Lords Sitting of 28 July 1964

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Torrington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

EGG MARKETING INQUIRY
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to receive the report of the Committee of Investigation at present studying the Consumers' Committee report on complaints on the operation of the British Egg Marketing Scheme; and what immediate steps they intend to take to minimise known hardship.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am unable to forecast when the Committee will complete their task. Besides the report of the Consumers' Committee, they have also to consider a complaint by Messrs. Western Egg Pasteurising Co., Ltd. relating to second quality eggs, and it will be for the Committee to decide how they deal with those two matters.
As my right honourable friend said on July 15, the Agriculture Ministers do not consider that the degree of hardship disclosed by the Consumers' Committee report would justify them in taking immediate action by way of a temporary direction under Section 21 of the Agricultural Marketing Act for the purpose of preventing injury to the public interest.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I know that the Minister has already said that he would not make a special case of this under Section 21, but in view of the known hardship, and in view of the fact that we know that at least one company is going into liquidation because of this, would he not be prepared to reconsider his decision and make an order under
962
Section 21 of the Agricultural Marketing Act? All this would do would be to put us back to square one. It seems to me that this would be a reasonable thing to do, and it would not upset the scheme in any way.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the operative words of Section 21 of the Act are
"immediate action for the purpose of preventing injury…"
My right honourable friends do not believe that the report of the Consumers' Committee was sufficiently strong to indicate that there had been actual injury. It is injury, as opposed to hardship or expense, that is the operative factor.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that if a firm is forced into liquidation by methods which, according to the evidence, are distinctly questionable, that really is hardship? Can he deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the point of immediate action? We shall be sitting only for two more days. What will happen to this particular firm is nothing is done, or if the noble Earl is unable to give an assurance that speedy action will be taken?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Committee of Investigation are looking into this matter, and it is after they have reported that the Minister should make up his mind what to do. It would obviously be improper for me to say now whether or not the Board is right or wrong, because that matter is sub judice.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say when the Committee are expected to report, and when we may expect a decision from the Minister?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is impossible to give a clear date. All I can say is that in these cases it normally takes some two or three months, because the appellants have to provide their witnesses and so on, and on this occasion there are two subjects for the Committee to investigate. I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how long it will take.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that this does constitute an injury? Would he say in

963
what way the scheme would be jeopardised by making an order under Section 21?
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that at the moment there is any evidence that it is an injury, because the Committee set up to investigate whether or not there is an injury have not yet reported. As my right honourable friend has indicated, I think it would be inappropriate at this moment to take action under Section 21.

DEARTH OF HERRING IN NORTH SEA
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: 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 investigations are still being made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea into the causes of the dearth of herring in the North Sea; and whether any reports have yet been received.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, investigations are continuing with all possible diligence on this complex subject, and our own scientists are making their contribution to the international study. A report was made by the Council to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission at their meeting in May. The Commission have invited the Council to continue their study of the state of the stocks of herring in the Convention area, which includes the North Sea. A further report is expected to be made to the Commission at their meeting in May, 1965.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, will my noble friend bear in mind that the investigations of this Council take longer and longer, and the scarcity of herring, meanwhile, becomes greater and greater? Can he bring some pressure upon the Council to make their final report as soon as possible?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is, I think, fully
964
appreciated by the Council. As he knows, this is a very tricky subject for them, and there are many divergent views. But I think the whole of the area is concerned, just as is the noble Lord, about the herring problem.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may ask one more question, will my noble friend give a directive on the part of the British Government that these marine biologists have got to agree? They are almost as bad as the economists.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I do not think it is for Ministers to give directives to anybody, including your Lordships' House, that they have got to agree.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the amateurs on this subject what they do if they agree that there is a dearth?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if they agree that there is a dearth, they find out the cause of the dearth, and then they can, we hope, do something about it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May we know what?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord give a forecast as to when it will be possible to buy bloaters at the fishmongers?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that is another matter, and the noble Lord should put down a Question.

PREVENTIVE DETENTION
2.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take, pending the passing of the necessary legislation, to ensure that no further sentences of preventive detention are awarded; and whether they will undertake a review of the sentences now being served by preventive detainees, with a view to the early release of men who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for minor offences.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME I OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the Government have no authority, without legislation, to restrict the powers of the courts to impose preventive detention; and pending the legislation which I foreshadowed in my statement of July 23, it would be premature to consider the position of persons now serving that sentence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that already two preventive detention prisons, namely, Nottingham and Parkhurst, are no longer used for preventive detainees? If further sentences are awarded before the relevant legislation is passed by Parliament it will mean that it will be impossible for the preventive detention régime to be administered in any of Her Majesty's Prisons, because there will be no more preventive detention prisons. How do Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with this problem? Is the noble Lord saying that absolutely nothing can be done prior to introduction of legislation that the Government have now promised?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, it is a matter for the courts whether they continue to give sentences of preventive detention, and not a matter for the Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord now deal with the part of my Question on the Order Paper which he has not answered—namely, the review of sentences of men at present serving preventive detention sentences?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the Government's proposals are not simply to do away with preventive detention, but to put something in its place, and until this is done it is not possible to consider the sentences of existing preventive detention prisoners. I would point out to the House, however, that under the new proposals the vast majority of those serving preventive detention could have received sentences as long as those they already had.

THE LANG REPORT
2.40 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to in form your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be making a Statement on the Lang Report.

WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SHELL COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid:
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session, namely the First Reading thereof on the 8th of April last:
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN CONSERVANCY) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BIDEFORD HARBOUR) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

POLICE PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 3) REGULATIONS, 1964
2.43 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on July 16, be approved. The Regulations amend the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962. Your Lordships will recollect that approval was given on July 7 to amendments to these Regulations contained in the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1964. The No. 2 Regulations related to four matters: the pension arrangements for inspectors of constabulary; the commutation of part of a pension for a lump sum; the allocation of part of a pension in favour of a dependant, and the provision of a gratuity for the widow or dependants of a policeman who dies as the result of a murderous attack. The No. 3 Regulations now before your Lordships have the effect of replacing this last provision relating to a gratuity by a new provision.
I am aware that your Lordships felt some reservation about the scope of the earlier provision, and I endeavoured to explain that its effect would be to pro-
968
vide a gratuity to the widow of a policeman whose case has been distinguishable, and has been distinguished in the past, from those of other widows of other men who face danger and death in carrying out their duties including the hazards of police service. I explained that my right honorable friend the Home Secretary recognised also the claims of other widows and their need for a lump sum of money in the suddenly changed circumstances of widowhood, and that he had proposed that the provisions of the police pensions arrangements should be reviewed in comparison with the pensions arrangements of other services which provide lump sum payments in addition to a pension. Following your Lordships' approval of the No. 2 Regulations, the provision relating to the payment of a gratuity was the subject of debate in another place, and the Home Secretary undertook to lay before Parliament further draft amending regulations extending the circumstances in which a gratuity would be payable to the widow of a policeman. The further amending regulations are contained in these draft No. 3 Regulations.
Draft Regulation 1 inserts the new provision to replace the provision to which I have referred. It provides (like the former provision) that, where a policeman dies as the result of an attack, the widow shall be entitled to a gratuity, of an amount equal to twice the annual maximum pay of a constable, in addition to the special rate of pension which the principal regulations already provide. It also provides (and this is additional to the former provision) for the payment of a widow's pension at the special rate and of the same gratuity where a member of a police force, although not attacked, dies on or after August 1 next as a result of an injury received in performing duties for the immediate purpose of effecting an arrest or preventing an escape or rescue from custody. The entitlement of dependent children contained in the No. 2 Amendment Regulations will extend to the children of a member of a police force who dies in any of these circumstances: that is, the gratuity that would have been payable to a widow will be payable in equal shares to a policeman's children if he does not leave a widow or, in the case of a policewoman, if she was the children's only surviving

969
parent. Draft Regulation 2 consequentially deletes from the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations Regulation 8, which is now superseded by Regulation 1 of these present Regulations.
Draft Regulation 4 provides that the amending regulations shall come into operation on August 1 next. The Police Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland have been consulted and agree with the terms of the draft Regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1964, laid before the House on July 16, be approved.—(Lord Derwent.)
2.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we warmly welcome the Government's second thoughts on this matter. As the noble, Lord, Lord Derwent, said on July 7 when we approved this Order, we did so with considerable misgivings, which were expressed by my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself. This, of course, illustrates one of the difficulties we are always in with an Order of this kind, which we cannot possibly amend and can only either approve or reject. No one, of course, wished to reject a measure which would have improved the pensions position of police, their widows and dependants, but we felt that the Government's proposals in the original Order which we were asked to approve were inadequate.
I appreciate the difficulties in which the Home Secretary found himself then, in that he had not then been able to secure the agreement of the Police Federation to an agreed form of words. Paragraph 12A(b), which is now included in the Order is, I understand, the form of words which has been agreed with the Police Federation and is, therefore, wholly satisfactory. It means that dependants will benefit if a policeman dies either immediately or subsequently, not only as a result of an attack but in the course of the performance of his duties. This is exactly what we wanted.
The only minor point—I hope it is a minor point—is that we should have hoped that this provision would come into operation immediately on the Order's being passed by the House, and would not have to wait until August 1.
970
We can only hope fervently that no fatal accident befalls a policeman in the execution of his duties before August 1. Apart from that, we wholly approve this Order and are grateful for the Government's second thoughts.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I must correct the noble Lord on one point, because in what he said there was a slip of the tongue. Compensation does not arise for death from injury received in the performance of any duty. I hope the noble Lord realises that. I must repeat the actual words, in order that this is fully understood:
"whose death is the result of an injury received…in the course of duties performed…for the immediate purpose of effecting an arrest or of preventing an escape or rescue from legal custody…"
Those are the terms of the Order. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Third Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1.—PICTURE OF THE HOUSE IN SESSION
The Committee were informed that demand for the coloured reproduction referred to in the notice circulated to Peers on the 8th July is insufficient to make the proposal economically feasible.
The Committee recommend instead that a high quality black and white photograph be made available for sale to Peers at 25s. They further recommend that permission be given to the Illustrated London News to publish a reproduction of the picture. After publication the Illustrated London News have agreed to place the block at the disposal of the House so that arrangements can be made to produce copies of this reproduction for sale to Peers at a reasonable price. Full details of these proposals will be circulated to Peers in due course.
2.—PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Mr. Paul David Grenville Hayter as a Clerk in the Parliament Office from 29th June. 1964.
3.—OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee authorised the payment of an additional fee for the Official Shorthand Writer in connection with the new procedure on Judgments in House of Lords Appeals.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—

(a) E.C. No. 18/64 Central Pay Increase (Interim),

(b) E.C. No. 19/64 Interim revision of pay scales between the Principal's maximum and the Assistant Secretary's minimum

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee sanctioned consequential increases in six awards under the Superannuation Acts.
5.—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
The Committee sanctioned the payment for additional Police required for the opening of the Palace of Westminster to the public for extra days as required during the Summer Recess.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint your Lordships that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of the Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. When your Lordships met on November 25 last year to pay tribute to the late President Kennedy we all felt a great sense of shock at the news of the assassination. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the feeling which was shared by millions in this country, and indeed throughout the world, that we must all do something to express our grief and to reaffirm our determination to live up to the ideals of President
972
Kennedy. It immediately became clear that the British public would wish this feeling to be reflected in an appropriate national memorial to a man who had been so firm an ally and friend. Accordingly, the Government, with the agreement of the Opposition Parties, set up a Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, to consider suggestions and to recommend what form a Memorial might take.
Early this year they recommended that the Memorial should take two forms: a plot of land at Runnymede, laid out simply, with a plinth and steps, should be given in perpetuity to the United States in memory of the President; and, in addition, a scholarship fund should be established for young men and women from this country to go, as undergraduates or graduates, some to Harvard University or Radcliffe College, some to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The acceptance of these proposals by all concerned was announced on March 25. The Lord Mayor of London readily offered to make the President Kennedy Memorial the object of a Lord Mayor's Appeal, and this was inaugurated in May. My Lords, I think we would all wish to say how grateful we are to him for his hard work. Contributions have been coming in from all parts of the country, but still more are needed if the scholarship project is to be soundly based, and I hope that this will serve as a further reminder of the appeal, which I commend to your Lordships.
Meanwhile, a small Committee of three—of which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was Chairman—had been entrusted with the task of supervising how the Memorial should be put into effect. It is thanks to their efforts that the plans are now so well advanced. Their proposal was that a body of eleven Trustees, selected from this country and the United States, should be set up both to manage the plot of land at Runnymede and to run the scholarship scheme. Two of these, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Lord Mayor of London, would be ex officio; six would be appointed by the Prime Minister, and one each by the President of the United States, the President of Harvard University and the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
These suggestions were welcomed by all concerned and a Trust Deed was

973
executed on July 4—a very appropriate date. All the American Trustees have already been appointed, and so have three of the Prime Minister's nominees. These latter include two Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Sherfield, and my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Macmillan. It is intended that, the three remaining British Trustees will represent British educational institutions.
The Committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, studied all possible sites at Runnymede and decided in favour of a small plot of land which at present forms part of the Crown Estate. Her Majesty the Queen has expressed Her wish that the land should be transferred to the United States as a gift. It is necessary to make statutory provision for such a transfer since the Crown Estate Commissioners are normally obliged to get the best price for any alienation of Crown Estate land. Clause 1 of the Bill accordingly makes provision for this. It also provides for the land, though vested in the United States, to be held in perpetuity under the control and management of the Trustees for the use and enjoyment of the public. Clause 2 gives the Trustees all the rights and powers of an absolute owner of the land, so that there is no hindrance to their management.
I think your Lordships will agree that the recommendations of the Committee which met under the noble Lord, Lord Franks, as embodied in this Bill and in the Trust Deed provide a proper tribute to the late President's memory. These recommendations represent the two most striking facets of his character and life, the consistently refreshing energy which he brought to the affairs of the world, and the solid and lasting qualities of the ideals for which he stood. It is particularly appropriate that these ideals of liberty, equality and tolerance should be commemorated at Runnymede from where so many of our own traditions of freedom are drawn. It is therefore my privilege to commend the purpose of the Bill to your Lordships, and to ask for your Lordships' co-operation in giving expression to the nation's tribute to the late President Kennedy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
2.58 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to associate myself and all my colleagues with the expressions which have been made by the Leader of the House with regard to the Memorial which is to be set up in respect of the late President John F. Kennedy. I said a few words on the occasion of his passing away and I do not wish to delay your Lordships at the present moment at any length, but I am bound to say that one feels an enormous sympathy with anybody who becomes President of the great American Republic at the present time or who has become President in recent years. The tasks have been stupendous. Great issues which have been with them for a very long time have had to be faced, and there was something quite magnificent about the way in which John F. Kennedy faced up to the practical ignoring, for decades, in many parts of the United States of what became embodied in the United Nations' Charter as the Article on "Human Rights". One cannot but think on an occasion such as this that there was a man who became a martyr to his loyal and continued support of the Bill of Rights, which was really to bring his nation into line with the provisions of the United Nations Charter in relation to human rights.
The Memorial which is to be set up is, I think, a very fine way in which our commemoration should be made, and we are grateful to Her Majesty for the statement which was conveyed to the House by the Leader of the House because it affects some land which she is prepared to give up for purposes connected with the Memorial. I note what the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, says about the appointment of Trustees. They are all excellent choices; but it would be rather nice if perhaps at some other time the Trustees would include, say, a representative or representatives of other parts of the great political democracy in this country. We shall never forget—none of us who have lived through these last decades—the great services which were rendered by America to ourselves, perhaps at the beginning of the war especially, and which we received from them at different times. I pray that nothing may ever arise which will be likely to divide the two great peoples,

975
British and American, from constant co-operation for these great ideals for which John F. Kennedy stood.
3.0 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I have no hesitation whatever in giving the full support of my Party and myself to this Bill to commemorate a very great man, and I would echo the thanks we all feel to Her Majesty the Queen for enabling this to be put forward and achieved in such a very imaginative way. We have on another occasion paid our tributes to the late President Kennedy, and I hope that the deep sincerity with which those were expressed has penetrated across the Atlantic to Mrs. Kennedy, his family and the people of America, who I sincerely hope know how deeply we felt at their loss and the world's loss.
The present proposal to inaugurate this Memorial has a two-fold aspect in a way. It is in memoriam of a great man, of the things he stood for and the ideals he held; in another way, it is a symbol of our hopes of what he might have done had he been spared to live. For that reason I believe that we are quite right in giving such a treasured part of this country of ours to the image of a man, to the life of a man and the possible future life of a man who did not continue his life in a great cause. We are proud to be able to do this and trust that our American friends will again see how very sincerely we feel in this matter.
3.5 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, it had not been my intention to address your Lordships' House so soon after entering it and I crave your indulgence, but the project which is enshrined in this Bill is one which I have had some small part in furthering and one which is close to my heart. As has been said, Lord Franks' Committee made some recommendations which were widely accepted, but they were in general terms and some practical work was necessary so that the Lord Mayor's Appeal could be launched, a Bill could be introduced into Parliament and a Trust set up. I was asked to undertake this task, and in it I had great assistance from my two colleagues, the United States Ambassador and Sir Humphrey Mynors.
One of our main tasks was to select and secure a site at Runnymede, and the operative part of this Bill deals with this.
976
The idea of a Memorial at Runnymede was, I think, an appropriate and indeed an imaginative one. But in practice it was not easy to find a suitable place. We were, in the event, fortunate in our quest. We have found a spot on Crown land which is accessible but, at the same time, secluded and unspoiled. It commands a fine view over the Mede and over Runnymede Island and it adjoins National Trust land over which there will be free access to it.
In securing and selecting this site we have had the help of a great number of people and organisations—the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and its officials, the Chairman and officials of the National Trust, the Crown Estate Commissioners, the local authorities, who quickly gave outline planning permission, the Crown tenant and sub-tenant, who readily agreed to give up their leases; and finally the lawyers of the United States and British Governments, who quickly found a way through some of the problems involved in the transfer of this land. And all this work was crowned by the generous gesture of Her Majesty the Queen in giving this land to the United States Government.
The design of the Memorial is obviously of critical importance. The concept on which the architect, Mr. Geoffrey Jellicoe, is working is a very simple one. It is to preserve to the greatest possible extent the natural beauty of the setting; to limit the monumental treatment to the minimum; and to make the Memorial a place to which visitors can go for quiet contemplation and repose. The final designs will, of course, be approved by the Trustees, with the consent of the Royal Fine Art Commission and the local authorities, and it is hoped that the Memorial will be ready for dedication by the time of the 750th anniversary of the signing of Magna Charta in June of next year.
The idea of a Memorial at Runnymede is rich in symbolism, but it is simple and straightforward in execution, and it will absorb only a very small part of the funds which are being raised by public subscription. The great bulk of them will be available for the scholarships at the three centres of learning in Massachusetts. The conditions for the scholarships and the terms on which they

977
are held will be a matter for the Trustees, but I think I can say that it was heartening to read the warm and enthusiastic terms in which the Presidents of Harvard, Radcliffe and M.I.T. welcomed these proposals, and to observe the alacrity with which they moved to appoint Trustees to represent their interests. Harvard, which for this purpose represents Radcliffe, has appointed Mr. Nathaniel Davis. M.I.T. has appointed Mr. David Shepard. Both are distinguished alumni of their universities, both have wide knowledge of this country, and both are well known to many people here.
I have heard it said that this scholarship scheme is not a very exciting proposal; that it is just one more scheme for the founding of scholarships on one side of the Atlantic or another, and that it lacks originality. I do not myself agree with that view. I think that there is a great deal more scope for the establishment of such scholarships, particularly in a Westward direction, and I cannot think of a more appropriate way of commemorating a young President who had outstanding intellectual gifts than the foundation of scholarships at his own University and at the great scientific institute across the river.
There is one more point. There is to be established in Boston by the Kennedy family a Museum and Archive in commemoration of the late President, and to this is to be added an Institute which is to serve as a centre of study for Kennedy Scholars from the United States and from all over the world and as a place where they can meet. It has been in our minds from the outset that Kennedy Scholars from this country should visit and study at this Institute when it is established. I have no doubt whatever that arrangements will be made at the earliest opportunity by the universities where these scholars are studying, with the authorities of the Kennedy Institute, to provide for such visits and study, and that these arrangements will, if necessary, be approved by the Kennedy Memorial Trustees.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, the scope of this scholarship scheme depends upon the response to the public appeal, and it is my understanding that while many people and a number of institutions have already given generously there is room for a
978
further and wider response if this is to be made a really comprehensive and worthy scheme.
Memories are short. I am sure that everyone in this country was deeply moved by the shocking event at Dallas. But nowadays emotions and even intellectual responses are quickly overlaid by succeeding events and crises, and I daresay that in this case the effect has been somewhat attenuated by the smooth transfer of power which is provided for by the American Constitution, and by the fact that President Kennedy's chosen successor, the present President, has had, not surprisingly perhaps, the strength and the skill in his own way to carry forward the policies of the late President and to realise them in essentials. But this does not in the least detract from—indeed, I think it enhances—what President Kennedy gave and did.
Perhaps it was the younger generation who were most affected by the death of the late President. Many of them, I think, found it almost intolerable that, in a world which seemed to be run largely by old men, the one representative of their own generation who had broken through to the summit of power was the one to be struck down. I think that this project will serve as a living memory of the President, and that it will appeal particularly to young people. I am glad to have had the opportunity of supporting it.
3.13 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken upon the excellence of his maiden speech. No one is better qualified than he to speak on this subject, and I am sure that he has welcomed the opportunity of making his first speech in this House in praise of the memory of President Kennedy. The noble Lord brings great gifts and wide experience to the service of this House, and we shall look forward to hearing him speak often on the many matters in which he is so well qualified to address this House.
May I, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, give our full support to this Bill? In these days of rapid communication across the world it is possible in a short time for those who are

979
placed in conspicuous positions of leadership to impress the quality of their character and ideals upon everybody in a manner which was denied to their fore-fathers. We have in the last few years had two conspicuous examples of the way in which this can happen: one concerned an old man, one a young man. In the course of his short reign, of a few years, Pope John XXIII, through the patent goodness of his character and love of peace, brought a sweetness and understanding to relationships both within and without the life of the Church which will long endure. He died in the fullness of his years. President John Kennedy, by the vigour and charm of his youthfulness, his courage, his love of freedom, gave inspiration and new vision to the whole world. He was struck down by a cruel assassin's bullet in the full flow of his life and his ability. Yet in those few years he has left the mark of his person and his ideals upon the whole of humanity.
Many of your Lordships no doubt sat up late on that momentous night when the President spoke over the radio of the action he had decided to take in the Cuban crisis. We wondered whether we should be alive next day. Never has any single man had such a weight of responsibility laid upon his shoulders, or had to take so awful a decision, as he did at that time. The courage of his decision and the statesmanship he displayed in the handling of the situation which followed placed us all in his debt. It is eminently fitting that there should be in this country, which has been the cradle of modern political freedom, a Memorial to this champion of human freedom. It is fitting that it should be at Runnymede, with all the historical associations that that name conjures up to the mind. This Bill is an expression of the gratitude that we in this country feel for the leadership of President Kennedy. I am sure that its significance is appreciated by all of us.
3.16 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, as one who has had the honour of being Rector of a Great British University with a tremendous international tradition extending over the centuries—I refer to the University of St. Andrew's—I would add just one sentence to what has been said.
980
I believe that international scholarships offer one of the greatest hopes for the world in the future; and in that I entirely agree with the noble Lord to whose delightful maiden speech we have just listened. As one who personally knew President Kennedy, I am quite certain that this manifestation on our part of his memory would have been more agreeable to him than anything else.
3.17 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that in normal circumstances I would add anything more, since the support your Lordships have given the Bill has been unanimous and most movingly expressed. But I think that perhaps on behalf of my noble friends behind me, and I am sure for noble Lords opposite as well, I might say how much we welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. It seems rather an impertinence to congratulate him since he has had such a distinguished career in so many walks of life, not least, I think—indeed, perhaps most of all—when he was British Ambassador in the United States. It is therefore more than appropriate that he should have chosen this occasion to make his first speech in your Lordships' House. I join with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester in hoping that he will speak to your Lordships many times again, and in tones so elegant and so brief. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE, MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

981
My Lords, I should first like to express my thanks to your Lordships for facilitating the passage of this measure. It is the outcome of many months of hard work and deep consideration, and of many weeks of detailed and intensive negotiation. I regret that your Lordships should not have had more time in which to study the Bill, the proposed Independence Constitution and the proposed Defence and Financial Agreements, which all form part of the arrangements for Malta's independence.
The Bill itself follows the normal pattern of other Independence Bills. Clause 1 provides for the transfer of sovereignty on a date to be appointed by Order in Council. It is expected that this will be in the latter part of September. Clauses 2 and 3 deal in the normal form with questions of British nationality consequent upon Malta's attaining independence. Clause 4 provides for the amendment of existing laws to take account of Malta's independence, and repeals the earlier constitutional instruments which will be replaced by the new Constitution. I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to go into further detail about the provisions of the Bill which, as I have said, follows the general pattern of other independence Bills, but I feel sure your Lordships will wish me to say something about the new Constitution and about the Defence and Financial Agreements.
It is just a year since we held the Malta Independence Conference here in London, attended by representatives of all the Maltese political Parties. The proceedings and outcome of that Conference are described in the Conference Report (Command Paper 2121). The Conference confirmed that the two main political Parties, holding 42 out of the 50 seats in the Legislature, were seeking early independence. Although these two Parties were in complete agreement on seeking early independence, they could not reach agreement on the form of the Independence Constitution. The three smaller Parties, with eight seats in the Legislature, said that independence at the present time would be premature, and they asked that a referendum should be held to confirm that the majority of the people of Malta did, in fact, favour early independence. My right honourable friend explained to the Conference that, from the large number of votes cast for the two pro-independence Parties at the
982
last Election, it appeared that a substantial majority favoured early independence. However, since this conclusion was disputed by the three smaller Parties he suggested that any possible doubt on this question should be eliminated by a referendum, and that in the meantime further discussion of the Constitution should be deferred. As it was not possible to reach agreement between the Parties on this proposal, it had to be abandoned.
In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the request for early independence had been a principal feature in the electoral programme of both the main Parties, my right honourable friend announced a target date for independence not later than May 31, 1964. My right honourable friend requested the Prime Minister of Malta to have further consultations in the meantime with the leaders of the other Parties, with a view to reaching compromise on the form of a Constitution. By the end of the year Dr. Borg Olivier had not been able to achieve any agreement in Malta, and further consultations took place in London, again without result. This led to a request by Dr. Borg Olivier that the British Government should them-selves settle the Constitution. As your Lordships know, the principal difficulty had centred on the position of the Roman Catholic Church, and my right honourable friend was naturally reluctant to intervene in such a delicate matter of this sort.
The Prime Minister of Malta then decided to hold a referendum in which the electors were asked to vote for or against the Constitution for independence which the Government of Malta had published and for which they had received the endorsement of the Malta Legislature. The result of the referendum in fact added nothing to the information already available. Forty-two per cent. of those qualified to vote cast their votes in favour of the Constitution, and 35 per cent. against. The smaller Parties, which did not dissent from the main features of the Constitution, instructed their supporters either to spoil their papers or to abstain. In other words, the referendum merely confirmed the position reached at the Conference; that is, that the great majority of electors supported the Parties who were asking

983
for early independence, but neither of those Parties was prepared to agree to embark upon independence under a Constitution acceptable to the other.
My right honourable friend then decided that the only way to bring the matter to a conclusion was to work out a solution acceptable to Malta which would also be acceptable to the British Parliament and which would conform with the principles which had been adopted in other Independence Constitutions. The problem was to secure the acceptance of the Malta Government to the amendments which we considered necessary to their proposed Constitution. It was also necessary to obtain the agreement of the Malta Government to the terms of the Defence Agreement and to the financial settlement.
So far as the Constitution was concerned, the changes made were as follows. First, a clause—Clause 46 in the proposed Independence Constitution—was inserted prohibiting discrimination on racial or religious grounds. This is a normal feature of Independence Constitutions. Secondly, Clauses 48(10) and 48(11) of the Malta Government proposed Constitution were omitted. These clauses would have had the effect of exempting the Roman Catholic Church from the application of the code of human rights. We fully understand the special position of the Roman Catholic Church in Malta, and have not forgotten that when the people of Malta voluntarily entrusted their country to King George III they secured a pledge that the special position of the Church would be preserved. But the Roman Catholic Church is itself a protagonist of the rights of the individual, and no doubt it was for this reason that the Malta Government, with the good will of the ecclesiastical authorities, have agreed to omit these clauses.
I turn now to the Defence Agreement and to the Financial Agreement, which it is intended should come into effect immediately after independence has been achieved. Malta has an important part to play in the defence of the Free World, and the Defence Agreement enabling British Forces to remain in Malta for a period of ten years affords them very much the same facilities as they have at present. This will be to Malta's benefit
984
not only because of the substantial expenditure by our Services in Malta, but also because of the employment which the British Forces also generate. At the same time we do not overlook the fact that such expenditure will be at a lower level than it was in the past, because of the Services run-down which became necessary a few years ago.
This inevitable consequence of changes in defence requirements imposes a need to develop and diversify the economy of Malta; and that need, my Lords, is recognised in the Financial Agreement. The terms of that Agreement are, I think your Lordships will agree, generous. They provide for aid of up to £51 million over ten years. There is a firm commitment to make available up to £18·8 million in the three years to March 31, 1967—the period when Malta's needs will be most acute. Up to £31·2 million will be available in the subsequent seven years, subject to the continued operation of the Defence Agreement. In addition, we will provide up to £1 million for the restoration of historic buildings now occupied by our Services.
The Government of Malta sought from us a firm commitment to provide aid for their recurrent Budget for as long as it might be needed. They foresaw that such a need might exist until 1970. We have undertaken to provide budgetary assistance of up to £600,000 in the current financial year, subject to Parliamentary approval. We told the Prime Minister of Malta that we could not enter into an advance commitment as regards budgetary aid for future years, but that we should be prepared to consider any requests for such aid which the Malta Government might make from time to time. We have, however, agreed to one measure which will relieve the Maltese Budget during the operation of the Agreement on Mutual Defence. The Malta Government accepted the provisions which are normal where forces are stationed in independent countries, for duty-free entry into Malta of imports for our Service needs. But in view of Malta's difficult budgetary position we propose, again subject to Parliamentary approval, to make good each year the loss to their revenue which would otherwise result from this arrangement.
My Lords, it is the sincere belief of Her Majesty's Government that the

985
people of Malta will make every endeavour to ensure that this liberal Constitution shall become the foundation of their democratic liberties. The history of Malta has been a noble chapter in the annals of European freedom, and I am sure that Malta will remain true to her great tradition. I know that your Lordships in all parts of the House will join in wishing Malta Godspeed. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH THE EARL OF PERTH rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time; to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "This House, while approving the principle that the people of Malta should be free to choose their destiny, is of the opinion that no specific proposals should be passed by Parliament until the Maltese people have been consulted either through new elections or by referendum, and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to this Bill."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before I go further in my speech, I want to make three points absolutely clear. The first is that I am, as it were, speaking on my own. I am not speaking on behalf of anybody in Malta, whether they be ecclesiastical authorities or anybody else. Indeed, in the past week I should scarcely have had time to get in touch with anybody in Malta. The second point is that I do not intend to discuss the Bill or the Constitution or anything to do with it, for, though others may wish to, I do not think it is appropriate to do so. Thirdly, I am not against independence for Malta if that is what the Maltese want. I doubt that very much, but I will come on to that point later.
Perhaps, before I go into further detail, I might recall that my first political assignment was at the Round Table Conference with many of your Lordships who are here to-day. At that time, which was some eight years ago, I paid my first visit to Malta and during that visit I learned to have deep affection for the Maltese people and developed
986
interest in and respect for the island. There were its memorable towns and churches, its great fortresses which bastioned us against the attacks of our enemies over the centuries, its trusting people, its many and happy children, and, above all, their daily way of life of which religion is a natural and simple part.
In 1802, when the Maltese chose to seek our protection, there were something fewer than 100,000 Maltese on the island. To-day, 160 years later, there are well over 300,000, and the reason for this is largely that we have fostered and developed the people of the island. Bearing this in mind, surely it is our responsibility to be satisfied that what is happening at this moment, what we are proposing to do, is right in their interests as well as in ours. Their future is in our hands to-day.
We have had, all of us in both Houses, less than a week in which to consider and decide upon what has been negotiated—I was going to say, almost in secret—whether on the Constitution, whether on defence or whether on assistance. In less than six hours another place gave their approval to the Bill, and we are expected in a few hours to-day to give our approval also. My Lords, is that the way in which we should fulfil our responsibilities to an island which has been in our care and served us so well for so long? If there were a good reason for this hurry I could well understand it, but is there a good reason? Is there in Malta to-day a clamour and demand for independence which, if not satisfied, will cause undying hatred among the Maltese people? Is there a smouldering, burning resentment against us, which will break into insurrection if they do not get independence in the next several weeks?
What has been happening in recent times? The Prime Minister of Malta has felt so satisfied about things at home that he has been able to spend weeks, nay, months, in listless negotiation over here. So your Lordships will see that there is no urgency coming from the people of Malta But yet, as I have said, during the night, Constitution, Defence and Assistance Agreements have all been initialled and sprung upon us, and we are asked to rubber stamp these Agreements.
There has been no chance for the Maltese people to react, although I myself feel confident that it has struck a chill into many of their hearts. There has been no chance for any of us to question, to probe, to discuss, to try to discover what is the attitude of the Maltese people. There has been no chance for public opinion to express itself. No, my Lords, the Government know best and we must accept all they are saying! Even if they do know best, even if they are right, is it really the way to treat us, that in this short space of time we are called on to approve these very important Agreements on this very important question?
I can think of reasons for this hurry. For example, some may say, "Well, we have got a pretty good Defence Agreement with the present Government of Malta. If we wait longer, if we wait till somebody else is in power or till there is a new Prime Minister in Malta, maybe we shall not get terms of these kind. It may be that it will cost us more money; so let us take what we can now." My Lords, as we have heard the noble Marquess say, there is some doubt about even this Defence Agreement. Otherwise, he would not say, "No aid after three years if you do not carry out the terms of the Agreement". That shows that it is recognised that, once the country is independent (and this is a point which I think we are sometimes apt to forget), it can do what it likes. It can make agreements, it can break agreements; and we have no recourse.
My Lords, I am no defence expert, and many of your Lordships may be. But I am clear about one thing—this has been borne out by history, and I do not believe that history changes, regardless of the weapons that may be developed: that he who controls Malta controls the Mediterranean. My Lords, let us be clear about this. The idea of Malta standing on its own as an independent island, or independent islands, does not really hold water. It cannot, in fact, be independent. Sooner or later someone around the Mediterranean is bound to get control of the islands in one way or another. We are throwing away this great prize for which we have given so much. We shall be throwing away all in the next day or two, unless, as may possibly happen if I
988
move my Amendment, I have your Lordships' support.
I think there is another reason why there has been this hurry, this hustle. We have heard from the noble Marquess that this particular set of negotiations started a year ago. But, of course, when you start negotiations like this, and when they have dragged on month after month, impatience develops, and you have a vested interest in securing the success of the negotiations without paying attention to anything else that may be happening. Your whole effort and your whole thought is, "Let us get these negotiations through". Then, suddenly, as we have heard, the chance arose, and the thought was, "Grab it. It is one more tick on the blackboard; one more country independent". This, I believe, is one of the reasons for what we have seen.
My Lords, over the last month I have tried, and some friends of mine have tried, again and again to influence the Government, to persuade them to think again about granting. Malta independence now. I think there is little or no evidence that the people of Malta want it. We have heard the figures of what happened at the last elections. Out of 50 seats, 42 went to Parties which had independence on their platform. But, of course, when Mr. Mintoff's Labour Party put independence on their platform, Dr. Borg Olivier's Party was bound to follow—"Who's for liberty? We are all for liberty". It is true that two or three of the smaller Parties had the courage to say that they still did not stand for it and wanted to wait. In any event, that Election was not fought on independence. Your Lordships will all recall what it was fought on. It was fought on the question: For or against Mintoff? Your Lordships will remember the bitter struggle there was; and the whole of the forces of the country were thinking purely of that. And because Dr. Borg Olivier's Party was the largest and the oldest Party, those who wanted to keep Mintoff out said, "We will vote for him; we will vote for Dr. Borg Olivier; his Party offers us the best success". That, my Lords—and this is my point—is what the Election was fought on, not independence; and the figures of who got what in the way of seats have no possible bearing.
I could, of course, be wrong in my belief. Very well; let us test it—and this

989
is what we have asked. Let us test it by a referendum. But for some reason which has never been clear to me—and we have heard the noble Marquess say it again this afternoon—the Government abandoned the request for a referendum because the two major Parties did not want it. My Lords, is that not rather curious? Have we not our responsibilities? Have we not got a responsibility to find out what the people of Malta may want? It is very curious that we should say, "Because these people do not want it, we will therefore not have it". Either they are already independent or, if we have a responsibility, we should not have abandoned the referendum; we should have asked. A referendum was held, but it was not on this question. It was a complicated question that was asked, and it got a complicated answer, and, as your Lordships have heard from the noble Marquess, it did not tell us anything new.
My Amendment calls for "no specific proposals" being put before Parliament until after there has been a referendum or new elections. I have used the words "no specific proposals" because I want us to test out something other than independence for the people of Malta. What I have in mind is coming back again to the proposal which was originally put forward at the Round Table Conference and was subsequently voted upon in both Houses and accepted. I refer to the thought of integration. I would add to the thought or the suggestion of integration that with integration should go economic equivalence. Unhappily, integration failed five years ago, and it failed because the then Prime Minister, Mr. Mintoff, put forward new demands just at the very moment of success—new demands for money, new demands for guaranteed employment—and the Government at that time felt that this was both unreasonable and unfair. I was myself Minister of State for the Colonies at the time, and I fully supported in every way the Government's decision. But, my Lords, I have often since wondered whether I was right.
I recall that at that time I went to see Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was a good friend of Mr. Mintoff and very keen on integration. I told him the whole of the story, hoping that he would be able to influence Mintoff to change his demands. He listened to
990
what I had to say, and he recognised my sincerity. Then he commented that they were good arguments for a banker, but he wondered whether politically it was wise. I have often since wondered whether politically it was wise. Is it too late now? There is just one chance, and it is in your Lordships' hands: that we should, before independence, seek to discover whether the people of Malta would rather opt for integration.
Integration would solve the three great problems which will otherwise plague us for many a year to come. It would solve the economic problem, because I have no doubt that if Malta were a part of the United Kingdom then, with its climate, its skilful people and its many workers, industry would flock there. Tourism would be a thriving industry, and the spectre of unemployment, which so much occupies the Maltese to-day, would disappear. The problems of the Church, about which we have heard, would disappear, because over the last 160 years the Church has seen how well we in this country behave in such ecclesiastical matters and it would undoubtedly have no hesitation in putting its trust in our continuing as we have in the past.
Lastly, what about defence? Malta would be part of us, so our defence anxieties would all vanish and the Western World would be that much happier. I believe that if we asked the Maltese this question they would welcome it and jump at the opportunity. It might be rather a happy thing if, for a change, instead of finding everybody wanting to leave us, we should find somebody who said they wanted to join us. I believe they would do just that.
I must repeat that, over the months, I and my friends have been asking the Government again and again to test Maltese opinion. Now we are at, not the eleventh hour, but one minute to twelve, or even later. The seconds are ticking on. I myself do not see quite what we can do unless your Lordships join me in refusing this Second Reading. This is a pretty unhappy thing to have to ask you to do. But I have had one thought—and I have warned the noble Marquess of the question I am going to ask him. That is, if the people of Malta show in the next weeks, by a

991
petition or some other means, that they wish for integration and economic equivalence, then will Her Majesty's Government consider the position anew, and consider it sympathetically? I know that one of the easy answers to my question is: "It is a hypothetical question and we never answer hypothetical questions". But I think that this is too important a matter to allow that sort of reply. I am not asking for a firm undertaking that, in the event, they will be given integration; I am asking that we get a sufficiently encouraging reply from the Government, so that if the Maltese wish for this opportunity they can organise themselves to seek it.
Your Lordships may say: "Why not later?" The answer is that later vested interests will have developed, a pattern will have grown up, and undoubtedly it would be too late. I shall attach great importance to the answer to the question I have put. If I get sufficient encouragement, then I feel perhaps my Amendment should be withdrawn; but, if not, I think one is in duty bound to consider the position most carefully. I deeply believe that integration offers not only us but the Maltese the best solution and a new era of happiness. Surely it is worth while asking the Maltese this question; or shall we throw away the chance all of an afternoon? I beg to move.
Moved, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert:
"This House, while approving the principle that the people of Malta should be free to choose their destiny, is of the opinion that no specific proposals should be passed by Parliament until the Maltese people have been consulted either through new elections or by referendum, and therefore declines to give a Second Reading of this Bill."—(The Earl of Perth.)

THE FERRANTI BLOODHOUND MISSILE CONTRACT
3.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with your permission, I will repeat a Statement that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation. The Statement reads as follows:
992
"Sir John Lang has now reported on the circumstances of the Ferranti Bloodhound I contract. This report will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. In the light of Sir John Lang's findings, my Department reopened with Ferranti Ltd. the question of a refund to be made to the Government by the company on these profits.
"Ferranti Ltd. have offered to refund a total of £4,250,000.
"Their offer has been accepted and discussions will now take place with regard to the discharge of this liability. The correspondence relating to this will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's Statement. I may perhaps add that copies of the report are available in the Printed Paper Office.
Following is the correspondence referred to in the Statement:
"21st July, 1964.
"Dear Mr. Ferranti,
You will remember that during the period October to December, 1963, we had several discussions about the profits made by your Company on certain contracts for the production of components for the Bloodhound Mark I missile system. When Sir John Lang was asked to carry out an inquiry into this matter, however, we agreed that any further discussion should be deferred until after his report.
This has now been received and I enclose a copy herewith. In the light of its observations I must ask you whether you are now prepared to make a refund to public funds in respect of the contracts covered by Sir John's report.
Yours sincerely,
R.G.K.WAY.
Sebastian de Ferranti, Esq.,
Ferranti Limited,
Hollinwood,
Lancs."
"Ferranti Ltd.
Hollinwood,
Lancashire.
28th July, 1964.
Sir Richard Way, K.C.B., C.B.E.,
Ministry of Aviation,
Horse Guards Avenue,
London, S.W.1.
Dear Sir Richard,
Thank you for your letter of the 21st of July, 1964. As you know when this matter was first raised with me I said that we had never had any desire to make more than fair and reasonable profits on defence contracts, and

993
that our aim has always been, and will continue to be, to perform those responsibilities which H.M.G. might choose to place with us in the most efficient and economical manner. I also indicated a readiness to make an 'ex gratia' payment to settle the matter.
There are a number of factors to be considered in arriving at what would be a proper repayment. The contract was for the production of an entirely new type and design of weapon system of which neither we nor the officers in your Department had had previous experience. Exceptional inspection standards were demanded. An exacting time schedule was set. The work therefore carried special risks, but it was nevertheless completed on time and met the very high performance standards which the Department required.
We were able to achieve exceptional production efficiency by closing another department of our business and transferring its technical and production team to the Bloodhound work as soon as production could be started. When the Bloodhound work comes to an end we shall be faced with heavy terminal expenditure. Neither of these factors is taken into account in calculating the costs charged to the contract, but which nevertheless represent substantial expenditure which we have to incur.
The profit allowance by the Ministry of Aviation included in the contract price was £810,353, but, as you pointed out in your evidence to the Select. Committee, contractors are entitled, and are expected to augment the profit figures allowed in fixed price contracts by achieving economies in the operating costs allowed for by the Department at the time when the prices are agreed. Whilst I cannot accept all the findings of the Lang Committee either so far as they concern my own company or the Ministry officials, I recognise that the profit arising on the Bloodhound I contracts was greater than we expected when those contracts were negotiated.
In order finally to dispose of all aspects of the Bloodhound I contracts between us we are willing to make a refund in respect of these contracts of a total of £4,250,000.
I would like to discuss with you arrangements for the discharge of this liability.
I would be grateful if you could assure me that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Limited so far as future contracts are concerned in consequence of what has happened.
Yours sincerely,
SEBASTIAN DE FERRANTI."
"28th July, 1964.
"Dear Mr. Ferranti,
Thank you for your letter of 28th July, 1964.
I fully understand the points you make regarding the unique production problems which you faced in carrying out these contracts; and I recognise the success you achieved in overcoming them.
I am glad to know that in order finally to dispose of all aspects of the Bloodhound I contracts you are prepared to refund a total of £4,250,000 and I am ready to discuss with
994
you arrangements for the discharge of this liability.
I can assure you that there will be no discrimination against Ferranti Limited in the allocation of future contracts.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) R. G. K. WAY.
Sebastian de Ferranti, Esq.,
Ferranti Limited,
Hollinwood,
Lancs"
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for letting us have this Statement. Those of us who have to comment on it were glad to have the opportunity to see the Statement earlier and also the correspondence that is going to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I thought it rather strange that the letter making the offer should be dated to-day, July 28, the same day as it is made to Parliament, and that it appeared in the Press before the Statement was made in Parliament. I thought that was exceedingly curious. It is not, of course, possible—and I think my noble friends behind me would agree—to make any detailed comment at this stage, nor is it the right thing to do in view of the business we have to discuss in the House to-day, but I think we ought to study the Sir John Lang report when we get it from the Printed Paper Office. We may learn something more from it. At present, so far as I can see, the great responsibility for this matter is going to lie on the Government themselves. We may have to come back to it at some future date.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, obviously we cannot discuss a document we have not even seen. It will be equally obvious in all quarters of the House that we shall want to consider at some stage, in all its aspects, the whole question of the placing of these experimental contracts and the terms on which they are placed. Those of us who have been Defence Ministers know how difficult that often is and how much more complicated it becomes as all the new scientific developments become more complex. What I should like to put in the form of a question is: will it not be for the benefit of all of us and of the country that people should not take this up as a Party issue? There may be a great deal to be criticised in this matter, and if it is not

995
made a Party question constructive criticism will come quite as much from one side of the House as another. We should be able to approach it and give full consideration to it with a view to seeing that, whoever has the placing of these contracts in the future, they may be placed on the most businesslike and effective basis that they can be.
LORD MORRISON or LAMBETH: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is in the report of the Lang Committee proposals for improvement in the accountancy or methods of controlling the handing-out of contracts by the Government with a view to this not recurring? It looks as if in this case the firm was more efficient—and I am all in favour of efficiency—than the Government were in the handling of the nature of the contract. The other point is that, by courtesy of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, I have seen the correspondence. There is a letter or letters from Sir Richard Way who, I gather, is a civil servant, in which he appears to be conducting the correspondence personally, because it does not carry the usual introductory phrase: "I am directed by the Minister of Aviation", et cetera. Therefore I ask the question whether the Minister of Aviation authorised these letters or not, because the form of them is very unusual in Civil Service transactions, assuming that Sir Richard Way is a civil servant.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to say that I entirely agree with him and with my noble friend that we can best discuss this matter more fully when we have all had more time to read Sir John Lang's report. Perhaps I should mention, in part answer to my noble friend and in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that Sir John Lang's report covers only the first part, properly speaking, of his terms of reference. The second part of his terms of reference read:
"and to recommend whether any changes in organisation or procedure are necessary to ensure better assessment of prices for similar contracts in future."
Sir John Lang will be making a further report covering that aspect of the matter,
996
and I understand that he should be able to make that report by the Autumn. But that is awaited. Perhaps I should add, though it is implicit in the present report of my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation, that he has already instituted a comprehensive review and taken certain action, parallel with that review, to avoid this type of situation in future.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I can confirm that Sir Richard Way is a civil servant. He is Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Aviation, and I am quite certain that the correspondence with Ferranti had the full approval of my right honourable friend.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl perhaps make representations to his right honourable friend that what strikes us prima facie is that it is an extraordinary thing that such a margin of £5 million should be discovered long after the payment for the contract was made? There seems to be great fault in the Departmental or ministerial side of it, Why should all this money be paid out without ascertaining what the profit was?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of course I shall be glad to convey the noble Earl's observations to my right honourable friend, but I think that we are now verging on that substantive criticism which he was anxious to avoid without a perusal and study of the report itself.

MALTA INDEPENDENCE BILL
4.3 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that I am in order to ask your Lordships to return to the subject of Malta and to the noble Earl's Amendment. I am sure that we all appreciate the noble Earl's deep concern for Malta and the valuable services that he has rendered Malta, both as senior Minister at the Colonial Office for a number of years, and before that as a member of the British delegation that attended the Malta Round Table Conference in Malta

997
in 1955. I can speak from my own recollection, which I am sure will be confirmed by the noble Earl's colleagues, in saying that he did more than anyone else at that time to smooth out the path with the Church authorities in Malta, and he helped us very considerably in obtaining general acceptance for the integration scheme. I also share his regret that that integration scheme was later dropped, because I believe that it was the most promising scheme that was ever put forward for the future of the island.
I should like to make clear at the outset what our attitude is to the noble Earl's Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is to ask your Lordships' House to reject this Bill. We oppose this proposition for two main reasons. First, as your Lordships are aware, we do not oppose the Second Reading of Bills that have been passed by another place. We should regard this as an abuse of the power which undoubtedly rests in your Lordships' House, and we consider this to be an important constitutional principle. The second reason why we oppose the noble Earl's Amendment is that we do not want to delay indefinitely the attainment of independence by Malta. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that this Bill would be thrown out, and then independence for Malta would be indefinitely delayed.
There is very little that the two major Parties in Malta—the Nationalists and the Labour Party—agree about, but I think that the one thing on which they do agree is in their desire for independence; and in this respect, at least, they represent the wishes of the majority of the people of Malta. I must confess that I did not agree at all with the noble Earl when he said that there was no evidence to show that the people of Malta want to be independent. Moreover, I think that your Lordships will agree that Malta is a politically mature country, with long administrative experience. Malta has had internal self-government since the Diarchy was established by the Constitution set up after the First World War. Many of us had experience of that Diarchy, which did not work particularly well, but in respect of self-government Malta was far ahead of the great majority of colonial dependencies. Indeed, some of your Lordships may remember a former
998
Prime Minister of Malta during the period, the late Lord Strickland, who took an active part in the work of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I think that nobody can say that Malta lacks political and administrative experience to manage her own affairs. Indeed, in this respect, Malta is a good deal ahead of a number of countries that have already obtained independence.
Malta is a Mediterranean country, politically conscious and politically expert, and we could have no reason for denying it independence if we thought, as we must think, that this was the wish of the majority of the Maltese people. I think that I should tell the noble Earl here and now that, if he asks the House to divide on his Amendment, we should feel obliged to support the Government in the Division Lobby. I very much hope that he will take the course of withdrawing the Amendment.
Having said all this about the noble Earl's Amendment, because I thought that was the right course to take—I hope that your Lordships will agree—I should now like to turn to the merits of the Bill, and of the Agreement that goes with it, and to the way the Government have handled this measure. I do not think that many of us can be satisfied by the conditions under which Malta will obtain her independence or by the way this Bill has been sprung upon Parliament. The Government have asked us to pass this Bill through all its stages this afternoon. This means that we have to approve also the Independence Constitution which will be established by Order in Council, after the Bill is passed into law, as well as the Agreements about defence and financial aid that will come into force when Malta becomes independent.
The Government have not given any of us sufficient time to consider these vastly important matters with the care they deserve. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he said that we were really being asked to "rubber-stamp", decisions which the Government have already taken. This Bill passed through another place on Thursday. It will pass through your Lordships' House to-day. This means that the Government have given Parliament less than a week to decide the whole future of Malta, after 162 years of close

999
and friendly association in war and peace. I ask your Lordships whether that is treating Parliament with proper respect.
I believe that the Government could have avoided springing this Bill upon us in the last week of the Session. I have this suggestion to make of the way this could have been avoided. If the Secretary of State had had the wisdom to delegate more of his work to junior Ministers, the noble Marquess opposite, who has handled this Bill so ably and taken such a valuable part in the negotiations that led up to it, could have been negotiated with Dr. Borg Olivier while he was sitting at the Savoy Hotel waiting for Mr. Sandys to dispose of Northern Rhodesia and, before that, of Aden. We all know that Mr. Sandys is a very overworked Minister. But surely that is no excuse for making small countries like Malta wait at the end of the queue for ministerial decisions, or for obliging Parliament, as has been done, to rush through a Bill that will decide the future of this country for all time.
What has held up the achievement of independence (and this point, I think, was clearly made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in his speech) has been the failure of the Maltese Parties to agree about a Constitution; and, of course, this disagreement continues. Our main objection to the Constitution that goes with the Bill is that it is to be imposed on Malta and we have no reason to suppose that it will be acceptable to the Maltese people. I would only remind your Lordships that when the Malta Constitution, the referendum Constitution (a Constitution very like this one, but not exactly the same) was submitted to the electorate in the early part of the year, only 42 per cent. of the electorate voted in favour of it. This Constitution, therefore, has the support of less than half the electorate in Malta, and is opposed, for very different reasons, by all the political Parties, apart from the Nationalist Party.
The imposition of this controversial Constitution, against the wishes of the majority of the people of Malta, must give us the gravest concern about the future of the island. According to The Times of Friday, Mr. Mintoff, the Leader of the Labour Party, the second largest Party in Malta, has already said that his
1000
Party intends—and here I quote what he is reported in The Times to have said:
"to make every possible effort to abrogate these agreements at the earliest opportunity".
Mr. Mintoff, of course, is referring to this Constitution and to the interdependent Defence and Financial Aid Agreements. There will be another General Election—because that is based on the lifetime of the Malta Parliament—not later than the spring of 1966. What will happen if Mr. Mintoff gets a majority? How long can we expect this Constitution and the Defence Agreement to last? What will be the attitude of Malta to us and to the Commonwealth in this event? These grave unresolved questions show that we have good reason to be anxious and apprehensive about the future of Malta.
I do not myself blame the Government for failing to get the agreement of the Labour Party in Malta to the proposed Constitution, but I do blame them for not making sufficient effort to do so. Mr. Mintoff has not been consulted, although he was in London this summer and asked to see the Secretary of State about this final version of the Constitution. I cannot recall any other case since we started to de-colonise when the Opposition there have not been consulted about the final form of an Independence Constitution.
I also hold the Government responsible for not agreeing to have a General Election in Malta on the issue of this Constitution—and on that point I agree heartily with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Surely, with a country deeply divided, as Malta is, this is the only way to test opinion. In other Colonies we have always insisted on a General Election before independence if a new Constitution is not in our view acceptable to the great majority of the people. We are, for example, insisting on a General Election in British Guiana before independence. There, as in Malta, the Parties are profoundly divided about the Independence Constitution. Surely it is reasonable and democratic that the electorate should be allowed to decide grave issues of this kind when Parties differ about what the people want. That is certainly what we should do in this country, and I do not see why we should deny the same right to the people of any country for which we are responsible.
The proposed Constitution is certainly a much more liberal document than the

1001
referendum Constitution submitted by the Government of Malta at the referendum. I welcome the alterations that have been made, and particularly that to which the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, referred, which makes the Roman Catholic Church in Malta subject to the Constitution, including its provisions about human rights. It has been widely reported in the Press that the support of the Vatican was secured by the Government for the changes they propose to make in the Constitution. If that is the case—I do not know whether or not it is, but it was reported in reliable newspapers—it is a good omen for the future. For the free and peaceful development of Parliamentary government in Malta will depend not nearly so much on any paper safeguards that may be put into the Constitution as on the actual relationship, on whether there is good-will or ill-will between the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta and the political Parties. Let us hope that the Vatican will use its liberalising influence to persuade the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta to adopt very much the same attitude to politics as the Roman Catholic Church already adopts in other Catholic countries.
May I pass on for a few moments to the defence-cum-financial agreement? I think we all welcome the 10-year agreement about the British base in Malta. It will be useful to us, though not, of course, as useful as it was in the past, for our Armed Forces. But to my mind the especially valuable part of the Agreement is Article 5, which will deny Malta to the forces of any other nation without the consent of the two Governments; that is, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Malta. I think this is a very useful provision indeed.
Malta will, of course, continue to be the Mediterranean headquarters of the NATO forces in the area. I would ask the Government to consider this proposal. I hope that the Government will encourage Malta to ask for membership of the NATO Alliance, and will support her application if she decides to apply for admission. The strategic importance of Malta should make it, in the long run at any rate, a continuing NATO base, in which capacity it will be of great value to the whole of the Western World; and it may be much easier to keep it as a NATO base than as a British base.
1002
But, whatever may happen in this respect, the base will be valueless, either to us or to NATO, without the good will of the people and the Government of Malta. We have often found in the past that we have lost the military value of a base because we have lost the good will of the people of the country where it was located. I do not think that the financial aid which is attached to the use of the base after the first three years of the agreement have elapsed will do anything to secure the good will of the people of Malta. I think it is the sort of thing that is really rather an irritant to national pride. But let us hope that, when these first three years have elapsed, and after another General Election has taken place, there will be the same good will between us and the Government of Malta as exists at the present time.
As to the Financial Agreement, it is a very generous one; indeed, uniquely generous, I think, in relation to the population of Malta. But, I do not grudge one penny of the £50 million that we are to give to Malta during the next ten years. It is our duty, surely, to help Malta to change over, as it is trying to do from a fortress to a civilian economy. If we do not succeed in helping Malta to do this, there will be mass unemployment when the rundown of the British Forces ends in about four years' time.
That is all I have to say, except this. This is probably the last time that we shall discuss the affairs of Malta in your Lordships' House. Those of us who have visited Malta, even for a short time—and I believe there are many noble Lords who know Malta—have come away with an indelible impression of the friendliness of the Maltese people and of the beauty of their country. Where else could you find small villages each with a cathedral? Where else could you find such a combination of man-made and natural beauty? I do not think that we should say our Parliamentary farewell to the people of this lovely island without thanking them for their innumerable services to us and to the Commonwealth in time past; without saluting again their extraordinary gallantry during the last war; without hoping for their friendship in the future, and without wishing them, from the bottom of our hearts, good fortune and happiness in time to come.
4.21 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and I oppose the Amendment. I welcome it because I see no point whatsoever in further delay. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, the Prime Minister of Malta was over here for weeks, and possibly months; and from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, one learnt that he was staying at the Savoy Hotel. That is an indication that this was not a rush job at all. There was a very long process of debate and argument, consideration, arrangements and conferences with the Church in Rome, with the apostolic delegate, with the Archbishop, with the Government of Malta and with every possible person or interest concerned. There has never been a case in the history of any of our colonial territories where there has been so much consideration and discussion as in the case of Malta.
What is the point of dragging it on again? If you have another General Election, I doubt whether it will show any different result from the one that has already been held. You can have another referendum. It will give the same result as the one we have already had. At some time or another in these cases one has to take a decision. I think Her Majesty's Government have been quite right to take the decision they have, although I agree that they should have taken it a little earlier and that it is unfortunate that they have left it so late in the Session. But it had to come now. It is not possible for us to go away, and possibly not resume again in this Parliament except on a formal basis, without deciding on this Bill and on the future of Malta. The argument of the mover of the Amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was that he wished to give the people of Malta the opportunity of presenting a Petition for integration to the Government. I was against integration when it came up before. I am on record as to that in this House. I think I was almost the only person who was against it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Oh, no!
LORD OGMORE: I am glad to hear that. I do not remember vocal support from the noble Earl, and I am glad to think that I have his support now, if he was not particularly vocal at the time. So far as I can recall, there was no
1004
other noble Lord as distinguished as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who opposed it last time. Integration, of course—I say this for the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not followed this question extremely closely—means integration of the Island of Malta and the Island of Gozo with this country, and Members being elected in Malta and Gozo to sit in the British House of Commons, the complete integration coming under the Home Office. The only reason why that did not come off—it was supported, I may say, by the Government and the Opposition—was because Mr. Mintoff was too greedy. He put up to the British Government at that time proposals which no British Government could accept. I was very glad at that time to support the refusal of Mr. Mintoff's suggestion. That is the reason why integration did not come off, otherwise at this moment we should not have been discussing the Independence Bill for Malta. We should have had several M.P.s from Malta sitting in the House of Commons. I have forgotten which noble Lord on the Benches opposite speaks for the Home Office—I think it is the noble Lord, Lord Derwent—but he would have been answering questions about the water supply in Gozo. Although he is a very accomplished noble Lord, I think he would have had a little difficulty with some of the questions he would have been asked.
I hope the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will be against this proposal. I hope he will not give way. We must settle this matter once and for all. I think the Government have made a very generous settlement indeed to Malta—far more generous than to many other countries. Only last week we were discussing Northern Rhodesia. Speaking from memory, I think their farewell golden handshake was £5 million, and with Malta it is £50 million. Compare the population of Malta with the population of Northern Rhodesia. In Malta, it is 300,000, and in Northern Rhodesia, six million. When your Lordships compare those figures, you will see that this is a generous settlement. I am all in favour of it, and I am glad that the Government have been generous. They are being generous, and not miserly or niggardly.
I should like to compliment the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, on the work

1005
which I know he personally put in during the course of these difficult negotiations. I feel that Malta's future is a challenge for Malta and for us—because this is not the last we are going to hear of Malta. We shall hear a lot more of Malta from now on, and it is a challenge to us, and one which I hope all Parties in the House will live up to. Malta is a delightful place. Many of your Lordships have visited it and know it. It has this ancient history of which the people are particularly conscious. In mythical times they were visited by Ulysses. In historical times, St. Paul landed there. It was rather an involuntary landing, because your Lordships will remember that he was washed up on the shore when he was being taken under escort from Jerusalem to Rome. He had a very happy reception at first, and then conditions deteriorated somewhat; but good relations were restored in the end. This history, in my experience of Malta, is very much in the minds of people there.
One thing which impresses all of us when we visit Malta is the extreme beauty of the little towns, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred, and the cleanliness of the atmosphere, the colour in the churches. I do not think I have ever seen anything like it. After the rather foggy, grimy, sort of atmosphere one so often gets in Western Europe and in other industrial countries to-day, the brilliance of the paintings in the churches on the coats of arms, and that sort of thing, was a revelation to me, and perhaps shows what our own country may have been like at one time.
These small Christian communities, living in the Mediterranean—we have one in Cyprus, for example, and another in Malta; there have been others, of course, in Constantinople and other places—were always beleaguered in a sense; they always felt themselves either under an alien occupation or the possibility, or probability, of an alien occupation. Therefore, quite naturally, the Church tended to have in these centres a much greater power and authority than it has in other countries without, as it were, that fortress outlook. I think this is one reason why the Church, whether Orthodox or Catholic, has such an enormous influence on the lives of people there. One can understand it if one remembers the historical background. The reason why Archbishop
1006
Makarios, for instance, is a Prime Minister and an Archbishop—which is rather an unusual combination in the Western World—is this historical reason. In the old days, under the Turks, the Christian community was run and controlled very largely by the Archbishop because it was a Christian community.
The position of the Church in Malta—which is to some extent the reason and cause of a great deal of this controversy, as has been stated—is very clearly set out in the Constitution. Article 2 says:
"The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion"
The State guarantees to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church the right freely to exercise her proper, spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and duties and to maintain her own affairs. Later on it says:
"Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic faith shall be provided in all State schools."
So we can see from that that the position of the Church is maintained in a very powerful manner, and I think rightly so, in view of the history of the country and of the type of situation in which the Christian Church is, and has been for centuries, in this part of the world. Mr. Mintoff has been quoted as being against it. He is against this Agreement. He said that the British Conservative Government have negotiated a new, so-called Independence Constitution, a Defence Treaty and a Financial Agreement solely with Maltese Ministers who are unfairly elected to office through the infliction of spiritual injuries by local representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.
I would say that the matter does not end here. There has been an Agreement—and I support it—but I also entirely support what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about the future attitude of the Church in Malta. I do not think it would be right for us just to pass over this point to-day without saying a word on it. The fact is that the Church in Malta must—and I believe it will: at least I hope it will—remember that this is the second half of the twentieth century, and that the need to-day (and we all recognise this, to whatever Church Communion we may belong) is for Christian unity and for a new spirit in the Churches, whether they be the Roman Catholic, Anglican or Free Churches. The

1007
most reverend Primate the present Archbishop of Canterbury is and his predecessor was very prominent in this field, I am glad to say. In the Free Churches, including my own, our various leaders have also expressed very firmly this desire for unity. So have the last two Popes, Pope John and the present Pope Paul.
We therefore hope that the Church in Malta will come forward into the general feeling of unity, the general desire for unity which is so strongly expressed in the Western World at this time. Particularly, perhaps, they might look again at the position of Protestants in Malta. We must remember that Malta is an important military, naval and air base, and this Defence Agreement is a very important treaty. There will be large numbers of Protestants living and working in Malta, and considerable numbers of Maltese coming over here to work, and I feel that the position of the Protestants and of Protestant marriages in Malta or by Maltese should be looked at very carefully indeed by the Roman Catholic authorities in Malta.
I want to turn now for a moment to a point which I consider is very important but which I think has not been touched on by anybody so far. The success or otherwise of an independent Malta is really going to turn on the economic development of the island; and this rests, I think, on five pillars. The first is migration. Malta has never been able, at any rate over the last couple of hundred years, to absorb all its population. Therefore we and other parts of the Commonwealth must be prepared every year to take quite a number of people from Malta to work here and in other parts of the Commonwealth—Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere. This should be a real Commonwealth effort, and after the wonderful success of the Commonwealth Conference, about which we shall be talking to-morrow, this is one matter where we can help the small island by giving a real welcome to many of the people of Malta.
The second pillar is industry. This is a difficult one in a place like Malta, which is off the coast of Africa, where the Maltese language is a dialect of Arabic and where, though there is not exactly a water shortage, one has always to be careful of the water situation. It is also a country where there are no
1008
primary products. This makes the problem of industry all the more a challenge to be tackled imaginatively and with a sense of urgency. The third pillar is agriculture; and here again I believe we can do a great deal to apply to Malta the latest discoveries of agriculture at Rothamsted and other of our own agricultural research institutions. There is a great deal of information on our own and on tropical agriculture, both at Rothamsted and at the School of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad and other places which at present, perhaps, is not always being used.
Fourthly there is tourism. I myself, having been a tourist in Malta, can assure your Lordships who have not been there that it has potential if it is properly developed and if there is real organisation. It means that the authorities and the Church must co-operate: we must have the right type of hotel, the chalet type, for young people; and we must have arrangements with airlines and tourist agencies. Tourism will need a considerable combined effort.
Finally, the fifth pillar is the defence installations, particularly the NATO base. I do not much like using the word "base" for the island; let me call it the NATO headquarters. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who raised this question about defence, I would say that NATO is there; in fact, it is mentioned (in, I must say, a somewhat churlish way) in Article 5 of the Defence Treaty. The NATO forces can come in. There are arrangements for them to operate under Article 5 of the Defence Treaty. That is the answer. Malta is not going to be wide open to anybody who likes to walk in. Under the Defence Treaty the only forces that can operate in Malta are the Maltese forces, the British forces and such other forces as we agree on, together with member forces of NATO. I think that that disposes of the argument of the noble Earl. I personally should like to see NATO headquarters there expanded, and Malta used very much as a rest centre for NATO forces, naval, military and air, of which there are very large numbers. For instance there are the American Fleet and other units in the Mediterranean area. Development is a challenge. It is a tough assignment, but with united effort, as I have

1009
said, of both British and Maltese, it can be done.
There are two other points that I should like to make very shortly. First of all, there is nothing in the Bill about an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, although there is mention of it in Clause 103 of the Constitution. We usually put it into the Bill. There is probably some draftsman's logic about it, but at the moment I do not know why it is not in the Bill. Then I would mention the three "hardy annuals" that I have raised for many years on this point in Independence Bill after Independence Bill. Could the noble Marquess try to persuade the Judicial Committee occasionally to visit Malta? Secondly, could the noble Marquess persuade them to have more members from Commonwealth countries other than Great Britain; and thirdly, could the noble Marquess persuade whoever is responsible to have some younger members?
I should like, before I close, to welcome the provision in paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 relating to the Commonwealth Institute. I hope that Malta will play her full part in the affairs of the Institute when she becomes independent, and when she will be entitled to have a representative, who is usually the High Commissioner, upon the Board of Governors. As a Governor, I look forward very much to welcoming the representatives of Malta in our counsels, and I hope that Malta will play a full part in all the work of this quite remarkable organisation, the Commonwealth Institute, which the noble Marquess knows quite well. I think that far too little is known in this country about the Commonwealth Institute. It is one of the few of the Pan-Commonwealth organisations that exist, and as the various countries become independent we are only too glad to welcome their High Commissioners as colleagues of ours on the governing body. Finally, I wish the people of Malta every possible happiness and success in the days ahead. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, as is customary on these occasions, I crave your indulgence. I had not intended to venture to address you so soon after I had taken my seat here but when I
1010
saw that a Motion on Malta was on the Order Paper I felt I might be able to make some contribution. I have recently returned from Malta, where I was the last Flag Officer, Malta. I got back from there last year when my job was abolished by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not wish this afternoon in any way to oppose the very proper aspirations of the Maltese people for independence within the Commonwealth. But my concern is whether we have the timing right, whether the Maltese are in fact ready to assume these responsibilities, or in fact possess the wherewithal, and whether the results and effects of this measure are fully understood in Malta and in this country.
As the noble Marquess told us, the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta have been long, protracted and at times frustrating. I believe it would waste your Lordships' time if I were to go over the old ground. I myself believe that the present Constitution is the best that can be devised in an extremely complicated political situation. A great deal of play has been made over the special position of the Church in Malta. I do not believe that a Protestant country or the Government of a Protestant country should attempt to impose their will any further in this matter. It is probably not known to all your Lordships that in Malta there is no local government of any sort in the towns and villages, and it is traditional, inevitable, and possibly right, that the people in the villages and towns should turn to the parish priest for guidance and advice and in the village he is possibly the best man to give it.
I feel sure that the amendments already made by the Secretary of State will provide adequate safeguards. Nor do I believe that anything is to be gained by a further election before independence. The last election only took place not much more than two years ago and the wishes of the Maltese people were very clearly expressed then. The referendum which took place only a short time ago seemed to reinforce that view. If Malta is to be given independence now, I believe that the setting is possibly as favourable as it will ever be.
What I am not yet absolutely convinced of is whether we ought to give her independence at this moment. What will be

1011
the effects, particularly on Malta, of independence? It has been said so often that the problem of Malta is economic that I must apologise to your Lordships for having to say it again. Here we have two small islands, grossly over-populated, with only one natural asset; that is their magnificent harbours. They have been conditioned for many years to a fortress economy, and they have very little chance, I believe, in the near future of increasing their industry sufficiently to give employment to their people. They have an infant tourist industry facing many great difficulties. And, last but not least, as has already been said, to retain for those who remain in the island that high standard of living to which they have become accustomed they have to rely to an increasing extent on emigration.
Malta cannot in the foreseeable future be economically independent. She will require British, foreign or Commonwealth aid for many years to come. In view of that, I think we are entitled to ask how political independence is going to help her in tackling this problem. It will inevitably raise her status in the world. At the same time, she will have to spend money on foreign embassies and all the trappings of a sovereign State, which I doubt whether she can afford. The British connection will become a little more remote, and the last safeguard against political exploitation will have gone. Even in Malta itself, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has told us, there appeared, two or three months ago, at any rate to be no very great impatience for independence.
The Church is, to say the least, apprehensive. The centre Parties, which have more influence than their meagre numbers in the Assembly might suggest, have been fighting very hard against it. The business community and a large number of Maltese in all walks of life in Malta are quite definitely doubtful, and some are extremely hostile to the idea. Here I find myself in close agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The only point on which I disagree with him is that I fear his Amendment comes too late. The tragedy is that it was never put to the Maltese people as a straight issue: should it be independence now or later? Had that been done, we might have had a different answer. But as the Secretary of State has already said in another place, A is now too late to go back to the
1012
independence issue. Having come very recently from Malta, I fear that he is right. But the more the pity!
Now may I turn to the implications for Britain and the Commonwealth? This aspect has already been touched on, but in my view it is rather more serious than any noble Lord has so far stated. For well over a hundred years the balance of power in the Mediterranean has been guaranteed by a powerful British fleet based on Malta. Already the times have changed. Our own sorry reduction in our Armed Forces in the Mediterranean area and the appearance of the American Sixth Fleet has considerably changed the picture. Yet is it really the policy of Her Majesty's Governmet to remove the British presence altogether from the Mediterranean?
I think your Lordships will agree with me that our days in Cyprus and Libya are numbered. We must regard Gibraltar as an outpost of the Atlantic. That leaves only Malta. I am entirely confident that the present Prime Minister and his Government will adhere loyally to all the provisions of the Defence Agreement which is to be signed immediately after independence. But we have already plenty of evidence that a successor might wish to abrogate this Treaty or, even worse, tear it up in a fit of pique. That has happened before now. Should that happen, we, the British, will be out of the Mediterranean with no hope of returning. This is a very serious thought.
There is one more point that I should like to make: it is that we possess in this extremely difficult and delicate situation one enormous asset. That asset must not be forgotten and must not be lost. As a sailor, I have known Malta and the Maltese for the best part of 35 years. Never in all this time has the good will between British and the Maltese in the Island been better. It was my unhappy duty, as the Admiral for Malta, to have to announce the rundown of the naval base rather less than two years ago. This, combined with smaller reductions in the other two Armed Forces in Malta, was a terrible blow to the Maltese, and might well have caused serious unrest and a great deal of hostility. The news was, in fact, received with a great measure of understanding and even good humour. If the granting of independence is going to deepen and strengthen the

1013
good will which already exists, then perhaps the timing is not so far wrong.
I hope that the granting of independence by Her Majesty's Government and the present of £50 million will not be regarded as the final pay-off of our responsibility to the people of Malta. They are going to need aid for a long time to come. I am well aware that in relation to the other colonial territories they have for a good many years been in a privileged position as regards financial aid. I am also a great believer that an independent country should learn to stand on its own feet. But, whatever is done and however much is achieved, Malta will still need help, and it is my hope that no Prime Minister of Malta will ever have to look further than Britain or the Commonwealth to provide his essential needs. Finally, may I echo what has been said by so many of your Lordships to-day, many of whom I see have a deep affection for Malta and its people—that is, simply to remember that we owe this Ally a great deal in both peace and war. I should like to add my good wishes for their great success in this new endeavour.
4.54 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, it does not fall often to a Member of your Lordships' House to follow twice in the same afternoon noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches, and to be able to congratulate them on having overcome this considerable hurdle with flying colours. What strange working of Providence has bestowed this great honour upon me, I cannot think, but I count it a great honour to be able to be the first to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, upon the brilliant speech which he has just delivered to this House. Those of us who have a great affection for the Navy and a passionate belief in its greatness will regard any strengthening of the naval contingent in your Lordships' House as being a good thing. We therefore welcome the noble Earl most warmly for what he is. The speech which he has made has whetted our appetite, and we look forward to many contributions from him in the future.
All those who have experienced the beauty of the Island of Malta and the kindliness of its people will want on this occasion to wish them well at this moment in their history, as they stand on the
1014
threshold of their independence. My own memories of Malta are, I suppose, as dramatic as any that any other noble Lord may possess. I first saw the Grand Harbour of Valetta on November, 1940, from the quarter deck of H.M.S. "Barham" as we escorted the last convoy but one from West to East across the Mediterranean. I have never forgotten the tumultuous welcome that we received from people who were standing on the Fortress as we went in. I was to return to Malta three years later in H.M.S. "Howe", to partake in that occasion on which Andrew Cunningham sent his famous signal:
"Be pleased to inform their Lordships that the Italian battle fleet now lies at anchor under the guns of the Fortress of Malta."
Between those two visits, the Island had taken its terrible punishment. As an outpost of the Free World, face to face with a Europe under the yoke of the dictators, it had been the target for a concentrated attack, the savagery of which has seldom been equalled in the history of war. The Maltese people won the respect and admiration of the Free World for their steadfastness and courage, and it is fitting that on this occasion in the development of their long history we should remember our debt to the people of Malta and once more salute them for their achievements.
In those momentous years, Malta was a bastion of freedom and a symbol of what the Free World was fighting for. It is because those memories are so precious that I venture to voice certain misgivings about features of the Constitution which goes hand in hand with this Bill and which forms the major part of the decision which is required of this House to-day. I speak of these things with considerable reluctance, for I should not wish it to be thought that I was using this occasion for stirring up any animosity.
Malta is an intensely religious Island, and we all respect the faithfulness and the devotion of its people. When, in 1802, the Maltese placed themselves under British rule they were assured of the continuity of their religious tradition. That that should be safeguarded is, I am sure, something that we should all accept. The draft Constitution honours that pledge, and I fancy that there are few, if any, of your Lordships

1015
who would wish it to be otherwise. But as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has reminded us, there is a considerable population in the Island which does not belong to the Roman Catholic Church—people who live in Malta, people who visit the Island. It may well be that the Royal Navy will not be based on Malta to the same extent as it has been in the past, but for many years to come—indeed, the very prosperity of the Island demands it—Malta will continue to be a cosmopolitan centre. People of differing nationalities and creeds will come to the Island. They have their rights, and it is essential that the Constitution should safeguard these things.
Misgivings on this score are not new; nor are they confined to members of my own Communion. In what I have to say, I speak not only for the Church of England, but for the British Council of Churches. As soon as the draft Constitution was published in 1961 there were long and protracted negotiations between ecclesiastical leaders in this country and the Colonial Office, in order to ensure that the rights of minority, non-Roman Catholic groups should be adequately protected. The question of the validity of mixed marriages in the Island was of particular concern. Those expressions of anxiety were somewhat reluctantly withdrawn, because it was pointed out that Section 13 of the Constitution provided that
"All persons in Malta shall have full liberty of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective modes of religious worship.
"No person shall be subject to any disability or be excluded from holding any office by reason of his religious profession."
It was argued at the time, I understand, that if there should appear to be any discrimination in the administration of the marriage law this would be "a disability" within the meaning of the Constitution and that therefore there was sufficient safeguard.
The next document that we come to is the Constitution for Independence, published by the Government of Malta. In that document Clause 41 repeats the two subsections of Section 13 of the 1961 Constitution which I have just quoted, but adds a third subsection which states:
1016
"Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent or in contravention of subsection (1), to the extent that the law in question makes provision that is reasonably required in the interests of public safety, public order, public morality or decency, public health, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society."
Your Lordships may feel that the provision for "public safety, public order, public morality or decency, public health, or the protection of the rights or freedoms of others "or what" is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society" throws open the doors very wide and considerably minimises the safeguards which were provided by the 1961 draft. But at least in the Malta document the disability clause remains.
But the document before us to-day goes considerably further even than this, and in the opinion of many virtually removes the safeguards which had been sought and which it was understood had been assured. Section 41(1) repeats the first subsection of the 1961 draft and the Malta versions. Subsection (2) repeats the questionable subsection of the Malta version. But the really vital section of both previous documents giving the assurance that "no person shall be subject to any disability" now disappears. This is a very serious modification and one which has caused considerable concern to those who expressed their misgivings in 1961 and withdrew their opposition only on the understanding that such a section should be included.
No doubt attention will be directed to Section 46 of the Constitution which provides against discriminatory legislation of any kind. But paragraph (4)(c) specifically provides that
"this section shall not apply to any law so far as that law makes provision with respect to adoption, marriage, dissolution of marriage, burial, devolution of property on death or any matters of personal law not hereinbefore specified".
In other words, the Constitution before us specifically excludes from the ban on discriminatory legislation that province of the law which deals with marriage, which is the very area in which we have for a long time asked for reassurance and guarantee. If, therefore, the religious rights of those who are not Roman

1017
Catholics are to be preserved, it is essential that Section 13 of the original draft, which provides that, no person shall be subject to any disability for conscience sake, should be restored, so that there may be no doubt whatever on this score.
There is one further aspect of the situation to which I must draw your Lordships' attention. I refer to the protection of church buildings in the possession of Communions other than the Roman Catholics. Clause 38 provides
"Protection from deprivation of property without compensation",
but the protection is tenuous. There are Christian Communions which I understand have buildings situated on land at present held by one of the Services. It would give much assurance if this matter could be re-examined and an assurance given to safeguard at least the existing buildings owned by Communions other than the Roman Catholics in the Island.
It is extremely distasteful to me to have to voice these considerable misgivings, and I hope it will be understood that I do so in a spirit of charity. Non-Roman Catholics will recognise with gratitude the statesmanship which has resulted in the removal of subsections 10 and 11 of Section 48 of the Malta Constitution which appeared to set the Church above the law. But it is of concern to many of us that in this day, when so many human rights are threatened and when, the world over, freedom is in jeopardy, we should appear to approve of legislation which in the slightest degree condones the continuance of restrictions and disabilities on religious grounds. This new Constitution is, in the opinion of many, a backward step from the 1961 draft. We ask that the protection from disability should be restored; and that church property should be protected without question. With these provisions in the Constitution we should be able to support the measure before us; and we sincerely desire to do so, for we wish Godspeed to the people of Malta.
5.7 p.m.
THE EARL, OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken has voiced some very sincere misgivings which I certainly would not attempt to dispel at a
1018
moment's notice. I will leave it to the noble Marquess who is to reply to answer the right reverend Prelate. I can only hope and believe that the misgivings of the right reverend Prelate will prove to be misplaced. I should like to say that I entirely agree with him in the tribute he paid to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow. The right reverend Prelate is much better qualified to eulogise a naval Lord and to refer to the powerful addition being made to "the naval contingent". I suppose the best I can do is to express my satisfaction at the powerful addition which has been made to the contingent of Earls. Here the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will join with me; and if the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, refuses to have anything to do with us because we sit in this House as Barons, I will pray in aid my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has the advantage of being a noble Earl and a naval Lord and who is everything that makes him best qualified to congratulate the noble Earl.
I am not going to deal with general topics, but only with one particular aspect. I must just say, as the first spokesman from this side since the very interesting maiden speech of the noble Earl, that he is completely mistaken if he supposes that a Labour Government would repudiate the Defence agreement. They have publicly supported it elsewhere, and no doubt would do the same again in all circumstances. So I hope the noble Earl can remove those misgivings from his mind.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, may I just interrupt to make it clear that I was in fact referring to a Maltese Prime Minister—not to the Labour Government in this country.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Then I apologise. I know that I was not the only noble Lord who misunderstood the noble Earl, so I am glad we have been able to clear it up together.
I have never ventured before to address this House on the subject of Malta, though I have tried to keep in touch with events there. When I paid a visit—it is now a good many years ago—the very capable Governor was the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, who has kindly given way to me and

1019
will speak later in this debate. If I venture to speak to-day it is purely in an individual capacity. As a Roman Catholic I have often spoken and have often uttered opinions on Catholic matters. I have told the House what I thought was the state of Catholic opinion, though I was never quite sure whether I was right—perhaps sometimes I was, and sometimes I was not. But to-day I am rather better qualified to give the House a brief account of the Roman Catholic attitude in one or two matters. May I say that I know that all noble Lords who have spoken about my Church have done so in a spirit of charity. I should like to thank particularly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for what he said about the helpfulness of the Vatican, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the right reverend Prelate were trying to be as helpful as possible.
I should like, then, to assure the House of the sincere good will of the Roman Catholic authorities at all levels in Malta, and still higher up, if I may so put it, towards the settlement which is now being arrived at, on which they rest their high hopes for the future. I should like to emphasise, in view of a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there is, I am assured, complete agreement between the Vatican and the authorities in the island. I do not know the past history, but to-day there is complete agreement between all Catholic authorities on this matter, and I should not like the impression to get about that somebody had been coerced by somebody else. The Holy See, as I have good reason to know, wishes every possible success to Malta and the people of Malta in the new era of independence that is now beginning.
The Catholic Church looks upon this arrangement as no doubt imperfect, like everything human, but as the foundation of what should be many years of progress and concord; and certainly all Catholics hope that past misunderstandings, and in some cases bitterness and antagonism, will be overcome and forgotten. The Catholic Church hopes that it is possible for all sections of opinion, religious and political, including all political Parties, to be reconciled on the new basis and in the new atmo-
1020
sphere. If I am asked whether what I am saying seems to me an olive branch held out by the Roman Catholic Church towards those with whom it has been in conflict, I can only reply that that is how I understand it——
LORD HOBSON: Or vice versa.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD:—and I hope that everywhere, and not least in your Lordships' House, it will be received as such.
5.14 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, since I relinquished the office of Governor of Malta fifteen years ago, I have studiously refrained (I except the previous occasion when a Constitution for Malta was put before us) from speaking in public about the affairs of Malta. I have done so because these matters have been very hotly contested in Malta, and I thought it better that one who had held that responsibility should be extremely careful in his conduct, and should not run the risk of saying something which might conceivably be interpreted as a reflection of official opinion in this country. But, my Lords, this is presumably the last occasion on which we shall be called upon to discuss a Constitution for Malta, and I feel that I should be lacking in my duty to this House if I refrained from saying something this afternoon.
The three questions which we have to ask ourselves are these. Should Malta be granted an independent Government; if so, should it be granted now; and is the Constitution proposed a suitable one for Malta? To those questions, my Lords, I answer unhesitatingly, Yes. I think that the time has arrived when Malta should have its complete independence. We must remember that this is an ancient and proud society, which has a long tradition of civilisation and culture, and that political questions, and particularly constitutional ones, have been actively agitated in Malta for many years. At first, perhaps, this was more a subject of discussion among a minority of educated Maltese. But to-day it is a subject of discussion among Maltese of every rank, because Malta is a country which is educated politically and there cannot be the slightest doubt that the majority of the Maltese want independence in some form or other.

1021
Therefore, I say that Malta should be granted its independence, and that it should have it now. There is no point to be gained by any further delay. It will only create an impression of hesitancy and shiftiness upon the part of the British Government, and that impression ought not to be created. The time for decision has arrived and the Maltese should now have their complete independence. As to the third question, whether the proposed Constitution is reasonably suited to the needs of the Maltese people, I say that the answer is, Yes. It is in its general pattern similar to many other Constitutions that have been granted to colonial territories in recent years. It has in it a number of adaptations which are dictated by the legislative system and conditions as they have grown up in Malta over many years, and on the whole I think that these adaptations are right.
I know that it is strange to us in this country to find in the Constitution a provision which says that the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion is the religion of Malta. But that has, in fact, been part of the Statute Law of Malta for many years. It is merely a statement of a truism, for at the present time the vast majority of the inhabitants of Malta are adherents—and mostly, I think, very devout adherents—of the Roman Catholic Church. I sympathise to a certain extent with the points which the right reverend Prelate has raised with regard to this matter. It is perfectly true that the position of other religions in Malta is somewhat anomalous because there is in Malta no civil law of marriage. Marriages can take place there only according to the rites and customs of some particular Church. But the fact that has continued to be the position in Malta is something for which this country cannot excuse itself if it is wrong, because we had the opportunity on many occasions, when the government reverted completely into British hands, to alter it if we considered it advisable to do so.
On this point, and on the whole question of safeguards for individual liberties and freedoms of all kinds, I think we have to recognise that, in the long run, the ultimate sanction for these things in a democracy lies in a realisation, such as I hope we have achieved in this country, and such as I hope has been achieved, and will continue to be expressed, in Malta, that basic freedoms
1022
in a democracy in which all can vote depend ultimately upon respect by the majority for the rights of the minority. This is absolutely fundamental for the working of any democracy in which the Legislature has absolute power. If we are not prepared to respect the rights of minorities, democracy ceases to serve its real purpose and there arises a dictatorship. Therefore, I would express the hope that a Government of Malta will one day see fit to establish civil laws relating to marriages of those who are not Catholics, at any rate, which will be in accord with what normally exists in Western countries. I think that that stage is bound to come, and I venture to express the opinion that the Catholic Church, which has shown a desire for reconciliation with other Churches, would be well advised to encourage or facilitate any such legislation in the event of its being proposed in the future.
My Lords, there remains one other matter to which I would briefly refer, and which has been mentioned by previous speakers, and particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, to whose speech we listened with so much attention; that is, the economic position of Malta. I have mentioned this question before, when I have spoken to your Lordships about Malta. There is no doubt that the position is an extremely difficult one, because the island is lacking in almost all natural resources. A large part of it is bare rock, and the remainder, with its scanty coating of earth, is not capable of feeding more than one-fifth of the population. The Maltese have therefore to exist by what industry they can create in a country which has no basic raw materials, and where, therefore, they must live by the natural advantage which the sun has given to them by tourism, or by adapting themselves to manufactures in which skill predominates much more than raw materials. Even so, the economic position of Malta is, and is bound to remain, extremely difficult so long as the population continues to increase. In fact, this difficulty has been met only by emigration and by a very liberal financial support from the taxpayers of this country. Continued financial help is being guaranteed to the Maltese, in a very generous fashion, for ten years. But it would be wrong, I think, to let them believe that it will necessarily continue

1023
to the same extent and indefinitely after the end of ten years.
Therefore, one of the greatest responsibilities which will fall upon Maltese Governments in the future, of whatever Party they may be, will be to foster the economic ability of Malta and its inhabitants to support themselves to the greatest possible extent. This is a very great responsibility which they have to undertake, and, for my part (and I have the greatest affection for the Maltese people: I have enjoyed the many contacts and, indeed, the many friendships with them that I have had and still have), all I can say is that we must wish them the wisdom, the judgment and the energy to cope successfully with that responsibility and to show that self-government in Malta is something to be proud of and to be respected.
5.28 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I rise to join in the warm welcome given from most parts of the House to this Bill, and I should like particularly to congratulate my noble and gallant friend Admiral Lord Glasgow on his maiden speech. I first met him in 1923, when we were new boys in the same house at the same school on the same day. Forty years later we celebrated that anniversary when he was the Flag Officer, Malta, and I was the General Officer Commanding. We were both members of the Consultative Council, the Heads of Services Committee and the Defence Committee; and I think no one knows better than I how very much he had the wellbeing of the people of Malta at heart. When he left, a unique distinction was paid to him when the leading trade union leaders wrote to him and to the Press deploring his departure at such a critical time, when they so greatly valued his help. I hope we shall hear him many times in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, much as I welcome this Bill, I regret that it comes at a time of acute economic crisis. I think the financial agreement is very generous, but it has come only just in time. I know the treasure chest of the Island is nearly empty, and though the money will help for the time being, and I hope for a long time to come, and will get things going properly, it will not solve the problem of unemployment. When I left last
1024
December, 11 per cent. of the islanders were unemployed. I do not know whether my noble friend who is to reply to the debate can tell us what the present figures are, but I should be very grateful to know. But this is a very serious matter and unless the money that is going to Malta is invested in measures to improve the economy and create more jobs, then in ten years' time when the money is spent Malta will be no better off than it is to-day. We do not know what our defence requirements will be in the Mediterranean then.
I wish we saw in Malta more confidence among the Maltese in investing their savings in their own island. There has been very little of this in the past. Huge sums every month are sent from Malta to England and to other countries. No one will have confidence in an island, now to be an independent country, that has no confidence in itself. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, touched on the question of emigration. The population is rising quickly, the birth rate rises very much more than the combined numbers of those who die and those who emigrate. I was in Australia earlier this year and I was glad to find how well the Maltese immigrants there are doing. I was also glad to play a small part myself in opening the doors of New Zealand for Maltese immigrants. I hope that these two great countries will do all they can to take these admirable workers, and that other countries in the Commonwealth will assist in the same way.
I deeply regret the reception given to this Constitution by the Malta Labour Party. I am certain it is the best possible Constitution we could get in the circumstances. I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne because I know well the hours of work and discussion they have put in over the last two years—not one year, but over two years. There were countless consultations with the political leaders time after time, both in Malta and in this country, and they have shown patience and understanding at all times. From my own small acquaintance with Mr. Mintoff, I like him. We met only at official affairs, as he was one of the most efficient architects for the War Department, and we occasionally had a pleasant glass of beer together while

1025
discussing the work to be done. But I do not think for one moment that it is the wish of even a few of his supporters that the British connection should be terminated in favour of whatever country will pay the highest price.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said there was a chill in the hearts of the Maltese about forthcoming independence. It is quite true there was a chill; but I do not believe there is a chill now. I believe that, with this Constitution and with the Financial Agreement, they will be quite satisfied; and I am sure that we shall get no further forward and do no good by postponing it. I strongly urge your Lordships to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I have said that I regret that independence comes at a time of economic crisis, but it is too late now to go back. If we accept this Amendment there will be bloodshed and bitterness against us. As your Lordships have heard, there is now a wealth of affection and trust towards the British in the Island. This I think would be seriously threatened.
I congratulate the Government on the Defence Agreement, and I hope that the Minister of Defence will take full advantage of it. The more ships, soldiers and aircraft that can go to Malta for training or stationing there the more we shall help the economy of the Island. The Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm would have tremendous advantages in training in the Mediterranean at all times of the year, which is not always possible in this country.
There is no mention in the Defence Agreement about the Royal Malta Artillery, and I have not heard any noble Lord or any Member of another place mention it. I should like to say just a few words about it, and to ask the Minister one question. The Royal Malta Artillery is part of the British Army. It has at the moment one Regular regiment in Germany which drives lorries and does a job similar to the R.A.S.C.; and the regiment is doing it extremely well. The second Regular regiment is in a cadre form on the Island. There are two Territorial Gunner regiments and a Territorial infantry battalion. They have a very proud tradition. The Regular officers of the Royal Malta Artillery are eligible for staff appointments all over
1026
the world, as are officers of any British unit. They go to Sandhurst to start with and to the Staff College and numerous other schools. They are commanded by a most capable and efficient Maltese officer, possibly the best they have ever had. They would not welcome the termination of this long connection with the British Army, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that some formula can be found to keep up this great connection, because I know they would hate to see it go.
As a Protestant I have avoided the controversial subject about the power of the Church. I believe that this Constitution marks a big advance, but in another place and in your Lordships' House serious doubts were expressed about the freedom of religion. I am personally quite confident that that will work out very happily. Only a year ago I attended a large service in St. John's Roman Catholic Cathedral on behalf of passengers on a cruise of the World Council of Churches. At the service I saw there the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter, a Presbyterian parson, a Benedictine monk and the canon of the Roman Catholic Cathedral lead the whole party in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in English. I thought it was a wonderful thing. That that should happen in the great cathedral of the Knights was, I feel, an example that things were moving a great deal faster towards understanding and unity than we had expected. I therefore congratulate the Government most warmly on this Constitution and on the Defence and Financial Agreements. I should like to send affectionate greetings to my many friends in Malta, and I hope that your Lordships will reject the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
5.39 p.m.
The EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, having had as Secretary of State for the Colonies to guide the destinies of Malta through some difficult years in the early 'thirties, I should like to add my warmest welcome to this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will remember that we had had some difficulties with the Bishops and the Church then. In fact the Constitution had been suspended—I am not quite sure whether it was by his Government or by ours—owing to the quite unjustifiable intervention of the Church of Rome in the

1027
Elections, under, I must admit, a certain amount of provocation from the late Lord Strickland. Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed and we came to a wise agreement. The Church withdrew the extreme pretensions it had exercised, and I would say without any hesitation that if there had been another Constitution then, in 1931, and the same provisions about the Church that are in this Constitution and, still more, the spirit which obviously is being displayed now by the Church in Malta and by the Vatican as well, we should never have had these difficulties. But I believe that they are all things of the past.
I have no doubt that this Bill should be passed and that the Amendment of the noble Earl should be rejected. Of course, it is tiresome that the Bill comes to us at such short notice and that we have to pass it at the end of the Session, but we should be doing a terrible injustice to Malta and, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, we should be arousing the maximum of suspicion in a Malta which now trusts us, if we hesitated to pass this Bill. If there is one thing that is certain about Malta, with all its differences of opinion, it is that at least 90 per cent. of the people want independence. It is surely not any question of independence being granted too soon. All parties in this country would have been willing to grant independence to Malta months ago—probably years ago—if only we could have got agreement between the statesmen in Malta as to the form the Constitution should take.
I am quite sure that we should pass the Bill now. I am equally sure, if I may venture to say so without undue dogmatism, that it will be wrong to pass the Amendment which is down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel (I do not know whether he means to move it) giving Malta complete self-government now, but saying that that should not come into force until there had been a General Election in the near future. I think that would be entirely unusual. If it is right to pass this Bill at all, it is right to bring it into force in Malta as soon as possible.
I would add not only that it would be very unusual and I think very unfair and unwise to do that, but that surely much
1028
the best way of testing opinion in Malta on the Constitution, on the British connection and on the value of the Defence Agreement will be when this Bill is passed and the Constitution is put into effect and a Government responsible to the Legislature has the responsibility of carrying on the government of the island under the Constitution. I feel sure that that would give the people of Malta a chance of seeing the Constitution in operation, would dissipate all the propaganda and counter-propaganda, often extremely tendentious, and would bring the Government and the Opposition and the people of Malta face to face with realities. I do not think we could do them a better service than to give them that opportunity. Finally, I would join my noble friend, Lord Glasgow, who made an admirable speech, and my noble friend, Lord Thurlow, in giving our best wishes to the people of Malta in going forward in their new independence to what I hope may be happiness and prosperity.
5.45 p.m.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened to most of this debate, but unfortunately I had another enagagement and missed one of the speeches about three-quarters of an hour ago. I must say that I am glad the debate has gone as it has so far. The noble Earl who put the Amendment on the Order Paper is, as he has always been, a genuine friend of Malta, but I think he is very mistaken in putting this Amendment on the Order Paper to-day. As my noble friend Lord Listowel said earlier, we will be bound to vote against it, if it were to go to a Division. I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
On the other hand, developments arise in a debate like this which are exceedingly interesting and test our individual consciences with regard to the proper protection of the ordinary, normal freedoms in a free State. Whilst it is true that in the provisions of the new draft Constitution there are some changes from the attitude of the Church some years ago which are an improvement, nevertheless I must say that the great pressure upon us to get this measure through, as all Parties have promised to do, in a one-day debate in each House has not enabled us—and I confess it—to examine the draft with

1029
the same detailed attention as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester has shown he has done. I must say that it lands us in a bit of difficulty. We are under a promise, made by all three Parties through the usual channels, to see this Bill through in one day, and that arrangement cannot be upset. But when we come to the changes which have been made in respect of the freedoms which had been secured in the draft Agreement of 1961, and detailed for us this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate, I think that strong notice ought to be taken of this—very strong notice indeed.
How best can we deal with the matter at this stage? Whatever the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, may think about our attitude in regard to any Amendment we may have put forward on Committee stage, it is important to make sure, even if under the agreement we have already made to take the Bill in one day we cannot get an Amendment included, that we draw the attention of the Maltese authorities, of both the Church and the Government in Malta, to the disabilities which must inevitably arise in Malta in the freedom sense unless we can restore to the new Constitution those safeguards which were agreed in the draft Agreement of 1961.
How is that to be done? I am sorry to have to put this question to the noble Marquess who is in charge of the Bill in this House, but he may be able to advise me as to how best it can be done. Two or three of my colleagues have discussed this question with me, and I think it would be possible to deal with the matter, if the Government could give us now an undertaking that they would proceed to examine closely the speech of the right reverend Prelate and the revelation he made of the safeguards which have been omitted from this new constitutional agreement, and which were in the 1961 Agreement, and undertake that they will take up with the Government of Malta, without in any way breaking the arrangement to pass the Bill through all its stages to-day, and have that put right. This could be done, so far as I can gather, by an amendment to the Order in Council. If I understand the position correctly, the Constitution does not come into operation until there has been an Order in
1030
Council. Will the Government undertake to discuss at once with the Maltese authorities an amendment to the new Constitution, so that, before independence begins to operate, or as soon thereafter as possible, they may agree to the reintroduction of the freedoms which were in the 1961 draft but have been left out of this Constitution?
I do not want to speak at length; I just want to get over this problem. If it would help the noble Marquess to deal with this matter if we put down a manuscript Amendment, so that we may discuss it in more detail and the rest of the House can have an opportunity to put their views on the situation, I think that could be arranged. But in the meantime, in the winding-up of this debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, may we have an assurance from the Government that they will go into this matter and seek to reintroduce those vastly important safeguards which were in the 1961 draft but have been left out of this Constitution?
5.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the debate, I wonder if one who has spent less than a fortnight in the Island, but like so many others fell completely in love with it for its beauty, its architectural glory, its heroic history, and its archaeological wealth, may say how much I have been impressed by some speeches in this debate. One cannot learn very much, perhaps, in so short a visit, but I was very fortunate indeed in enjoying the kindness of my noble and gallant friend Lord Thurlow who was at that time G.O.C., Malta; and in his hospitable house I had the good fortune to meet the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, who was commanding the Navy there. You can imagine with what joy I heard the brilliant speech he made to us this afternoon. I found out, not for the first time, how our soldiers and sailors can be both most knowledgeable on the problems of the stations where they are serving, and most enlightening to occasional visitors. I also had the good fortune to meet and have the advice of the Governor and of Sir Edward Wakefield.
I am completely convinced by the advice given by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow. I must admit that I had had some doubt and regret, which has been

1031
shared in many quarters, at the necessary brevity of our proceedings in both Houses on this great Bill. Nevertheless, having heard those noble Lords, and my noble friend Lord Swinton, who has had such great experience in these matters, I have no hesitation in following the Government on this occasion.
5.55 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, if I detain your Lordships for just a few minutes, it is not particularly because I have lived in Malta and know the Island and her delightful people fairly well, but far more because I was in Malta at the time of the last General Election. I think it may be of some interest to your Lordships to be told the atmosphere in which that Election took place. It is my conviction that such were the practices of one Party, at any rate, in Malta, that it is quite impossible to regard the present Maltese Government as having a mandate from the Maltese people. We in this country are so used to democratic practices, and are so disinclined to accept or believe the outrageous, that I do not think we always make enough allowance for those who know their own country better than we do and know when they have cause for alarm.
There are in this proposed Constitution a number of loopholes, some of which have appeared in other Constitutions and can be described, I believe, as common form, but which, in fact, are extremely dangerous if they are not operated in a strictly democratic manner. There is the rule against discrimination on any ground. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester, said that this would probably be quoted in extenuation of the omission of the protection for non-Catholic communities. That may be. But, on the other hand, there is the succeeding section which makes a number of exemptions, which are intended, I believe, to allow the exclusion of Communists from the public service. This may seem not unreasonable. But it is so worded that it could be used to exclude anybody.
I regret that, owing to our constitutional attitude, I am unable this afternoon to go into the Lobby with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I should not have gone in with him entirely on the
1032
same grounds as he would go himself, but I should have liked to go with him because I believe that if this Bill had not been rushed through Parliament with such precipitous haste it would have been possible to amend and improve it to give to the people of Malta the assurances which it is clear from the quotations from papers we are now getting from Malta they desire. It would be possible, I think, to put in qualifications which would set their anxieties at rest. But none of this is possible in the circumstances of a Bill which has taken less than a week to go through both Houses of Parliament. For that reason, I deeply deplore the, frankly, unseemly haste with which this Bill has been thrust through this House and another place.
As has been said by many speakers, there are two other documents as well as the constitutional document. These seem to me, on the whole, to be admirable. I think that both the Maltese and the British Governments can congratulate themselves on the Defence and the Financial Agreements. The Financial Agreement, in particular, shows great generosity, and a generosity which I hope and believe, if it is not enough, will be reinforced with additional funds at a later stage.
But it is no use supplying yourselves nowadays with a Defence Agreement with a country that does not want you on its soil. I do not believe that the Maltese want to be rid of us; far from it. In fact, I took exception to the remark from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who implied that Mr. Mintoff was anti-British. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord. If, however, he did imply that, I can most authoritatively contradict him. Mr. Mintoff I count as my friend; I know him well, and his affection for his English friends and for England itself is, I think, second only to that for his own country. But quarrels can arise, and particularly on matters of defence. It seems to me that in order to have the greatest use of a Defence Agreement you must have the general acceptance of it by all the people in the country to which it refers.
I will not detain your Lordships further. I will only, if I may, say one more word in appreciation of the admirable speech of the noble Earl, Lord

1033
Glasgow. I admired immensely the eloquence and the fluency with which he spoke without any notes, much less reading any. I hope that we shall hear him very often, and that he will maintain his good habits and continue to set an example to the rest of us. I appreciated in particular his tribute to the people of Malta. They are, I think, the friendliest, kindliest, most hospitable of people among whom I have ever been. I have travelled pretty widely, and I know of no other country in which the visitor is made to feel so much at home and so little a visitor. The kindliness and the affectionate reception one gets in Malta is really remarkable, and one never gets that feeling one so often has in some other countries, that perhaps what is most interesting to the host is what one brings in one's pocket. That is never so in Malta. Therefore, although I think this, Bill is wrongly introduced and far from perfect in its form, apart from its having some good qualities, I join with other noble Lords in wishing a very happy birthday to Malta and a very happy future.
6.2 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in this very interesting debate there has been one common thread running through all the speeches of noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House—and of this I feel very conscious—and that is the obvious deep affection that we British people have for the people of Malta. This has been apparent in all the speeches to which I have listened, and I have listened to them all. I think perhaps it would be wise if I were to deal with the matter which was raised by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chester, to which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has just referred. I think this is a matter which is of the greatest importance, and I think your Lordships would perhaps wish that I should deal with this first.
I wish to make it perfectly plain that it was never the intention, either of the British Government or of the Maltese Government, that the Constitution, as amended in our White Paper, should in any respect provide less effective safeguards against discrimination of any kind than were provided by the earlier version of the Constitution which was
1034
submitted to the recent referendum in Malta. The right reverend Prelate referred to the Constitution of 1961, and he also referred to the Constitution put to the referendum. I will not confuse your Lordships with the different paragraphs, but in each of these Constitutions the same paragraph occurs. I wish to make it perfectly clear that all amendments subsequently made by us were specifically designed to strengthen the existing safeguards.
It was for this same purpose that the wider provision of the new Clause 46, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, was substituted for the more limited provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 41 of the earlier Maltese draft; that is, the draft submitted to the referendum. Clause 46 follows closely the lines of similar non-discrimination clauses which have been accepted again and again by Parliament in the Independence Constitutions of other British Colonies.
But I accept that the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, have drawn our attention to what appears to be a weakness. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that my right honourable friend will immediately get in touch with the Prime Minister of Malta and draw his attention to this anomalous situation which has emerged by mistake; because, as I have explained, everything that we did was designed to strengthen the existing safeguards. If by some misfortune we have in fact done the reverse, this is a result which certainly the Prime Minister of Malta did not wish to achieve; nor, of course, did Her Majesty's Government. So I can give the noble Earl this assurance. Beyond this I cannot go but this is a very serious matter and, of course, we will deal with it with the utmost expedition. This I assure noble Lords in all quarters of the House.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the question of the tenure of land of religious communities. I am assured—and I have looked into this very carefully—that there is nothing in the Constitution which affects adversely the tenure of any owner of property, or which need give the churches any anxiety at all. The only provision in the Constitution relating to property is Clause 38, which provides that there shall be no

1035
compulsory acquisition of property without compensation. But I know of no reason why the State should wish to acquire compulsorily any property belonging to the churches in Malta. I hope that what I have said will reassure the right reverend Prelate on that other important point which he raised.
Naturally, there has been criticism from noble Lords in all parts of the House about the speed at which we have been obliged to ask your Lordships to deal with this very important measure. Indeed, I have already expressed my thanks to noble Lords for assisting us in facilitating the passage of this Bill, and I recognise the inconvenience to which noble Lords have been put. I should like to explain why, in the Government's view, that speed was unavoidable. I believe that the Constitution and the Defence and Finance Agreements which have been published are the best that can be obtained in all the circumstances. I was greatly encouraged to see the number of noble Lords, from all parts of the House, who have expressed a similar view. As several noble Lords have mentioned, there have already been eighteen months of discussions, and I do not believe that there would be any prospect of a wider measure of agreement being obtained if there were further delays and further conferences.
I was also glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, say how important he feels it is that there should be no further delay. This view was expressed by other noble Lords of equal experience, and I feel that certainly if we were to delay further there would be the risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, of arousing grave suspicions in Malta, and even perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said in his admirable speech, of more serious trouble. My right honourable friend fixed a target date for independence of not later than May 31 this year, and it is unfortunate that this target could not be achieved because negotiations were not concluded in time. I really cannot accept the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that this was due to some lack of energy on the part of my right honourable friend. It is true that he has a very full programme, but I can assure the noble Earl that he always finds time to
1036
squeeze forty-eight hours into twenty-four. So it was not because he was not prepared to delegate his authority that these negotiations have been very protracted indeed. I have borne my full share, and I can assure the noble Earl that the Prime Minister of Malta was not sitting in the Savoy Hotel doing nothing.
My Lords, I think it would be most unfortunate if, by failing to pass this Bill now, independence were to be deferred further; and, as I see it, if it were deferred further, independence could not come for Malta before probably the beginning of next year. Once a country has been promised independence and the arrangements have been made and the agreements reached, surely it is most unwise to give any appearance, however unintentional, of wishing to hold back; and this, I feel, we should certainly be doing.
There are also good, strong economic arguments for going ahead now. The Government of Malta are most anxious to press ahead with planning their economic development and, as I explained in my opening speech, the Financial Agreement which we have made takes account of the Malta development programme. As noble Lords know, this Agreement will not be signed until after independence. If, therefore, independence were delayed, so would progress on the development programme be delayed.
I was very glad that the noble Lords. Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Ogmore, and also the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, in his admirable maiden speech, referred to the importance of economics and the development of Malta. Of course, this is an absolutely vital matter, and we realise that, due to the run-down, the economy of Malta has indeed suffered. But Malta is going to set up a Development Corporation, and under Article 4 of our Financial Agreement the way in which it will be set up and function is to be agreed with us later on. We hope also that the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be closely associated with it. I noticed the interest expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Of course he could not refer to the Commonwealth Development Corporation but I am hopeful that his interest will in fact continue in the development of Malta.

1037
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, asked me one or two questions about the Royal Malta Artillery and as, judging from the way he phrased his question, there is some misapprehension, I hasten to try to put the noble Lord right. The position is this. There will, in fact, be no change in the present status of the R.M.A. It will continue as part of the British Army on the same basis as at present, although the numbers in Malta will be run down, by limiting the intake and taking advantage of normal wastage, towards the number actually required as backing for the R.M.A. in the B.A.O.R. Its position will be reviewed in 1965 in the light of British Army recruiting at that time. But if the need for them still exists, the British Government will presumably be ready to retain the R.M.A. after 1965 as part of the British Army. I hope that that will assure the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
The noble Lord also asked me for some figures on unemployment. The latest unemployment figure I have, which was for June, is 6,749, which represents a little over 7 per cent. of the estimated Maltese work force. There has, in fact, been some reduction in recent months from the peak figure, which reached 7,484 in February.
Several noble Lords have referred to the whole economy of Malta, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, particularly referred to investment in Malta by the Maltese. This is a question to which we have given considerable attention. The amount of private savings being invested outside Malta has been steadily rising and is now running at an annual rate of something in the neighbourhood of £4·8 million. In the financial talks which we have had with the Maltese the need to divert these savings to investment in Malta's own development plan has been very strongly stressed by us. The Maltese naturally accept that this is desirable, but they have not been 'very convincing about their ability to check the outflow. Nevertheless, I believe that if the various development projects can be got under way—and I see no reason why they should not—then confidence will rise and Maltese money will be directed towards Maltese investment.
Several noble Lords referred to emigration, and on this I can only say that the
1038
situation is good. We have had great help from the Commonwealth countries; and to give noble Lords an indication I will quote a few figures. In 1962, emigration totalled 3,641, of whom over 2,000 went to Australia, 1,129 came here and 371 went to Canada. In 1963, the total increased to 6,579, of whom over 4,000 went to Australia, 1,332 came to the United Kingdom, and 905 went to Canada. The British Government have made a substantial financial contribution in this field in the past, and have agreed, as noble Lords will see in the Financial Agreement, to continue to provide financial assistance towards the cost of emigration. I was so glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that in his recent travels in Australia he was able to see for himself how well the Maltese are fitting into the Australian life. This I have heard on many occasions myself, but I was glad to hear it confirmed firsthand from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, put a question to me about a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the fact that there was no provision for this in the Bill. The reason that this is not in the Bill is that Malta is remaining as part of the Queen's Dominions and there is no strong reason for anticipating that it will become a republic in the near future. I think that answers the noble Lord's question on that point.
My Lords, I wish now to turn to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Perth. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I accept at once the absolute sincerity which has prompted my noble friend to table this Amendment. I know full well, like other noble Lords who have spoken, the deep affection the noble Earl has for Malta, and how much he did for Malta when he occupied the position in the Government which I now hold. But I am bound to say that I am convinced that his suggestion is not in the interests of the people whom he wishes to serve. I feel that it is not in the interests of the Maltese people and not in the interests of Anglo-Maltese relations. His speech seemed to me to be a nostalgic speech, a speech of regret, a speech regretting that integration, in which he believes so strongly, had failed.

1039
With great respect to him, and with great regard for his most certain conscientious thought and careful consideration, I put it to noble Lords that this is not a proposal that can be considered at this time. We have passed this point and the Maltese now are thinking of themselves as very shortly to be going into independence. The Prime Minister of Malta returned to that country and received a very warm welcome indeed. And now—not at the eleventh hour: for we are past the eleventh hour—to suggest that we could in some way pull back seems to me to be quite unrealistic. And to introduce, at the last minute, some new element would surely call in question everything that has so far been agreed. I earnestly advise my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. While respecting the motives which inspired him to put it down, I hope that he will think again and withdraw this Amendment.
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate, and it is possible that I have omitted to reply to some of the questions. I have made a list here, and I see a few that I have overlooked. Several noble Lords referred to the association with NATO of Malta. Of course after independence, this will be a matter for Malta herself. But I should like to echo the hope that has been expressed by a number of noble Lords during the course of this debate, that the NATO headquarters, at least, will remain in Malta. I was gratified to note how many of your Lordships gave a warm welcome to the Financial Agreement that we have been able to arrange and to the Defence Agreement. This is most encouraging after the many weeks and hours of hard work. I do not think, in all humility, that in the circumstances they could have been improved upon.
In conclusion, I would echo the words of my noble friend Lord Glasgow. He said that one great asset that we have in Malta is the good will of the Maltese people. Let us not do anything to-day to risk losing this good will, which I believe to be so valuable to the British people as a whole and perhaps, in the long term, so valuable and important for the peace of the world.
6.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I said at the beginning when I moved this Amendment that I was not going to comment on the Constitution, on the Defence Agreement or on the question of aid, and I remain firm of purpose on that; although I must confess that several times in the debate I have been much tempted to challenge remarks on those subjects made by various noble Lords. I have also not had from my noble friend Lord Lansdowne a satisfactory answer to the question I put to him, about what would be the attitude of the Government if it became clear that the people of Malta wished some other solution than independence now.
All the same, so far as the people of Malta are concerned, I hope that, if they really want this, I have pointed the way to them. So I am not going to press my Amendment. I must confess that I was mightily tempted to do so, after hearing the splendid speech of my noble friend Lord Glasgow, who has had at least as much experience as anyone else and who, broadly, I heard to be on my side in this question. Just as I am not going to press my Amendment, I shall not take part in any further proceedings to do with this Bill—and I am sure your Lordships will understand my reasons for that. So I take this opportunity, along with many others, to wish my gallant friends and all those in Malta, one and all, every good fortune, every happiness and blessing in their new venture. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, before we give the Bill a Second Reading I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his willingness to undertake to look into the matter I mentioned. I had a draft Amendment ready to put down on Committee stage. I should also like to ask the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester whether he is satisfied that the course I put to the noble Marquess will satisfy him.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, that is the case. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Marquess for the understanding he has shown over this. We do attach the greatest possible

1041
importance to this word "disability", and as this was in the 1961 draft and the Malta referendum draft, we very much hope that it may be possible for that clause to be inserted in the White Paper before us. I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for the assurances he has given.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 20):
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Fully responsible status of Malta]:
1.—(1) On and after such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Malta.
THE EARL, OF LISTOWEL: I beg to move the manuscript Amendment in my name. With your Lordships' permission, I will read it. The Amendment is to add to subsection (1), at page 1, line 8:
"Provided that no such Order in Council shall be made until after the dissolution of the present Legislative Assembly of Malta and the holding of a General Election there."
Repetition is one of the deadly sins of Parliamentary debate and I hope I shall not commit it. The object of this Amendment is quite simple; it is to ensure that there should be a General Election in Malta before independence. The reasons for desiring this have already been stated, I think, fairly fully, but I would make 'two brief comments by way of reminding your Lordships of what was said.
The first is that in this country it is a constitutional convention that if there were a serious disagreement between the two major Parties about a change in the
1042
Constitution there would be a General Election and the matter would be referred to the electorate. We are asking for the same constitutional convention that we apply here to be applied in Malta.
The second comment is this. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that this would be a rare and unusual practice. That is really not the case. On the contrary, it is the normal thing that if Parties are divided before a country becomes independent there is a General Election; and I should be surprised if any noble Lord could quote the example of any country in the Commonwealth which has obtained independence where, if there was a serious division of opinion in that country about the Independence Constitution, there has not been a General Election. So we are asking only for the same constitutional convention that we accept for ourselves to be applied in Malta, and for the general practice in promoting the independence of our Colonies to be followed in Malta. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD OGMORE: I was against the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and I am against this, for much the same reasons. I believe that Malta has for many years past been plunged into turmoil over these constitutional matters. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have allowed for a fair solution of the problems of Malta. It is not perfect but in human affairs few things are perfect. I believe that what is required in Malta is that everybody should be quite certain, as they are, as to what the Constitution is; that the Constitution should be put into effect without any further delay, and that everybody should get down to working it in a responsible manner.
I reiterate what I said before, that the great problem in Malta is the economic problem, and that until this Constitution is in being, and the Finance Agreement and other Agreements are in force, no real start can be made with the serious problem of tackling the economic problems of Malta. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have nothing to add to the argument which I have already advanced against

1043
delay. I am most grateful for the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, himself must see that here again is another risk of arousing suspicions. We cannot I think at this late hour introduce another condition before the people of Malta are given independence. I hope that noble Lords will reject this Amendment.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I should like to say that of course the question of putting down this Amendment was to emphasise the points which had been raised in another place by the Party to which I have the honour to belong, and which is as good a friend of Malta as any other Party. I would say that the remarks of my noble friend Lord Faringdon in the Second Reading debate were also evidence that there was a great deal to be said for proceeding along the lines which are indicated in our Amendment.
The Amendment was not carried in another place, but I felt it was our duty to put the point to this Committee from that angle, because in the previous election, especially in the circumstances referred to by my noble friend Lord Faringdon, there was good reason to suppose that, if it had not been for the extraordinary practices that were carried out then, it may well be that you would not have had the same type of Government as you have at the present time, and with whom the present agreement is being made. However, it is not, I think, essential that we should go into the Lobby on this matter. We have done our duty by repeating what was done in another place, and if the Government like to treat the matter on the basis that we do not withdraw our Amendment but that it will just be negatived, that is the course we shall adopt.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments not affecting the law of Malta]:
6.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This deals with an obvious mistake in
1044
the Bill, and I had hoped that by drawing attention to the mistake it might conceivably have been possible to treat it as a mere mistake and to print the matter correctly. But I dare say it goes beyond that, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment, which makes sense of the Schedule. Section 2 of the 1949 Act provides as follows:
"For section four hundred and twenty-seven of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, (in this Act referred to as 'the principal Act'), there shall be substituted the following section"—
and then there is a completely new section which paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 amends. It is quite obvious that when you substitute "B" for "A", "A" is replaced by "B"; it is not substituted by "B", which makes nonsense. I therefore beg to move the Amendment that makes the matter grammatically correct and good sense.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out ("substituted") and insert ("replaced").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think it is probably dangerous to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, on legal matters, but I have taken legal advice on this and I am advised that the noble Lord is in error. In the first place, the word "replaced" would not be correct since Section 2 of the Act of 1949 did not replace Section 427(2), as it would have done if Section 427(2) had been repealed by the Act of 1949, and Section 2 had instead been enacted as a new substantive enactment. What Section 2 in fact did was to substitute a new version of Section 427 for the original version of that section.
Secondly, one Independence Act after another over a period of many years has contained, as the noble Lord is well aware, this provision using the word "substituted". However, I will admit that perhaps the wording is inelegant, and in future in any other Independence Bills perhaps we will have a look at this matter to see whether the intention can be expressed in a more elegant way. But I do not think that the noble Lord's Amendment is correct, that we should substitute the word "replaced" for "substituted". I therefore hope that noble Lords will reject this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I can see a possible argument against "replaced", but I can see no conceivable argument in favour of "substituted". The word that I should be quite content with, if the noble Marquess would agree, would be "amended". Nevertheless, as this appears to be the sole Amendment now left, and as I think I shall interpret the wishes of the Committee correctly if I do not press it, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received; Bill read 3a, and passed.

EXTENSION OF PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN rose to call attention to the proposals for the extension of the Palace of Westminster; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name. I may say that I would willingly have moved it a little earlier, had the matter lain in my hands; but this matter was debated in another place a fortnight ago and I thought it proper that your Lordships, who live and work in this same Palace of Westminster, should also have an opportunity to express your views on the important subject of any possible additions to the Palace of Westminster before any final decisions are taken.
The Speaker's Committee in another place produced, rather to my surprise, a unanimous Report. I think that that is a matter which should be looked into, because I am not quite sure whether they are completely right—but I will go into that in a moment or two. The Lord Privy Seal said in the other place that the Government endorsed in particular the need for additional accommodation. That word "endorsed" I repeat, because I could not understand why he did not merely say that he agreed to it, or something of the sort. When I looked up the word "endorse" in the Oxford English Dictionary, I found that the Lord Privy Seal was not trying to put over "a fast one", because I find that it means,
1046
among other things, "to confirm". It bears no relation in this context to having one's licence as a motorist or as a publican "endorsed"—which means (again to quote the Oxford Dictionary) "to have a record of offence written on the back". In this case it means to confirm the need for additional accommodation.
The Motion in the other place went on to refer to
"the redevelopment of the Whitehall area as a whole"
and invited Her Majesty's Government
"to pursue the necesssary technical and professional inquiries…and subsequently to report…"
At any rate, nobody is in any way committed to anything at this stage. Therefore, this debate will provide a useful opportunity to air our views on the subject. I agree about the equal importance of the development of the whole Whitehall area: that is to say the Foreign Office, Scotland Yard, the Home Office and so on, but on this occasion I will restrict myself to the alterations affecting this particular Palace in which we sit. I do not intend in any remarks I make to go into matters of cubic capacity, accommodation or floor space, because I have no idea as to how much additional accommodation may or may not be required. The Lord Privy Seal merely admitted the necessity for additional accommodation.
This is a matter which some day a new Parliament and a new Government will have to face, no matter what their political complexion may be. This is not, of course, a Party matter; I am glad to say that there is nothing between us, and everybody who speaks will speak for himself. My intention is to consider solely the outside aspect of what other additions may some day be built, either additions to this existing edifice or additions built, as I shall suggest, on the other side of Bridge Street.
The late Mr. Oscar Wilde referred to the fact that this time of year in Parliament is a time when tempers are apt to get frayed and people get tired; and he referred to the Parliamentary troubles in July before Parliament rises as "the last rows of summer". I merely wish to say that if there are any rows here this evening it will not be my fault. I will endeavour to be brief, and one reason why

1047
I am speaking at this moment is to make way shortly for my noble friend Lord Hailes, whose knowledge of these subjects is much greater than mine. He was a Minister of Works in a recent Government, and the only reason why he is not speaking at this moment is that it will be his maiden speech and I have undertaken the task of "kicking off", so to speak. I wish him well.
I have three points I will try to make. First, whether one admires this building or not, the fact is that it is with us, and whatever is done to affect it or alter it in any way will be noted by an almost world-wide audience. It is not just the place where Parliament works and has its being; it is literally the heart of the Mother of Parliaments. Indeed, in a large area of the world pictures of this building are regarded as a sort of trade mark or hall mark of democratic institutions everywhere. We must therefore do nothing to damage it or its chief characteristics—and when I mention chief characteristics, I have in mind particularly Big Ben. We do not want any cucumber frames leant up against Big Ben. Secondly, in my view, if there are to be additions along Bridge Street into Palace Yard these must not square with the existing design.
I am not necessarily opposed to the plan produced unanimously by the Speaker's Advisory Committee. If anybody at any time wishes to see a drawing of what they propose I have one in my possession. It is very attractive to look at, but what I am worried about is the fact that it is going to block Bridge Street. I am no traffic expert; nevertheless, I know that Bridge Street carries an enormous amount of traffic which turns to the left along the Embankment to the City, or goes over the Bridge to Waterloo Station and the South. It seems to me a curious idea that it would be quite simple to divert the traffic towards Scotland Yard and then to bring it back again to the riverside, so that it would have to take a sharp corner alongside the river for a few yards and then left again over the Bridge.
If that is an objectionable suggestion, then my third and last point, which is the most important one—and I hope that the experts who are to consider these matters will give it serious thought
1048
—is the question of burrowing under Bridge Street. On the way some car parking places could be built, which would be of great value to Members of Parliament. If desired there could be a moving passage for those who were too tired to walk, and there could be a building in the modern style or whatever style was wanted. Lytton Strachey said of the architect of St. Pancras Station Hotel, "He built that building in a style entirely his own." So here there would be no strings attached, but of course the plan would have to be approved.
As regards Palace Chambers, which I used to occupy a certain amount when the Conservative Party had its offices there, I have often thought that they would do well with a new front, a new inside and a new hack. Then one comes to St. Stephen's Club, to which I sometimes used to go, and I think that that is not a very attractive edifice either. I am informed that Scotland Yard has already been sold. No doubt it is just a book entry by which the present Ministry of Works or the Home Office have bought it from the Government. At any rate, there is plenty of room over there to create a new building which need not be Gothic. As I say, I am not entirely opposed to the Committee's unanimous Report, but I think that the alternative of going across Bridge Street deserves very serious consideration and I hope it will receive it. I beg to move for Papers.
6.52 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, for having raised this matter in order to enable some of us to give preliminary thought to the whole question of accommodation in the Palace of Westminster. I think it must be preliminary thought, because even the Report upon which this debate is based is an Interim Report and it is, I presume, without prejudice to even the Committee itself having second thoughts.
This is not the first time that the question of accommodation has been considered. So far as I can gather, there was a Joint Report of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in 1944–45, and there have been a number of Select Committees and other investigations since then. The interesting point

1049
is that the only time when the House of Lords has been brought into the picture was in 1944–45. Since then it is only the question of the accommodation of the other place which has been considered. It seems to me a fundamental qualification for considering accommodation in the Palace of Westminster that the requirements of both Houses should be taken into account and not merely the requirements of one. I have read the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir James Duncan and the Report of the Speaker's Committee, and in both of those, as well as in the early ones, they considered the requirements of the other place.
It is interesting to note, incidentally, that as time has gone on these requirements have substantially increased. The requirement in the Report of the Joint Committee was such that possibly all the necessary facilities could, by making certain alterations, have been provided within the Palace of Westminster. But in the Report of the Duncan Committee, for instance, there was a requirement, of 50,000 square feet. In the latest Report the requirement is 100,000 square feet, and perhaps it is as well that we should settle this matter very quickly; otherwise, requirements may increase still further. My first point is that I fail to understand how we can settle the requirements of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster without considering, also, what are the requirements of this House.
I am going to follow the example of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and not go into any detail as to what these respective requirements are, but any noble Lord who takes an active part in the work of this House will appreciate that there is a good deal that can be done to make the task of noble Lords who are active here more agreeable, to enable them to work more efficiently and to discharge their duties in a more effective way. I think the same kind of case can be made for this House as is being made in another place. So I hope that when we come to reconsider this matter, as no doubt we shall do in the next Parliament, the requirements of both Houses will be taken into account at the same time.
The Speaker's Advisory Committee put forward a number of proposals which, as
1050
the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Find-horn, said, were unanimously accepted. The first was that there was a need for more accommodation, and I think we should all agree, although we should not particularly want to identify ourselves with any particular area. I would suggest in passing that there are possibilities of economising in, as well as of increasing, accommodation.
One of the suggestions that I might make is that there would appear to be no particular reason why we should have two organisations for the provision of refreshments. We might do worse than enjoy something like the facilities that are enjoyed in another place. At any rate, I see no serious objection to a common Kitchen and to a number of other common services, such as the Library. I see no particular case for having two separate Libraries occupying a good deal of space. So I hope that when we come to consider the question of the facilities of the Palace of Westminster, we shall also take into account the question of whether, to some extent, we might enjoy common services such as those I have mentioned. But, having said that, I would repeat that in my view the case for increased facilities for both Houses has been made out.
Then comes the question of where the extra accommodation should he, and we have the proposals made by the Speaker's Advisory Committee. Here, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, there is a conflict between the convenience of Members of Parliament and the convenience of the general public. Undoubtedly, the recommendations which were unanimously agreed upon would cause serious dislocation of traffic. I know that the Ministry of Transport is giving consideration to the matter and they have not said their last word, but, on the face of it, it would seem that here is a main arterial road, from North to South, carrying an enormous amount of traffic which would have to be diverted if Bridge Street were actually built upon. It is a matter for very serious consideration whether it is right that the convenience of the public should be subordinated to the convenience of Members of Parliament. We might easily find our way to the new quarters, the additional quarters, by means of a subway. I

1051
have never seen the reason why that is not practicable. I have heard it said that it would not be dignified, and that you would not get the atmosphere of Westminster. I should have thought that Members would be capable of creating an atmosphere of their own, a new atmosphere, and that that would not be very difficult.
However, these are matters which ought to be considered, and I hope that, when we come to consider them, we shall not rule out the possibility of there being a subway which would connect the new accommodation with the Palace of Westminster. Many of us have lived quite outside the Palace of Westminster but within the Division Bell area. I can remember many a time, when I lived in North Court, making my way to Gt. Peter Street, running along in time for a Division. I did not feel any inhibition; and the distance from a building on the site of St. Stephen's House would be no greater—in fact, rather less—than the distance that many Members of Parliament have to travel within the Division Bell area.
The other question is the architecture, and that seems to me to be an extraordinary question even to think about before we have made up our minds as to the kind of building we want. Surely the architecture is the last thing you settle, not the first. It is assumed that, even if the new building were contiguous to the existing Palace, it must be in the same style of architecture. But, really, that must depend upon what kind of building you are going to put up. The architecture is to a very great extent determined by the height and size of the rooms and where the windows are placed. To have a Gothic style of architecture in a modern building would be completely unsuitable and false. Nor do I accept the assumption that any other type of architecture would necessarily be out of harmony with the Gothic—or should I say the mock Gothic or neo-Gothic?
One has only to go to Venice to see one of the most beautiful cities in the world, with buildings of different ages and different styles all harmonising, with no discord at all between them. There are even parts, not necessarily in the same style, added centuries later to existing buildings, and nobody going to Venice
1052
complains that there is any lack of harmony or any conflict in style between them. Even in this country, in some of our most beautiful towns, the buildings are not all of the same style or period. Even in the vicinity of Whitehall we have a conflict of styles; and, really, are you going to stereotype the one style of architecture for all time and say that this is to be the style under which we have to live for centuries? No, my Lords; I think this question must be determined by the kind of buildings we put up; and I hope very much that, when we put up the new accommodation, it will be of a modern style with rooms of reasonable height which it will be possible to keep warm, not too big for comfort and not too small. It is these which, to a great extent, will dictate the style of architecture.
My Lords, these are my provisional thoughts. To summarise, they are, first, that we must take into consideration the requirements of this House as well as of the other place; otherwise, we are not doing the job properly. Secondly, the need is established for additional facilities, but we ought also to see how far we can economise and have common facilities between the two Houses. Thirdly, I think the site should not be contiguous to this House, but should be on the St. Stephen's House site. Perhaps I have some prejudice here, because I was forced out of St. Stephen's House to make room for this accommodation. Lastly, we should keep an open mind as to the style of architecture and not necessarily commit ourselves to any particular style.
7.6 p.m.
LORD HAILES: My Lords, in a maiden speech earlier to-day the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, apologised for making his maiden speech so soon after his introduction here. This has put me on a spot, because I have to apologise in exactly the opposite sense. All I can hope is that this fault may be mitigated, at least to the extent of the five years spent a long way away from these shores.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, this is not the first time that this question of accommodation has been raised. Much time and money has been spent over the years to try to solve the need for more accommodation for Parliament. It is really the insoluble problem of trying to put a quart into a pint pot.

1053
I had some experience of this when I was Chief Whip in another place, and then Minister of Works; and, although we now hear of the alleged existence of vacant, dusty rooms, I should in my time have been more than glad to have had a sight of some of these. I remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was out of office he asked me whether I could find some corner where he could write his letters and interview his constituents. All that could be found for him was a small cell—I can hardly call it more than that—in a pinnacle, with a long flight of stone stairs, and no lift. Although cheerfully accepted by him, as one would expect, it was not a worthy or appropriate offer.
Of course, the only way to solve the problem is to build not only for present needs but also for likely future expansion. The provision of accommodation, affecting, as it does, nothing less than the health, good spirits, reasonable comfort and efficiency of all who serve in this building, must be the first consideration; but, in planning for this, surely everything must be done to avoid doing any hurt to this famous Palace. It is on this aspect of the question that I should like to say a few but heartfelt words. As the problem concerns the crying needs of another place—and I think both noble Lords who have spoken agree with this—it would not be appropriate to discuss in detail in your Lordships' House what form such accommodation should take.
Of course, the question of the surrender of some of your Lordships' accommodation to another place has often been raised, and still seems to be with us. I am not at all sure that I myself have not been guilty in this sense in former times, but, even if that is so, I hope I need not present myself at this time as poacher turned gamekeeper, first, because in my time it was not a question of a new building; and, secondly, because it is quite unrealistic to pretend, whatever arrangements may be made, now or in the future, which are mutually convenient to the Houses of Parliament, that the basic need of another place can be satisfied, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, by redistribution of the present accommodation. We are credibly informed that the provision of 100,000 square feet of usable
1054
office space is what is necessary for all purposes and, because of the extent of new building this implies and no less because of the highly controversial proposals contained in the Interim Report of Mr. Speaker's Committee on Accommodation, it is only right that this matter should be raised in your Lordships' House following the debate in another place, for any proposals which would radically alter the well-known form and outline of this Palace must be a matter of real concern far beyond the confines of your Lordships' House or of another place.
From an architectural point of view, the building proposed in the Interim Report, which is a large high addition, connected at all floor levels to the present building and running northwards across Bridge Street and then down over Bridge Street to Parliament Square, would radically alter in my opinion (as anybody can see from the plans and drawings) the appearance of this Palace, planned as it was to stand as a complete and balanced whole; and it would effectively destroy what was so well described in an issue of Country Life as
"that noble conception of a great mass of building anchored north and south by two mighty towers."
It is true that Sir Charles Barry did prepare a design for an addition to be built in the area of New Palace Yard, but if it had ever been built—and I am glad that it was not—it would not have destroyed the noble conception to which I have referred. After all, an architect does try to avoid doing that sort of thing to his own masterpieces. However, the relevant point for us is that this addition was never built.
So this Palace, ever since it rose again after being destroyed by fire in 1834, has retained throughout the last hundred years—perhaps the greatest in our history—the form that all have come to know and love. And it is not only we who know it. As my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn said, the splendid view of the Palace of Westminster, particularly from across the river, is known all over the world. But perhaps even more revered is the picture of the almost free-standing tower of Big Ben. I do not want to overstress sentiment; but I do not have to remind your Lordships of what those deep tones meant to millions of people in their

1055
darkest hours, those tones which miraculously were never once stilled during the whole of the war. It is the picture of the apparently free-standing tower of Big Ben which still remains, in so many minds abroad, as a symbol of that freedom which so many people felt it represented in the war. Therefore, for many reasons, I support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. Surely, my Lords, the answer is a separate building in Bridge Street connected with the Palace of Westminster by an underground passage.
From the practical point of view, I should like to refer to some of the suggestions in paragraph 2 of the Interim Report of Mr. Speaker's Committee. In the first place, I cannot understand why it is considered necessary that the new building must be part of the Parliamentary precinct and must seem to be so, as the Report says; which it certainly would be. The new addition, wherever it is built, is not, as I understand it, to contain anything of high national or symbolic importance, no Ark of the Covenant, but simply an assembly hall, conference rooms, rooms for Members of Parliament and their secretaries and so on. Of course, if communication by an underground passage would mean a serious sacrifice to convenience that would be a great mistake. But would that really be so?
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched on this point. The Palace of Westminster is so vast that one can easily find oneself within its own walls at a greater distance from the two Chambers and the Lobbies, which you may call the heart of the business, than would be the case from Bridge Street, with the aid of an underground passage. In fact, I wonder whether communication from a Gothic addition, built over Bridge Street, as proposed by Mr. Speaker's Committee, would in fact be any easier. Nor does one suppose that the underground passage would be a cold and dark tunnel, calculated to make honourable ladies in another place feel nervous or lonely; but something well-lit, well-aired and, I hope, attractively decorated, so that it could seem to be just another passage in a great complex of buildings.
Nor do I understand why it is thought necessary to build over Bridge Street. We know that practically the whole
1056
area (except for New Scotland Yard), bounded by the Embankment, Bridge Street, Parliament Street and Richmond Terrace, is to be rebuilt for Government purposes. And of this area the necessary 100,000 square feet can be found, leaving sufficient room for a large Government building as well—and all this without building over Bridge Street and so, incidentally, creating those traffic problems to which the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, referred, and to which other noble Lords may refer later.
I have not so far mentioned the burning question of architectural style. If the proposals by Mr. Speaker's Committee to build in New Palace Yard and over Bridge Street were unfortunately to be adopted, I think the only thing would be to try to build in imitation of Sir Charles Barry's Gothic. But if so, then this is a further argument against these proposals, for we know that such a building would cost at least four times as much as a more simple building of the same size: and with all the intricate carving, and so on, it would take an infinitely longer time to build. I have the very unpleasant feeling that if the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Committee were ever to be adopted, we should in the end, when it was too late to say "No", be asked, because of the great expense and the time factor, to settle for the worst thing possible—"modified" Gothic. A building on the other side of Bridge Street, however, would not have to be executed in such a style. Indeed, it could be a building in quite a different style.
This raises another matter which is not just the simple one rather repulsivey referred to as "Mods versus Goths". It is foolish to think, as some people affect to do, that contemporary architecture is all bad. New materials and techniques are forming an architecture which at its best is original and exciting, although I do not think we have as yet achieved the best of this in this country. But we do not want to be aggressively avant garde in this matter unless we can be sure of producing a masterpiece, or at least a building of exceptional quality. I trust that what is eventually built to provide additional Parliamentary accommodation will be neither a feeble imitation

1057
nor a second-class contemporary building or extravaganza, but something of sufficiently high standard to conform (and this fits in with Lord Silkin's remarks about Venice, because "conform" is the operative word) with the varied group of buildings which lie in the very heart of our national life. I am glad that we have been given assurances that no proposals for additions to the Palace of Westminster will be seriously considered until Sir Leslie Martin has reported on the whole Whitehall scene, including the future of the Foreign Office site. That, of course, is entirely right, and no doubt the noble Earl who is replying will confirm that this is still so.
I have a feeling that the suggestions of Mr. Speaker's Committee on accommodation may already be dead or dying; but while it may seem rather mean to flog a dead horse or kick a Report when it is down, I do not think anybody who feels strongly should be prevented from stating his or her view on these matters before it is too late; so that when the time does come for the serious consideration of all these proposals the views expressed in your Lordships' House, in another place, and out of doors, will be clearly on the record.
7.22 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailes has made a most admirable maiden speech, on which I know the whole House will wish to congratulate him. We all know that he is an informed lover of the arts, including architecture, and he has shown that by his choice of this first opportunity to address the House. We all recognise that he had every excuse in absence abroad for the postponement of giving us that pleasure. I intend to be brief because, like many others, I am looking forward to the maiden speech that is to follow my speech.
The need for extra accommodation for the Commons is, of course, not disputed. Though the extent of that accommodation may be a matter of controversy, I do not think it is a controversy in which it would be profitable for this House to indulge. I think we can safely leave that to the Members of another place. But the location of the new accommodation of the Commons is a
1058
matter which does not concern the Commons alone, nor, indeed, does it concern Parliament alone. It is the business of everybody, including Parliament, to study and respect the need for town planning.
The most shocking part of the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Committee, in the view of many of us, is their complete dismissal of all considerations of town planning. In the debate of the 13th of the present month, in the opening speech by my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons, we find a sentence to the following effect—I am not quoting the whole sentence, but paraphrasing it, because of the convention in dealing with speeches in the present Session in another place. He said that it was not their function to examine witnesses about traffic and town planning.
That may be. But if it was not their function to examine witnesses on these subjects, it is surely somebody's function to consider these subjects before any decision of any kind is made about where the location of the new accommodation is to be. I find it astonishing that any body of men should assume that they were entitled to close Bridge Street for their own convenience. I find that an astonishing proposition. Nor, in my view, is any defence to be found in paragraph 9 in the Report, to which my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons referred, which states that after they had decided that what they would like would be a great building on the site of Bridge Street joining on with the present Palace, then, for the first time, they consulted some of the Ministries concerned, not to see whether this was desirable or a good thing, but to see whether it could be done.
Let me read some of the actual words:
"Having formed this preliminary view of the site and nature of the new accommodation, we invited the Minister of Public Building and Works to discuss our proposals with us. The Minister informed us that in his view it would be"—
note the word—
"feasible to make available for Parliamentary purposes"
the area which I have described. It would be feasible—it could be done—it would be possible. It was not said

1059
that it would be a good thing or desirable or that the values destroyed might not be infinitely greater than the benefits the House of Commons might derive. So much for their consultation with that Minister.
What about the consultation with the Minister of Transport? The Report says:
"The Minister also informed us that the Ministry of Transport considered that such a road offered the least objectionable substitute"—
I am not joking—
"for Bridge Street."
That was the utmost that could be obtained from the Minister of Transport.
Unless Parliament has gone mad, is it conceivable that we should decide great questions of town planning in a historic part of our capital city on the footing that the House of Commons say what they would like and then Government Departments, which ought to consider the requirements of town planning, consider whether it could conceivably be done and whether something is less objectionable than something else? It really is not good enough. I am delighted to find that I am not raising points which were not raised by honourable and right honourable gentlemen in another place. Remarks nearly parallel to what I am saying were said, at the beginning of his speech, by the honourable Member who sits on the Socialist Benches and represents Dagenham. What would be said by either House of Parliament if any outside body were to suggest that they would block one of the main arteries of traffic for their own convenience? It would be recognised at once that it was quite intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewelyn-Davies, asked a Parliamentary Question on May 11, shortly after this Report had been received. I ventured to ask a supplementary question, because I was interested to know the position of Sir Leslie Martin's inquiry. Shortly before Mr. Speaker's Committee reported, he had been instructed to prepare an outline plan for Parliament Square, Bridge Street and Whitehall. I asked my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who had answered the noble Lord's Question, whether legislation would be required to carry out the proposals of the Committee, to which the answer was, "Yes". Then I asked
1060
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol.258 (No. 73), col.4]:
"Secondly, am I right in assuming that the Instructions to Sir Leslie Martin to prepare an outline plan for Parliament Square, Bridge Street and Whitehall, still stand and are quite unaffected by a proposal recently emanating from a Committee of another place?"
To that, again, I got a satisfactory answer from my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. He said:
"My noble friend is quite right in his second assumption that the terms of reference given to Sir Leslie Martin stand."
I hope that they still stand.
Now I will come at once to the point that causes me some alarm. I want to be assured—and I think the House wants to be assured—that Sir Leslie Martin is going to advise, not whether the closing of Bridge Street is feasible, but whether it is desirable. That I regard as absolutely vital. The reason why I was somewhat alarmed was the remark in the final speech of my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works in the debate the other day. This is what he said:
"Some solution of the traffic problem wider than the closing of Bridge Street may have to be adopted."
I find those words alarming. What they suggest to me is that the closing of Bridge Street may not itself be sufficient and something wider may be required. I hope, on the other hand, that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be able to assure the House that it does not mean that, and it means that Sir Leslie Martin will be entirely free to say, what I believe is the conclusion of every serious town planner who has considered the matter, that the closing of Bridge Street would be a crime against town planning.
I wish to speak mainly, as I say, on the complete ignoring in this Committee's Report of the requirements of town planning, as was pointed out, I am glad to say, by several honourable and right honourable Members of another place. I wish to say a few words on the aesthetic matter that has been raised. The most pathetic and extraordinary feature of this whole Report is that the members of the Committee recommended a Gothic building on this site, in order, as they thought, to show respect for the work of Barry and Pugin. They really thought they were helping Barry

1061
and Pugin by completely destroying the balance of their building and making something which was described in an admirable letter to The Times, on May 8, as "something ludicrous in appearance". It would be completely ludicrous in appearance. Here I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Hailes. If one, in fact, built on this site, one might have an almost insoluble problem as to what the architect could do: because there is nothing he could do which would not destroy such value as the present group of buildings has. But, as my noble friend said, that is another argument against putting a building there.
As has been suggested by all the speakers who have preceded me—my noble friends Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and Lord Hailes, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—the right place for the development is the other side of Bridge Street. The letter in The Times was signed by Sir Robert Matthew, President of the Royal Institute of British Architects; Colin Buchanan, who is not only a traffic authority but the President of the Town Planning Institute, and by John Summerson. You could not get a more influentially signed letter. The letter pointed out that architecture, town planning and the preservation of an historic building all had claim to our respect. Every one of those considerations is destroyed by the proposal of this Committee.
All the points I have raised—and especially the architectural points—will, I know, be much better put by my noble friend Lord Esher and others. But I beg the House to realise that, while the need for increased accommodation for the Common s is not challenged, while the amount is not a subject which we wish to discuss in this House, the location of the new accommodation concerns us all, concerns the British public and concerns the future of our capital city and the self-respect of the nation.
7.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would have wished, as I do, that my father could have spoken in this debate. I think it is the sort of subject that would have suited him. Lord Chesterfield advised that
"those who possess wit should wear it like a sword in its scabbard and not brandish it to the terror of the whole company".
1062
My father never had much regard for that recommendation, and I doubt whether he would have had much this evening.
I must confess that when this Report of the Speaker's Committee was read by most architects and planners their reaction was that it could not be taken seriously. With the passage of time, the joke has worn thin and ceased to be particularly funny, and I shall try this evening, so far as I can in a short speech, to take it as seriously as I believe one should. I shall take it, first, as a planning problem, and secondly, as a problem of architecture. As a planning problem, this is in miniature the problem of London as a whole. Cities grow in two ways: they grow by extension, and they grow by thickening up in the middle. One can see this thickening-up process in its early stages in any primitive African or Asian village, where family compounds increase and begin to impinge on one another. In London, this has been a worry for centuries. I believe that in the time of Queen Elizabeth I Parliament tried to nut a stop to the congestion in Central London, but without success. The Third Schedule of the 1947 Planning Act, by which people were allowed an extra 10 per cent. of the volume of the buildings already on their sites when they rebuilt, was a sort of latter-day recognition of this ancient and, by now, obsolete principle of growth.
Only recently have planners come to realise that it must stop. I think it is true to say that any business or industry in Central London that must expand has only three ways of doing it. The first, of course, is to move right out; the second is to decentralise partially; and the third, if it can afford it, is to buy more land and develop close by. The one thing that we can no longer tolerate in Central London is that expansion should take the form of the eating up of amenities, open space or road space. Yet this is what Mr. Speaker's Committee in fact proposes to do.
We cannot prejudice the report of the consultants, but it seems impossible to believe that the proposal to place a building across the approach to one of the busiest bridges in Central London will commend itself to Professor Buchanan as a helpful contribution to

1063
the traffic problems of the Metropolis. It seems so obvious that in these circumstances one keeps one's fighting troops in the line, and one pulls out one's administration, one's ancillary units, whatever they may be. I am not naïve enough to suggest which they should be. The essential point is, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and other noble Lords have said, that Parliament must fit in to a rational pattern for Central London, and must not itself break the rules it imposes upon other people.
I come to questions of architecture. When people argue about the style for a new project, it generally means that something is wrong either with the arguers or with the project. Your Lordships will remember the fuss about whether the chimney of the Bankside power station should be designed as a campanile because it was embarrassingly close to St. Paul's. This question arose, of course, because a power station should never have been placed in such a position. The famous argument about the style for the new Foreign Office could be said to have been not a question of a bad project, but of something wrong with the arguers.
The Speaker's Committee, having settled for a bad project, a bad scheme, finds itself advocating, and having to dress it in, a dead style. Now I dare say a group of ancient pensioners could be gathered together at great expense to carve the stone, or maybe what Sir Basil Spence calls regurgitated stone would have to be used. Has anyone considered the interior? The insides of buildings and their outsides must have some relationship. They have to share the windows, for one thing. Is the interior to be in Puginese? Are the desks and furniture to be what most of us hoped never to see again when we said goodbye to our headmasters in their studies? But, of course, we were wrong. What a spectacle for the Mother—or should one say the Grandmother?—of Parliaments. It is true that Barry had plans for extending the Palace of Westminster. Barry also had plans for demolishing St. Margaret's. Great architects make great mistakes. I should perhaps add that one should still consult architects about buildings—having first made sure that they are still alive!
1064
So far as living architects are concerned, I think we all accepted Mr. Speaker's Committee's Report as a useful indication, not of how the problem should be solved, but of how strongly the Committee felt that it should be solved in a handsome and imaginative way. We saw it as part of the build-up of the brief now in the hands of Sir Leslie Martin. Many of us also accepted it as an implicit and deserved rebuke to the kind of dehumanised architecture of which we have seen too much recently in the centre of London. We accepted appeals made in another place for a bit of fantasy in the same spirit. We accepted all this. We welcomed it. What we could not accept was that the Speaker's Committee should not merely state the problem, but seek to solve it. What we could also not accept was a slight tone of arrogance in the individual statements of one or two members of the Committee, as though the interests of Members of Parliament had some sort of priority over the interests of the man in the street outside. In a matter of this kind Parliament has unique powers to act in a dictatorial fashion. It follows, I suggest, that it has a unique responsibility not to do so.
7.47 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, on a most interesting and knowledgeable maiden speech. We all remember his noble father and the contributions he made to our debates over the years, mainly on the Arts, and we are very glad to know that there is still a Viscount Esher who has contributed so nobly this afternoon and, we hope, will continue to speak in this House on many future occasions. We have also heard a most interesting maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, who, in addition to Lord Esher, speaks with specialised knowledge of these matters. We hope that he will also contribute to the debates on many future occasions.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, said at the beginning of his speech, this is really an exploratory debate, as no decisions seem to have been made. We are indebted to him for raising the subject and for giving this House an opportunity to say something on it, because, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, it is a matter which concerns both

1065
Houses of Parliament and not just the Members of another place. The general opinion of this debate seems to have been—and it is an opinion with which I agree—that the suggestion that has been put up by Mr. Speaker's Committee that the Palace should be extended over Bridge Street is one that is not acceptable. In fact, it seems to me such an extraordinary suggestion—I say this with every respect to the Committee—that I cannot really believe that it has ever been made. It seems like some extraordinary kind of nightmare, the kind of thing that one wakes up and thinks about in the middle of the night and then when one comes to the daylight one realises that it is just some fantasy of the small hours.
It seems to me absolutely extraordinary that the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said so rightly, should really suggest blotting out one of the main arteries of London's traffic, one of the main roads across one of the most important bridges. And why? To suit the convenience of Members. In other words, because it appears that Members may find it undignified to walk under a subway, the convenience of the public and of the traffic of London is to be prejudiced, and any consideration of town planning, as the noble Viscount, Lord Esher has said, should be swept away. One hopes that this crazy plan will never come to fruition. It seems to me to smack of arrogance. It takes no account of the feelings or convenience of the public; in fact, I should not have thought that it would encourage respect among the public and the electorate towards the Mother of Parliaments.
This plan is not only arrogant, but, like so many arrogant assumptions, it is also barbaric, because it takes no account of the aesthetic design of the Palace. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said, the original design of the Palace was very carefully considered by its architects. The facade was planned around the two towers, one at each end, with Big Ben forming the corner of the eastward end. If this plan to extend the façade goes through it will mean that Big Ben, instead of being at that end, will be in the middle of the façade, and so will lose, I think, a great deal of its grandeur. That seems to me a very high price to pay for the convenience of a few Members who wish to work in the House.
1066
I believe that there is a lot to be said for the other suggestion made by the most noble Lords in this debate, that any extended building should be constructed on the other side of Bridge Street. I see no reason why, if this plan is finally accepted, such an extension should not he connected to the main block by a subway. I cannot see what the objections are to subways. I spend a great deal of my life, and so do the the vast majority of people, in subways. We go down subways to the Underground, and we go along a fine subway under Hyde Park Corner in which there are some very attractive murals. It seems to me not to be beyond the power of ingenuity of modern architects to build a subway worthy of the Houses of Parliament. So if the subway is the main objection, it is one which I feel could easily be overcome.
Another suggestion, instead of building on the other side of Bridge Street, would be to extend along New Palace Yard northwards—I believe that that is part of the original design which was envisaged. It seems to me that this as an alternative plan would be preferable to building over Bridge Street. If the buildings were kept low they would not spoil the view from Parliament Square. In fact, I think it would be rather attractive to have a quadrangle in the middle and to do away with the car park.
I wonder whether consideration is being given to the construction of an underground car park beneath Parliament Square, where there are not many trees. That would make an excellent place for a car park, and would mean that cars did not have to be parked in New Palace Yard. At present, the car park outside your Lordships' House is becoming so full that it is getting very difficult to get to the House at all. My taxi-driver this evening could not find a way in, because there were so many cars in the car park. I think that not only Members of the other place but your Lordships also need a car park.
My Lords, wherever the new extension is built the question of design is most important. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that this will not be merely a reproduction of the old Gothic style. I happen to be one of those who admire the Palace of Westminster enormously. I regard it as one of the most impressive buildings in London. I happen to

1067
admire St. Pancras Station, too, which I think is a very lovely building, as was said by noble Lords who spoke earlier. It would be a great mistake if we were to attempt to build an imitation of the Victorian neo-Gothic. After all, every architectural style should mirror the taste and aspirations of the age. The neo-Gothic eminently mirrored a great deal of the civilisation of the Victorian era, and they built in that style very well; but I think it is a style which, if we tried to follow it, would really be dead. I think a pastiche of what is, after all, a pastiche, although rather an attractive one would be absolutely intolerable. I see no reason why a dignified contemporary style should not match well with the neo-Gothic of the main façade. After all, we had that same kind of problem with Coventry Cathedral, and I think that most people agree that the modern building harmonises very well with the Gothic ruins of the old cathedral.
Those are the only points I wish to make, and we shall be very interested to hear whether the Government have made up their minds about any of these points. One certainly hopes that reconsideration will be given not only to the question of the design, but also to the siting of the extension. What we build now will, we hope, stand for many years to come, and therefore we must ensure that any decisions made now are the right ones, not only for the next decade but for many decades ahead.
7.58 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to intervene very briefly in this debate, and I am encouraged to do so by the tenor of the speeches which have been made, speeches with which I have been entirely in agreement. I must confess that I hesitated to take part because of my own ignorance of architecture, but having listened to these speeches I have come, rather rashly perhaps, to these conclusions.
The plan is very Philistine in that it ignores the present buildings of historic beauty and wishes to add on to them in the old style. The plan is utterly inadequate, I think, because, since I have spoken to one or two people who know more about this than I do, it seems to me that it does not give enough space
1068
to Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament need much more space than they have asked for. The plan is utterly unpractical because of the traffic in Bridge Street. I think that the members of the Committee should have tried to cross Bridge Street, let us say, two or three times during the day while they were meeting, and they would then have some idea of the amount of traffic, both cars and pedestrians, that passes along this street.
The plan seems to me to be an absolute affront to our modern architects. Not all of us may like a great deal of modern architecture, but we cannot exclude or ignore the whole of modern architecture. We have some extremely good architects and I think this is really an affront to them. It seems to me that we are losing a really great opportunity to have a modern building across Bridge Street, one of grace and dignity and much more full of the amenities that Members of Parliament require to-day.
8.0 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, it seems to me that there is one avenue which we have not explored; at any rate, it does not seem to me to have been explored in another place, and I have not heard anyone mention it here to-night. We want 100,000 square feet, and we have under our feet 8 acres. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I do not want to spoil the opportunity of putting up a really splendid modern building on the other side of Bridge Street, but if this proves unpractical for various reasons, cannot we examine the possibilities of going underground? There is no reason why modern engineers, with modern air conditioning and modern lighting and decoration, should not provide all that is needed under our feet. Again, with modern lifts one can get up and down very much more quickly than one can move horizontally. It seems to me this is an aspect which could be used in conjunction with a very good modern building on the other side of Bridge Street, or could take its place. I should be very interested to know from the noble Earl who is to reply whether any explorations of this field have been made.
8.2 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this debate has been notable in a number of

1069
ways, not least for the fact that I have never heard two ex-Chief Whips from another place speaking here in the same debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailes, having been silent so long—permitted to say only "To-morrow" or whatever they are allowed to say in another place—have both been very eloquent, and it is quite clear that the House is in general support and very grateful to the noble Viscount. I think it was a rather courageous thing to bring such a hot subject before the House. We have had two maiden speeches which we have obviously very much enjoyed.
If I may say so, without wishing in any way to sound patronising, I think we were all struck by the depth of the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, feelings with which I think we are all very much in sympathy, even though some of us may hesitate to express ourselves as clearly and strongly as he did. Of course, in regard to the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, everybody is obviously sitting comfortably back and saying, "Well, deeply though we regret that his father is not with us, we are going to get the same sort of quality of speech from him", and his speech was both wise and enjoyable. In fact, they have been two very notable maiden speeches.
The striking thing is the degree of agreement there is in the House on this subject. My noble friend Lord Silkin unfortunately was not very well and had to leave, but I think most noble Lords—in fact, all noble Lords—would agree with his view. Broadly, we are against the Advisory Committee—indeed, not merely broadly. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, objects to the word "broadly", in any event, and I was interested to hear that he had to correct his own English in the course of his speech, which was satisfying. Noble Lords are in fact definitely against the proposals of the Advisory Committee. I should like to say something in defence. I think we took something a little heavily, and I would only say—and I do not want in return to be heavy—I think it is not conducive to good relations between the two Houses to talk about arrogance. I say no more on that. Honourable Members in another place as those noble Lords who have been there will agree, are always under tre-
1070
mendous pressure, and we must be sympathetic; and the really rather desperate efforts they make to break out of this place have led to proposals which were well worth while making, because we have been able, I hope, to dispose of them, and I hope we have disposed of them once and for all.
Of course, if we were going to build an extension to the Barry building, it would, I think, have been logical and consistent with what has been done, particularly in Oxford quads, whether Christ Church or Magdalen, to go on with the Gothic. But we who have to spend so much time in a Gothic building—and the interiors are at times more distressing than the exteriors—would be particularly allergic. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is going to refer to Peckwater Quad.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I was going to say that Christ Church is about to build but will do nothing of the sort suggested.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sure we are agreed at the present moment that the solution of the particular Gothic style is one that is not "on". But, against this, I am not too happy about the idea—I obviously bow to the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is extra-ordinarily difficult to join different architectural styles. I think of Hampton Court, between Elizabethan and William and Mary. It happens to be a place where I live, and I am deeply fond of it, but at times one is worried about it. In any case, it is quite clear that, for perfectly sound planning reasons, which every noble Lord has given, this particular Gothic extension must be ruled out, and that the extension of Parliament must come on the other side of Bridge Street.
I am not even sure that the proposals that the Committee have put forward are architecturally sound. I have talked to one or two of my friends, and I am not quite sure whether they would not run into the gravest difficulties when they started examining the proposals. I am not quite sure how this easy connection, certainly at ground level, is going to take place. I am not quite sure how one is going to walk through Big Ben, which one might have to do at certain levels.

1071
In any case, the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said the problem of windows—the fenestration argument, I think someone in another place called it—is really decisive. I think we must await the proposals of Sir Leslie Martin. I think it was shown reasonably satisfactorily by Sir William Holford in the study he did—and it was no more than a study, and therefore any suggestion that it has been rejected is a little premature—that it was feasible to provide the necessary accommodation the other side of Bridge Street; and now the Metropolitan Police are moving there is ample space for all that is needed.
I am very sympathetic, and I hope other noble Lords will be, as to the need for extra accommodation. It has been suggested that they are really rather overdoing it in asking for T.V. studios, and things like that, but the fact remains that in the future Ministers and Members of Parliament will frequently have occasion to go on television, and it is sensible for reasonable facilities to be provided. My only feeling—and this is a purely personal one—is that I would very much rather we moved to the other side of Bridge Street and had a decent building to work in, so that we did not have little notes passed round telling us the temperature is over 70 in the Chamber; I can never understand why we do it. And I like the vision of the other place, on the summons of Black Rod, standing on a moving staircase, proceeding to listen to the Royal Assent being given to Bills. Since the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, looks a little worried, let me assure him this is not a serious suggestion. It is a fact that the House of Lords must remain where it is for all sorts of constitutional reasons, and I feel it would be desirable that some thought should be given at some stage to our convenience also.
The proposed extensions, even if they were to go North of Bridge Street, would be most expensive, costing several million pounds. It is just conceivable (I hope that this remark will not be conducive to bad relations with another place) that one might "do a deal" with Members of Parliament and suggest that their pay was put up in return for saving the money on the extra accommodation, which, if I may say so, is a much more urgent and much more pressing need.
1072
But, quite clearly, we have to wait for Sir Leslie Martin's Report. Here I think that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, might be a little reassured when we see that Professor Colin Buchanan is advising Sir Leslie Martin on the traffic aspect. None the less, I share his anxiety. The fact is that another place did pass a Resolution and, so far as we know, the Minister of Public Building and Works is now busy pursuing the necessary technical and professional inquiries arising from the Committee's recommendations. So presumably the Government are getting on with the job of seeing how they might put these particular proposals into effect.
It may be a delicate matter for the noble Earl to say that these inquiries will not go too far. But I think that what the House is asking for is a quite definite assurance that we shall look at the whole of this area of London as one piece; that the proposed good planning, comments on which have certainly been expressed strongly to-day, will be applied most necessarily to all of this particular area of London.
If we look too far ahead it is doubtful whether it is going to be easy to design buildings that will last as far into the future as some of the buildings of the past have done. I think that possibly architectural and scientific developments may present a quite different picture, but I hope that at least the necessary planning considerations will be predominant, and that proper consideration (I will not go into the question of the Foreign Office, which has also been heavily discussed) will be given to this whole matter. I think that is what your Lordships' House has tried to say, and indeed has said, with one voice. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, can be satisfied with the results of his initiative.
8.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am sure we are all glad that my noble friend put down this Motion to-day. First, and not least, I am personally glad because I know that the whole House was glad that this Motion has given my noble friend Lord Hailes the launching pad from which to project himself into his first orbit in your Lordships' House. It was, as I am sure all your

1073
Lordships will agree, a faultless first flight—a case, I think, as the horrible jargon goes, of "Hailes, all systems go." I am glad, too, that my noble friend has joined that small but select trade union of former Chief Whips who have migrated to us from another place, and that even more select, and even smaller, trade union of former Ministers of Works. I am certain that all your Lordships will wish to witness many more oratorical flights by our migrant and far too often mute maidens.
Likewise, we are all equally glad that this debate has given us the first opportunity to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. Like many other noble Lords, I well remember his father in your Lordships' House, his wisdom and the shafts of gaiety and wit which he used to throw into our debates, sometimes upsetting them quite considerably. I am glad that we have heard the noble Viscount making his maiden speech in this House. I think we all knew that he would say something significant and add something significant to this debate. He did not disappoint us, and I am sure we wish to hear him often, because he will be a powerful reinforcement to what I would call the "Conesford-Conesford axis"—the planning, amenity and architectural lobby in your Lordships' House. But I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that there was one phrase which touched me on the quick—namely, when he spoke in a slightly different context of thickening up in the middle. For those of our Lordships who are perforce on a diet, I found this much too evocative and painful a phrase.
We are also indebted to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn for ventilating this important subject in your Lordships' House this evening. I think the future plans for this Palace of Westminster are a matter of great public concern, and I also think that it is right that they should be so. I myself believe that it is not fanciful to suppose that the character of national Assemblies can be quite powerfully influenced by their physical environment. The Greeks were right—and so were the Romans: I will not add to the list—to lavish a great deal of care on their public buildings, and I am sure that we shall be right to continue to lavish care on this building.
As this debate has gone on it has shown that the proposals we are
1074
discussing not only affect this Palace of Westminster but may well affect also the whole character of the Whitehall scene. Greater changes are afoot, or planned, in Whitehall than at any time since 1857, when Charles Barry produced his scheme, which was abortive, for refashioning the whole Whitehall scene. In my view, it is right that public opinion should be exercised about these proposed changes. It was right that they should be debated in another place recently, and again I feel it right that your Lordships should have given such close attention to this matter this evening.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Silkin (he has kindly let me know that he has had to leave your Lordships' House) who called our minds to the fact that the proposals which we are discussing have a long pedigree. There was the Stanhope Committee of 1944–45. There were the Select Committees of another place in 1953 and 1954. There was the Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir James Duncan. There were the Holford proposals which flowed from that Advisory Committee's Report. There was the criticism of those proposalsߞnot of Sir William Holford, but more of his terms of referenceߞin another place last August, before the other place broke up for its summer holidays. Following that there was the appointment of this particular Advisory Committee, and the appointment last April, by my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works, of Sir Leslie Martin as a consultant for the whole Whitehall area. Then, later, there was the twin appointment of Professor Colin Buchanan to advise Sir Leslie Martin on the traffic implications. These, I think, are the backcloth against which we have this evening discussed the specific proposals of the Advisory Committee.
I think that it is true to say that this discussion has shown a large measure of agreement in your Lordships' House on certain basic principles. For example, we are all agreed that another place has a crying need for more accommodation if those who work there are to work in anything approaching modern conditions. The Government certainly accept that something of the order of 100,000 square feet of additional space is required by another place. It is needed for more office accommodation. The present provision, or lack of provision

1075
is quite unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of Parliaments, and, equally important, it is not conducive to its efficiency.
There is a need for more Committee space. More room is required for catering. Visitors to another place need better provision made for them. There may well prove to be a need for some form of assembly hall with really modern facilities. There is certainly the need for adequate on-the-spot broadcasting and television facilities for members of another place, for Ministers, and indeed for those Members of your Lordships' House who feel like taking to the air or to the screen. Far better arrangements are required in another place for the Press; and last, but by no means least, the cribbed, cabined and confined conditions in which so many people so faithfully support the infrastructure of another place need radical improvement. All this is agreed. It is certainly agreed, or should I say endorsed, by Her Majesty's Government.
I think, too, we all accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Hailes that we cannot gain this extra and essential elbow-room by merely juggling with the available accommodation in the Palace and trying to gain a square foot here or a square inch there. As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I am not, I am afraid, up to date about the extent to which we have considered burrowing. I will inquire about it and get in touch with the noble Lord. I see no reason why it should not be considered. In any event, we are faced with the problem of an overall shortage of accommodation, and the only way in which the situation can be radically improved—and it needs radical improvement—is by new building. Moreover, and I think your Lordships will be agreed on this, the new building must be situated very close to the present seat of Government.
I am inclined to think that the area of agreement disclosed this evening is wider than this. I feel that all of us are at one in thinking that this tricky problem of Parliamentary elbow-room must be considered not in isolation but as a very important feature in the future planning of the whole Whitehall/Westminster area. This is the true
1076
measure of the significance of the appointment of Sir Leslie Martin. He is required to make certain, among other things, that the various proposals for redevelopment in this whole area are related to each other and have regard to the general architectural character of this vital area, the kernel of our capital city. He is asked specifically to advise on the relationship of the proposed new Parliamentary building to the present precincts of this Palace. I can therefore give the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the definite assurance for which he has asked, that all this will be considered as a whole and not in isolated fragments.
Finally, your Lordships probably are also agreed that the future plans for the Palace of Westminster, and indeed for the Whitehall area as a whole, must take account of the need to bear traffic considerations in mind. That is why my noble friend has appointed one who is by general consent reckoned to be a leading, if not the leading, expert in this field in London, Professor Colin Buchanan, to assist Sir Leslie Martin in his work. Clearly, this great area must never be a slave to traffic; but, equally clearly, it must be planned with traffic considerations in mind. We all know how wide the repercussions of a traffic jam in Parliament Square can be. We have all had experience of it, whether we have been Peers going off to a party in Paddington (if there are any Peers who go there), or stockbrokers hurrying home late for their suppers in Sussex. That is why the Government feel it is very important that the traffic aspects of this area must be borne clearly in mind.
I should like to come to the point on which my noble friend Lord Conesford was particularly concerned, and that is how Sir Leslie Martin's terms of reference and responsibility now stand on the Bridge Street question. On that I would merely say that these terms of reference are perfectly clear. A prime issue on which he is required to report is whether or not Bridge Street should be realigned. Those terms of reference have in no wise changed. On that I can repeat the assurance which I gave my noble friend some little time ago. That means that Sir Leslie Martin is perfectly free, if he so wishes, to advise against the proposed realignment of Bridge

1077
Street. To that assurance, which I hope my noble friend will find satisfactory, I would add only this: that my right honourable friend the Minister for Public Building and Works has undertaken that Parliament will be consulted before effect is given to Sir Leslie Martin's recommendation. That is the only qualification I would place on that assurance to my noble friend.
So much for the area of agreement. There is possibly less agreement on what is the best scheme for this Palace in particular, and how best that scheme could be fitted in with the plans for Whitehall as a whole. Judging by what I have heard in this House this evening, there is a fair consensus of opinion on what could be one of the worst schemes. But I do not think we have gone very far—and this is understandable—towards a solution of this particular problem. Your Lordships have made clear what you do not think would be a good solution to this particular problem. On that there is little I could say. Sir Leslie Martin is due to report early in the New Year, and his report will clearly affect the whole question of the best site for the new Parliamentary building. I am sure we should be wise to reserve our judgment on the question of the site, whether it should be attached, detached or semi-detached, until Sir Leslie Martin's report is received.
The same, I would suggest, applies, though more so, to the question of style. I do not myself wish to come down on one side or the other this evening, and it would not be right for me to do so on the question of style, as I should be expressing only a personal preference. But I should like to throw out these observations. I feel (and I suspect your Lordships agree, judging by what has been said this evening), that while the style of the new building is important, its scale and proportions may be even more important. Again, we should all agree that the architectural character of this Palace must have some influence on the design of a new Parliamentary building. But this does not, of course, necessarily mean that a new Parliamentary building, wherever it is built, need have a Gothic façade. Also, in considering this matter we cannot entirely ignore the question of cost and finance, to which my noble friend Lord Hailes drew our attention. I suspect that
1078
these observations are entirely trite and entirely non-committal on this particular point—at least I hope they are—because I feel that at this stage it is very much a question of "waiting for Martin".
That said, my Lords, I would merely wish, in conclusion, to repeat to your Lordships the very definite assurances which my right honourable friend has given: that before any "go-ahead" is given on this matter, whether in whole or in any significant part, Parliament will be consulted and will have a full chance of seeing and discussing whatever may be proposed. By the same token, my right honourable friend will in the meantime wish to weigh, and to weigh very carefully, the advice which he has received, in another place recently and this evening in your Lordships' House.
8.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I just say that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for the trouble he has taken and for the speech which he has just delivered. I do not think any of us expected anything very definite to be stated by the Government or by other speakers. My objective—and I hope it was a useful one—was to provide an opportunity for Members to express their opinions before definite decisions are taken. So I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, and I hope that it has been a useful debate.
I have nothing else to say, my Lords, except to add my congratulations to the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches here this evening: they were most interesting and valuable contributions to our debate. One or two noble Lords referred to Lord Esher's father, whom I also remember here. But I can go one better than that, and tell the noble Viscount that I remember the occasion when, 52 years ago, his grandfather came to have tea with me at school on a very hot July afternoon. To my surprise he refused to eat either very hot sausages or eggs—and I had spent most of my savings on them. But that was just too bad. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS MEASURE
8.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion which stands in my name; That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. I hope that this is a non-controversial measure not likely to arouse the heat which a previous Measure caused. Its purpose is solely to increase the efficiency of the work of the Church Commissioners.
Since they came into being in 1947, through the fusion of Queen Anne Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, their work has increased greatly. As a result, the Church of England, and particularly the clergy, are deeply indebted to the Church Commissioners for maintaining the level of clerical stipends in spite of the rise in the cost of living. But the very expansion of the work and the additional burdens made it reasonable to examine the machinery, and a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Monckton of Brenchley. That Committee's Report was considered by the Church Assembly which gave general approval, and directed that a measure should be prepared to deal with the recommendations. That measure was generally approved in the Snrinq Session of this year and passed both stages of revision and full approval in June of this year. In all stages the Measure was passed without any division.
Many of the recommendations of the Committee could be implemented by action on the part of the Board of Governors, and this has already been done. They were mainly concerned with the revision of the committee structure. Under the Board there are now two main Committees—the Estates and Finance Committee and the Administrative Committee—which have dealt with a wide variety of subjects. The Monckton Committee recommended that there should be four Committees instead: a Pastoral Committee, a Houses Committee, an Assets Committee and a General Purposes Committee—the last two taking the place of the Statutory Estates and Finance Committee. It is with these
1080
two Committees that this measure is primarily concerned, and their duties are set out in the Measure.
It should be noted that the Assets Committee would have an exclusive power in the name of the Commissioners to manage the assets and to recommend to the Board what sums are available for application or distribution. The General Purposes Committee would then advise the Board how to apply or distribute such sums as the Board, on the advice of the Assets Committee, should determine to be available.
The burden of work falling on the three Church Estates Commissioners has become so great that the opportunity was taken in the measure to propose a lightening of their duties. The First Estates Commissioner will be Chairman of the General Purposes and Assets Committees; the Third Estates Commissioner will be Chairman of the Pastoral and Houses Committees. All three Estates Commissioners will be on the General Purposes Committee and all will receive the papers of all the Committees. The Second Church Estates Commissioner, on whom perhaps the burden falls heaviest because of his duties in another place, will be entitled to attend and speak at meetings of every Committee of which he is not a member, so that he will be in touch with all the affairs of the Commissioners.
Clause 3 of the measure deals with the pension of a widow of the First and Third Church Estates Commissioner dying in office. Under the existing law, no pension could be paid in such circumstances, and this disability will be removed by this clause. It is generally agreed by the whole body of the Commissioners and by the Church Assembly that this measure will assist greatly the efficient working of the Church Commissioners. I trust that its provisions will commend themselves to your Lordships' House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, the Church Commissioners Measure by presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.] WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SHIPPING CONTRACTS AND COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.