments of pure logic. The noble Earl deployed a very good case, a fine hammer, to destroy something which does not need destroying. I hope that this House will make up its mind to stick to the word "Admiralty".
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I think the basis of the argument in favour of this Amendment is that of preserving tradition; and this is something which I think we should always do when we can. The preservation of tradition has various merits. First of all, it goes to stability. It also has a great historical interest; and it tends, in a certain number of cases, to produce an esprit de corps—though I do not think that this is particularly important in this case, certainly not for the bulk of the Navy. But, my Lords, it has one great disadvantage, and that is that it prevents change. The very fierceness with which some noble Lords have spoken to-day to preserve the name "Admiralty" and this tradition makes me feel that when we are faced with these very great changes—as we are—and the difficulty in making them, in producing a unified command, we

1073
should be wiser in this case to accept the change in name also. I am really making the same point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, last time, but I believe that it is an important point. I am afraid that I feel that many of the points made in this debate have not been of very great weight, but I attach a certain amount of weight to this. I will therefore vote with the Government.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I want, if I may, to make a last appeal to the Government to meet what I believe to be the fervent wishes, not only of the great Service to which I had the honour to belong but, I believe, of a very large majority of thinking people on this matter. It may seem odd to some that we cling to this word "Admiralty". There is something indefinable, intangible, almost (if I may use the expression) a religious intensity, which makes it quite unthinkable that any Government should, with just a stroke of the pen, expunge a word that has conjured up through the ages that high degree of loyalty, service and enthusiasm which has always been the pride of the nation. The Government, by insisting on this measure, are, I think, showing a degree of obtuseness and unawareness which is quite unworthy of them. One must not wax lyrical or be overemotional on this matter, but I can assure the Government that this word "Admiralty" conjures up far more than they seem to appreciate—an inspiration which has grown up and flourished through the ages; a name which is revered throughout the Seven Seas and on every continent. My Lords, in my view they will be doing an irreparable harm and a mortal injury to esprit de corps and loyalty—yes, and to decency in upholding old and sacred traditions.
4.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think it is a remarkable thing that we should hold a debate of this character on, shall I say, the Admiralty, which, of all Departments, have never attracted affection. I think they would have been rather horrified had they ever been regarded with affection. But I believe that this is not an argument about tradition: this is an existing organisation, or, rather, an existing idea that we still have
1074
in this country. I had the very great honour and privilege of travelling pretty widely when holding the office of First Lord—to Auckland, Sydney, Pearl Harbour, Esquimalt, Bombay, Karachi—and I can assure your Lordships that in all these places anyone representing the Admiralty still means something. I am not prepared to say that he would not go on doing so, but at this time it appears to me perhaps unfortunate gratuitously to throw away something which we have and which, in fact, no other country does have.
I am not impressed, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, with the arguments about incompatibility and about difficulties of organisation. Of course there will be difficulties of organisation; and there might even be confusion—though I hope not: in fact, I do not think there will. But I am quite certain that it will not make one iota of difference whether the name of this Board is Navy "or" Admiralty". What has happened is quite simple. The Defence Board has been changed to the Defence Council. Therefore, the Army Council have to go, and the Air Council have to go; and, in order that we may have an equal sharing of misery, something must be done to the Navy. That is all it amounts to. I think that so far as possible we should retain something which, as I say, has a standing, and means something in the world. I believe that it is a great mistake to change this. May I add one further word? If we do not accept this Amendment, the change will be irrevocable from this afternoon. If we accept the Amendment, the Government, and maybe the other place, will have the opportunity of thinking again. I hope, therefore, that we shall do so.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, there is little, if anything, that I can add to what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has said, because he put the case for the rejection of this Amendment clearly and shortly. But I thought it would be right to intervene for just one moment, since it was at my suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, withdrew his Amendment at the Committee stage. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that I

1075
asked him to do so. I promised that my noble friend the First Lord would consult the Minister of Defence and see whether there was any way of meeting the substance of the Amendment; and this was done. I was careful—and I hope your Lordships will bear me out—not to make any promise as to whether the Government would or would not be able to agree to what my noble friend Lord Teynham and other noble Lords who put their names to the Amendment wished. I was a little concerned, if I may say so, at what the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks, when he seemed to chide me for the course that I took last Thursday. I really must make it plain to him that because as Leader of the House I say that I will take a matter back for consultation, it does not automatically mean that that Amendment will be agreed to. I hope that the noble Earl, on reflection, will agree that he did not mean what he said in the course of his remarks.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord certainly made it clear that he could not make any final promise. I agree with that. But I think that he made it clear that he recognised that if it went to a Division on that occasion the Government would have been defeated. That was the main reason for having it re-examined in that way. I think the noble Lord was fair to the House, and I am not complaining about that. I merely indicated that it seems quite clear that the representations made to the Government failed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I misunderstood the noble Earl, then I apologise. I will read his words in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT. He said that I suggested that the Government might have been defeated on a Division. For all I know, if my noble friend presses his Amendment, we shall be defeated to-day. It is my object to try to prevent that by saying these few short words this evening. In any event, I hope my noble friend will agree with me that he is in no worse position to-day to take such action as he feels necessary than he was last Thursday on the Committee stage.
1076
Nevertheless, I hope that he will not divide the House—and for this reason. Nobody—and I said this on a previous occasion—could possibly respect or honour the traditions of the Royal Navy more than I; or, indeed, more than my noble and gallant friend behind me who was rebuked by two Members of the Opposition Front Bench for having missed the point and for not representing naval opinion correctly. But over the weekend I have read in the newspapers of the sadness that many people feel at the passing of the word "Admiralty" in connection with the Royal Navy. For instance, a letter was very prominently displayed in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, I think, which deplored any suggestion that Admiralty charts and Admiralty establishments would be called by a different name. I hope your Lordships will understand that this is really a complete misunderstanding of what is going to happen. Nobody is suggesting that Admiralty charts should be called anything other than Admiralty charts, or Admiralty establishments anything different from what they are at the moment. I have here a list (which I will not weary your Lordships with reading) which details all the establishments and historical titles, offices, appointments, documents, ships, and so on, which will retain the word "Admiralty"; and your Lordships will be pleased to hear that there is no intention, for instance, of renaming the Admiralty Arch the "Navy Arch".
The only proposal before your Lordships this afternoon is that the Board of Admiralty should be renamed the Navy Board. As has been explained, both on Thursday and to-day, under the new organisation—and I think almost all your Lordships agree that this organisation is right—the Board of Admiralty, as it was previously constituted, ceases to exist. It functions are largely taken over by the Defence Council; and the Board for the Navy (call it what you will) becomes in effect a sub-committee of the Defence Council, although naturally with important duties to perform. It will not be the Board of Admiralty as we have known it in the past; it will not have the same autonomy; it will not have the right to fly its own flag; it will not enjoy the same authority as the old Board. The new Board is not the Lord

1077
High Admiral in Commission; it is in effect a management board.
If your Lordships believe that at the present time it is necessary to make this alteration of organisation—and you must do so, since none of your Lordships challenged the principle of this Bill on Second Reading—then I believe it is right that the change of organisation should be marked by a change of name: a change of name which in itself marks accurately the difference of function between the old and the new Boards, and to a name which is an historic and respected naval title.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I interrupt? Yet you are quite content to say it is not necessary to change the name of Admiralty charts and call them Navy Board charts. You will not change the name for them and call them Navy Board charts. You will not change the name of two senior staff officers of the Royal Navy; you retain the name of the First Sea Lord; you retain the name of the Second Sea Lord; although you are apparently going to abolish the Lords Commissioners. The Government seem to be in a completely illogical position.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the difference is that all these establishments
have not changed their functions. This is what I am trying to point out to noble Lords. If your Lordships do not agree, then I might remind you of what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said: that logic should not be applied to British institutions. Much as I respect the motives which have moved my noble friends to put down this Amendment—and, of course, I do not in any way suggest that there is a plot; and, of course, it is ridiculous to say such a thing—I hope your Lordships, for the reasons I have given, will support the Government if my noble friend decides to press the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lords who spoke against this Amendment. I do not think any of them have invalidated the arguments I have put forward. I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord the Leader of the House; but I feel that in the circumstances I must press this Amendment.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, B.

Rusholme, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Albemarle, E.

Greenhill, L.

St. Davids, V.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Henderson, L.

St. Just, L.

Alport, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Amory, V.

Hobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

Hurcomb, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Killearn, L.

Silkin, L.

Attlee, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Bossom, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Burden, L.

Listowel, E.

Swanborough, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Long, V.

Taylor, L.

Champion, L.

McNair, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crook, L.

Merthyr, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Daventry, V.

Meston, L.

Walston, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson, L.

Williams, L.

Digby, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Northchurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Ogmore, L.

Yarborough, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Rea, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ailsa, M.

Bessborough, E.

Carrington, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Blackford, L.

Chesham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Blakenham, V.

Conesford, L.

Atholl, D.

Boston, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Auckland, L.

Brecon, L.

Craigton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Derwent, L.

Grenfell, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hanworth, V.

Newton, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hastings, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Dudley, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Dundee, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Salisbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mabane, L.

Suffield, L.

Fortescue, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("Navy Board") and insert ("Admiralty Board").—(Lord Teynham.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, in view of the decision of the House, I hardly think it necessary for us all to walk through the Lobby again, but I think I ought to make it plain that the Government still do not agree with the substance of the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("Navy Board") and insert ("Admiralty Board").—(Lord Teynham.)
5.18 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Lord the Leader of the House say that, notwithstanding the decision of the House, the Government still hold the view which they expressed on Committee, when it was indicated that if the House had gone to a Division the Government's view would not have prevailed. To-day the matter has gone to a Division and the Government view has not prevailed. In view of the intention of the Committee last time and the decision of the House this time, may we not ask the noble Lord to preserve something like an open mind on this question? He has now two attitudes of the House—one last time, when it was
1080
agreed that the Committee would not agree with the Government and the second now, when it is clearly on the record that the House does not agree. Surely, if I may say so with great respect and courtesy and gentleness, the noble Lord is now in a stronger position to go back to the Ministry or to the Cabinet or to whatever is the appropriate body and say, "I am really in a great difficulty and I would urge upon you, for the sake of my own success and peaceable life in their Lordships' House, to give way, now that the House has formally declared its opposition". I beg the noble Lord not to be obdurate in the matter and, though the House has come to a decision contrary to his view, not to say that it is not going to make the slightest difference. If I may say so, that is not quite the way to treat your Lordships' House, which is one of the Houses of Parliament.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course, I did not say that. As the noble Lord well knows, what I said was that the result of the Division had not changed the Government's opinion. I am most grateful for the very courteous lesson that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has given me in how to persuade one's colleagues to do something they do not want to do. I will remember it, and I am sure I shall profit by it. But I would remind the noble Lord of something that he seems to have forgotten—namely, that there is another House of Parliament, and we must wait and see what happens there.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LEGAL AID BILL
5.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to award costs out of legal aid fund]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (3)(b), to leave out "severe" and to insert "undue". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to alter the phrase "severe financial hardship" to "undue financial hardship". As the Bill stands, it is a condition that the court must be satisfied that there is severe financial hardship before any order is made for the payment out of the Legal Aid Fund of costs to the unaided person who has been successful in defending a claim by a legally aided person. Some of us feel that the phrase "severe financial hardship" imposes a test of a very drastic character indeed, and that it will prevent the court from making an order except where it is demonstrated that the proceedings will otherwise have a drastic effect upon the financial position of the person concerned.
I venture to suggest that this is not the only circumstance which ought to be taken into account. For example, there might be cases in which it appeared that there was never any real merit in the claim made by the legally aided person. This is not, of course, a reflection upon those who consider applications for legal aid in the beginning: they have to act upon an ex parte statement. But that ex parte statement may have been totally untrue and misleading, and in that event the person who has successfully resisted the claim will have been put to expense which would never have been incurred otherwise and has been quite unjustly incurred. That is an example of the kind of case in which I feel that the power of the court ought to be somewhat widened, so that it can take into
1082
consideration, not only financial hardship, but also the circumstances in which legal aid was originally given. The court should not be limited to the drastic phraseology, "severe financial hardship", which looks, on the face of it, as if it would prevent this provision from being operated except in a small and negligible minority of cases.
I know that this is a difficult subject, but what is contained in the Bill is an entirely novel provision. It can be argued that public funds should never be involved in payment except upon the ground of avoiding a financial disaster to the person who makes the application for costs. But that seems to me to be unduly restrictive and to impair the power of the court to act fairly and justly in the matters which come before it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("severe") and insert ("undue").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD SILKIN: I should like to say one or two words in support of this Amendment. There is no doubt, because my noble friend has made it quite clear, that the term "undue" is less restrictive than the word "severe", and the real purpose of this Amendment is to open the door a little wider. Some of us on Second Reading thought that it might be possible to leave out "severe" altogether and say simply that the court must be satisfied that financial hardship will be incurred unless the order is made. I think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made it clear that this would not be acceptable because it might be opening the door too wide. I think the word "undue" instead of "severe" represents a halfway house between the two conceptions and would open the door to people who might otherwise suffer. I think my noble friend is quite right when he says that as the Bill stands, there is bound to be drastic hardship. It is, of course, a matter for the discretion of the court, but, as I understand it, the court would almost have to be satisfied that a person would be likely to be ruined financially before such an order relieving him of the costs would be made. The Amendment which my noble friend has moved would not involve so severe a test.

1083
The estimated difference between the cost, as I understand it, is not a very serious matter. The estimated cost to the Legal Aid Fund of this provision, as it stands, is £40,000, and the estimated cost, if the door were opened completely, so that all successful unassisted persons were awarded costs out of the Fund, would be £340,000: this was the figure mentioned by the Attorney-General in another place. So that the difference between the two is of the order of £300,000. Nobody is suggesting that in all cases the successful unassisted person should be awarded costs. If, therefore, we assume that only in about half the cases or thereabouts would an order be made, if the Amendment were accepted, the amount involved (this is pure guesswork, but I think it is a reasonable assumption) would be about £170,000. That is not a serious matter, even if it comes wholly out of the Fund. I should have thought that this test which my noble friend is suggesting is a more reasonable test, and one which will relieve a good deal of hardship. I hope the Government will accept these words, or something like them.
5.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and, indeed, that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made it perfectly clear, as indeed is the case, that to accept this Amendment would be, as he put it, to open the door a little wider. It would not, I think, open the door as wide as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch, thought it would, because instead of having the words "severe financial hardship" you would have the words "undue financial hardship". I do not think that would enable the court to say that they would award costs out of the Legal Aid Fund—that is to say to be paid by the taxpayer—because at the trial it emerged that the case brought against the unassisted person never had any real merit. I do not think that under either formula that kind of consideration would be relevant.
The adjective "undue" not only opens the door a little but it is, I would say, a little less precise as to its content. The
1084
noble Lord, Lord Silkin, interpreted the word "severe" as meaning "drastic", and went so far as to suggest that an order could not be made unless it appeared that the unassisted litigant was liable to be ruined. I do not go so far as that with him. The scheme under this Bill is to leave a wide discretion to Her Majesty's Judges. It will be for them to interpret, in the light of all the circumstances, whether in any individual case there is, or would be, severe financial hardship to the unassisted litigant if an order was not made. As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, will see, there is provision made under Clause 2 for inquiry as to his circumstances. The noble Lord ventured on the Second Reading debate to suggest that no one who had been refused assistance under the Legal Aid Act would qualify for an order for costs under this Bill against the Legal Aid Fund. There I thoroughly disagree with him, because one of the matters to be taken into account is the burden of costs which will fall on the unassisted litigant; and that will depend in some cases upon the length of the case.
I will tell your Lordships again, if I may, that the wording of this provision has been most carefully considered over months to try to find the appropriate formula. We have come to the conclusion that the present wording best expresses the intentions which the Government seek to secure the fulfilment of in this Bill. Therefore, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I must, if the matter is pressed to a Division, invite your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: While I have had many disappointments in life, especially in matters of this kind, I do not propose to press this to a Division. It is a matter of emphasis. I hope it will work out in the way in which the noble and learned Lord thinks it will, but I have my doubts about it. Nevertheless, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord withdraws it, may I say that there will be another stage to this Bill, and I think we should all of us think again.

1085
I accept what the noble and learned Lord said about the words in the Bill carrying out the intentions of the Government. What we were seeking to do under this Amendment was to change those intentions a little. The real question is whether our intentions are more reasonable than the present intentions of the Government. If our intentions are right and we want to enlarge the scope of the Bill a little, then are the words we have down right? I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would have a look at that again and consider whether it is not right to widen the scope a little.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will say just this, if I may. Of course, I am always prepared to look at anything again and again, but I should not like that continuing look to lead to any inference that the view might be changed. As to whether the wording of the Amendment carries out the intention of the noble Lord, I would hesitate to express an opinion. It certainly lacks precision. It certainly opens the door to some extent, but to what extent is again very uncertain.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.37 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I wish to say a word about Clause 1, not on the point we have just discussed, but on the words in subsection (2). That subsection provides that the court has to be satisfied that it is just and equitable in all the circumstances that provision for the costs should be made. Later on it says that they must also feel satisfied that severe financial hardship would be involved. The subsection goes on to say that, when they are considering whether it is just and equitable, they also have to consider whether the assisted person should be required to make a contribution towards the costs. As I read this subsection, it is only in those circumstances that the court has to consider whether the assisted person should be required to make a contribution. But as I understand the Legal Aid and Advice Act, they have to inquire into the position of the assisted person in all cases, and consider whether it is right that he should make
1086
a contribution. If I am wrong about that, it is only in these particular circumstances, if there is a question of the unassisted person being financially helped, that the court is required to make this inquiry as to the ability of the assisted person to contribute costs. It seems to me an odd provision to put into the Bill. As I understand it—I may be wrong—the court has to make this inquiry in all cases.
I was wondering why these words have been specifically brought into this Bill for this purpose. If two assisted persons commence proceedings, one against a defendant who is covered by insurance, the other against a defendant who is not, in the case of the former no inquiry apparently will be made (that is so, judging by the shaking of the head of the noble and learned Lord, but perhaps I am misinterpreting him) about his means; the court is not directed to inquire whether the assisted person can help. In the other case, where the unassisted person is not helped by an insurance company and may suffer severe hardship, and the court is required to consider whether it is just and equitable that he should be helped, then they do inquire into the assisted person's means. I wonder why there should be this distinction, when in actual practice the means of the assisted persons and the ability to pay may be exactly the same.
While on that point, I want to say one other thing which may or may not be strictly relevant. I understand that when the court does inquire into the ability of an assisted person to pay costs they take into account also the wife's earnings. That is a factor which strikes most people as being grossly unfair, and I wonder if the noble and learned Lord could say whether that is the case and whether it would be possible to look at this question and see how far it is really right to take into account the wife's earnings.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has raised two points, and I will deal with them to the best of my ability. With regard to the second point I think it is inherent throughout the Legal Aid Scheme, in connection with applications for legal aid, where the wife if not suing the husband or vice versa, that the wife's earnings—or

1087
indeed the husband's earnings—are taken into account. Speaking from memory, I think the reason for that is that while one takes those into account, one also takes into account the very large allowances which can be set against the earnings. It is a point which cannot be dealt with without legislation and without, I think, a review, probably, of the whole scheme of calculating what should be taken into account or disregarded for the purpose of determining the qualification for legal aid. I do not think that that arises in this Bill.
The first point the noble Lord made was with regard to the requirement in this Bill for the court to ascertain the potentiality of the assisted litigant to meet some part of the unassisted litigant's costs. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I may say so, is not right in thinking that under the 1949 Act the court is required, where an assisted litigant loses, to consider his means in every case with a view to making an order against him. The court has power to make an order, but it is not required to examine his position in each case. The successful opponent may, of course, ask for an order, and then the matter will be gone into. But if an order is not asked for—and I think that in a large number of cases it is never asked for—then there is no inquiry.
What we thought was right in this Bill was to make it a condition precedent to the making of an order against the Legal Aid Fund (that is to say, against the taxpayer) for the unassisted party's costs, that consideration should be given to the possibility that the assisted litigant may be able to make some contribution. That is why we have provided it in that manner. It will be for the court to determine what, if any, contribution should be made. But I would submit to your Lordships that it is right to look to that first, the court already having power, under the 1949 Act, to make such an order, and it is right to require the court to look at that first to see to what extent, if at all, the assisted litigant can afford to pay some of the unassisted litigant's costs before the burden of paying those costs falls upon the taxpayers.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, construction, citation and extent]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"() Section 4 of this Act shall come into force on the passing of this Act, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force, as regards England and Wales, on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by statutory instrument appoint and, as regards Scotland, on such day as the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument appoint."
The noble Lord said: On the Bill's coming into force, as your Lordships will see, regulations made by myself, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as acts of sederunt for Scotland, will be required under Clause 2 for determining the proceedings which are or are not to be treated as separate proceedings for modifying provisions of the Bill for application to an unassisted party who is concerned in proceedings only in a fiduciary, representative or official capacity; and for regulating the procedure for dealing with applications for orders under the Bill and for references to masters, registrars and so forth.
There is no intention of postponing for longer than is necessary the time within which this Bill will come into force. I think your Lordships are aware, and I am certainly aware, of the general keenness that it should come into force as soon as possible, but a few weeks are needed for necessary consultations, which have not yet been completed, with the masters and registrars who will have to operate the arrangements. It is right that I should say that some complicated considerations arise, both in England and in Scotland, and it would be a mistake not to give adequate consideration to the difficulties involved, in both countries, in relation to the regulations and acts of sederunt.
Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was first introduced to this House it did not make any provision for the special case of an unassisted party who was concerned in a fiduciary, representative or official capacity. The inclusion of such cases in this Bill in what I might call its second edition, is an improvement. Making regulations dealing with persons in that capacity is not an easy matter. The consideration of all that is involved is not quite complete, and therefore, with great regret, I have to

1089
move this Amendment, which will allow me a little more time to complete these matters. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with the Amendment.

TOXIC WASTES FROM INDUSTRY
5.49 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what research has been conducted on the disposal of toxic wastes from industry and other processes and whether it is desirable to subject this to statutory control. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to a question which has arisen out of recent incidents at Merthyr Tydfil, where 100 or thereabouts of dogs and cats were killed, and at Smarden, in Kent, where some 20 farm animals were killed by a pesticide known as fluoroacetamide. This raises the question of how things of this kind are handled.
First of all, I want to point out how extremely toxic this substance is. In the Merthyr Tydfil case, these domestic pets were killed by eating the flesh of a pony which apparently had been grazing in the neighbourhood of a rubbish dump and which presumably had in some way eaten a dose of this substance derived from its use as a rat poison. Apparently it was used by the local authority for this purpose, and one would assume that a local authority and its medical officer of health would take great precautions; but in spite of that, this accident occurred. At Smarden, the circumstances were different. The toxic substance came from a factory at which it was being manufactured. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when I asked a Question about this matter, said that it was an industrial accident. His right honourable friend in another place was more accurate; he called it an industrial incident, although he also slipped into describing it as an industrial accident.
It was not an accident. It was a policy. It appears, from the information I have received, that the apparatus used in the factory tended to become clogged with silt which contained the poison, and from time to time it was washed out. It was washed out into the yard of the factory, although it must have been known that this was a very dangerous and toxic substance, and it built up to such an extent that it invaded the neighbouring farm and killed the farm animals. Presumably, as it is soluble, it became dissolved in water and was distributed through the water courses, sucked up through the soil, went into the vegetation and so was eaten by the farm animals.
It is certainly known that fluoroacetamide is taken up by plants. In fact, it has been sold as a systemic pesticide: that is to say, it is sold on the principle that when applied to plants it will be taken up into the sap and thereby will destroy pests which feed upon the plant in question. Its toxicity has been known since 1946 at least, and so long ago as 1949 a textbook on this kind of substance pointed out that it should be used only upon non-edible crops. It has never, apparently, been approved under the Agricultural Chemicals Approvals Scheme, and yet it was sold freely for application to cabbages, to strawberries and to sugar beet; and I am told it was made a condition of contract by sugar-beet factories that it should be used upon sugar beet. So much with regard to the toxicity of the substance.
Let me come now to the problem which I particularly want to raise about the disposal of toxic waste of this kind. In the case of Smarden, I understand that ditch water was pumped out of the ditches and was dumped into the sea at Dymchurch, on the coast of Kent. It was proposed, apparently, originally, that the contaminated soil should also be dumped there. Protests were raised. Then it was proposed that it should be dumped in the Atlantic. I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that throwing it loose on to the surface of the sea would not sink it down to the bottom of the sea, but it would float for a long time on the surface and, of course, as it is extremely soluble it would not go to the bottom at all. The consequences of that could, conceivably, have been quite serious. It might have been taken up by the plankton in the sea, then taken up by fish until it

1091
reached a serious concentration. So finally it was proposed—and I understand this will be done—that it be dumped in steel containers so that it will sink to a depth of two and a half miles in the Atlantic.
But I understand also that the ditch water is still being pumped up and put into the sea at Dymchurch. I have been told also that some, whether from this factory or another, has been dumped into the sea at Chelmsford. It is quite a possibility that some of it might be taken up by marine animals, by fish or by oysters or other shell fish, and somebody might in that way be injured, because it is terribly toxic. It is so toxic that it will kill mammals although in a dilution, it is believed, of one in ten million, and in a dilution so low that it is almost impossible to detect it by means of chemical analysis. In addition, it is very difficult to detect it in the body of the animal that has been poisoned, and unless it is taken for analysis immediately after the death or perhaps removed to the laboratory before then, it is not possible to determine with precision what has been the cause of death. I point this out particularly, because not only is this kind of thing a danger to animals, but it could conceivably he a danger to human beings. If somebody dies upon that account it will probably be quite impossible, in default of precise evidence of the whole history of the matter, ever to prove what the cause was. That is one of the great dangers in it.
Since this incident occurred, regulations have been made which will prohibit the use of this particular thing as an agricultural or horticultural pesticide. It is still, I understand, to be used as a rat poison, and I have already pointed out what happened at Merthyr Tydfil, where it was used for that purpose. One of the principal uses which is advocated for it is the killing of rats in sewers. But it is always a possibility that some of the poison may be washed down the sewer and eventually will go through the purification plant—and there is no reason whatever to believe it will be destroyed in the purification plant; on the contrary, there is very good reason to believe it will not be, because this stuff is so stable that it requires to be raised to a temperature of 500 or 600
1092
degrees centigrade in order to disintegrate it, or else it requires to be boiled for a very long time at 100 degrees in very strong alkali. It is therefore certain that if it does escape from the sewers in the purification plant it will emerge from that in the effluent, and in very many cases the effluents go into rivers which are again sources of drinking water for human beings. On that account, therefore, I press the point that the most stringent precautions ought to be taken to see that toxic waste substances of this kind are disposed of in a way which will avoid any possible danger to animal or to human life.
There are, I believe, besides the plant at Smarden, three other manufacturers of this substance in this country. I do not know how they have disposed of their factory wastes or what has happened to them. And, of course, there are possibly many other toxic substances of a similar kind which may be a danger. So far as I am aware, there is no supervision or control over the disposal of toxic waste products of any kind. I believe there is no Statute which regulates it and there are certainly other substances besides this one which ought most carefully to be considered. Recently I came across a case where the effluent from a factory in Japan which was making fertilisers for agriculture was let into the sea. It affected fish and shell fish and gave rise to a disease which was new to the Japanese doctors and which they called Minemata disease. This is another illustration of the possibility of serious injury arising from the lighthearted and careless disposal of things of this kind upon the assumption that they will automatically become so diluted that there will be no possible danger.
Finally, let me point out that in this particular case this is a substance for which there is no known antidote, and, as I have said, it is so dangerous that it is capable of being lethal in dilutions which it is practically impossible to detect by chemical analysis. Therefore I hope that the Government will give to this question of the control of disposal of toxic waste products the most careful consideration, with a view to establishing a system of regulation and supervision which will make incidents of this kind impossible in the future.
6.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, the Question before us this evening relates to the disposal of toxic wastes from industry and other processes. The noble Lord has asked what research is being conducted on this problem and whether it is desirable to subject this disposal to statutory control. I and my colleagues on this Bench who are particularly concerned with this matter are indeed grateful that the noble Lord has raised this important subject. It certainly is a good thing, I think, that the public should be allowed to know what the present situation is, and what in the circumstances Her Majesty's Government are doing. Of course, to-day we are seeing this problem in the context of the deplorable incident at Smarden, and to a lesser extent that also at Merthyr Tydfil, but particularly at Smarden, on which the noble Lord has dwelt at considerable length. On the other hand, the noble Lord's Question raises issues that go much wider than that and it is to these wider issues that I would rather pay attention.
I do not think we need go over the known incidents in detail again. I would refer noble Lords to the statement made by my right honourable friend, in this case the Minister of Agriculture, on February 3, and the reply to the Adjournment Debate in another place on February 11. I would merely emphasise, as I think the noble Lord said, and certainly as he knows, that this substance has been banned for use as an insecticide since this incident, and that, in so far as it is used in poisoning rats, that use is to be investigated again by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture. Apart from that, I think I need say nothing about the past incidents.
In regard to the wider problem before us, noble Lords will realise that toxic wastes from industry can be solid, liquid or gas. To take the last one first, noxious emissions of gas from factories have been the subject of much research (I daresay that noble Lords are well aware of that), and for many years now they have been controlled under the Alkali
1094
Acts. The annual reports of the Chief Alkali Inspector are the best source of information on the subject.
The Water Pollution Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has since 1929 been carrying out research on the effects of polluting discharges, including toxic discharges from industry, on surface waters. The Laboratory has also carried out much research on the development and improvement of methods of treating and disposing of polluting liquids, both domestic and industrial. With industrial waste liquids the aim may be either to modify the processes of manufacture, so that there is less polluting material to dispose of, or to purify the material either wholly or partially before discharging it. Successes in different industries have been achieved in all three ways. An important class of highly toxic materials successfully dealt with a few years ago were cyanides, which are present in several types of industrial waste waters, especially from metal industries. The best conditions for destruction of cyanide by chlorination were determined and have been incorporated in a process which is now used throughout the country. The programme of work on industrial waste waters at the Water Pollution Research Laboratory receives financial support through the Federation of British Industries.
There are several Research Associations and other bodies which are also investigating specific trade wastes. I can mention the paper and board industry, leather, and fruit and vegetable canning. This work is co-ordinated by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The consent of a river board is needed under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, 1951 and 1961, for any discharge of an effluent to a watercourse. This gives a river board full power to require any effluent to be treated to an appropriate standard, and to refuse consent if it is not so treated. In the case of an unauthorised discharge (including leakage to a ditch from a deposit of waste, as at Smarden) the board can prosecute. I do not think that further legislation is needed to safeguard rivers and water supplies against toxic liquid discharges.
There remain solid chemical wastes. I refer to chemical wastes, and not

1095
merely to toxic wastes, because in practice it is extremely hard to decide exactly what is toxic. A good deal is known about the disposal of radioactive wastes, and it is controlled effectively under the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960. I propose to leave those aside and to turn to what I take to be the noble Lord's main interest—those toxic chemical wastes which are not radioactive. There are two main aspects to the disposal problem of these wastes—the appearance and safety of the tips themselves which are used for this purpose, and the possible seepage of polluting matter to rivers and to underground water. Noble Lords who know South-West Lancashire and other areas where the chemical industries have flourished will not need to be reminded how unsightly areas sterilised by chemical tips can be. But the siting of tips is now covered by planning control.
The difficulty is that, once a tip is established, there may be no effective control of what is put on it. A few county councils have powers under local Acts that enable them to exercise some control over this, but we know that even those who have powers are not all satisfied with them. Nor are they confident that they have a sufficient basis of knowledge on which to exercise the powers they have. Nevertheless, I think I should emphasise at this point that the absence of trouble, of the sort we are discussing, from tipping in general suggests that nothing has gone wrong with this method of disposal so far. Yet in view of the increasing quantities involved and the increasing toxicity of some of the wastes, we cannot be sure that it will always be safe in the future.
There are differences between the pollution arising as a result of seepage from tips to ground water and the pollution of river water from effluents which the noble Lord mentioned in particular. When a toxic discharge is made to a river, the river is polluted immediately; on the other hand, when the discharge stops, the river quickly recovers. By contrast, a tip may take months or years to contaminate ground water, and contamination may continue for years after the tipping stops. Tracing the responsibility for the original pollution may therefore be impossible. On the other hand, a further difference—and this is an
1096
important point—is that the soil may purify the polluting substance before it reaches the water underneath. Only detailed investigation can show.
Our first need, therefore, is for more knowledge on this question. We do not at present know enough about chemical industrial wastes or what are good and bad ways of disposing of them. We require, in the first place, a comprehensive list of chemicals which may become industrial wastes. We need to decide which of these are potential dangers and how they can safely be disposed of. Some of them may not be safe for dumping in the normal way at all; they may have to be disposed of by incineration or taken far out to sea. When we know the answers to these questions we shall he able to decide whether further statutory controls are necessary and, if so, what form they should take.
Inquiry on these lines has more immediate relevance to the problem than further pure research would have. My Lords, the Government have therefore decided to set such an inquiry on foot. Those chiefly concerned will be the chemical industry, local authorities, and water interests. The terms of reference and composition of the Committee of Inquiry are still to be decided.
Noble Lords may ask what can be done in the meantime. We cannot, of course, stop industrial wastes without stopping industry. We can only study the problem and seek remedies, and, in the meanwhile, look carefully at our water supplies and our rivers. The responsible authorities can be relied upon to do that thoroughly; and here I should emphasise that there has never been any question in the Smarden affair of any public water supply being in danger. The Government, for their part, will see that no time is lost in getting to grips with this question. But the inquiry will have to cover a great deal of ground, and it would be unwise to expect results very soon.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him a question on the committee of inquiry? Will it be concerned with liquid wastes as well as solid wastes; and will it be concerned with marginal toxic substances—for example, pencillin or antibiotics—

1097
which, if discharged into sewers, are not toxic to human beings but toxic to the bacteria in the sewage works, and which can produce quite disastrous results?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it will certainly include all chemical wastes, particularly industrial wastes which may be tipped on to these places. I think the whole subject will come under review.
In respect of the noble Lord's more detailed question, I do not know that I could answer that without notice. But, of course, as I am sure he realises, all sewage disposal works have powers to inspect and control the degree of chemical waste which is emitted from factories and which enters sewers. They have testing laboratories at work all the time so that immediate warnings are given, and they therefore rely on those methods to ensure that their effluent is not interfered with.

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.