Lords Sitting of 27 July 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 Chester

OLYMPIC GAMES UMPIRES AND GOVERNMENT AID
2.36 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, without creating a precedent, in view of the urgency of reaching an immediate decision, they would be prepared to make a financial contribution towards the expenses of British umpires honoured by international selection to officiate at the Olympic Games in Tokyo this year where the organisations concerned have made every possible financial contribution themselves.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH): My Lords, I regret that the answer must be, No. Since the noble Lady first raised this question I have re-examined the matter. Her Majesty's Government consider that the grant they have made for the Olympic Games must be the full extent of their commitment. The cost of sending umpires to officiate at Olympic Games is only a part of the expenditure to which governing bodies of sport have to contribute. They are also called upon to pay a substantial sum towards the cost of sending competitors over and above what is met from British Olympic Association funds. Her Majesty's Government can see no special feature about the cost of umpires which would justify singling them out for special treatment. Whether it is possible to do something without creating a precedent is arguable, but as regards urgency I should point out that the view of Her Majesty's Government on this question of umpires was made known
884
to the governing bodies of sport on March 6, 1964, and I believe the attitude of the British Olympic Association was known to governing bodies before that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, without wishing to be rude, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that that Answer really seems hardly worth waiting a fortnight for? Is he not, furthermore, aware that if officials are honoured by selection to officiate at the Olympic Games, and if the organising bodies responsible have made every effort to collect money, it would have been appreciated if the Government had been able to help?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I recognise, my Lords, that it is certainly a compliment that four British umpires should have been selected in this case, and in regard to hockey. But I do not think that anything further can be done. As regards travelling expenses of the umpires, this cannot be considered in isolation, as I think I have already implied in my first reply. Overall, Her Majesty's Government are making quite a sizeable contribution towards Olympic expenditure.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether it is possible that any individual case might be given special consideration on its own merit?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, this overall sum has been granted, and I do not think that on this occasion any special cases can be taken into account.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder if Her Majesty's Government have considered whether it might be possible to allow private expenditure on the part of officials at Games to be eligible for rebate of income tax.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a much wider question. I should prefer that the noble Lord gave notice of that.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I had hoped that, as a farewell gift of office, this Government might have done something more for sport just prior to the Games?

PORTS TO SOUTH AFRICA
2.9 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual value of United Kingdom exports—

(a) to the Republic of South Africa; and

(b) to the independent Commonwealth countries of Africa.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, in 1963, £196 million and £161 million respectively. The latter figure does not include Malawi, for which separate figures are not available.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in view of the massive figures of the exports of British products to South Africa that we have just heard, and of their importance to employment here, would the Minister not agree that there is a danger in the emotional reactions continually voiced in this country as to the internal affairs of South Africa? Would he not also agree that this important United Kingdom market would be imperilled were its affairs too precipitately transferred to any insufficiently sophisticated Bantu majority?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I am concerned with the trade aspect of this matter. We, of course, attach great value to the trade that we do with South Africa, and I would readily agree with the noble Lord that there is always danger from emotional reactions.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, are the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord who put the Question aware that last week we had a debate on Foreign Affairs, when I made it perfectly clear that the Labour Party's attitude to this matter is that they arc dead against anything in the form of economic sanctions in our trade with South Africa; and that our trade policy in general is to trade at all times with all countries that want to trade with us? What we object to is going beyond the provisions of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter in supplying arms.

AFRICAN IMMIGRATION INTO SOUTH AFRICA
2.42 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 how many Africans in the last three recorded years voluntarily entered the Republic of South Africa—

(a) from British Protectorates; and

(b) from other African territories.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, immigration into South Africa is not a matter within Her Majesty's Government's responsibility, and figures can be supplied by the South African authorities only. No accurate figures arc available for emigration from the High Commission Territories into the Republic of South Africa before the setting up of border control on July 1, 1963. Since that date, however, I am informed that approximately 200,000 local passports have been issued for entry into the Republic. As regards other territories, my Department have made inquiries from the South African Embassy in London and, while the figures they have been able to supply are not complete, I will send them to the noble Lord if he wishes.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the care and trouble he has taken in finding an answer to my Question, which it was easy to understand would be difficult with regard to other than the High Commission Territories. In view of the massive figures which he has just quoted, would the noble Earl agree that it is not right to assume that immigration is any less now than was the case some years ago, and that it may therefore be taken that the figures for entry into South Africa from that quarter are very massive? Secondly, although the figures referred to are more readily available to the South African Government than to the United Kingdom Government, would he disagree with those figures that are available—that the number of those who enter by agreement

887
from other parts of Africa is in the order of 300,000 annually, and 30,000 enter voluntarily without agreement? Would he disagree with those figures?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am afraid the figures I have been able to get are not sufficiently complete to answer that, but I should be very glad if the noble Lord has other sources of information.
LORD BARNBY: I am grateful for that, but the fact that no fewer than 600,000 African natives are going annually into South Africa from territories outside its border impressively suggests that the conditions they find there are attractive enough for them to go in voluntarily.

GOVERNMENT LOAN TO PRESSED STEEL COMPANY
2.45 p.m
LORD SHEPHERD: 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 view of the fact that the Pressed Steel Company are in debt to the Board of Trade for approximately £10 million, they were consulted before the share option scheme was introduced for the directors and senior executives, an event that took place immediately prior to the financial arrangements between Messrs. Rootes and the Chrysler Corporation of the United States.]
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Local Employment Act, 1960, specifies that loans under Section 4 shall be made on such terms and conditions as may be recommended by the Board of Trade Advisory Committee. The terms and conditions of the B.O.T.A.C. loan of £9·5 million to the Pressed Steel Company do not oblige the company to consult the Board of Trade before introducing a scheme such as that to which the noble Lord refers, and they did not do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Would the Government not think that the company had at least a moral obligation to consult with them, bearing in mind that the Board of Trade is a creditor well in excess of the issued capital of the company? Would the noble Lord also not.
888
agree that the directors and the executives concerned in this matter will have been able, between June 5 and July 21, to make £195,000 tax-free?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to the first part of that supplementary question, the loan by the Board of Trade would rank, of course, ahead of the normal rights of shareholders. With regard to the second part of the question, perhaps the noble Lord is under some misapprehension as to the nature of the option that was granted. The option approved for senior executives is to take up shares not less than two years nor more than five years hence, at a price not less than 15 per cent. above the middle market quotation on the day when the option is granted.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Lord for that information, which was, of course, available to me. But is it not a fact that the directors and shareholders will be able, and are able, to obtain a considerable sum, tax-free, from any rise in the value of the shares? May I ask the noble Lord a further supplementary question? Would he not agree that this company is of tremendous importance to the motor manufacturing industry, and that it would not be in the best interests of the industry if that company were to come under the control of one particular company in the manufacturing industry? Does he not recognise that the agreement that the shareholders have now come to with their directors may well place the directors of the company in a position in which it would be to their personal advantage to agree to a take-over bid?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, reverting to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, I thought that he implied that it was as a result of the granting of these options that £195,000 had been made.
LORD SHEPHERD: Could have been made.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Could have been made. But even that is impossible, because the options could not have been taken up within two years. So this does not arise at all. With regard to the second part of the question, options are a normal form of offer to senior executives—perhaps more on the other side

889
of the Atlantic than here—and the purpose expressed by the company in this case is to attract to the company executives of high calibre, and to hold them, in order to avoid the "brain drain". This is surely a matter in which it is for the shareholders to decide where the interests of the company lie.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord in what he said in his original Answer, I think he would agree that there is an overall responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers when there is so much at stake in some of these concerns. May I ask whether the Minister is aware that, while this dubious financial manœuvre (as I can only call it) to which the original Question refers was being carried out, this company was trying to extricate itself from its ill-starred alliance with the Bloom Rolls Razor organisation, an operation which has resulted, if the Press is to be believed, in a loss to this company, and therefore to the shareholders and the Government, of half a million pounds? Is he further aware that at the meeting where this option was granted these facts must have been within the knowledge of the chairman, and that, while he stated to the shareholders that the holding in Rolls Razor had been sold at a profit, he made no reference whatsoever to this potential loss. Would the noble Lord be good enough to consult with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and ascertain whether or not this non-disclosure of relevant facts comes within the scope of Section 165(b)(iii) of the Companies Act, 1948?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think with regard to the last part of the question, this is clearly something of which I should require notice, but I will look into the matter and write to the noble Lord. The main point of the noble Lord's question is, surely, that there was a potential loss that might or might not at that time be known—and we are talking about June 4—in regard to Rolls Razor. But I should, I think, make it clear that in the case of both Pressed Steel and Rolls Razor, to the best of my knowledge, and certainly in the case of Pressed Steel and Rootes, the relationship was that of supplier and customer and I do not think that that
890
consideration can arise. I can say this to the noble Lord. If a loss of these dimensions was envisaged, it just shows that in giving an option of this kind one is by no means giving a certainty.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer the second part of my supplementary question? If I may be allowed to refresh his memory, would he not agree that Pressed Steel is a most important part of the motor manufacturing industry, and would he not agree it would be wrong for the control of that company to be acquired by any particular company in the motor manufacturing industry? Also, in view of the fact that this company is in debt to the Board of Trade for this large sum, would the noble Lord not agree that the company, before it considered any amalgamation with another company, should have consulted the Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: On that point, my Lords, I find it very difficult to believe that the company, in those circumstances, would not have consultations with one of its principal creditors. On the other point, I do not think I am called upon at the present time to give an opinion as to whether or not it would be a good thing for this particular firm to be acquired by one of the motor manufacturers. But I can say that the chairman himself has denied that either he or his board had any knowledge of any such negotiations for such acquisition.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is it not a fact that the party who would stand to gain most from a take-over bid would be, apparently, the Board of Trade, to whom this company owed £10 million? Is my noble friend aware that there was an article in a reputable financial journal last week advising shareholders to put their money into companies where the directors had been given options to buy shares, because historically the author found it very profitable?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, certainly the purpose of giving options in the future of this kind is to try to incite the senior executives—and this is a question of senior executives and the phrase, I understand, includes directors in this case—to greater effort on behalf of the company.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the reason why this financial newspaper gave this advice—very sound advice—is that the directors have prior knowledge above all other shareholders as to the winners as well as the losers? While the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for the frankness with which he answered these questions, he will surely agree that the sooner the Companies Act is revised, whichever Government may be in power next Session, the better.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHOREHAM AND LANCING) BILL
House in Committee (on recommitment) (according to Order). House resumed: Bill reported without amendments; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE

  OFFICIAL REPORT
  The Committee were asked to consider the extent to which tabular or other matter not given orally in the House should be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Committee are of opinion that, so far as debate is concerned. the OFFICIAL REPORT should be maintained as the verbatim record of what takes place in the House; and they recommend that the publication of additional matter which is too lengthy or too complicated to be given orally in the House should be permitted only in the case of answers to Starred Questions and Ministerial Statements.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
  Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report I be agreed to.
  Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A); read 1a.

TREATMENT OF CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION OFFICERS
2.57 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the debate in this House on June 16 last, they have considered any modification of their policy towards the undesignated federal and territorial officers, arising from the break-up of the Central African Federation; and to move to resolve, That this House is of the opinion that the said undesignated officers should receive recompense more in keeping with the debt that this country owes them. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Some noble Lords may require an explanation as to why this subject of the undesignated civil servants, both federal and territorial in Central Africa, which we discussed only as recently as June 16 of this year should be raised again in your Lordships' House.
The reason is a very simple one. On that occasion, I raised the subject in the form of an Unstarred Question which, as your Lordships know, does not allow of a vote. But the Government reply to the debate was so poor, and feeling in all parts of your Lordships' House as to the injustice which had been done to these unhappy people so strong, that I have been pressed in every quarter to raise it again in a form which will enable noble Lords to express their views in the Lobbies. In saying that the Government reply was poor, I do not do so in any spirit of criticism of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who spoke for the Government. He

893
did his best; but no one could have done any good with the material provided for him. After all, what were the main points on which the Government case was based?
First, it was said that agreement with the other Governments concerned had been signed, sealed and delivered; so that, whatever this House might think about it, the matter could not be reopened with those Governments. We all recognise that the negotiations with the other Governments concerned have been concluded and that the agreement, however bad, cannot be reopened with them. But we are not asking for this; what we are asking for is that Her Majesty's Government, having made, if they will forgive me for saying so, an initial blunder, and put their name to what I am sure many noble Lords will agree are totally inequitable terms, should now take steps, so far as lies in their power, unilaterally, on their own, to rectify the injustice done to people to whom we owe so much. They can do that, if they have the will, without any reference to any other Government at all.
This question of the inequity of the terms—and I think that those who heard the details of the cases which I and other noble Lords quoted on June 16 will agree that they are inequitable—brings me to the second main point made by the noble Duke in his reply. He said, in effect, that it could no doubt be argued that the terms obtained for these undesignated officers were not so good as some of us would have liked; but, he pointed out, if I understood his argument aright, that we must remember that the decision was not for us alone: that we should remember that we were only one out of five Governments and had, as it were, only one of five votes in the matter. My Lords, if that is the ground on which the Government based their case, I must confess that I, at any rate, find it rather shaming.
Here were we, one of the greatest and richest nations in the world—and still, I suppose, one of what used to be called the Great Powers of the world—and here were these other four Governments, small in area and influence, immature, only just emerging, as it were, from a political chrysalis. Can it be regarded as anything but ingenuous, in these circumstances, to try to equate our position
894
exactly with theirs? Nor, in any case, was their responsibility the same as ours, or as great as ours. And it was our civil servants, not theirs, who were in question. It was our responsibility, not theirs, to see that they were properly treated. That point is made very clear, I think in correspondence between one of the civil servants of Nyasaland and Dr. Banda, which I have been given permission to quote. This lady was not only an undesignated civil servant herself, but the daughter of a former Director of Public Works in Nyasaland.
Faced with a despairing situation, as a result of the decisions regarding undesignated civil servants, against which we are to-day appealing to the Government, she decided to make a personal approach to Dr. Banda. So she wrote to him, saying that it was only desperation that drove her to take this extreme step and asking him, as a fair man, to agree to the appointment of an arbiter to go further into this question of making an award of compensation to people, like herself, whose lives had been utterly ruined by the terms that had been imposed upon them. In due course, she received a reply from Dr. Banda's private secretary. The reply was couched in the most courteous terms, but this is what it said—and I will quote the exact words:
"I am to say that the Prime Minister"—
that is, Dr. Banda—
"has studied your representations, and while he appreciates the feelings which promoted you to address him on the matter he feels bound to observe that in essence the issue is one between the officers concerned and Her Majesty's Government."
The letter went on to point out:
"These officers were recruited not by his Government but by the British Colonial Government working under the direction of Her Majesty's Government. To the extent that this was so, the responsibility for deciding what constituted fair treatment for such officers, in the circumstances of the constitutional changes which have occurred, rested with Her Majesty's Government."
The writer added—and this is the last quotation I am going to make from the letter:
"It follows that the appropriate action for the officers concerned is for them to make their representations through the proper channels to Her Majesty's Government."
I do not complain about that reply. I do not think that any of us would. It is probably the only one Dr. Banda

895
could give, and it is, after all, very much in line with the words of Mr. Butler, when, during the Second Reading of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Bill in another place last year, he said that the future of the federal civil servants, European, African and Asian, lay in our hands. What does that mean in the present context? It means that the ball rests now entirely in Her Majesty's court. If there is anything to be done for these unfortunate people, this country must do it. And I know that, unless we have a satisfactory reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is, I understand, to answer for the Government, this House will show, in unmistakable terms that that is our view.
If I am asked how, at this late hour, when the agreements with the other Governments concerned have been signed, sealed and delivered, that result is to be achieved, I would answer: by the payment of some lump sum of compensation, worked out on an actuarial basis, for the loss of their careers. That has already been given in the case of the designated officers, and there is nothing very revolutionary about it, for it has been already done quite lately in the case of locally recruited officers, on the break-up of the West Indies Federation only a year or two ago. If I am told that undesignated officers cannot expect exactly the same terms as designated officers, I think that that is no doubt arguable. But it does not connote that they must necessarily be given the mean treatment they have had up to now; and it would at any rate save them from their worst embarrassments, as in the case (which I think I quoted to your Lordships in our last debate) of a married man, with four children and a bond of £1,000 on his house, who, having enjoyed an income of £1,650 a year, suddenly now finds himself reduced, through no fault of his own, to an income of £256 a year. And that is not a single case. There are many others in very much the same position.
These officers, black, brown or white, are, I submit, our inescapable responsibility, and unless the Government say clearly to-day that they are willing to accept that responsibility and make ade-
896
quate provision for them, I shall have no option but to ask your Lordships to make it clear by your vote that, in the view of your Lordships' House, at any rate, it is a responsibility that we cannot and will not shirk.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of the opinion that the said undesignated officers should receive recompense more in keeping with the debt that this country owes them.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
3.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I share, I think with most of your Lordships, gratitude to the noble Marquess for asking the House to reconsider this question of the treatment of undesignated officers in Central Africa and for asking the Government to change the policy which they have adopted until now. As the noble Marquess said, these are all Government civil servants, whose careers have been prejudiced by British policy, by the policy of our Government—namely, to dissolve the Federation and give independence to its territories. But none of these men has received either compensation for loss of his career or the treatment in regard to their retirement pensions which we have considered fair and equitable for members of the Oversea Civil Service. We cannot escape our responsibility for the damage that has been done to the careers of these officers by saying simply, as the Government have said, again and again, that they are servants of the Central African Governments, whereas the officers of the Oversea Civil Service are servants of the British Government. This line of argument, which blames others for our own faults, surely cannot be acceptable, either from an individual or from a Government.
I should like to start by reminding your Lordships (this is, of course, a rather technical subject, but I will try not to be long or complicated) about the position of the undesignated former federal officers. Last year, in December, the Government refused our request to secure compensation for these men. The Federation has now been dissolved—it was dissolved at the end of last year—and it is obviously impossible for the Government to reverse a decision when the Federation no longer exists. So we are in a more difficult position now than we were at that time. But surely we are still entitled to ask that these men, who

897
have lost their jobs and received no compensation, should not suffer an intolerable hardship if they plan to obtain alternative employment. Indeed, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, told us last month, it has been agreed that at least there should be arrangements to prevent this sort of intolerable hardship. The noble Duke told us that a relief scheme for redundant federal officers was already in operation in Salisbury. I think we all assumed—the noble Duke told us that—that this relief scheme would be sufficiently generous to enable these officers and their families to go on living at something like the same level as when they were employed: or, at any rate, at a level that would put them above the line of complete destitution. Otherwise, obviously, this scheme would be no better than a form of public assistance: it would be of no value at all.
In order to know whether the scheme is equitable, several other noble Lords and I asked the noble Duke for the terms of reference of the special Commissioner who was appointed by the Liquidating Agency and the rules he applied in deciding whether or not he should make a grant. The noble Duke promised to give this information to me and to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. If the noble Duke would like me to refresh his memory, I can quote from Hansard, but I am sure he remembers that this undertaking was given. Neither my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition nor I have received this information. I am certain it was not an intentional discourtesy on the part of the noble Duke. However, I have been in this House now for something like 30 years, most of the time in Opposition, and this is the first time that an undertaking by a Minister to give information has not been carried out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I am sorry to hear that this information was not given. I am sure that this was an inadvertence. It may comfort the noble Earl, to some extent, to know that I propose to set out the terms of reference in detail when I come to reply to the debate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I should like to say at once that I am grateful to him for honouring the
898
undertaking he gave me in December to give me information about the position of these officers, which he did shortly afterwards, when he had obtained the information. I am also grateful to know that we shall have this information when the noble and learned Lord comes to wind up the debate this afternoon. But the fact remains that we should have been in a much better position in this debate if we had had the information before we came to the House. There was also the undertaking that information would be put in the Library, and as I failed to get a letter from the noble Duke I asked in the Library whether any papers had been laid there, but I was told that this was not the case. So no noble Lords were in a position to obtain this information before the debate this afternoon.
On the presumption—which I shall make until I have heard otherwise from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—that this relief scheme may not be adequate, I should like to adduce some evidence to show your Lordships that this fear is not unjustified. There is a widespread report in Salisbury that a man does not get relief until he is starving. In the second place, an applicant for relief (I have seen the application form) has to declare the value of his house, his household effects and even his vehicles. I should have thought it utterly wrong that a man should have to sell his house or its contents, or any of his personal savings, before he can qualify for a hardship grant. I hope that the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, will satisfy us that this is not the case. If it were the case, I think the Government should tell us at once that they intend to alter the rules under which these hardship cases are judged; and they should be prepared, if necessary, to make a larger contribution to make it possible to pay a larger sum of money in grants to these men.
I pass now from compensation and hardship relief to the question of pensions for the federal officers, a matter on which I do not think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, touched. The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, again gave us a great deal of information about the arrangements for the payment of these pensions. On the whole, these arrangements were satisfactory; but there is still one respect, at least, in which there seems

899
to be a really unfair distinction between the designated and undesignated officers. The Oversea Civil Service officer—that is, the designated officer—receives an increase in pension according to any increase that may take place in the cost of living in the country where he has settled; and this he gets under the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962. But the undesignated officer has no right to this increase, because he does not come under the Act. Surely the Government should be willing either to amend the Act or to guarantee that these officers, in retirement, get the same increase as their colleagues and are not alone penalised because of cost-of-living rises. As your Lordships are well aware, it is not only in this country that inflation takes place; it is going on all over the world.
I should like now to say a few words about the position of the undesignated officers in the service of the Territorial Governments. As most of these are in the service of the Government of Northern Rhodesia I shall ask your Lordships to consider their position as typical of this class of officer. The noble Duke told us that the reason why these officers were not designated under the Oversea Service aid scheme and therefore did not qualify for lump-sum compensation, was that they were recruited in Northern Rhodesia and not by the Colonial Office, and that they belonged to a grade not mainly recruited from overseas. I believe that this whole distinction between European officers, according to the place where they were recruited, is a purely artificial distinction, and I hope to convince your Lordships that this is so. It is no doubt useful for administrative purposes, but it is quite invalid as a reason for substantial differences in pay or terminal benefits.
May I give your Lordships an illustration of how this principle of awarding differently according to whether the officers were recruited here or in Northern Rhodesia works? Let us take the example of an Englishman who went out to Lusaka, Northern Rhodesia, at his own expense in order to look around before taking the very important decision of deciding to leave this country and settle there. When he got there, he decided to settle and take a job in the service of the Northern Rhodesian Government. This man is not entitled to compensation. On
900
the other hand, if the same man had decided in London to enter the service of the Northern Rhodesian Government, and had had his passage out paid, he would have been designated and entitled to compensation, because he was recruited here and not in Northern Rhodesia.
This type of distinction between two different classes of European expatriate officers according to where they were recruited has never been held to make any difference as regards pay. It was accepted only this year, in a Report on the Northern Rhodesian Public and Teaching Services—a Report which was made to the Northern Rhodesian Government by officials who had been asked to report on the subject—that this question of recruitment should make no difference to pay. I should like to quote one sentence from the Report:
"A definition of the term 'designated officer' for the purpose of the scheme (that is is to say, the overseas service aid scheme) was no doubt necessary for the operation of the financial agreement between the Governments"—
that is, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Rhodesia—
"but the effect has been to draw an artificial line"—
I did not use the word "artificial"—
"across a group of officers all of whom were serving on the same conditions before the scheme was introduced and all of whom have external origins or associations."
That is the view taken by the Northern Rhodesian Government.
There has, therefore, never been a difference of pay between these two classes of officers. If there is no difference in pay, what can the justification be for this enormous difference in their terminal benefits? We may ask—and it is a reasonable question—whether the Government of Northern Rhodesia warned these men when they entered the public service that they would be treated differently from their fellow officers when the country reached independent status. This is not the case. On the contrary, the Government of Northern Rhodesia did everything possible to make them believe that they would be treated in the same way as members of the Oversea Civil Service.
I should like to quote one passage from a circular issued by the Government of Northern Rhodesia in 1957, after the setting up of the Oversea Civil

901
Service. It was obviously intended to reassure the European officers of the Northern Rhodesian Government. The relevant passage is rather long, and perhaps I will not read it to your Lordships, but I am quite certain that any noble Lord who refers to this circular will see that the intention was to reassure the Europeans who were employed by the Government, and to reassure any European who wished to apply for Government service. I am quite sure that at the time these men were recruited—the men we are talking about at the moment—neither. Her Majesty's Government nor the Government of Northern Rhodesia had the slightest idea that they would be treated differently from other European officers, and denied compensation when the country became independent.
If your Lordships agree with the case for equal treatment for all these officers, then I think we should ask the Government to do certain definite things to improve the position of the undesignated officers, and to bring about something like parity of treatment. There are three things that I believe the Government should do. The first is to reconsider the marginal cases—I mean the cases of those officers who are on the borderline and do not quite qualify for designation. Many examples were given when this matter was discussed in another place, and I will not repeat them here. But I beg the Government to interpret the rules to qualify for designation in a much more generous spirit. The second thing I should like to ask the Government to do is to urge the Government of Northern Rhodesia to extend its compensation offer to these officers to cover voluntary retirement and the abolition of office.
The Government of Northern Rhodesia has behaved with unique generosity (the word "unique" is correct, because no other Government of a British dependency, on attaining independence, has behaved in this way) in offering these men half the amount of the compensation paid to the Oversell Civil Service officers. But this offer depends on two conditions: First of all, if these men are superseded for promotion by Africans or, secondly, if they are replaced in their posts by African officers. Those are the two conditions. But this, surely, is not
902
sufficient. The under-45s.with families should have the chance of immediate resignation with compensation like the other officers have, if they want to start a new career. Many of these men cannot afford to wait until they are older if they are to get another job. It seems only fair that they should have the same opportunity as Oversea Civil Service officers in this respect. This simply means extending the 50 per cent. compensation scheme offered by the Northern Rhodesian Government.
I think it would be unreasonable to ask the Northern Rhodesian taxpayer to pay the extra cost of this wider compensation scheme for these undesignated officers. After all, Northern Rhodesia is a very poor country, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, and we are in a much better position to foot this bill than the Northern Rhodesian taxpayer. Therefore, I think the Government should be asked to offer a small increase in financial aid to the Northern Rhodesian Government to cover the wider compensation scheme. I should like to remind the House that Her Majesty's Government are already paying 50 per cent. of the compensation offered to the Oversea Civil Service officer in Northern Rhodesia, and that this would be a very small addition indeed.
I apologise if I have spoken for too long and been too technical, but this is a matter that many noble Lords on both sides of the House have had very much at heart for a long time. May I say, in conclusion, that this is not a Party matter. All the political Parties have had until recently a good record for the treatment of civil servants in British dependencies when they become independent countries. I was at the India Office when we started the first major scheme for compensation for loss of career when India became independent in 1947. I can remember how determined my noble friend Lord Attlee was that these men should get a square deal. This principle of compensation has been applied ever since by successive Governments of all Parties. The fact that there has been no serious complaint of injustice—none at all—until the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, shows that the civil servants themselves in all these other dependencies have been satis-

903
fied that the British Government were giving them a fair deal.
The injustice that has been done to some officers who have served this country well in Central Africa spoils a record of fair dealing of which we can all be justly proud. That is why we are asking the Government to reconsider the position of these men, and to secure for them terminal benefits that are more in keeping with their deserts. I should like to say this. If the Government persist in the inflexible attitude which they have adopted hitherto, and if the noble and learned Lord cannot tell us that the Government are prepared to make some further concession towards these men, then we shall certainly support the noble Marquess if he decides to ask your Lordships to express your views in the Division Lobby.
3.28 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes on this subject. During the past few days I have had the opportunity to re-read the debates which we have had on this subject. They stretch back over the last eight months or so, and I am sure that your Lordships do not want me to recapitulate the details of them. But such study has only served to confirm my surprise that the Government should so obstinately maintain their inflexible and negative attitude in this matter. No one denies that, legally and technically, the British Government can decline to act as the noble Marquess urges them to do. But, speaking with great respect, this is not a matter for lawyers and accountants. It concerns the reputation of the British Government for fair dealing. Here, if ever, is the opportunity to apply the principle:
"High Heaven rejects the lore,
Of nicely calculated less or more."
We have been told that the British Government were not the employers of these federal and territorial officers. True, they were not directly so, but the policy and practice of the British Government was the main prop on which the life and livelihood of these men and women rested; and it was the supposed stability which this support supplied that encouraged them to take on the job in the first place. As was pointed out more than once in these debates, no reputable busi-
904
ness firm placed in an analogous position would refuse to take into account a moral obligation of the kind with which we are dealing to-day.
During 39 years of active colonial service I served under all varieties of British Governments—Liberal, Labour, Conservative and Coalition—I hope, with equal loyalty to all of them. One of the inspirations of that service has always been that when it came to fundamental principles of just and humane treatment of those who worked for British policy and who had trusted the British Government, political labels did not matter. All Parties shared alike a deep respect for the reputation of the British Government and the determination to uphold them. We of the Colonial Service tried to work to those principles in our dealings when we were in a position of authority. The British Government expected us to do so and would certainly, whatever the political colour of the Government, have insisted upon our doing so. All we ask to-day is that Her Majesty's Government should themselves observe these principles which have so long been honoured.
This Motion, as I see it, is no censure of Her Majesty's Government; it is merely an expression, supported by noble Lords on all sides of this House, of apprehension lest too close an adherence to the absence of legal liability should obscure the moral obligations that ought to transcend all other considerations whatsoever. I would, therefore, add my plea to the Government to look beyond the law and the profits—I may, with the greatest respect, so refer to the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury—and consider the stark corollaries of the moral code of the model employer.
3.32 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I lack altogether the experience of my noble friend Lord Milverton, and his deep and first-hand knowledge of the subject which is before your Lordships; but I should like to add my earnest plea to the Government to reconsider this matter. They can do so without loss of face and with enhancement of reputation. The noble Earl opposite concentrated upon one aspect of this problem and I should like in the few minutes during which I shall detain your Lordships to concentrate upon another. It is a very small matter. It concerns a dozen, perhaps

905
sixteen, humble but honourable people who certainly imagine themselves to have been shabbily treated; and I must say, knowing them as I do (I met most of them in Nyasaland three or four years ago), I think they have pretty strong grounds for the view that they take.
The case of the undesignated officers in Malawi, which was once Nyasaland, differs in one essential respect from that of the other two territories which comprised the Central African Federation. In Northern Rhodesia there were two services, a locally based service and an expatriate service. In Southern Rhodesia, which has of course been a self-governing Colony for forty years or more, there was only one service, a locally based service. But in Malawi, there was only one service, an expatriate service, and every member of the territorial service in Malawi was a member of the expatriate service if he joined it before 1959. I think I am right in saying that each one of these sixteen undesignated officers did, in fact, join the service before 1959. In other words, every one of the undesignated officers in the former Nyasaland Service came under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State in London.
It would seem to me to follow from this that the Secretary of State has for these people—at any rate those of them who joined the service before 1959—the responsibility which he accepted and which is defined in. Appendix A of Command Paper 1193, Service With Overseas Governments. I do not think there is any need to read it out because I have no doubt that your Lordships, and in particular the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are familiar with it. If the Secretary of State did, in fact, assume this responsibility—and it seems to me to be indubitable that he did—it is equally certain that he has not discharged it, and I shall try to show your Lordships why he has not discharged it and in what respects he has failed.
These individuals of whom I speak—the dozen or sixteen undesignated officers in the service of what was the Nyasaland Government—have served anything from eight years (which I think was the lowest term) to nearly thirty years. The bulk of them fall in the bracket of having between fifteen and thirty years' service.
906
By the arrangements which have been made and through the lack of designation, their position has been most abominably, and I think most unfairly, prejudiced. How is their position prejudiced? First of all, they know that if they continue in the service of the Malawi Government they will be passed over for promotion in favour of Malawi citizens. There is no dispute whatever about that. They know that if they stay on in the service of the Malawi Government, within a very short time, as the process of Africanisation develops—it may be six months or perhaps two or three years—their appointments will be terminated and they will be compelled to retire.
As the noble Earl said in his reference to the undesignated officers in Northern Rhodesia, faced with that kind of choice at the kind of age at which these people are, and with the great difficulty that faces people in middle age of getting another job in this country, they really have no option but to retire now and make the best use they can of the time that remains to them. I do not think any of these people has any complaint about Africanisation. They do not complain that they are going to be passed over for promotion. They do not complain of the fact that, if they stay they will be retired in favour of Malawi citizens. They regard that as being perfectly fair. Malawi is an independent country, and it is natural that it should require its own Civil Service as soon as it can get it. What they do complain of is that, after many years of the most loyal service, Her Majesty's Government have washed their hands of them, of all responsibility for them.
My Lords, what terms have these unfortunate people been offered? The noble Earl indicated them so far as Northern Rhodesia is concerned. They are told that they are free to resign; they are free to take their accumulated pension with them, but not a penny more. I shall qualify that in a moment, but, in effect, until a matter of a fortnight or three weeks ago, that was the position. They could have their accumulated pension and not a penny more, not a penny of compensation, nothing to start them out in their new life. If they have been designated officers, as the noble Earl pointed out, their pen-

907
sions would have been higher by perhaps 20 per cent; they would have received a lump sum in compensation. I have in mind two particular cases where those two individuals, if they had been designated, would have received an increased pension, one of them would have received £8,000, and the other some £5,000, by way of compensation. They are receiving not a penny because they are not designated.
Why were these people refused designation? I wish I knew. Theoretically it was because they were not genuine expatriates. I cannot understand the relevance of it any more than the noble Earl did, but also I cannot understand how that statement can be made. These people were recruited through channels normally used by the Colonial Office. They were granted and took overseas leave. For the most part they sent their children home to England for education. In every case when they retire they will have to come to England to retire. I do not see really what the logic is in this distinction between designated and undesignated.
This is a very complicated legal and technical question, which I do not profess to understand, but clearly what was in the minds of the Government when they embarked upon this very complicated classification and demarcation was to protect the British taxpayer, and that is very laudable, very right. But I feel quite certain that in this case if the taxpayer really realised what was being done in his name he would refuse that kind of protection.
I do appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. There is no need, as my noble friend pointed out at the beginning of the debate, to reopen negotiations with the other Governments concerned. It would be perfectly possible to make an ex gratia payment to these unfortunate people and others like them in the other territories, and I can only say for my own part that if the Government are unable to meet what I think is the clear wish of the House in this respect they will leave at the end of this Session, indeed at the end of this Parliament, a very nasty taste in my mouth, and I think the same thing will apply to most of your Lordships.
3.45 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, we have debated this question on a number of occasions and I think that I myself have spoken on it no fewer than four times. If we are returning to it to-day it certainly is not from any desire to embarrass the Government. It is not a Party matter in any circumstances; it is simply a question of justice, and I must say that if we failed to get satisfaction from Her Majesty's Government this afternoon I should not only be glad to join my noble friend in the Lobby, but also continue to press this matter in the next Parliament, whatever Government might be in power.
This question of compensation to overseas civil servants, Colonial Service officers as we used to call them, has always been a rather difficult one. I can remember that at the Colonial Office in 1955, in the concluding stages of Ghana's entering into independence, we had difficulties. There was first of all the problem of compensating a man who had spent his whole life in the Colonial Service for the loss of a distinguished career, and at the same time we had in Ghana the desire of Dr. Nkrumah to keep as many of his expatriate civil servants as possible. Therefore in negotiating these matters with the Government of Ghana what in fact we found ourselves bound to press for was very high terms of compensation and, at the same time, strong inducements to stay on in the Service for a year or two or more, in order to meet the wishes of Dr. Nkrumah. And so it has been again quite recently in the negotiations over Northern Rhodesia. So far as I know, in the case of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland it is the first time that the principle of giving proper terms for the breaking up of a man's career has been departed from.
What happened, of course, was that after the Victoria Falls Conference just over a year ago Committee "A" was set up to deal with a number of matters arising out of the dissolution of the Federation, and a special sub-committee was set up to deal with the Federal Civil Service and its future. I have no doubt —and I have had this from Federal civil servants who attended meetings of those

909
committees—that the British representatives, instead of pressing for the equivalent treatment that our own Colonial Service would have received, pressed for something quite different; they set their sights very much lower. There was no justification for this on financial grounds, except perhaps in the case of Nyasaland, but even there the territorial officers have received compensation on the usual sort of terms. There was, of course, no one to stand up for the rights of the federal civil servant. The Federal Government themselves did their best, but they were what the Americans would call a "lame duck" Administration, and in the last resort they had to give way.
May I remind your Lordships briefly of the course of events after that? My noble friend Lord Salisbury quoted Mr. Butler's statement in another place in the debate on the Second Reading of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Act. I doubt very much whether Mr. Butler is very happy about the way in which his promises on that occasion have been carried out; certainly the ex-federal civil servants are by no means satisfied. I myself, both in London and in Salisbury, have had a number of conversations with the Federal Civil Service Officers' Association and its successor, the Federal Pensioners' Association. I have here a copy of a letter, which I have just received, from the Secretary of the Federal Pensioners' Association addressed to their lawyers in Salisbury, who sent it to London, and this is what they say:
"It was only too clear that the only Government with the necessary powers to ensure proper treatment for all officers irrespective of race was that of the United Kingdom. The Service in general considers that Her Majesty's Government let it down, high principles were discarded in order to facilitate withdrawal. There is no doubt that a great deal of good will and loyalty has been lost primarily amongst officers of United Kingdom origin. However disagreeable the Committee "A" report on the Public Service appeared to the Service, officers clung to the last slender hope that Her Majesty's Government, as a signatory would see that its provisions were properly interpreted without prejudice to any level of the Service, but this hope has proved to be ill-founded. To-day, rarely in the Service or the Press does one find anything other than adverse criticism of Her Majesty's Government and the trend indicates that more and more people with moderate views both within and without the Service are moving increasingly to the right."
I do not think this is a state of affairs we should welcome in Southern Rhodesia
910
in the difficult conditions of to-day.
I have given a good deal of thought to this question and I agree that a great deal could be done, as my noble friend suggests, by means of ex-gratia grants, but I feel also that there are quite a number of matters that could be dealt with either administratively or possibly in some cases by Amending Order in Council, as was indicated as a possibility by my noble friend the Leader of the House when we debated this matter on December 17 last year.
There are some eight matters which could be dealt with in one or other of these ways. The first is the fact that not only was there no general compensation but there was also no lump sum compensation for those who were not employed; and when this particular matter was turned down by the Committee of the five Governments, the Federal Government felt it was so important that they issued a statement. This is what they said in regard to those officers who genuinely wanted employment, but for whom no offer of re-employment had been made:
"On receipt of Committee 'A's' Report we have referred back to that Committee this aspect of the problem. This Committee"—
it included its British representative—
"has undertaken to give sympathetic consideration to cases of hardship which may arise among officers to whom no offer of further employment can be made. It is on the understanding that this problem will have full and sympathetic consideration by all the Governments concerned that we"—
that is, the Federal Government—
"have accepted the recommendation of Committee, as a just and equitable solution to an extremely difficult problem"
Having heard the list of cases of hardship to which my noble friend has referred on two occasions, having heard from the noble Earl opposite again in regard to the degrading form of means test embodied in the application form for hardship cases, and the fact that, so far as I know, only two persons have been given any relief under this arrangement, I hardly think that that qualifies for the sympathetic consideration which was promised by Committee "A" to this matter of hardship at the time. So, subject to what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may tell us this afternoon in regard to the terms of reference of the Special Commissioner, I feel

911
that we are entitled to ask for a review of the existing cases already dealt with by the Commissioner, for an extension of time limit to any others who wish to apply, and for far greater publicity than has been given in the past in regard to these arrangements for compensation for hardship
Then, secondly, there were the arrangements for persons who felt unable for good reasons—and they included such matters as questions of conscience—to take service under the Governments of either Southern Rhodesia or Northern Rhodesia. In this connection, my Lords, you can see very well that the problem of the case of Southern Rhodesia was that certain Africans felt that they would perhaps not get fair treatment, whereas in the North there were officers who were apprehensive about the question of Africanisation. In fact, they received assurances that in their cases there would be no Africanisation, but now Africanisation is being carried out. I believe—we dealt with this at some length in a previous debate—that special arrangements must be made for people in these categories who have either failed to join one of the Territorial Governments on grounds of conscience, or, having joined, in the case of Southern Rhodesia now find themselves at short notice about to be pushed out. I think they ought to be given the right to opt again as to whether to take the terms offered by the Territorial Government. I understood from my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire when he spoke on June 17 that conversations in regard to this matter are going on with the Northern Rhodesian Government.
Then there is the question of the position of the Northern officers, and it included—I was mistaken in my remarks in our last debate—Nyasaland as well as Northern Rhodesian officers who, when they joined the Federal service, removed with their departments from Nyasaland or from Northern Rhodesia to Salisbury, and who bought houses, often on mortgage. They were given a special housing allowance of £240 a year. These officers have counted on this to help in making up their budget, and they are suffering in consequence. In regard to these officers, if the Territorial Governments will not provide the money, I believe that Her Majesty's Government should do so.
912
Then there is the question of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, to which the noble Earl made reference. That was the Act under which the overseas territories were included in the various Acts in force in this country for increases in pension in line with increases in the cost of living. I would remind your Lordships that it was largely thanks to the efforts of this House that the former colonial servants were included. At that time we also succeeded in getting the Sudan Public Service included, and indeed the old members of the Egyptian Public Service prior to 1923, or as many of them as remained alive.
We are told that the Federal Public Servants cannot be included in the Pensions (Increase) Act because they are locally recruited. First of all, many of them were members of the Colonial Service; secondly, a large number, and especially technical people, were recruited directly from this country immediately following federation and in subsequent years, with the full encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot see how a Service such as this as a whole can be described as locally recruited. What I would ask of Her Majesty's Government is this: can we not have an undertaking from them that they will provide, whether by legislation or otherwise, for the inclusion of ex-members of the Federal Public Service in the Schedule to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962? That would mean that if they were not given rises in their existing pensions in accordance with increases in the cost of living, the British Government would come along and, as the expression goes, "top them up".
There is also the question of payment in sterling. At the moment, under the Central African Public Officers' Agreement which was published on the day of our last debate, these people will receive payment in Southern Rhodesian money, in Northern Rhodesian money and in Nyasaland money or in all three currencies; and there is no provision whatever in case any one of those currencies were to become devalued or if its purchasing power were to fall. I feel strongly that this arrangement should have been made in sterling, as was so forcibly urged by the members of the Association. I realise that it is too late now to put it into the Agreement; but I should have

913
thought that we could ask Her Majesty's Government to say that if there is any fall in the value of these currencies they will then step in and again "top up" the pension in sterling so that these pensioners will not be the losers.
Finally—this is a small point so far as the Federal Service is concerned, although it is a matter to which I drew the attention of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire the other day—there is the question of the right of former federal officers to compete for admission to the Home Civil Service, which apparently, from what he said, was to be limited to those who had formerly been members of the Colonial Service. It seems to me that this is an invidious distinction, and considering the limited number who could apply the Government might well throw open the whole field to former members of the Federal Public Service.
I apologise for detaining your Lordships for so long, but I want to raise just one further, related point. It concerns the question of the Judges of the Supreme Court, a matter to which I referred in the debate of December 17. I pointed out then that as regards the pensions of the Judges of the Supreme Court, the first occasion on which the Judges became aware of the proposals relating to them—and they are most unsatisfactory proposals—was on Monday, November 25; and, if your Lordships will remember, the Order in Council actually came to us a week before our debate, on December 10. So the Judges themselves had only three weeks' knowledge of these proposals before they appeared in the Order in Council. These proposals relating to the Supreme Court Judges were not accepted by the Federal Government; they were not accepted by the Judges themselves, and two of them informed me personally when I was out there this April that that was so. These are distinguished gentlemen who gave up, in one case a seat in the Supreme Court of South Africa, in another case a seat in the High Court of Southern Rhodesia, and in another case a seat in the Court of Appeal of East Africa. They gave up all this in order to go to the Federation and take their places on the bench there.
It seems to me that this is a matter which, although it does not relate directly to the Civil Service, Her
914
Majesty's Government should be asked to look at again, in order to consider an ex gratia payment to these distinguished gentlemen commensurate with their services. They gave up a great deal to go on the Bench of the Federal Supreme Court and so far they have been very shabbily treated. There are many other smaller points in relation to this question; there is no need to labour them here. There are eight matters at least on which the Government could with little difficulty meet some of the real grievances of these unfortunate people.
Let us set aside the question whether Her Majesty's Government were in the last resort responsible for the break-up of the Federation—though, of course, as the Order in Council contained no fewer than twelve paragraphs about federal public servants in relation to many other matters, it would seem that they had some responsibility—and let us simply ask Her Majesty's Government, knowing the extent of feeling which exists in both Houses of Parliament and in all Parties, and among ex-federal servants themselves, to sit down and work out practical means of remedying these hardships. No question of race arises—Europeans, Africans, Asians, all are affected. No precedent would be created, for there is no other territory in any way analogous to the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The cost in terms of money would be small, and the British Government would have the satisfaction of knowing that they had dealt fairly and honourably with these loyal servants of the Crown who, through no fault of their own, found themselves deprived of their careers and in some cases with their whole livelihood threatened.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, seemed to give the impression that there were only a handful of these people, a dozen or a dozen and a half, involved, but I gather from the speech of my noble friend Lord Colyton that there appear to be a far greater number. Could the noble Lord give us any idea of the numbers involved?
LORD COLYTON: I think Lord Coleraine was speaking mainly in regard to Nyasaland civil servants. I was referring entirely to ex-federal civil servants of whom there are several hundreds

915
affected, and probably several hundred more cases would have come to light had there been greater publicity.
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, sitting listening to the debate to-day I have been reminded of occasions in the past when one has had a brief for the defence and the case for the prosecution was put very strongly and forcibly but the facts were really not quite as portrayed by the prosecution. Nor to-day are the facts quite as they have been put by noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Motion. The noble Marquess, in a short speech, seemed to be assuming guilt on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and merely waiting to determine whether there was anything which could be said in mitigation. Indeed, although it may be said by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, that there is no desire to embarrass the Government, that this is not a Party matter, this Motion is an indictment of Her Majesty's Government for agreeing to the Victoria Falls settlement.
I do not accept the many hard things which have been said. Reference has already been made to what my right honourable friend Mr. Butler said in the House of Commons. It has been said that what has been arranged was a breach of what he stated. Reference has been made more than once to mean and shabby treatment. I have discussed this matter with my right honourable friend, and I can tell your Lordships that he has told me that he is satisfied that the settlement reached through the machinery set up and agreed by the five Governments fully implemented the assurances which he gave. I, too, hope to satisfy your Lordships that the observations in relation to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government which have been made to your Lordships to-day and in previous debates are really not justified. I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I make what I fear must be a fairly lengthy speech in an endeavour to get the facts clearly before the House.
If your Lordships will look at the terms of the Motion moved by the noble Marquess, your Lordships will see that it refers to "undesignated federal and territorial officers". The last thing I
916
wish to do is to take any narrow or legalistic points, but it is important that we should get clear exactly what we are talking about. This is a very complicated and technical subject and it is very easy to become confused in dealing with it. It is to prevent confusion arising that I want to say at the outset of my speech that there really is not, and has not been, any such person as an "undesignated" or indeed a "designated" federal officer. Further, I want to make clear that no territorial officers, designated or undesignated, were affected by the terms of the settlement reached last year for the federal public service. I ask your Lordships to bear this in mind. The criticism made of Her Majesty's Government in the debate to-day, and in the debate of June 16, have related to the terms of settlement for the federal public service.
May I now explain exactly what is meant by the terms "designated" or "undesignated". In 1954 in the White Paper, Colonial 306, the British Government set out certain undertakings towards a particular class of officers serving overseas who had been recruited by or on behalf of the Colonial Secretary and for whose careers the British Government accepted a degree of responsibility. These officers were promised that if the territory in whose public service they were employed attained self-government, they would receive compensation from the Government of that territory in the event of their premature retirement because of constitutional changes. In 1960 a further White Paper (Cmnd. 1193) reaffirmed this and set out a detailed scheme, the Overseas Aid Scheme. This offered Territorial Governments, which were still dependent but on their way to self-government, financial help from the British Government, in order to assist them to recruit and to retain the services of expatriate officers coming within the category for which the British Government accepted responsibility under the 1954 White Paper.
The basis of this scheme was that by our meeting the additional cost, in terms of salary, leave and passage, privileges, et cetera, of employing such officers it would make it easier for their services to be retained in the territory in question. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel,

917
commented upon the distinction drawn between "designated" and "undesignated" officers. That was inherent from the inception of the scheme. Not every expatriate officer is qualified for acceptance under the 1954 White Paper and the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. Those who qualified have been called "designated" and those who did not are normally referred to as "non-designated" or "undesignated". Those who were designated were those expatriate officers for whom the British Government accepted responsibility, primarily because they were concerned with their appointment. Those non-designated were those who, though expatriates, did not qualify under the 1954 White Paper or the Overseas Aid Scheme. In this way a distinction was drawn between those expatriates for whom the British Government had a special responsibility on account primarily of recruiting them and those for whom the British Government had no such responsibility.
A designated officer becomes eligible for the compensation promised by the 1954 White Paper when his territory becomes self-governing. The schemes for compensation have developed a standard pattern throughout the territories in which they have been applied. If these officers' careers are terminated in consequence of constitutional changes and control of the public service passing to the local government, they get a capital sum calculated on an actuarial basis of which the British Government pay half and the Territorial Government the other half. The amount will depend, just as it does now, in calculating a pension on age, length of service and salary enjoyed.
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the White Paper and the Overseas Aid Scheme were debated in this House and there never was, and never has been, any question of applying the Overseas Aid Scheme and the 1954 White Paper to the Federal Public Service. No federal public servants were classified as designated or undesignated. In relation to that, the terms are wholly inappropriate. I do not wish to be thought to be attacking the noble Marquess for his use of language in his Motion, but it is, if we are to judge this matter correctly, important to get it clear that that Scheme never applied to the Federal
918
Public Service, and so the question of distinguishing federal officers by designation or non-designation never arose.
I now come to the next point. The Federal Public Service was from the beginning entirely the responsibility of the Federal Government. The British Government had no say in its composition or conditions of service or recruitment. It did not at the time of dissolution contain any officers who were designated and for whose careers the British Government were, in consequence, responsible, and for which the British Government had accepted responsibility. The Overseas Service Aid Scheme was accepted by the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland, and in the public service of these two territories there were employed a number of designated officers. At the time of the creation of the Federation Southern Rhodesia had been a self-governing Colony for nearly 30 years. All members of its service had been recruited directly by the Southern Rhodesian Government. The Overseas Services Aid Scheme did not apply to Southern Rhodesia, and so no "designated" officers were employed in the public service of that territory.
Now I should like to remind your Lordships of what was done when the Federation was established, for it is relevant to bear that in mind when considering the settlement made on dissolution. As your Lordships know, various Territorial Government services were transferred to the Federal Government, such as health, post and telegraphs, European education and prisons. The question had therefore to be tackled of building up a Federal Public Service to man these departments, and of deciding the conditions on which territorial officers running them might transfer to the Federal Service.
The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council, 1953, in Sections 6 to 11, stated the transitional arrangements for these officers. In the first instance, pensionable territorial officers in the departments transferred to the Federal Government were compulsorily seconded en bloc for two years to the Federal Service. After that they had a further three years of secondment in which to decide to join the new Service. In this way

919
the continued manning of the departments transferred was secured and the Federal Government had time to work out its own conditions of service before territorial officers had to decide whether or not to join the Federal Service, and the territorial officers were thus given ample time to make their decisions. At any time after the first two years of secondment a territorial officer could, if he wished, retire on the terms provided under the legislation of his territory for abolition of officers; that is to say, although there were minor differences depending on from which territory he came, he generally earned pension plus an increase up to one-third.
The 1953 Order in Council was debated in this House and I do not think that any criticism was made of these arrangements. For the territorial officers seconded from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Her Majesty's Government, of course, continued to have the same responsibility during the secondment, for they still remained territorial officers of those territories. Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility for those who were seconded from Southern Rhodesia and they had no responsibility, and in my submission to your Lordships they have never had any responsibility, no matter what the noble Marquess may say, for those who joined the Federal Service from whichever territory or country they may have come.
About 5,000 territorial officers decided to join, and joined the Federal Service. It was made clear to them, my Lords, beyond any shadow of doubt, that those who joined the Federal Service—which, as I have said, was from the outset entirely the responsibility of the Federal Government—terminated their previous employment. This meant, and was clearly understood to mean, that those expatriate officers of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland would, on joining the Federal Service, cease to be regarded as expatriate in any way. I would ask your Lordships to bear that in mind.
My noble friend Lord Malvern, when he was Federal Prime Minister, wrote a foreword to a Federal White Paper called Transfer to the Federal Public Service in which he said this:
"Many officers in the Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland Services who are now members of what is very largely an expatriate service
920
are being asked to transfer to one which provides for them to make their careers, and I hope their homes, in the Federation."
And in that White Paper it is clearly stated,
"Transfer to the Federal Public Service from a Territorial Service amounts to the termination of an officer's employment with his Territorial Government."
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to ask him one question arising out of that statement. The question is this. Does he really believe that if any of those officers had had any idea that there was any likelihood that the Federation would be dissolved by the act of the British Parliament, they would have exercised this option? Is that not a consideration which the Government ought to keep in mind?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not interrupt the noble Lord and I was coming on to deal with that in due course. I have here a very long speech and I can deal with points only stage by stage. I dare say that if officers had had remarkable foresight and had been able to foresee that the Federation would come to an end, they might have decided not to join. The point I want to make is that they joined of their own free will and with the knowledge that their link with the United Kingdom Government and the Colonial Civil Service would be terminated on their joining.
My Lords, I am dealing with the time when that Federal Service was formed. During the currency of the Federal Public Service no one suggested that Her Majesty's Government had any right to interfere in the conditions of service adopted by the Federal Government; and no one ventured to suggest that the British Government had any responsibility for the terms and conditions of service prescribed by the Federal Government. It was the known policy of the Federation to establish a wholly local public service whose officers would go home every night and not once in three years; and, of course, those designated officers who joined the Federal Service lost their overseas leave privileges when they joined. It is true that the then Colonial Secretary, my noble friend Lord Chandos, expressed the hope that the majority of seconded officers would transfer to the Federal Service. He emphasised that they had five years in which to make up their minds. But the fact that he expressed

921
that hope did not mean, and, I suggest, could not be understood to mean, that the British Government would continue to have responsibility for those who joined the Federal Service from the Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland Services.
My Lords, I have spent some time on this aspect, for I think it is a relevant fact to be borne in mind that right from the inception of the Federal Service the British Government had no responsibility for its members. At the time of dissolution, there were 35,000 in the Federal Public Service. Well over half were African officers. Over 15,000 were pensionable; and, of these, about 55 per cent. were European and 45 per cent. African. There were officers who had previously been in the territorial services, a large number from Southern Rhodesia, officers of all races, recruited locally in the Federation, as well as officers recruited by the Federal Government from the United Kingdom or elsewhere overseas. All these officers had joined a local public service and served on local terms, and the Federal Government was solely responsible for them.
There was no special category of Federal public servant for which the British Government were responsible, and the terms of service in the Federal Public Service took no account of race or origin. When the Federation was formed, the Postmaster at Blantyre and the Medical Superintendent at Bulawayo, Lusaka and Zomba continued to do the same job, but their employers changed. When the Federation was dissolved, their services in their posts were still required, not by the Federal Government but by the Territorial Government. But, as the terms of service took no account of race or origin, it would not have been right, I submit, on dissolution, to have different terms depending on race or origin.
In considering what terms should be offered on dissolution, three questions had to be considered. First, could the Territorial Government provide fully comparable—and I emphasise these words "fully comparable"—conditions of employment, so that, despite the change of employer, individual officers could continue their careers without loss or detriment in the service to which they belonged? It was recognised from the start that, because of its policy of Africanisation, the Nyasaland Govern-
922
ment could not offer employment to pensionable officers not born and bred or domiciled in Nyasaland which could fairly be regarded as comparable. It was therefore agreed that, where appropriate, Nyasaland would have to offer contract terms to the federal officers it needed to obtain, and that otherwise such officers should be treated as becoming redundant.
I listened with the closest possible attention to the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, referred, but I am not sure—I had not heard of that case before—quite how it fits into that pattern, because, on the information I have given, the sixteen officers to whom he referred, if they were federal officers, were clearly entitled to be treated as redundant—and I will come on in a moment to say what terms were offered to redundant officers. If I may pursue the point I was on a moment ago, from the outset it was considered that the only Territorial Governments which could provide fully comparable conditions of employment were those of Northern and Southern Rhodesia. It is right to say, too, that these Governments went out of their way to amend and adapt their existing terms of service in a number of respects so as to enable them to offer federal officers invited to transfer to their service fully comparable conditions of service.
The first question was, as I have said: could fully comparable conditions of employment be offered? The second question was: if they could, what was the right and fair way to deal with those who did not wish to transfer to fully comparable employment with a Territorial Government? My Lords, there was no compulsion put upon them. Provision had to be made for those who did not wish to transfer to fully comparable employment. It was decided to allow them to retire with the pension they had earned up to that time. I must say that I find it difficult to quarrel with that decision. An officer who had served a Territorial Government in one capacity and then the Federal Government in that capacity was not compelled again to serve the Territorial Government in the same capacity when the terms of employment were comparable with those he enjoyed when a member of the Federal Service. He was free to refuse

923
to do so; but, if the terms of employment were comparable, I cannot myself see that he had any great claim for compensation if he chose not to accept that comparable employment.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt again, but I wonder if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will bear with me. Did I understand him to say that comparable employment was offered in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia but not in Nyasaland?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not put it like that. I said that it was recognised from the start that, because of the policy of Africanisation, comparable employment was not available in Nyasaland.
LORD COLERAINE: Does it not surely follow from that that these sixteen officers have not been offered comparable employment; that they cannot expect comparable employment? Yet they are offered no compensation. Is that fair?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's remarks is concerned, it may be the case—indeed, I would expect it to be the case—if they were federal servants; but the noble Lord is familiar with these sixteen officers whereas I am afraid I am not. All I am saying, and all I can say to-day, is that on what I have been told they were federal servants, formerly employed in Nyasaland, and that they would be entitled to be treated as redundant. I will come later to the question of compensation: I have said nothing about that yet. But, with great respect, the noble Lord is quite wrong when he says that there was no element of compensation in what was offered to redundant officers.
I will come back, if I may. to what I was saying. I was dealing with the second question: what should be offered to the individual who was offered comparable employment in Northern Rhodesia or in Southern Rhodesia, and who did not wish to take it? As I was saying, he was free to refuse it, but if he did so, I could not see that he had any great claim to compensation. In fact, if he chose not to take the post, he was allowed to receive the pension he had earned up to date. Ordinarily, as your Lordships
924
know, an officer does not get a pension except by full service to the prescribed age of retirement. But in this case those who did not wish to accept comparable employment got the pension they had earned; and they got it without regard to the fact that they had not reached the prescribed age of retirement. It may well be that in some cases the pension received was small. Its size would depend on the age of the recipient, his length of service in a pensionable post under the Federal Government and the nature of the post he held. But whether his pension was small or large, the man who did not choose to accept comparable employment was given that pension—and given it, it may be, many years before he would have become entitled to any pension in the Federal Service.
My Lords, I have mentioned two questions that had to be decided on dissolution. I now come to the third question, namely, what recompense should be made available to those officers to whom no comparable employment could be offered after dissolution? On the information given to you by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, it would seem that the sixteen to whom he referred come within this category.
In all, about 400 officers, out of a total of 35,000, became redundant. The compensation provided for them takes the form of the benefits provided in the federal conditions of service in the event of abolition of their offices—and, when one regards them as becoming redundant, that is surely another way of saying that their offices have ceased to exist. And the form of compensation, under the federal conditions of service, on abolition of offices is earned pension plus up to one-third increase. I must say it does seem to me right in principle that those officers for whom no further employment was available should get the compensation to which they were entitled under their conditions of service if their offices were abolished.
Now, my Lords, I wish to correct two errors, made in our debate on June 16; and one, I think, was repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the course of to-day's debate. My noble friend Lord Salisbury, with great respect, was wrong in saying then that territorial officers had either to join the Federal Service when it was formed or retire with such pension as their service

925
entitled them to at that time. As I have pointed out, if they did not wish to join they could retire on abolition-of-office terms. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was mistaken when he said in that debate, and I think he repeated it to-day, that on dissolution those officers who failed to obtain employment received no compensation at all. That, as I have pointed out, is just not the case. They did not receive lump-sum compensation, that is true; but the noble Lord may have been using it to mean a lump sum——
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I was about to say what he has said. I was using the word "compensation" in rather a loose sense (and this he has now corrected), to mean a lump-sum compensation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought that might have been what the noble Earl meant. Compensation can take many forms, of course, and the grant of a pension at an early age may be a valuable form.
My Lords, I have stated the answers to the three questions I said had to be considered. This was the settlement arrived at and agreed by all the five Governments. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to say that the other Governments were immature and young; but surely that description could not be applied to the Federal Government, even if it was going to disappear, or to the Government of Southern Rhodesia. And I venture to suggest that not one of the five Governments would have agreed to that settlement—and they all did—if they had thought that it was not just and equitable in all the circumstances. Despite the criticisms that have been advanced—and advanced on more than one occasion—I maintain that it was a fair and just settlement, viewed objectively.
Some of your Lordships, it seems to me, take the view that because the British Parliament passed the Act leading to the dissolution, there is a greater obligation on the British Government for the ex-federal officers, for whom there was no responsibility on the part of the British Government before dissolution. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, referred to our
926
"overwhelming greater responsibility for ensuring justice for the civil servants because the Federation was brought to an end by the decision of the British Government"
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, said that there was a moral obligation on the British Government to be generous to these officers, now that the merger which the British Government had been instrumental in bringing about had broken up. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, also spoke, as he did to-day, about our moral responsibility. As I have already pointed out, however, while the Federation was in being, we had no moral and no legal obligation towards federal officers. And unless one takes the view that the British Government were responsible for the break-up of the Federation, I do not see how it can seriously be argued that on dissolution a moral obligation on the British Government to the federal officers arose.
My Lords, I reject the contention that we broke up the Federation. In our debate on December 17 last year, I said, if I may remind your Lordships, that our action was simply a recognition of political realities; in short, that the Federation could not be held together except by force. If we had not recognised the situation, the Federation would have broken up in chaos. I know that there are some who do not accept this view, who feel that, somehow or other, the Federation should have been maintained, despite the wishes of the vast majority of the inhabitants of two of the three territories. But I feel that their unwillingness to accept the political realities is associated with some unwillingness to face facts which were inescapable. We were not responsible for that situation within the Federation, and we are not responsible for its consequences. I reject the view that we have a particular obligation to the ex-Federal officers because the Federation was dissolved. I really do not see how that is maintainable.
What we did was to accept the obligation, in concert with the other Governments concerned, to secure an orderly and reasonable settlement of all the problems to which dissolution gave rise, and one of the problems was to secure just and fair arrangements for the federal civil servants. The Territorial Governments, as the successors to both the rights and obligations of the Federation were

927
directly concerned. So were the Federal Government, in view of their responsibility for those officers since the inception of the Service.
Some very wild things have been said on one or two occasions, and I think again to-day, about the part played by British civil servants in the negotiations leading up to the settlement. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on June 16, alleged that they had been instructed to press for no compensation. While it would be contrary to long established practice for me to disclose what instructions were in fact given, I hope that the noble Earl will accept it from me that he has been misled and that there is no truth whatsoever in that allegation. At no time did British representatives oppose the principle of compensation, and the settlement provides, as I have said, for compensation for redundant officers and for payment of earned pensions to those who did not accept comparable employment despite the fact that the time at which they were entitled to receive a pension had not come. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, thought fit to allege that British civil servants forced ungenerous views on the representatives of the Territorial Governments; and he substantially repeated that suggestion to-day. It is, surely, a reflection not only on the British civil servants but on the representatives of the other Governments; and it really is not warranted. The settlement was evolved in full and free discussion in which the Territorial Governments played a major part, as successor Governments. There was no question of influence being brought to bear on them.
The settlement reached by all five Governments has been compared, to-day and on previous occasions, with that reached on the winding up of the West Indies Federation, and the British Government have been criticised for not securing on the dissolution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland terms for ex-Federal servants as good as those provided in the West Indies. My Lords, I do not think this criticism was in the least justified. The West Indian Territorial Governments unanimously and on their own initiative, proposed to treat their redundant ex-Federal servants exactly as if they were expatriate members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service
928
for whom the British Government recognise responsibility to provide compensation on redundancy. The West Indian Territorial Governments undertook to meet the full cost of this, as successors to the assets and liabilities of the Federation.
So far as the British Government are concerned, we followed the same course as in relation to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. We joined in discussions with the Territorial Governments. We undertook no fresh responsibilities. In the West Indies Federal Service there were members of the Oversea Civil Service. We recognised and discharged our responsibility to them. We did not recognise or undertake any obligations to other West Indies federal servants. As I say, in the West Indies, the Territorial Governments accepted the burden of giving similar treatment to other federal servants.
In the Victoria Falls discussions, the Territorial Governments were concerned to see that there was equal treatment for all federal officers, irrespective of race and origin, and all agreed that enhanced pension, as provided for on abolition of office, was fair compensation for redundant officers. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on June 16, said that the Government had passed over responsibility for paying these pensions entirely to the local Governments. I have already stated that we had no responsibility for them and so there was never any question of passing over any responsibility. What we have done is to undertake to make good 25 per cent. of any deficit in the federal pension fund, revealed by actuarial examination, in the amount necessary to provide for these pensions, the other territories providing the balance.
When the settlement was reached last September, the Federal Government, in endorsing it, said that they felt that there might be individual cases of special hardship among redundant officers. The other Governments agreed to give sympathetic consideration to the means of relieving any such cases. The Territorial Governments took the view that the proposals put forward by the Federal Government went far beyond what the Government had agreed to

929
consider. They took the view that the grafting of a scheme for general compensation for a particular class into the settlement reached would involve reopening the decisions on compensation which had been agreed, as well as discrimination between different categories of federal servants.
Finally, it was agreed that a Commissioner should be appointed by the Liquidating Agency appointed under Section 3 of the dissolution Order in Council, and that the appointment should be made on the nomination of the staff authority, the body set up to watch over the interests of federal civil servants. His terms of reference were as follows. I will comment on them, if I may, after I have read them to your Lordships. First, redundant ex-federal public servants only should be eligible for assistance. Secondly, a ceiling of £500 should be observed in any one case. This could be raised on application to the Agency if experience showed it was generally insufficient. Individual recommendations for sums in excess of £500 were to be referred to the Agency for decision. Thirdly, no long-term commitment should be entertained. Assistance should generally consist of ad hoc grants on a "once and for all" basis, and payment should not extend beyond the date the Liquidating Agency was dissolved. Fourthly, hard-ship arising within three months of dissolution was to be accepted as having arisen as a result of the break-up of the Federation. Hardship arising after three months would be the subject of review by the Agency. Fifthly, and finally, no award should include any element of compensation for loss of office, but should be restricted to hardship.
Your Lordships will see that there was no ceiling on the amount that could be awarded in compensation, and that there was no definition at all of what was meant by "hardship". These were the Commissioners' terms of reference, and I do not see that they can be justly criticised. But then, it is said that they have been interpreted harshly. There was no restrictive definition of hardship imposed on the Commissioner by the Governments. Within these terms of reference, it was agreed that the Commissioner should have absolute personal discretion. The criteria on which he should decide whether hardship had
930
arisen in an individual case were left to his unfettered judgment. He was not required to subject applicants to any form of means test.
A reference has been made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to-day to the particulars and information that were required to be given. The form of application, to which the noble Earl referred, was in fact designed by the staff authority which was there to watch over the interests of the federal officers. It was decided that the normal process should be that applications should go to the Commissioner through the staff authority, but any one was perfectly free, if he wished, to go straight to the Commissioner.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask a question arising out of this information, which I am grateful to have? Everything depends on the way instructions are interpreted by the Special Commissioner. Can the noble and learned Lord say, when a man supplies information about the value of his house and its contents, of his car and bicycle and his savings, and of any shares or Government stock he has purchased, whether in cases where grants have already been made (and the noble Duke said there were a certain number of such cases) the Commissioner has insisted on the disposal of all or part of this property before the grant was given?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any information about particular cases decided by the Commissioner. I simply have not got it. If the staff authority wanted to establish that there was in fact a case of hardship, naturally they would want to have considerable information about an applicant's resources and means. I do not think that the letter form drafted by the staff authority really has any sinister aspect. What had to be determined by the Commissioner was whether there was any hardship. Out of 28 applications considered by the Commissioner, 21 have been rejected. I do not think that these figures show that he—and I understand that he is a man who is much respected—has acted harshly. If any inference is to be drawn from these figures, I think it is that the small number of applicants, 28 out of

931
400 redundant officers, and the small number of successful applicants are indications, on the contrary, that there was very little hardship in fact resulting from the general settlement.
In our debate on June 16, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred to three cases, which he alleged showed that the terms of the settlement were unsatisfactory. He referred to one of them again to-day. I wrote to the noble Marquess on June 26, asking if I could be given further information about these cases, for I said I would like to have them thoroughly investigated. The noble Marquess replied on the 29th, saying that he would send me all the information he could about these cases. Whether it is due to the postal difficulties we have experienced or to some other reason I do not know, but the fact is that I have not received any information about these cases from the noble Marquess. And so, much to my regret, it has not been possible for me to have them investigated.
But, my Lords, there do appear to be some odd features about the cases he cited. He referred to an officer employed in the Customs. He said he had nineteen years' service, that his salary with the Government had been £828 a year—and the noble Marquess threw in for good measure the fact that he was married and had 8 children, though I do not see how that could affect his pension entitlement—and he gets a pension of £68 a year. My Lords, the Federation was in existence for only just over ten years, so he could not have had nineteen years' service with the Federation. I am wondering whether the pension to which the noble Marquess referred was only the Federal pension. He may have a pension from a Territorial Government for his service with them, if he served in a pensionable appointment.
The noble Marquess also referred to an officer aged 54 who, he said, had thirty years' experience with the hydro-graphic survey. His salary was £1,700 a year, and the noble Marquess says his pension is £278 a year. Again I wonder whether he is in receipt of a pension from a Territorial Government, for it would seem that he may have served twenty years with a Territorial Government. If he did, the total he
932
receives in pension is likely to be three times the figure given by the noble Marquess. The third case cited by the noble Marquess was the case of a man aged 45, with a salary of £1,650 a year, who, he says, gets a pension of £256 a year. My Lords, his pension must depend on his length of service as well as his age, and the noble Marquess, unfortunately, did not tell us his length of service. I should indeed have liked to have these cases investigated, for without full knowledge of all relevant facts it really is not possible to come to a definite conclusion about them.
My Lords, I have almost finished all I have to say about the settlement arrived at for the federal officers. It has, I think, been assumed that a small pension was in itself proof of hardship that justified a higher level of compensation, irrespective of the length of service by which the pension was earned. The scale of lump sum compensation provided for expatriate members of the Oversea Civil Service appears to have been regarded as a yardstick for compensating some members, at least, if not all members, of the Federal Service. My Lords, just as there was no discrimination in the terms of service offered to those who joined the Federal Service, so I submit there cannot be discrimination of their being redundant.
I have sought to make it clear that right from its inception Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility for those who joined the Federal Service, and there really is no ground for accepting responsibility for some or all of them on dissolution. We have played a part in the negotiations with the other four Governments, and our common object has been to find a fair and equitable arrangement. I must confess that I cannot see that it is unfair to provide for those officers who became redundant on dissolution the same compensation they would have been entitled to if while they were serving the Federal Government or the Territorial Governments their offices had been abolished.
My Lords, there is one other matter I must deal with before I sit down. I apologise for keeping your Lordships for so long. Since dissolution, the Northern Rhodesian Government has adopted a policy of Africanisation. That Government has recognised that that has altered

933
the situation of those ex-federal officers who joined the Northern Rhodesian Service, and also of the non-designated officers in their services. They announced last January that all non-designated officers who would previously have forfeited all pension rights by premature retirement could either retire with earned pension at six months' notice or, if they served for two years from January, 1964, on abolition of office terms; that is to say, with a pension enhanced up to one-third. On further review they have recently amended the scheme to provide that if any such officer is superseded for promotion or required to retire because of Africanisation he may, at his option, receive in place of the enhanced pension half the lump sum compensation due to designated officers, plus his earned pension.
The ex-federal officer in the Northern Rhodesia Service has been given three options. He may retire with an enhanced abolition pension he would have received if declared redundant at the time of dissolution, and then re-engage on contract terms. He may convert to the same conditions of service as the non-designated officers, or he may opt to continue to serve on local conditions. These terms are entirely a matter for the Northern Rhodesian Government. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggests that we should seek to impress upon them the need to supplement them, or, indeed that we should supplement them ourselves. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, if you continue to draw a distinction between designated civil servants, for whom we are responsible, and undesignated civil servants in the Territorial Governments for whom we are not responsible—and that distinction was implicit in what was done in 1954 and 1960—I cannot think it would be right just to ask Northern Rhodesia to treat designated and undesignated in precisely the same fashion.
It may be suggested that the fact that the Northern Rhodesia Government has made these arrangements shows that the arrangements made at the time of dissolution were not fair. My Lords, does that necessarily follow? The arrangements made by the Northern Rhodesia Government are to deal with a new situation which has arisen since the dissolution. It does not follow that the settlement arrived at by agreement between all five Govern-
934
ments was not fair and equitable in the circumstances then existing. This was one part of the settlement on dissolution; that settlement dealt with many other subjects. I really do not think it is practical now, when so much has been done to carry out the settlement, to re-open it. What I gather is suggested is, not that the settlement should be re-opened, but that the British Government should now pay to all federal servants, or to some categories of federal servants, sums in excess of those agreed to.
I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that half the Federal Service was African. I do not think it can be seriously suggested that all these African officers should have ben offered lump sum compensation as though they were expatriate officers whose careers had been brought to an end through transfer of responsibility from the Federal to the Territorial Governments. If this is not suggested, then presumably what is suggested is that there should be some discrimination in favour of the non-African federal servants. I cannot think that this would be right when one bears in mind that there was no discrimination in the conditions of service. But if there was to he discrimination, in whose favour is that to be applied? Just to the former members of the Colonial Service who voluntarily joined the Federal Service? That appears to be the view of some. But if you do that, how can you justify treating these former colonial federal servants better than those recruited direct from here by the Federal Government, or better than European officers domiciled in and recruited from Southern Rhodesia?
My Lords, although the criticisms have been strongly voiced, it is by no means clear what it is that the critics wish the British Government to do now. Although they have spoken bluntly, they have refrained from saying expressly that they want European federal servants to receive better terms than the non-European, but I must say that that appears to me to be the conclusion to which their arguments would lead. If that is so, I must ask your Lordships to reject their contention. This was a common service, in which no distinction was drawn on account of colour, race or origin. It would be quite wrong to draw any such distinction now. This was a Federal Service for which Her Majesty's Government had no responsibility. We have done our

935
best with the other four Governments to arrive at a just and fair solution—and I really do not think that any case has been made out for saying that the five Governments failed in their task, or for saying that, despite that agreement, the British Government and the British taxpayer should make some further supplemental payment over and above what was agreed when, as I have indicated, there was no responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government for the Federal Service and when to do so would clearly imply that the Federal Government and the three Territorial Governments, as well as ourselves, were at fault.
My Lords, I apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but this is really, despite what may be said about it, not only a vote of censure on Her Majesty's Government for what they have done, honestly and sincerely, in seeking to arrive at a fair settlement, but it is also a vote of censure on the other Governments which took part in the Conference on dissolution. I ask your Lordships to reject the Motion.
5.1 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I come to the main issues of the debate, I should like to say one word about certain cases which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned in the latter part of his speech. I had the faint impression that he felt I had been rather playing with the truth in giving the figures I did.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to make it quite clear that I was not suggesting that for a moment. The noble Marquess may easily not have been told some very relevant facts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is only fair to the noble and learned Lord that I should explain what has happened. As soon as I had his letter I made inquiries of the source from which I had received the figures, and I had a letter from them later on saying that they had to check them on the spot and would possibly not have the information available for when I wanted it. But I have every reason to suppose that those figures are correct, because they come from a firm of solicitors of the higest repute, and I shall be only too ready to let the Lord Chancellor have all the
936
information when I have it myself. I quite realise that he had a perfectly good case in saying that I had failed to supply him with information which I ought to have had. I hope he will understand that it was not intentional.
Now I come on the main issues of the debate. I do not know what other noble Lords feel about what we have just heard, but personally I am afraid I remain quite unconvinced by the Lord Chancellor's speech. We ought to be grateful to him, for he has obviously taken a great deal of trouble about it, but it still seemed merely a piece of special pleading and to leave the position exactly where it was on June 16, when we last discussed this subject. There has, in effect, been no advance in the Government's attitude at all. He never said, in particular, any more than the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, said last time, that he thought the pensions were adequate. That has never been said, so far as I know, by any member of the Government during these discussions. All he did was to repudiate all responsibility on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for these people.
May I take one example where he did that? He said at one point in his speech—I had to take it down, but I think he will not accuse me of misrepresentation—that it was not right that officers who, when jobs were available and had been offered to them, had not taken those jobs. should receive compensation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot have made myself clear to the noble Marquess. I said there was provision for their getting something. They were not compelled at all to take a comparable job, but if they refused a comparable job and did not take it, then they were entitled to go with the pension they had earned up to date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But I understood the Lord Chancellor to say there had been no contribution for loss of career if they refused. The point I want to make is this. These people were not offered comparable jobs. They were offered jobs which had not the same security either as to their real value—because the real value of payment in the local currency might vary enormously, supposing there were deterioration in the local currency—or as to probable permanence of their employment. I think

937
it is quite natural for a man in that situation, even if he were offered a job, to say, "No, this is not in the least like the job I had before, and I am afraid I cannot accept it." I do not feel myself that it would be necessarily a reason for refusing him compensation for loss of career. However, the noble and learned Lord may not agree to that.
The distinct impression I got from the Lord Chancellor's speech—the whole speech—was that he repudiated all responsibility for these people on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. That was the gist of it—that the Government never had responsibility for them, and do not have responsibility for them now; that it was quite justifiable for the Government to wash their hands of them. Most of us cannot repudiate responsibility for these people. We cannot pass it on to the Territorial Governments with a sigh of relief, and then sit back and think that we have done all we ought to have done. The hard fact is that they were our servants—and good servants at that—for a long period of years and we ought not to leave them to penury, any of them.
Whatever the noble and learned Lord may say, I agree personally with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel,
that there is a moral obligation on us in this particular case. Rightly or wrongly—wrongly, as I think, though other people think rightly—we broke up the Federation. It is perfect nonsense to say that we did not. If it had not been for Her Majesty's Government, I think the Federation would be in existence now. We put these people in their present unhappy situation. In these circumstances, I cannot regard the Lord Chancellor's attitude, which I recognise is not his attitude but the attitude of the Government, as being anything but mean beyond belief; and for that reason I must, without further ado, I am afraid, divide the House. I do it with regret, because I do not like dividing the House against my own Party. But here is a case, in my view at any rate, of obvious injustice, and this House has always stood for justice in all aspects and regions of public life.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Molson, L.

Airlie, E.

Effingham, E.

Monson, L.

Albemarle, E.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Portal of Hungerford, V.

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Attlee, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hobson, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brocket, L.

Killearn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burden, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonham, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Coleraine, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Twining, L.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V.

Williams, L.

Colyton, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Willis, L.

Crook, L.

Milverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Cowley, E.

Egremont, L.

Allerton, L.

Craigton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Crathorne, L.

Falmouth, V.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Ferrers, E.

Balerno, L.

Denham, L.

Ferrier, L.

Bessborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Fortescue, E.

Blakenham, V.

Devonshire, D.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Brecon, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Carrington, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Glendevon, L.

Chesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Grenfell, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Eccles, V.

Hanworth, V.

Hastings, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Sandford, L.

Hawke, L.

Margesson, V.

Sandys, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Merrivale, L.

Soulbury, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Mersey, V.

Strang, L.

Ilford, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Lambert, V.

Newton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Redesdale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Lothian, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Mabane, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

BOGNOR REGIS U.D.C. COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER
5.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now say what action, if any, they propose to take about the High Court judgment on the Bognor Regis Urban District Council compulsory purchase order. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Question follows the one I put last Monday to the Government regarding the Bognor Regis Urban District Council compulsory purchase order. This does not sound a very exciting affair, but I should like to remind your Lordships what the question is all about. It relates to a compulsory purchase order made by the Bognor Regis Urban District Council for the acquisition of land for the purpose of coastal protection. The order was made by the Council, it was objected to by the owners, and there was a public inquiry.
At the public inquiry evidence was given for the Urban District Council, and in due course the inspector reported. He reported very strongly against affirming the order. In the course of his report he mentioned a number of facts which were considerably detrimental to the Council—some of which I referred to in my Question last Monday:
"that the Bognor Regis Urban District Council had put forward proposals…which constituted an abuse of power and a flagrant invasion of private rights"
and, secondly,
"that the council had supported its case at the public inquiry…by publishing a document which contained much that was manifestly false to their knowledge".
Those were the findings of the inspector, and in due course the report of the
940
inspector went to the Minister. In spite of those facts, in spite of this report, the Minister confirmed the order.
Not unnaturally, the appellants, the people against whom the compulsory purchase order had been made, went to the court, and the court quashed the order and found as a fact what I stated just now as to the abuse of power, flagrant invasion of private rights, and that the Council had sought to bolster up its case by publishing a false document. The court not only found these facts, but they severely criticised the Minister himself for having confirmed the order. What the Judge said was that this was apparently giving ministerial blessing to a course of conduct by a local authority which public policy surely demanded should be severely discouraged.
I asked this Question last week, and I specifically asked the Government to confirm what I had said in my Question, and as to what action they were proposing to take in the matter. I felt that it ought not to rest on the public condemnation of the Minister, but that some action on the part of the Government was called for. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replied to my Question. He replied at very considerable length, and I hope I am not doing him an injustice when I say that the substance of his reply—it is in Hansard—was that the Minister was quite right in confirming the order; he still thought it was right on the merits, and that was all there was to be said. I believe he said that he had read the remarks of the Judge; but apparently no action on the part of the Minister was called for. He still thought he was right in confirming the order.
I just want to remind noble Lords—there are not many here, but those who are—of what is the principle of compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase puts in the hands of those who exercise it, mostly local authorities, a tremendous

941
power of taking away private persons' property. It is true that the local authorities are liable to pay compensation, but that is not always the point. Most people who possess land want to enjoy it and want to go on using it, and it is only in extreme cases of overriding public interest that we are justified in making a compulsory purchase order. It must be clearly established that it is in the public interest. It must also be a principle of any compulsory purchase order that the land to be acquired is to be no more than is absolutely necessary to carry out the purpose of the acquisition. An authority must not, under the guise of requiring land for one purpose, make an order for more land in order to use it for another purpose, which was what was done in this case.
Then, the owner must be entitled to object and to have his objection properly and fully considered at a public inquiry. I think this was done in this case. And, finally, the Minister must give an honest and impartial decision after receiving and considering the inspector's report. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Minister is under an obligation in all cases to agree with the inspector; of course not. The inspector is merely there to report to the Minister what his own findings are. But I think everyone who has been concerned with public inquiries must recognise that the report of an inspector is entitled to the greatest respect and the Minister must not lightly disregard his report. In this case the report extended to eigheen pages: it was a very full report. It was made after an inspection of the site and a very lengthy inquiry with full investigation of the facts.
I speak with some experience of these matters, and I recognise that no Minister can possibly at first hand come to a decision on every appeal. He must leave things to his officers; he must be guided by them, and in the great majority of cases the Minister never hears about an appeal and never knows what the decision is. There are some thousands of appeals every year, and obviously the Minister cannot possibly be expected to know about them all. What I do say is that where there is a matter of public policy like this, where the inspector has in terms condemned the action of the
942
local authority, and where it is proposed to disagree with the recommendation of the inspector, then certainly this matter ought to have come before the Minister.
I do not know whether or not that happened here: the noble Lord did not tell us whether the Minister had personally considered this particular appeal or not. I would say that if he did not, then he is deserving of condemnation. The arrangements of the Ministry ought to be that in a case of this kind, above all, the Minister's attention should be drawn to the recommendation of the inspector. If this did happen, he is even more deserving of condemnation in disregarding the views of the inspector and his findings, having read the report. And so I feel that the Minister is entitled to severe condemnation either for not having dealt with this report personally or for having dealt with it in the way in which he did, and for disposing of the inspector's findings in such a cavalier way.
Last week, when I put my Question, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replied—and let me say at once that I do not include him in my condemnation. He is in the unhappy position of merely answering for his Minister and saying what he has been told to say. But on the earlier occasion I referred to the analogy of the Crichel Down case, and I thought that this was as bad as the Crichel Down case. I was then speaking from my recollection of that case, which was in 1954, ten years ago. I took the opportunity of spending—or mis-spending, if you like—a week-end refreshing my memory. I read all the discussions in another place on Crichel Down. I do not want to go into Crichel Down too deeply. There had been an inquiry, ordered by the Minister, by Sir Andrew Clark, Q.C., and I read that report. And I subsequently read the final debate on the matter in another place.
In the Crichel Down case a number of the officials of the Ministry were undoubtedly at fault. There is no suggestion of corruption, but they were undoubtedly misguided and at fault. They had placed before the Minister a letter for signature, which unfortunately he signed without going into the matter as fully as he should have done. In a way, I can well understand it. The

943
Minister was busy, and the official concerned was in an important position at the Ministry, and I suppose the Minister felt that he had every justification for accepting statements of fact contained in a letter which he was sending out to a particular individual who felt aggrieved. In fact that letter contained a number of gross inaccuracies and mis-statements, and the person to whom it was addressed eventually saw the Minister and satisfied him, with the result that the Minister ordered the inquiry. The inquiry confirmed that there had been these mis-statements and wrong actions by officials of his Department and of the Lands Commission; and when the debate took place in another place the Minister frankly admitted that he had been wrong, and at the end of his speech he tendered his resignation. I should like to take my hat off to Sir Thomas Dugdale (as he then was) now, happily, with us as the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, for the action he took. He quite rightly said that he had to take full responsibility for the action of his staff, and he did; and in due course action was taken against those members of the staff who had been responsible for this taking place.
In the present case the facts are, in my judgment, even worse. It is true that the Minister has no direct responsibility over the actions of the Bognor Regis Urban District Council, but he certainly had full information before him and could have judged that their actions had been wrong; that they had endeavoured to obtain a compulsory purchase order by making false statements and producing wrong evidence, and that they were asking for more than they were entitled to. I do not mention the fact, which ought to have put the Minister on his guard (I will not stress this), that normally it is only decent and courteous for a local authority which is about to make a compulsory purchase order to endeavour beforehand to arrive at an agreement with the owners of the property. In this case, the first indication the owners of the property had that the Council was interested in their land was the compulsory purchase order, which, as the Judge said, was acting harshly and arbitrarily.
I want to stress to your Lordships that the making of compulsory purchase orders is an important instrument in the life of this country. We have to acquire more and more land in order to carry out our social purposes. We need land for roads, housing, open spaces, and for all kinds of purposes, and it is essential that we should maintain public confidence in the means by which we acquire land. As I have said, nobody likes his land to be acquired compulsorily, but at least the public must be satisfied that their land is being acquired in good faith; and they rely on the Minister, whoever he may be for the time being. If there is an appeal against the decision of a local authority with regard to a compulsory purchase order, they rely on the Minister to act fairly and objectively, and to ensure that their interests are safeguarded, always having in mind the public interest. In this case this did not happen.
It may be thought odd that I should be coming here as an advocate of a landowner. It is not really so odd, however, because I am a believer, far more than anything else, in fair play and justice. If we are to acquire land compulsorily I want it done in a fair and honourable way. I want the public to feel every confidence in the Minister; to feel that when a decision is made it has been made in the public interest and not in order to bolster up an inefficient—or worse—local authority. It is for these reasons that I have put down this further Question. I had it in mind to put it in the form of a Motion which would have condemned the Government. I still do condemn the Government. I still believe that the honourable course for the Minister, in the present circumstances, would be to resign his office. I think that is the only honourable course he can take.
May I say that nobody would think any the less of him if he did? Everybody is entitled to make a mistake. It may be that the right honourable gentleman was harassed; it may be that he had not the time, and did not realise the significance of it. All that is possible. If he came along and honourably admitted that he had made a mistake, I think we should all be generous to him, and he would not lose in public estimation by admitting

945
his mistake, and even by resigning. Everybody is entitled to resign once, just as everybody is entitled to make one mistake. The Minister has not done that: he has not recognised that he has made a mistake. On the contrary, in reply to my previous Question the noble Lord, Lord Hastings sought to justify the decision of the Minister. It is for these reasons that I am now asking the noble Lord whether he has any further statement to make. It will be in the light of what he has to say to-day that I shall have to decide, in the few days that are left to us, what further action is called for.
5.38 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I think at the beginning of my speech it will probably be most convenient if I refer to the main criticisms made in the judgment of the actions of the Council and of my right honourable friend. I am aware that in picking points from a judgment which is of some length I may overlook something material, but I feel that this is a risk I must take.
The first point to note is that the compulsory purchase order was quashed because, in the view of the Court, the order made by the Council was outside their powers. The Court held that the Council's powers under the Statute could not properly be exercised unless it appeared to them at the time of making the order that the coast protection works they wished to construct could not be carried out except by the use of compulsory powers. The learned Judge concluded on the evidence before him that only some of the land covered by the order was bona fide required for the purpose of coast protection work and that the greater part of it was required solely for the purpose of constructing a promenade.
The Council's action in seeking to exercise compulsory powers in this way was described in the judgment as an abuse of power and a flagrant invasion of private rights—remarks which have been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. That is the principal criticism of the Council. I would remind your Lordships that these remarks were made by the Judge after my right honourable
946
friend had taken his decision. They did not appear, of course, in the inspector's report.
LORD SILKIN: They did.
LORD HASTINGS: No, not those words. The judgment contains criticism of the Council on two further points: first, that in a statement of their reasons for making the order they had, mistakenly, as it appeared from the inquiry, said that they had been advised by their consultants to acquire the whole of the land covered by the order; and, secondly, that the Council had taken no steps to obtain by agreement with the owners of the land such facilities as they needed for construction of the works. It will, I think, be for the convenience of noble Lords if I say at this stage that in the light of these criticisms by the learned Judge my right honourable friend would consider it superfluous and inappropriate that he should himself seek to admonish or rebuke the Council.
May I now turn to criticisms made in the judgment of actions by my right honourable friend? It will be understood that since the decision of the Court was that the order was bad ad initio, the judgment is not concerned in detail with the reasons why the Minister decided to confirm it. The judgment regretted, however, that the Minister's action would have the appearance of giving ministerial blessing to conduct which ought to be severely discouraged. These are the points arising directly from the judgment of the Court.
The charge brought by the noble Lord opposite is that not only was my right honourable friend in error in confirming the order but also that in what I have so far said I have been lacking on his behalf in candour in not admitting the error. I hope, however, that the words I used last week in answer to one of the noble Lord's supplementary questions will acquit me of the charge of lack of candour. I want to draw noble Lord's attention to this. I do not think any responsible Minister or junior Minister would come to either House of Parliament admitting to a mistake without at the same time giving reasons very fully for coming to a decision. Either House of Parliament would expect to have full reasons given for a decision. That is what I gave in my original Answer to the noble Lord's Question on the last occasion, but

947
when he rose and asked supplementary questions I did say, of course, that my right honourable friend was not questioning in any way the judgment or the comments of the Judge. I should have thought that that in itself was a tacit admission that a mistake was made. As though that were not enough, I said in my second supplementary answer [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 260 (No. 102), col. 440]:
"As for carrying out any further action, I said my right honourable friend is considering the matter most carefully within his Department, and I am sure he will take any action necessary to see that mistakes of this nature do not occur again."
I do not think the noble Lord is quite living up to a great reputation which he has in your Lordships' House for fairness of mind, and I think he was being a little unfair to my right honourable friend when he said that he had never admitted, through my words, a mistake.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it required two supplementary questions to extract from the noble Lord the word "mistake". If I had not put the second supplementary question there would not have been a word of admission that there had been a mistake.
LORD HASTINGS: If I may now return to the substance of the matter, I should remind your Lordships that there is still the possibility that the Council will choose to exercise their right to appeal against the decision. It would be very wrong that anything I say should be held to prejudice consideration of any such matter. Nevertheless, I will try to explain as fully as I can how my right honourable friend reached his decision to confirm the order. I think this is relevant to the remarks made by the noble Lord at the end of his speech concerning the importance of procedures in relation to compulsory purchase orders.
As I hope I made clear on a previous occasion, my right honourable friend, having formed a preliminary view about the Council's need to own the land on which the works were proposed to be constructed, addressed himself particularly to the question whether he could properly confirm the order notwithstanding his inspector's finding that the scheme could be carried out without securing ownership of the land. On legal advice,
948
he came to the conclusion that he properly could confirm the order; it appeared to him that there was no certainty that all the consents required would in the event be obtainable by agreement. In deciding to proceed he was influenced by the cost and urgency of the works: he believed that they were urgently needed and that they might not be possible unless he confirmed the order. My right honourable friend was aware that the Council had in view other considerations besides coast protection, but he did not consider that the existence in the Council's mind of a collateral purpose, namely the promenade, inhibited him from confirming the order, on the basis that whatever other considerations might also have been in the Council's mind they did need the land for coast protection purposes. In the light of the judgment it is evident that, in the opinion of the learned Judge, my right honourable friend ought in the circumstances of the case to have felt himself inhibited—though the learned Judge did emphasise the exceptional difficulties of the case. My right honourable friend naturally regrets that he did not reach the same conclusion as the Court.
I think I should also comment on the amount of land proposed to be taken. As I have emphasised, it was no part of my right honourable friend's reasons for confirming the order that the Council wished to have a paved promenade behind the works. Indeed, he went out of his way to impress upon the Council that there was no case for paving the strip of land affected. He honestly believed that the area covered by the order was reasonably necessary for coast protection purposes. But the amount required is, in the last resort, a matter of judgment, and looking back on the situation my right honourable friend would not contest the view that, for at least some part of its length, a narrower strip would have sufficed. He asks me to say that he acknowledges and regrets this error of judgment. As matters have turned out, of course, the order as a whole has been quashed.
A word of comment on the question of obtaining facilities by agreement, rather than by compulsion, and on the underlying issue of respect for private rights would not be out of place. In fact, I

949
clearly must say something about it, as Lord Silkin placed it prominently in his speech. It is the general view of my right honourable friend that, wherever practicable, local authorities should obtain by negotiation facilities which they may require for the discharge of their duties, and that they should make every effort to proceed by agreement, notwithstanding that compulsory powers may be available to them. He believes that this view is generally accepted by local authorities and that it is rare for them to have recourse to compulsory powers unnecessarily; and he thinks, as I explained last week, that it would be inappropriate to proffer general advice to local authorities on the basis of this exceptional case. But, so far as his own Department is concerned, he will make sure that all those officers who have responsibility for advising him on compulsory purchase orders study carefully the implications of the judgment in this case and take account of the comments I have made in these proceedings in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord referred to the difficulty of dealing with so many cases. All I wish to say, in regard to cases of this nature, is that Ministers do see them. That is all I will say about that. The noble Lord can be assured that this case was seen by Ministers. I hope that I have given the noble Lord a direct answer to his Question, what action, if any, has been or will be taken.
The noble Lord tried to draw a parallel between this case and Crichel Down. I really do not think that this case is comparable, even though the noble Lord opposite seemed to think that in some respects it was worse. I would ask your Lordships to reject that view entirely. There was no question of any letter with gross inaccuracies in it stemming from my right honourable friend's Department, or anything comparable to that at all. Apart from that point, the Crichel Down case turned on the owner's claim, for which there was no statutory cover of course, to be consulted before land taken by the Government for one purpose was transferred to another Department for use for a different purpose. This present case turns on the bona fides of a local authority in the exercise of their powers of compulsory purchase under a specific Statute. Those affected in this
950
case exercised their statutory rights of objection and have won their case. I really do not think there is a very close parallel with Crichel Down.
So may I say, as my last words, my Lords, that it comes to this? In deciding to confirm this order my right honourable friend and his Department went wrong in law, and that was decided in the High Court. But the error was made in good faith and with the best of intentions, and certainly without malice afore-thought.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that seems to be a most unsatisfactory reply from my point of view, because, in fact, what the noble Lord has said—am I out of order?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No; carry on.
LORD LINDGREN: I am sorry. I thought there was consultation as to whether this was a matter for question and answer, and that I was not entitled to speak. From my point of view that was a most unsatisfactory Answer. Because, what the Minister has said, in effect, is that the inspector who carried out the inquiry—who is generally a surveyor or an engineer—was a better laywer than the Ministry's legal department; and that what the Minister did was to take legal advice within his Department but the legal advice within his Department was in error. I think that that, in fact, does show, so far as the Minister is concerned, after he had been given an inspector's report definitely against the confirmation of the compulsory purchase order, that in rejecting it there was more than an error of judgment on his part.

CASE OF REINSTATED METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICERS
5.53 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why neither Mr. Stratta nor Mr. Campbell were called to give evidence before the tribunal which recommended that Constables Maclennan and Bourner of the Metropolitan Police be reinstated, considering that the constables were apparently made to resign on account of what they did to Messrs. Stratta and Campbell. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it might be of use to your Lordships' House if I

951
quickly ran over some of the facts which led up to the case which concerns my Question this afternoon. In September, 1962, a schoolmaster by the name of Stratta was going up Putney Hill when he saw four men and two police officers. The two police officers arrested three young men and left one standing there. Stratta, who was passing at the time, was approached by the fourth man who was rather older than the other three and was asked for his assistance, because the fourth man was a Scotsman who had come down to London and was staying with his son, who was one of the younger men. One of the other younger men was also his nephew. The man asked if Stratta could help, because he did not know how to get home, as only his son knew the place and had the key to his house.
Stratta took this older man down to the police station and tried to find out what had happened to the younger men. He was told there that they were being charged. He asked the police officer what they were being charged with, and the reply was that they were being charged with being drunk and disorderly. He then asked the police officer on behalf of the older man, whose name was Campbell, when they would be released. The sergeant at the desk apparently said that they would be released in half an hour. This appears to have started the whole case, because when Stratta asked if it was not strange that they should be released in half an hour if they were drunk and disorderly, he was apparently told to get out of the police station. So he took the older man out of the police station and waited there.
Shortly afterwards, the two police officers who apparently had made the arrest came out. One was Bourner and the other one was Maclennan. Quite what happened is obviously open to doubt, but my information is that they started an argument, after which the police officers arrested Campbell and Stratta, and put them inside. They were charged with obstruction and resisting arrest, and Stratta was accused of spitting at one of the policemen. Campbell and Stratta were then put in cells and charged, and the case came up next day, when there was an adjournment for ten days.
An important point now comes up. The spit on the jacket was shown, and it was agreed at that time that half of it should be given to Dr. Camp who had agreed to investigate this matter, and, that the other half should be taken by Scotland Yard. Spit in 70 per cent. of cases shows the blood group of the individual; 30 per cent. are what are known as non-secreters. When the hearing came up before Sir John Cameron the spit tests were given as evidence and it was shown that the spit on the jacket was "O" group, whereas the spit of Stratta was "A" group. Sir John Cameron, who threw the case out, criticised the police, and as a result of this case a year later the two officers were asked to resign. To be absolutely exact, Bourner was asked to resign and Maclennan was dismissed, but subsequently on appeal it was agreed that he should be asked to resign.
In this period of a year Maclennan made 50 arrests and gained 50 convictions. During the same period, as a result of the magistrate's case Stratta sued the police for damages. At the end of a year he was given a payment of £750 and Campbell was given a payment of £300. This payment was really brought to a head by the fact that towards the end of that year the police asked Campbell for a sample of his spit, which he refused to give. Subsequently, he wrote to Stratta and asked what he should do. Stratta's solicitor recommended that he should approach a firm of solicitors who had dealt with the "Kiss in the Car" case. There is another connection here, in that Maclennan was one of the officers in the "Kiss in the Car" case. As a result of these solicitors writing to the police, it was agreed that a payment should be made in the form of compensation.
After their resignations the two police officers appealed, and a tribunal was set up under Mr. Sutcliffe. The tribunal apparently examined all the revelant evidence and, at the end of their examination, made a recommendation that the two police officers should be reinstated. The Home Secretary acted upon this, and the two police officers have been reinstated. The slightly worrying thing is this: that neither Stratta nor Campbell were called to give evidence in this case. There is mentioned of this in the

953
tribunal's findings, but in fact Mr. Sutcliffe could have subpoenaed Stratta and Campbell to give evidence.
It is rather strange that after the magistrate's statement at the end of his case, and after the evidence of the blood group tests and everything else, the tribunal should have made this recommendation. It would seem that there are a number of inconsistencies in the tribunal's finding, and it would appear that the evidence was rather one-sided. The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police was criticised by the tribunal for allowing this year to elapse. This, obviously, is unfortunate. At the same time, it seems very strange that a tribunal should come to a decision without calling what could be described as the evidence for the prosecution. The prosecution in this case was, in fact, the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, and he also could have called for the subpoenaing of Stratta and Campbell.
Various questions have been raised in another place by Mr. Lubbock, and a copy of the tribunal's findings has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. One of the questions which I feel must be raised is as to how Mr. Sutcliffe came to his decision without calling Sir John Cameron, who had very strong views on the case and who was, after all, concerned with the case when it came up. The discrepancies which I mentioned earlier are in the evidence given by the two police constables. In the earlier case, they stated very definitely that Stratta had spat upon the police officer outside the police station. Before the tribunal, it becomes all rather confused and they say, well they thought that one of the four men spat—in fact one of the five men; Stratta, Campbell or the three younger men who were originally arrested. Consequently, my Lords, I should be most grateful if Her Majesty's Government would give some indication why neither Stratta nor Campbell was called to give evidence before that tribunal.
6.4 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, like, I imagine, all your Lordships, I am an admirer of the British police. Unlike some of your Lordships, perhaps, I am ready to criticise when I think criticism is justified. Nevertheless, as carefully and, in many respects, as fairly as the
954
noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has put his case and asked his questions, I regret very much that he has thought fit to raise this Question at all.
I would remind your Lordships that these two officers (I will come to the facts of the case in a moment) have been subjected to action in a magistrates' court; they have been before a disciplinary board and have been dismissed the service. They have appealed; their appeals have been heard and the punishment modified to that of resignation. They have appealed against that decision, and have appeared before a properly constituted tribunal, presided over by a Queen's Counsel, where they were represented by counsel during a hearing that lasted four days and where the respondent, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, prosecuted. They have been all through that, which took a very great deal of courage and persistence—and, indeed, I would say, belief in their complete innocence of the charge—and they have emerged completely vindicated, as I think anyone who reads the report of the tribunal will agree. In these circumstances I should have thought that they would have been spared the ordeal of appearing before another court, your Lordships' House, where they cannot possibly answer. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to express some views in reply to the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
First of all, in brief, the picture is that these two police officers in a police car, at 11.30 at night, in the dark, saw these three young men indulging in horse-play and told them to move off, which they eventually did. Shortly afterwards, a woman stopped the police car and complained about these three young men. The police went after them, and found them rather drunk. They would not move on and so they were put into the police car and taken to the police station. It was then somewhere about midnight. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that the older man—I think he said the fourth man; was it Campbell—
LORD REDESDALE: The father of one of the boys.
LORD STONHAM: —was related to two of the three young men. He neglected to say that he was also very drunk. I was not there, of course—I do not know

955
whether the noble Lord was there—but on this particular point I would read what the tribunal had to say. It said:
"While the formalities of the charge were in process, and while the two Appellants"—
that is, the two police officers—
"were in the charge room, Leslie Stratta and Robert Campbell entered the front office of the station and were seen by a Police Constable and later by the Station Sergeant. Robert Campbell had drunk too much to make any material contribution to the discussion that followed, but Leslie Stratta, who was excited and argumentative, protested that the three young men had not done anything warranting arrest. This kind of protest is from time to time made by members of the public after street brawls. The Station Sergeant asked Stratta a few proper questions as to what he had in fact seen, but Stratta was so argumentative that the Sergeant decided to end the disturbance. He told both Stratta and Campbell that if they wished to appear as witnesses they should attend at the South-Western Magistrates' Court in the morning. Both men then left the Station."
That is a somewhat different account, but it is the one which I would accept, having regard to the fact that it was produced after four days of inquiry in which four senior officers from the station concerned, including the particular station sergeant, had given evidence and had been cross-examined.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, very properly, asked why the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. Edward Sutcliffe, Q.C., did not call either of these two gentlemen as witnesses. I do not know whether he has read the report in full, but I would refer him to paragraphs 24 and 25, which say this:
"Neither Stratta nor Campbell gave evidence before us. We think that if this Inquiry had been a criminal trial of perjury—a crime not far remote from the disciplinary offences alleged—the Court would have required the clearest explanation of the Prosecution's failure to call as a witness at least one of the only two persons who could speak from personal knowledge as to the truth or falsehood of the charge. We were given no such explanation."
My Lords, I find that puzzling because the Act which provides for the right of appeal by a member of the police force punished by dismissal sets out the power to summon witnesses in Section 3, and I quote:
"A person holding an inquiry under this Act may by order require any person to attend as a witness and give evidence or to produce any documents in his possession or power which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry, and are such as would be subject to production in a court of law"—
956
and it goes on to say that "if any person fails to comply with the provisions", and so on. It was entirely up to Mr. E. D. Sutcliffe, Q.C., the chairman of the tribunal, to decide whether these or any other witnesses should be called.
Then the Report goes on to say:
"Neither Stratta nor Campbell have ever given oral evidence on oath and been subject to cross-examination as to these offences. The criminal proceedings against them were stopped before the prosecution case had ended; and the civil proceedings commenced by them were settled out of court. When invited at Maclennan's request"—
and this was at the request of one of the two police officers—
"to attend the disciplinary board, they indicated through their solicitors that they would not attend unless compelled by subpoena."
From that I should have thought two things were apparent: one, that constable Maclennan thought that their attendance at the board would help him; and two, that the two persons concerned thought that their attendance at the court would not help them.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord on that point? In fact, Stratta was advised not to attend on behalf of one of the two defendants; he was advised to wait until called by the tribunal itself. He was very ready to give evidence to the tribunal itself, but not to be called by one of the defendants.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that does not alter anything I have said or the truth of what the tribunal said; but it gives me the opportunity of saying that, in my view, Mr. Stratta is a most respectable gentleman who had the misfortune to be an innocent bystander and really misunderstood what was going on. It must be some salve that it brought him in the end a dividend of £750.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, the money has been spent on the various proceedings which have taken place since.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to deal with this point with regard to these two officers as the noble Lord fairly recounted what happened. It would lead to the inference, if you studied the Press and some of the garbled ways in which this thing was put in the Press, when everything was telescoped together without a proper explanation, that as far

957
as these two officers were concerned they were very well out of it when the case was settled out of court. The Report makes it clear it was nothing of the kind. In both cases Constable Maclennan, on the advice of learned counsel and the best possible solicitors engaged by the Police Federation, settled the matter; but he said that any settlement would have to be without prejudice to his denial that any offence had been committed; and the other police officer stipulated that he would not accept any terms which involved his apologising to either Mr. Stratta or Mr. Campbell. In other words, throughout the whole thing these two officers wholly maintained that they had not made any false arrest or any false statement or had done anything wrong at all. I think this should have been mentioned.
The tribunal said:
"We should not necessarily be thought to decry the character of Maclennan when we say that Bourner has had throughout his life before, as well as after joining the Force in 1948, a particularly fine character and record. Bourner was described by two of the officers who appeared before us as 'probably one of the best constables in this part of London' and by Chief Superintendent Davies as an outstanding, upright and excellent policeman in whom he had never lost confidence, even with full knowledge of the present proceedings."
The tribunal go on to make criticisms of the respondent, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in this matter, and it seemed to me that perhaps the Commissioner did suffer in some respects from excessive zeal in this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that both these officers were charged and had to resign or were dismissed. He will be aware that no disciplinary proceedings were taken against Bourner until a year after Maclennan had been proceeded against, and the tribunal said that in their view it seemed likely that no proceedings would have been taken against Bourner at all had it not been for the fact that Maclennan appealed. They add that it is a very serious matter that this first-class officer should have had this matter hanging over his head unnecessarily for an additional year. Perhaps in some ways—although I still regret it—it may be a good thing that the noble Lord has raised this Question. But I am hound to say that, having studied this matter thoroughly, and having never been one to hesitate if I felt that criticism was properly justified, I
958
that not only were the tribunal absolutely right in advising the Home Secretary, on the facts, to reinstate these men, with effect from the time they were dismissed, but also that, in this matter at least, they have been completely vindicated. I hope the noble Lord will accept that, and that we shall count ourselves fortunate that we still have these two excellent officers in the force.
6.18 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, may I start by saying that what evidence is called before an appeal tribunal under the Police (Appeals) Act, 1927, is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government; but is a matter for the tribunal. A tribunal would normally call such evidence—although they can call it themselves, and sometimes do—at the request of the appellant or the respondent. I should like to leave the matter there, but I do not think I can, because there have been criticisms from my noble friend that these two men, Messrs. Stratta and Campbell, were not called in front of the tribunal by the Commissioner of Police, and I think I must therefore answer that particular matter.
I do not want to go into the original occurrences of the brawl in the street. My noble friend's account of it was, I must say, very incomplete. I must also say that the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, although slightly more accurate, was incomplete, because other things happened later which he did not mention. But the fact remains that these two police officers who were mixed up in the affair were eventually acquitted and are back in the force. That is all that need be said about what they were charged with and what happened. But I must say a word about the disciplinary and appeal proceedings.
The men appeared in front of a disciplinary board, which found the original charge, of making a false statement and wrongful arrest, proved. They then took the proper course of appealing to the Commissioner, who at this stage was the appeal authority. He upheld the decision of the board, with a slight modification of sentence. They then took the step of appealing to a tribunal, under the Police (Appeals) Act. The chairman of the tribunal was a distinguished Q.C., and sitting with him was

959
one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. It should be understood that while the Commissioner of Police is the appeal authority in the middle stage, when the matter comes before a tribunal he is the respondent and he is responsible for showing that he has taken the right decision.
I do not know why these two men were not called by the tribunal or by the Commissioner, but it seems to me fairly obvious that if the Commissioner and the disciplinary board had come to their decisions on evidence which both thought strong enough for a conviction, they would not think it necessary to call further evidence. One of the accused constables said that he would like to call Mr. Stratta and Mr. Campbell to give evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, but these two men said that they would not appear unless subpoenaed. Constable Maclennan was then asked if he would like the Treasury solicitor to try to subpoena the two men or one of them, but, after he had taken advice from his own advisers, he said that he would let it go for the moment. At no later stage did he ask for them to be called.
In looking at the case as a whole, it would appear quite unnecessary that they should have been called. The constables were appealing against a decision in which the evidence of the two men had not been called, and it is not normal to call new evidence which has not been called before. To base a criticism of the Commissioner of Police on the suggestion that he had kept evidence from the tribunal does not stand. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, if the tribunal thought that this evidence was necessary, they would have called it themselves.
I think that that is all I need to say. The case has come to an end. Quite apart from what happened in the brawl, which had nothing to do with the matter we are discussing, these two police officers have been through the whole gamut of the police disciplinary regulations. They have been acquitted. So far as I can see, throughout the police procedure everyone, including the Commissioner of Police, has behaved in proper manner. I think that criticism of the kind which has been bandied about—I am not being
960
rude to my noble friend, but it has been bandied about—is quite unjustified.

THE EARLDOM OF SANDWICH
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received from Alexander Victor Edward Paulet Montagu an Instrument of Disclaimer to the Earldom of Sandwich, the Viscounty of Hinchingbrooke and the Barony of Montagu of St. Neots, delivered in accordance with Section 1 of the Peerage Act, 1963.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
MALICIOUS DAMAGE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.