Lords Sitting of 4 June 1964

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon), The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MOTOR CYCLE LICENSING AGE
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the further invasion of seaside resorts on Whit Sunday and Monday, they will now reconsider their decision not to raise the age for obtaining a licence to ride a two-wheeled motor vehicle from 16 to 19.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider it necessary to raise the age limit for riding two-wheeled machines on this account. As with the disturbances at Easter, it seems that many of the troublemakers went by train and a very substantial proportion by van or motor car.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that, in fact, according to the Deputy Chief Constable of Kent, with whom I have been in correspondence, over 300 of those who went to Margate had mopeds or motor bicycles, presumably with pillion passengers? Also, may we know whether Her Majesty's Government propose to stand aside and allow our seaside resorts to be invaded and raped one after the other, when, by a simple administrative action curtailing the mobility of these people, they can put a quick end to the business and save a number of young lives?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl that taking
582
any such restrictive measure would be effective for the purpose that he has in mind.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether or not it is possible to take away the licence for a motor bicycle for at least a year or more, to prevent these people returning with their pillion passengers to the seaside?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that if there is anything logical in this argument, it would also be necessary to prohibit young people of this age from holding driving licences for four-wheeled vehicles and from travelling by train.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, quite apart from the point to which the noble Earl has narrowed his Question, which is arguable both ways, I think, is there not a case for reconsidering the age at which people can drive either motor bicycles or cars, in view of the congestion on the roads and the great risks that are run? It would not be a bad thing if there were fewer vehicles and if the age limit were higher. May I also put to the noble Lord the point that was raised by the noble Baroness opposite? When people use motor cars with a view to their aiding them in acts of violence and crimes of violence, quite apart from any possible prison or detention sentence, surely there would be wisdom in taking away their licences, at any rate for a period?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the first part of what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth has asked of course raises an entirely fresh question. On the second part, I think I can only say—I do not want to seem unco-operative; that was not my intention—that I will convey what he has put forward to my right honourable friend.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, is it not a fact that the lethal part of the two-wheeled motor vehicle is the power of the engine, and would it not be wise not to allow young people, until they reached the age of 19, to ride two-wheeled vehicles which are in excess of a certain horse-power? The low horse-powered vehicle does not matter so much, but in going at these terrific speeds young people are a danger not only to themselves but to other people as well.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that, too, raises a fresh question which is not incorporated in the original Question asked by the noble Earl. I would say, from reports that I also have, that it seems that at Brighton, in particular, where I think the disturbances were worse, those who went by motor cycle and scooter in fact parked them conveniently out of the way, and the young people who joined in the disturbances did so on foot.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if, despite the distance from the original Question that we appear to have progressed, the noble Lord is still prepared to reconsider the whole legal aspect of this question, would he be good enough to agree that it should be reconsidered from the point of view of the 99 per cent. of law-abiding users of these vehicles and not from the point of view of the 1 per cent. of the much over-publicised users of them?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I again ask Her Majesty's Government this simple question? How long do they propose to allow these raids on the seaside towns to continue?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will contain his patience for a few minutes he will hear my noble friend the Chief Whip make an announcement.

PROPOSED RAIL CLOSURE: EARNINGS OF GROOMBRIDGE— THREE BRIDGES LINE
3.4 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in respect of the Groombridge—Three Bridges railway line, they will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for the latest 12-month period for which they are available showing:

(a) the total earnings of the line from passenger services; and

584

(b) a subdivision of total earnings under the headings of revenue attributable, contributory revenue and passenger parcels earnings.]

LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the only figures at present available are those given by the Railways Board to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It is only when the Committee have reported that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport comes into the matter, and at that time the Board will be supplying him with other detailed financial information.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, why do the Government refuse to give this information before an inquiry, when they are willing to give it after the inquiry has been held? Is the noble Lord aware that the figures which British Railways have submitted to the T.U.C.C. are only partial figures on which the line shows a loss, which is disputed by the thousands of people using the line? Is it not both desirable and just that if any figures are quoted they should be the full and correct figures, so that everyone can see that justice is being done.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should have hoped by now, with the number of Questions that I have answered on the subject, that the noble Lord would have grasped the procedure for proposed passenger closures. The noble Lord knows perfectly well what is the basis on which the figures given to the T.U.C.C. are supplied. He knows full well that the responsibility for a final decision, in the light of all the relevant information, is that of my right honourable friend when the case comes to him. He cannot decide until he has all the information, which includes the report from the T.U.C.C. on hardship; and as yet this report has not reached him. The noble Lord will also, of course, be aware that the question of hardship arising from the closure of a line is scarcely affected by the losses. Either there is hardship or there is not.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that there is some difficulty for Members of this House and in another place, and also the public, in considering the position of the British Railways Board when they make their claim for a closure? It is true, as the noble Lord will agree, that hardship is a point, but the figures are said in the

585
inquiry, or they would not be given. Would the noble Lord give an assurance that if there is some significant difference between the figures which the Railways Board give to the Committee and the figures that are given to his right honourable friend, the matter will be referred back to that Committee for them then to consider all the aspects concerned?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, no; I do not think I would give such an assurance, because the noble Lord also well knows that it is the function of the T.U.C.C. to report on the hardship involved in the closure of a line. The second point I would make to him is this. As yet, there is no proposal before my right honourable friend. It has not reached him yet. When it does, it is extremely probable—in fact, it almost always happens—that he will have the full figures before him. When he has the proposal before him and has examined the figures, that will be the moment for him to see what can usefully be done.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the point of the Railways Board giving figures of costs and revenue when hardship is taken into account? There must be some reason for this, and if there is one would the noble Lord not agree that if a Committee found that there were differences between the figures with which they had been provided and the figures given to the Minister, their decision might be different?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord knew that the reason for giving those figures is so that the T.U.C.C., when they consider recommendations to alleviate any hardship, have some background against which to judge the alternative services. It would be no good, obviously, if they recommended something very much more expensive than the Railways situation which they had before then. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to do it. I have explained this to the House several times. I do not see that the detailed figures for losses on lines make any difference to the hardship that is involved if the line is closed.
LORD TAYLOR: But the noble Lord has just said that they must consider the cost of an alternative service in relation
586
to the loss. Why should one set of figures relate to a loss when it is being considered by the T.U.C.C. and another when it is being considered by the Minister?
LORD CHESHAM: I said that these figures were intended as a background against which they considered their proposals.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord say, since these figures are put forward as a background, why the T.U.C.C. should not have the correct and full background? Secondly, will he now answer the question which he failed to answer before, and tell me why it is the Government refuse to give this information now, before the inquiry, whereas he will be perfectly willing to give the information, if I put a Question down, after the inquiry, when it can no longer be of proper use to the T.U.C.C.?
LORD CHESHAM: If the noble Lord will read Hansard in the morning he will find I have answered both those questions already.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I heard him give his first Answer, and the first Answer related to the Question on the Order Paper, and he did not give any of the figures that I asked for. Therefore his silence was tantamount to a refusal to give the information. I ask him again why he refuses to give the information now, when he is willing to give it after the inquiry, and can there be any other reason but that the Government does not want the full facts to be known at the inquiry so that a correct assessment can be made?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord can go on asking the same question over and over as long as he wishes, and as long as he asks the same question I will continue to give the same answer. I have 'thoroughly explained this matter in my original Answer and subsequent supplementaries, and on that I think the noble Lord must rest, because I am not going to repeat the answer in full again and again.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord has not answered the question. He cannot answer it. But fortunately I shall not have to go on asking it very much longer.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think we have all appreciated for months and months the great courtesies which have been exercised by the Minister in answer to Questions in the House, but on this occasion I have listened very carefully and I hold that my noble friend has been right in the contention he has made, because there is no guarantee that every kind of information that will turn upon this question is going to be available unless we can be sure of the figures before the inquiry. We have not had the figures. We have a right to have them.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I must apologise if I have given some misapprehension over this matter. I should not like the noble Earl to feel I have been guilty of some misconduct or discourtesy to the House. I still maintain that I have answered the Question put to me by the noble Lord. If he wishes me to repeat the figures that have been given to the T.U.C.C., which I understood the noble Earl to wish, I will certainly do so. But I have explained why it is that the information for which the noble Lord asked cannot be given at the present time, and I think that when the noble Earl and other noble Lords look at Hansard in the morning they will find I am in fact right.

SENTENCES OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION
3.14 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that at Berkshire Quarter Sessions on May 20 Victor Dunn was sentenced to 8 years preventive detention for obtaining 1s. 10½d. by false pretences, and what steps they propose to take to prevent the award of such sentences contrary to the practice direction of the Lord Chief Justice.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT). My Lords, Dunn has applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against con-
588
viction and sentence. The case is therefore sub judice and it would be improper for me to comment on it. As the noble Lord is aware, my right honourable friend has no authority to restrict the powers of the courts to impose preventive detention.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in reference to the first part of the noble Lord's Answer—which I fully accept; I know I cannot discuss this matter now—will he inform me in due course if leave to appeal is granted and, if so, the result of the appeal? With regard to the second part of his Answer, is he aware that it is now 28 months since the Lord Chief Justice made his practice direction, and if his right honourable friend has no power himself can he perhaps arrange for copies of that direction to be sent to all judges and others who have power of awarding sentence of preventive detention, since many of them may have been appointed since the original direction was issued? Could he not at least do that?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will of course notify the noble Lord of the result of the appeal, if there is one, if he wishes me to do so. But it is quite improper for me to comment on the second supplementary.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord opposite that we should not in any way comment on a case which is sub judice until that situation has passed. On the general issue, while the Home Secretary cannot interfere with the process of the court, surely he has power if he thinks it right to do so, to advise Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy to reduce sentence?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to get me to comment on the first part of the original Question by an indirect method. I decline to do so.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I precisely said that that was not what I was asking, and I had no intention of making any point myself. But the noble Lord said in the course of his observations, quite rightly, that the Home Secretary cannot interfere with the courts, and I should not like him to be able to do so. But on the general

589
issue, apart from this case, the Home Secretary has power, if he thinks it right, to advise Her Majesty to exercise the Prerogative of mercy and adjust or reduce sentence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, of course the Home Secretary has the duty of advising Her Majesty as to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, but I think it would be extremely unusual for such advice to be tendered before the ordinary processes of the courts have been gone through and, where there is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, for the Home Secretary to intervene before the matter has been before that Court.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy. I entirely agree with what he said, if I may say so, as I have made clear twice, especially about the sub judice issue.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, help a little further in this matter on the general question? Is it the case that we are completely helpless in this matter, particularly having regard to the fact that in the Appeal Court the Lord Chief Justice is repeatedly—as happened only this very week—quashing sentences of this kind? Must this machinery go on? Is there nothing we can do to re-advertise, as it were, the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as I say, it would be quite improper for me to comment on any sentence given by the courts. With regard to the further supplementary which the noble Lord put, if he looks at the original Question he will see that the two matters have nothing to do with each other.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain the difficulty in answering the second part of my noble friend's question, which has no relation to any particular sentence; and that is the question whether the Lord Chief Justice's practice direction has in fact been circulated to Judges and chairmen of quarter sessions who have been
590
appointed since the practice direction was first issued?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lady, that is not the second part of the Question. The second part of the Question asks:
"… what steps they propose to take to prevent the award of such sentences …"
That is the Question on the Order Paper, if the noble Baroness will look at it, and that is a matter upon which I am not prepared to comment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it was part of my noble friend's supplementary question, and I think it has not been answered. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us what is the difficulty in answering that particular part of the Question. Whether it is the second, third or fourth part, I am not sure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it would be extremely unusual for the Home Office to send round circulars of that kind to recorders and chairmen of quarter sessions. A direction like that given by the Lord Chief Justice is usually recorded in Criminal Law books, and is available in these books for them to see. I think the House will agree with me that one has to be extremely careful about the dispatch of circulars from the Home Office to judges and others, as to the discharge of their duties.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, how long we have to wait for this abominable practice of preventive detention to be abolished? Everyone assumes that it is to be abolished. How much longer have we to wait? Could the noble Lord, or the Lord Chancellor, give us an answer as to when we might expect to have an answer about preventive detention? How long have the Government been considering this matter? How long are they going to go on considering whether to have this disgusting practice abolished?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, without agreeing with the adjectives used by the noble Lord, may I refer him, for a complete answer, to the answers I gave

591
to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham on January 21 and on April 13? At the moment I have nothing to add to those answers.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I had four similar answers during 1963, and that it was in January of 1963 that the Committee reported recommending the abolition of preventive detention? Is the noble Lord further aware that I did not ask the Home Secretary to send out circulars? I asked the noble Lord whether he would approach his right honourable friend to see whether it was possible to arrange for copies of this practice direction to be sent out. I still hope that some means might be found—by pigeon post or otherwise—to achieve that objective.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that at a suitable moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Derwent will be making a statement on malicious damage.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NURSES BILL
3.24 p.m.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Grenfell.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, might I, on the Third Reading of the Bill, add just a few words to what the noble Lord has said. Although this Bill is useful, I am sure that the whole House recognises that it has made only a small contribution towards solving a big problem—indeed, all it has done is to raise the status of a group of women who
592
have hitherto been unqualified nurses. I feel that noble Lords on both sides of this House will agree with me that we should not allow another opportunity to pass in this House without focusing attention on the problems of these women. On the radio last week the Government had to come to the country and ask nurses and midwives to resume their professional occupation. They asked them to come into an arduous profession which sapped their physical strength—and their mental strength I might add—but they did not mention the word "remuneration".
I would only say that we shall not solve this problem unless we recognise that these women should be treated as key workers. In no circumstances would the Government appeal for key workers in industry without mentioning remuneration. Unhappily, the nineteenth century attitude still appears to be here. We regard nurses, midwives, and, indeed, all categories, as people who are dedicated to a vocation; and the community is prepared to exploit them as such. Until we recognise that these people must have some mention of their material needs, and concern for their material needs, little Bills of this kind will not solve a very great problem.
On Question, Bill read 3a
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass I should like to thank the noble Baroness and noble Lords for the interest which they have taken in this Bill, and also to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who have given it such a smooth passage through the House. I am sure that the words of the noble Baroness will be most carefully studied. I must admit that I fully agree with them. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Grenfell.)
On Question, Bill passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POLICE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING BILL
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 69 [Making of control order]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): When the Committee adjourned a day or two ago, your Lordships were considering Amendment No. 62 to Clause 69. That Amendment has already been moved, and the Question now before the Committee is that this Amendment be agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I should like, first of all, to give my thanks to the Government for agreeing last Tuesday to postpone consideration of this Amendment, which concerns a most important question that we have to consider on this Bill. We were at the end of a rather trying day, and I thought it would be desirable that we should all think about this particular question once more in the two days that have elapsed. I should also like to explain that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who was answering on this point last time was courteous enough to telephone me this morning to say that he would not be able to be present at the beginning of this discussion but hoped to be here later.
To come back to the Amendment, I can summarise the issue before the House in a few words. Everybody who dealt with this on Second Reading was in favour of this Bill dealing with the question of what is commonly known as Rachmanism—that is, intimidation by violence, or causing a nuisance in some other way, in relation to tenants who are unable to help themselves in such a way as to cause them to give up possession of their own accord, instead of going through the normal procedure of the courts to obtain possession. There is no doubt that all of us were under the impression that this Bill dealt with that subject, and was intended to do so. Apart from speeches from this side of
594
the House, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, all took the view that this Bill dealt with the subject of Rachmanism. I myself was in some doubt as to whether under the terms of Clause 76 the question was adequately covered, and this Amendment was put down in order to make sure that in fact it really was covered.
In reply to the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said—and I do not want to quote him in full, but if he thinks that I am quoting him unfairly I hope he will tell me [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 257 (No. 67), col. 958]:
"The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, doubted whether there were sufficient powers in the Bill for bringing about what he, and I think all of us, wish to see, particularly where there are cases of intimidation, and even violence and threats and so on. I think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was right in this when he directed attention to Clause 69 which says, and I quote"—
and I will not quote it now because it is actually in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, then went on to say:
"That clause is widely drawn so as to give the maximum scope to the local authority to act quickly and effectively."
I agree that it is widely drawn and it might be regarded as giving effective powers to local authorities if it were drawn in a satisfactory way. I intervened later on and said (col. 959):
"My Lords, if the only difference between us now is whether the particular words in the Bill meet the case, then I take it that we can discuss them in Committee and, if necessary, include new words to make that abundantly clear. But at the moment I have some doubts about that."
and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, replied that he entirely agreed with me, but thought it necessary to explain it. So I was under the impression in putting down my Amendment that we were all in agreement that we wanted to deal with this evil in the Bill, and this is the purpose of my Amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replied to my speech on the Amendment. What his
speech amounted to was, first, that my Amendment was imperfect and he gave his reasons for saying that. But he went on to say that, in any case, there were other ways of dealing with this evil outside the Bill: for instance, the

595
local authority could obtain a compulsory purchase order or the tenants could go to the courts, which implied that the Bill was not the right place to deal with it. I want to challenge that. We have this Bill before us and this is the right place to deal with the evil, as was understood by everybody who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. Therefore, I am moving my Amendment with the object of seeing whether or not it is established beyond all doubt that this is an evil which can be dealt with under the Bill, so that the local authority can make a control order, enter into possession at once and put itself in the position of the landlord if it is satisfied that the evil arises.
I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, whether it is still the position that we intend to deal with this evil in this Bill. Will he say whether he considers the words in the Bill to be satisfactory to deal with the evil and enable the local authority to make a control order if it is satisfied that there is intimidation or there are other acts which interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the tenancy by the tenant, or whether he agrees with his noble friend Lord Jellicoe that this Bill is not the right place to deal with it? If he agrees with me that the matter should be dealt with in this Bill, I am prepared to discuss with him the question of whether the language of my Amendment is or is not satisfactory. If it is not satisfactory, I would ask the noble Lord to put down an Amendment on the Report stage which would make it clear beyond doubt that this evil can be dealt with in this Bill by means of a local authority control order. If his view now, contrary to what he told us earlier, is that this is not the right place to deal with it, then I would presume to disagree with him, and the Committee must decide for itself whether or not it wants Rachmanism dealt with in this Bill. That is all I propose to say at this moment, but I should like to discuss the language of the Amendment if the noble Lord agrees with me that it is appropriate to deal with the matter in this Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): Before we proceed further, my noble friend Lord Derwent
596
would like to make a statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved that the House do now resume.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

HOOLIGANISM AND INCREASED PENALTIES
3.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, with your permission, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice an Answer which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in another place in reply to a number of Questions arising out of the hooliganism at seaside resorts at the Whitsun weekend. I will use his own words:
"In comparison with the millions of young people who enjoyed that fine holiday weekend in sensible ways, the total numbers involved are not large, but their behaviour was thoroughly foolish and irresponsible, and they spoilt the holiday for many others. The situation was kept in hand by skilful and well organised action on the part of the police forces, and I am certain that if further outbreaks occur the police will be equal to dealing with them. Effective machinery exists for mutual assistance between police forces, where necessary; I am keeping in close touch myself with the plans now being concerted between the chief constables most likely to be concerned, for coping with any recurrences of seaside hooliganism. It would not be wise to disclose these plans in geographical detail, but I give the assurance that the importance of being able to muster large forces of police quickly wherever trouble threatens is thoroughly recognised by all. I feel certain the House would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the admirable behaviour of the police, in difficult circumstances, in the areas affected at Whitsun.
"The courts have in general taken a stern view of those who have come before them charged with hooligan offences in holiday places, and I have no doubt of the salutary deterrent effect of sharp sentences in such cases.
"As a nation we have to try all the harder to probe deep into the causes of

597
feckless behaviour by young people, and remedy or eradicate them. More and more systematic study and genuine research are needed into the true reasons why groups of boys and girls break away into selfish behaviour that is offensive to the mass of ordinary, decent people. The Advisory Committee on Juvenile Delinquency which, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, I recently appointed to consider and advise on delinquency and on measures for its reduction will, I hope, have a significant contribution to make.
"There is evidence that a great number of the young people who contributed to the Whitsun troubles at Brighton and Margate went there in the first instance as spectators rather than with the intention of doing any harm. It is easy for older people to condemn the whole lot of these young people out of hand. I would not do that, but we are entitled to ask them all to remember that behaviour which may seem amusing to them can develop into an unfair and intolerable intrusion upon the pleasures of other people, and therefore they ought to cease to encourage the perhaps few black sheep among them. We shall all do well to remember that there are exhibitionists and troublemakers who thrive on publicity.
"I have given consideration to all the suggestions that have been made for providing the courts with new powers for dealing with these hooligans, for example, by confiscating their vehicles or by disqualifying them from driving or by reintroducing corporal punishment. I do not think that any of these provides the answer. There would be formidable difficulties, for instance, in relating offences to the vehicles which offenders have used to come to the area concerned. It is not the case that the courts lack powers to deal with hooligans. There is a variety of offences with which they may be charged, and some of the recent sentences have shown that the courts can deal with them severely.
"There is one respect in which I want to ask Parliament to widen and strengthen the powers of the courts. Section 14 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, empowers magistrates' courts dealing with cases
598
of malicious damage to order the offender to pay compensation up to the amount of the damage, but use cannot be made of that section if the damage exceeds £20. I propose that the £20 limit should be raised to £100, and that the maximum fine which can in addition be imposed under the section should also be raised from £20 to £100.
"I believe that the principle of exacting restitution for damage done, along with the possibility of a substantial fine, is very important, and that this will help to reassure the public as well as to deter the hooligans. The necessary legislation will be introduced forthwith."
My Lords, that is my right honourable friend's statement.
3.43 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the Minister of State for the statement he has made on behalf of the Home Secretary. We shall all, I think, agree with the tribute paid to the police. Their patience under conditions of considerable provocation is wonderful; indeed, it is another demonstration of the fact that our policemen are wonderful. It must be that quite a number of them lost their week-end's leave over this kind of activity. I agree with the Home Secretary that the existing possibilities of cooperation between police forces are adequate to deal with this kind of difficulty. Further, I ask the House to accept my assurance
that we agree that the great bulk of our young people are good and decent young people. But this minority are bringing the nation into disrepute, and it is damaging not only their own happiness, and sometimes their own bodies, but also other people's, and ruining people's holidays.
May I put it to the Minister of State that really this statement does not get us very much further? It is a pretty poor thing. There is to be more research, and whether the Advisory Committee—poor things!—will know any more about it than the rest of us when they come to examine it, I do not know. But that is not good enough. The increase from £20 to £100 in the maximum compensation payable for damage is a very modest affair. As regards the motor-bicycle element of the "Rockers" and the "Mods",

599
if I am not mistaken there is no question of suspending their licences. I do ask the Minister of State whether, in view of the gravity of this matter which may go on, he will indicate to the Home Secretary that it is somewhat disappointing that this statement indicates practically no development in finding remedies.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should rather like to take off a little of the cold water which the noble Lord who has just spoken has thrown on this statement. It seems to me that it is a balanced and moderate statement; and it is constructive. I think that the raising of the limit of penalty in the way proposed is probably very useful. I am glad that the Home Secretary has not taken a violent and sudden decision, in reply to the rather hysterical criticisms in the Press and elsewhere, which of course are justified by the unpleasant things that have happened. All I would ask the Minister is this. Can he tell us when this Advisory Committee is likely to deliver its report, and when it will be available for us to read?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I first answer the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on the last point he raised? I think that the Advisory Committee will make a series of reports over a long time. I do not think one can give a final date—it is a little early yet—because the sub-committees have only just started work, and it is the sub-committees which will produce the initial facts. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for what he said; and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, for the first part of his remarks.
May I just say this? Any more complicated legislation, which may or may not be found to be necessary, would take a considerable time to formulate. My right honourable friend did not want to rush into Draconian methods without considerable thought; and then, of course, there is this question of how the law may be amended. What has happened here is that the legislation we are introducing is something which we can introduce quickly, and which will strengthen the hands of the courts. If other measures are necessary later they will take considerably more thought and more working out. But this is a perfectly simple step, and we believe it will help, and that is
600
why it is being introduced. I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's earlier remarks, and, if I may say so, as I have seen a lot of them lately, may I say that I am extremely grateful for the remarks he has made about the police?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I join in the welcome to this statement as far as it goes, but offer one criticism or suggestion? The noble Lord spoke as if the sole problem were what happened at the Easter and Whitsun week-ends. That is not the case. There is a continuous stream, a constant occurrence, of hooliganism not only at the seaside, but from youths or small groups of people who go by motor-bicycle to some village not far from where they live, smash up dances and do things of that kind. Many workers who have done a great deal to further the interests of young people have reached the conclusion that nothing would be more effective in these cases than to order the confiscation of the vehicles used to bring these young people to these places where they commit these offences. I hope that the Home Secretary will carefully consider whether it is not desirable to empower the courts to order, certainly the confiscation, and possibly the destruction, of the vehicles used by these people which aid them in going to places to commit these offences. This would have two admirable consequences. It would deprive them both of their means of mobility and of a valued status symbol.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the Minister state whether the courts have powers—or, if they do not now have powers, whether powers will be given them—to require young people who are guilty of acts of hooliganism to report back to the police at weekends, at the place where they committed those acts of hooliganism, for a stated period? They could there be under the direction of the police to pick up litter or do such useful things, to show that they could be useful citizens, as a form of punishment for their hooliganism; and one would hope that in the future such means of deterrent would turn these young people into useful citizens, instead of being a nuisance to the rest of the populace.
VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one question? Would he not

601
agree that, if we had not done away with National Service and it were still operative in this country to-day, we should not have these "Mods" and "Rockers"?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I answer the noble and gallant Viscount first? In the days when we had conscription we did not have "Mods" and "Rockers"; we had what I think were called "Teddy boys". But I think that is really quite outside the scope of this statement, if I may say so. The noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, asked me whether the police had the rather sweeping, power to make these boys and girls go back on following weekends to the place of their crime, as it were. They do not have that power. There are other powers, which the courts can exercise, but the police cannot make them go back. As to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Conesford, I am well aware of the issue he has raised, which has been considered and will be considered further. However, we do not believe he is quite correct, particularly when he talks about breaking up dance halls. A lot of those who go breaking up dance halls travel by bus or Tube and on their feet, and we really cannot confiscate their feet. From the information we have had from the police so far, I think he is rather exaggerating the effect of these motor-bicycles. They do make these young people more mobile—but, then, so do trains. I think this is a little outside the statement I have made, but, of course, these matters are being and will be considered.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I put just this point to the Minister? He says that an Advisory Committee is to be set up. Looking at the varying circumstances which have come to light in the last two months or more, I should have thought that, if there were anything confusing in the situation, it would be as confusing to the Advisory Committee as it is to the Government. In the meantime, there is the question of urgency. There are the three outstanding cases of Clacton, Margate and Brighton, but these have now been added to by incidents at numerous places in different parts of the country where, as the Minister says, these people do not all arrive by motor transport. Something ought to be done about
602
this situation now. Surely that is an immediate responsibility of the Home Office, and of those who have to serve under it, to keep the peace.
The other thing I would say (although it is perhaps better to leave it until we deal with the urgent Bill we have been promised) is on the question of
increasing the amount of compensation allowed to be levied by a court. That we can deal with when the Bill comes up, but I hope there will be nothing in any Money Resolution in the other place which will prevent a Motion in this House being passed to increase the amount, because in some cases, taking the collective effect of the conduct of a body of youths, the damage caused may cost very much more than the amount provided, and it should be possible for them all to be mulcted and made responsible for providing the total cost of the damage caused.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks. I am afraid I cannot answer "off the cuff" the question about a Money Bill, but I shall bring it to the immediate attention of my right honourable friend, because clearly we want to be able to deal with this Bill here. I am afraid I cannot answer him straight away, as he will realise. Of course, it is the responsibility of the forces of law and order, which include the Home Office, to see that these hooligans are dealt with and stopped, and that is in fact happening. I think it is clear that the police are doing a very good job. On the noble Earl's other point, the Advisory Committee will advise, but, of course, as is already shown by the fact that this small Bill is coming forward, that will not stop the Government from introducing such measures as they may find necessary, although they do not intend to introduce Bills which they are not certain are necessary.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord fully satisfied that the police resources on the South coast are adequate to deal with this problem? It was obvious that at Brighton they were fully stretched to deal with the situation. You had the problem at Brighton, Bournemouth and Margate, and one could name many other resorts concerned quite nearby. Is the noble Lord fully satisfied that there are adequate reserves available at holiday times to deal with the position? I will give him one instance. I

603
am reliably informed that there is only one police car to deal with the problem at Seaford.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, co-operation between police forces is very close these days, but there have been further conferences over this particular problem, and we are satisfied. I would just add that at Brighton there was, I think, very little, if any, advance warning, and a lot of the police, the East Sussex police, were at Goodwood. I think that matters of that kind have now been tidied up. The chief constables have informed us that they are all quite satisfied that they can call on and move in other bodies of police to help their neighbours; and they are satisfied they can deal with the matter quite adequately.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: But, my Lords, do Her Majesty's Government seriously imagine that these latest measures are going to make very much difference, and that some wretched seaside town is not going to "cop it on August bank holiday?
LORD DERWENT: I certainly do not say that no seaside town is going to "cop it" on August bank holiday, but what I do say is that hooligans will be pretty adequately dealt with if they do try to cause trouble.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Lord, in quoting the reply of the Home Secretary in another place, referred, I think, to "exhibitionists". May I remind your Lordships that any exhibitionists involved in this kind of activity are enjoying, or will enjoy with the co-operation of the Press, a splendid platform in the prolongation of this debate in your Lordships' House?
LORD DERWENT: I do not know whether I am meant to answer that question, but I take the noble Lady's point. May I add one thing? The job of the police would be very much easier, and the publicity given to these hooligans would be very much less, if other members of the public who are not involved did not stand about and watch. That has caused considerable trouble to the police.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? While agreeing wholeheartedly that the police forces involved are doing a very fine job of work, and are being very restrained in their attitude, I would point out that they are at times placed in a rather uncomfortable position—perhaps having their helmets knocked off—and often find themselves in a humiliating situation. Could they not act with a little less reserve? And could they perhaps be issued with the longer truncheons which the police on horseback have, and which could possibly be used in effective deterrent action?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I say that the chief constables are, I understand, entirely satisfied with the weapons they have, and the amount of force used is just sufficient to do what the police have to do. I would remind my noble friend, on his comment about helmets being knocked off, that of course, a policeman's lot is not always a happy one.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the Minister say what is our duty, as members of the public, if we see this sort of thing going on? Should we turn our backs and walk away, or should we join in and help the police? It really is rather a difficult situation.
LORD DERWENT: Of course, it is difficult for me to give advice, but I would suggest that if somebody wishes to help and not to walk away he might ask the police whether they need his help. But if they do not need his help, he should walk away.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, might I ask the Minister of State whether he would be good enough to call the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that there are so many petty crimes going on all over the country, as well as at Clacton by "Mods" and "Rockers"? Where I live, in Hertfordshire, last Friday night the "Best-kept Village" sign which was won by Old Welwyn in the "Best-kept Village" competition was sawn through and crashed to the ground. Large quantities of "purple heart" pills have also been stolen from the factory at Welwyn Garden City, where they are produced. Things of this sort continue all the time, yet when these boys come up they are fined such very small amounts that I

605
believe they have a reserve fund to pay their weekly fines. It really is getting quite a farce. I hope that the Home Secretary will not concentrate merely on Clacton and other places that have been mentioned.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, all these matters are constantly in the mind of my right honourable friend, but I do not think that my noble friend's particular remarks apply to the statement I made.

HOUSING BILL
4.0 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD MOLSON: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe is not here, because I am going to quote a few sentences from what he said on Tuesday and I shall ask my noble friend Lord Hastings to explain to me exactly what the Government have in view. We have been told that this Bill is intended to deal with two matters in particular: one is the bad living conditions in many places, and the other is Rachmanism. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said [col. 478]:
"I am sure that we in this House are all anxious to cut at the root of what is sometimes, I think, loosely termed ' Rachmanism '."
By Rachmanism is meant the exercise of illicit pressure in order to induce persons living in rent-restricted property voluntarily to evacuate it because life is intolerable in those circumstances. Later, my noble friend said [col. 479]:
"I myself strongly suspect that where we find Rachmanism … we should also find conditions bringing the house within the orbit of Part II of the 1961 Act."
By this he means, of course, those bad housing conditions which, as he says, are objective. But it does not in the least follow that where Rachmanism is being applied the conditions of the flat which the landlord covets are necessarily such as to bring it within Part II of the 1961 Act.
Let me give a case which, though imaginary, is not a bit beyond the revelations which have come out recently. Suppose there is a house in which three families are living and where the house conditions are not really extremely bad but where one
606
decent family is enjoying conditions of rent protection. Let us suppose that the landlord, a new Rachman, arranges for two prostitutes to live in the rooms above and for West Indian immigrants who play musical instruments all day and night to live underneath. These are two expedients that were adopted, and in addition there was the introduction of savage Alsatian dogs. It would be perfectly possible, and even probable, for these things to be done in the case of a house where the actual living conditions were not bad enough to bring it under Part II of the 1961 Act.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe, answering my interruption in which I pointed out that these tenants might be too ignorant to know of their legal rights of remedy in the courts or might have been completely intimidated, said [col. 480]:
"I was saying that the compulsory purchase order operated at the instance of the local authority, just as this control order would be operated if applicable."
I should have thought that a compulsory purchase order, which takes a property away forever from the landlord, was a more drastic step to take than a control order. Yet we are told that the Government take the view that a compulsory purchase order in these circumstances would be more appropriate than a control order. I do not understand why that should be so. My noble friend Lord Hastings said during the Second Reading debate that it was inappropriate to apply the control order procedure because it would not be appropriate for a local authority to make up their minds as to whether intimidation and coercion were being brought to bear. Surely that is exactly what would be necessary if they sought to operate a compulsory purchase order for this particular reason. His right honourable friend in another place gave an assurance that he would be willing to give sympathetic consideration to compulsory purchase order applications if there was a danger of homelessness resulting.
I should like to know from my noble friend exactly how this compulsory purchase order procedure is going to be operated and why it is open to less objection than to apply for the less drastic control order in the kind of case to which I have referred. These are

607
quotations from the Government; and I should like to know exactly how this procedure is going to operate. As things are, it appears to me that there is great force in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. However effective that procedure may be in respect of bad slum conditions, this remarkable evil of Rachmanism, intimidation and coercion, will not be fully met under the present wording of the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: I think it is probably the wish of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that I should intervene at this moment. I appreciate his speaking so briefly and putting his case and what he is aiming at so clearly. I must confess, especially after I have heard what my noble friend Lord Molson has just said—and, indeed, what he said on Tuesday as well—that when I was listening to the debate on Tuesday there was something that worried me. This was that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe seemed, to some extent, to be arguing at cross-purposes. I was particularly worried that this should derive from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had read into some words I had uttered on Second Reading a meaning which I believe they did not contain. I shall seek to prove in a few moments to the satisfaction of the Committee that they did not contain the meaning that the noble Lord thought they did.
Before I do that, I would say that I think the noble Lord is under the false impression that here we are arguing only about a form of words. Although I do not wish to turn this discussion into a study in semantics, I myself was a bit confused by a few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his closing remarks on Tuesday, when he said [col. 482]:
"I say 'or on (c).' But if we had the word 'and' it would make it clear."
I was not sure when I read that whether he was suggesting it did not make much difference whether it was "or" or "and"; but, from his speech to-day it is clear it does make a great deal of difference. Here, in fact, is not merely a difference of words. We are arguing this afternoon about a fundamental difference of approach and, indeed a difference in intention.
608
The noble Lord criticised Part IV of the Bill, and Clause 69 in particular, attributing to them pretentions which they do not and never did possess. He is criticising the Bill for not doing something which, in fact, it does not set out to do wholly in the way that he would wish, but only partially. I shall come to that in greater detail in a moment. Nevertheless, I contend that Part IV, based on the criteria of Clause 69, does set out to achieve something very important and that it will succeed in achieving its aim.
May I turn back to this question of words and of what I said on Second Reading? The noble Lord has quoted what I said perfectly correctly, but has declared that it was his clear impression that, by these words, the clause meant to deal with what he describes as Rachmanism over the whole field, wherever Rachmanism may exist. I think it is only fair that I should draw his attention and the attention of your Lordships to the paragraph immediately preceding those words. If I may quote a few lines, I said [col. 958]:
"The other aspect of this matter is that the powers given to local authorities should be powers which they are competent to exercise. That is a convincing reason for attaching the control order power firmly to physical and living conditions; for this is something that local authorities are fully equipped to judge and measure."
Then I finished the paragraph, a few lines later, with these words:
"Local authorities are not equipped to try issues which raise matters of evidence as to threats of violence and the like. These are matters for the courts of law."
Those words immediately preceded what I said about the noble Lord's doubts as to whether the Bill had sufficient powers for bringing about what he wished to see in respect of eviction. Then I quoted words out of Clause 69. If the speech is read in its proper context, I do not think it can be claimed that I was saying that those words in Clause 69 would operate exclusively and comprehensively on their own, out of context with the rest of the clause, and I think that the preceding paragraph makes it very clear that the powers are intended to be conditional on the first part of the subsection, paragraphs (a) or (b), as the case may be, of Clause 69. If the noble Lord was under the impression that I was lifting the whole meaning of these

609
words out of the context of Clause 69, I can only say that I am sorry if I conveyed that impression, but on reading my speech again carefully I do not think that such an impression is justified.
May I turn to this question of Rachmanism? Here, again, I think we may find a misunderstanding between the two sides of the House and even between my noble friend Lord Molson and the Government. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, as reported in the middle of col. 482:
"When we talk about Rachmanism, I would define it particularly as the evil of intimidation of tenants by one means or another so as to get them out."
He made his definition rather clearer on Second Reading, when he said:
"When we talk of Rachmanism we are not talking so much of houses which are in a bad condition and overcrowded, although that is a factor; we are talking of cases where the landlords get rid of their tenants by intimidation or by other means where they cannot do so by lawful means."
In this Bill we are in fact talking entirely about houses in a bad condition and overcrowded. The Bill is, in fact, dealing with bad and overcrowded houses, and not with the question of Rachmanism, as defined in the way the noble Lord has defined it, nor with intimidation in general.
I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the practices widely attributed to Rachman last summer were of two kinds. First, he tried to dislodge the controlled tenants, and then, having got the houses unoccupied, or mainly unoccupied, he got a sweated income from them by letting them in multiple occupation and getting high rents for extremely squalid conditions. So the reported practices have two elements: getting the people out and getting a higher income subsequently.
Last summer, in a debate on the Rent Act, 1957, the Opposition sought to prove that the operations of Rachman were connected with the Rent Act, but, in fact, it came out that the operations in St. Stephen's Gardens were reported as all having taken place in the early 1950's, before that Act. It was the existence of the pre-1957 control that tended to create such a wide margin of profit between the existing controlled houses and uncontrolled occupation by lodgers or licensees. The racket con-
610
-silted, in fact, of taking houses which were not in multi-occupation and turning them over to multi-occupation. Therefore, by approaching this subject to-day with houses in multi-occupation as the starting point, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has really left out half the problem with which we have to deal in meeting Rachmanism.
The Government fully recognise the dual nature of this problem and are seeking to meet it in two ways. The problem of evictions and subsequent profiteering is really the problem of acute housing shortage. There is also the general matter of landlord-tenant relationships which is not limited to multi-occupied property. The Government have therefore taken the view that the evidence on the mismanagement of rented house property needs to be dug out and evaluated by a high-powered independent Committee. As your Lord-ships know, that Committee was appointed and is now working under the chairmanship of Sir Milner Holland. The Committee have been asked to report as soon as possible, and when the Government have their report they will be able to form a well-based view on what needs to be done over the whole field of rented housing, whether in multiple occupation or not; and this Bill deals only with multi-occupation.
The second point of attack of the Government is on the conditions that exist in houses in multi-occupation dealt with in Part IV of the Bill; and that is what we are discussing this afternoon. When these control order clauses came before the scrutiny of Parliament last November, my right honourable friend pointed out that a great deal had been said about people being crammed into bad property at exorbitant rents; and it was said at that time that these landlords did not hesitate to use violence or the threat of it, or other barbarities, to stop complaints or to drive out tenants. Yet, at the same time, it was admitted that it was difficult to get clear evidence about them. My right honourable friend pointed out that the common factor was the bad living conditions, because if the living conditions were not bad, there would not then be the profit by which the racketeers were said to live.
This, then, provided a basis for summary action by the local authority in

611
multi-occupied houses where the living conditions were so bad as to be a danger to residents' safety, health or welfare. This phrase "living conditions", which would be omitted as a result of the Amendment of noble Lords opposite, is of prime importance in this clause, because it has been framed in such a way as to give local authorities scope for taking into consideration other things besides structural defects or the bad state of the house susceptible to control under Part II powers of the 1961 Act. They would be able to take into consideration such things as undue habitual rowdyism and, for example, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Molson, the habitual use of a part of a multi-occupied house for the purposes of prostitution. The legal advice is that these words "living conditions" would enable the local authority to take these matters into consideration when dealing with multi-occupied houses which were also in a condition to require powers being used under Part II of the 1961 Act.
To summarise the reasons why we do not see our way to using the control order against intimidation on its own, there are two objections which have emerged in the course of our debates. The first is that the control order operates only on a limited class of rented house property. if the existence of the evil of intimidation can be substantiated by the Milner Holland Committee, the Government will want to tackle it over the whole field where it exists. The second reason, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has pointed out, is that it is a perilous business to upset the system of checks and balances that any democratic Parliament would wish to associate with a summary power of this kind, substituting a subjective for an objective test.
Finally, there is a further and really fundamental objection to the alteration of the control order power in the way that the noble Lord and his noble friends want. It is simply that in its general conception and shape the control order is not a good weapon against the land-lord who uses intimidation. After all, the control order consists of an immediate, but only a temporary, entry into stewardship for the maximum of five years. If a landlord is so bad that he tries to intimidate his tenants, then
612
nobody can guarantee that he will have changed his spots in five years' time. This, I think, is the answer to my noble friend Lord Molson, as to why compulsory purchase powers should be used. We feel that the control order is not a suitable or adequate weapon against such a landlord, who, after he gets repossession of his property, can continue to intimidate. If this sort of intimidation is so clear that evidence is obtainable, the tenant or the local authority, as the case may be, can go to the court (the local authority would have to make the application) for a compulsory purchase order, because it would be triggered off by the threat of homelessness that such action by an evil landlord would create.
I hope that that explains to my noble friend why in these cases it is advisable to resort to what he has described rightly as a more drastic and final power of compulsory purchase, to try to stop a landlord who is merely intimidating, but not otherwise managing his property badly, rather than leaving it to a control order. The purpose of Part IV of the Bill is to alleviate and correct squalid conditions, and to do so over a temporary period; it is not to take away from the landlord his possession. But if he is of such a nature that that is the only solution, then we must resort to the final drastic step—under a different Act—of compulsory purchase powers. I hope that gives the answer that my noble friend wants.
In advising your Lordships therefore to reject the Amendment, the Government point out once again that this clause is only one of three measures which they contemplate using against bad landlords. The control order to rescue tenants of multi-occupied houses from bad living conditions is the first of our weapons of attack. That is what Part IV of this Bill deals with. At the same time, in the context of multi-occupied houses, it deals with a part of the evil of Rachmanism—but linked with the bad conditions of the house itself, which otherwise would come under Part II of the 1961 Act. The second weapon is this compulsory purchase against a landlord which I have just explained to my noble friend Lord Molson.
Finally—this will be later, but as soon as we possibly can—there will be

613
an intensive study of such evidence of malpractice as the Milner Holland Committee can discover and evaluate, and of whether over this field of rented property, which is fundamentally a question of the relationships of landlords and tenants, the protection against oppression or intimidation which the law gives needs to be extended or improved. I hope that I have explained to the satisfaction of your Lordships the precise purpose and intention of this Bill, and the precise views of the Government over the whole aspect of this problem. With this explanation, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be satisfied that the Government are seeking to achieve a considerable improvement in conditions as a result of Part IV of the Bill, but at the same time are resting on powers which they believe to be both sensible and practical. We do not think it is practicable to embrace the whole problem of Rachmanism in this Bill under Part IV when, in fact, what we are dealing with is a limited class of rented property; that is to say, houses in multi-occupation.
4.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: I think we can say that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has given us a very clear exposition of this clause and of the Government's intentions here. It differed markedly, if I may say so, from that given by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The noble Lord shakes his head, but it certainly differed in one particular way. The noble Earl said that the local authorities, in applying a control order, must have a very hard criterion on which to operate, and that that criterion was to be the physical condition of the premises. I see that the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is the same as mine. I was very pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has broadened this. I think he is right to do so, because the words are "living conditions", which surely mean something more than the physical condition of the premises. I have always been worried about how a local authority would interpret the phrase "living conditions" in this clause, because a great deal turns on it. I agree that this is a very important Amendment, and a very important issue.
LORD HASTINGS: Before the noble Lord goes further (I do not like to interrupt him in his stream of thought), I think it is necessary to point out that
614
although I may have widened the definition of "living conditions", I must remind him of the difference between the little words "and" and "or.", because the criterion is still to be based on the physical conditions of the house, as well as the living conditions in it. The living conditions alone will not suffice if it would not otherwise be possible to take action under Part II of the 1961 Act. I must clarify that.
LORD TAYLOR: As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, gave us the example of premises where the landlord, in order to intimidate, does two things. He makes the living conditions intolerable, although the structure itself is reasonable. As I again understood the noble Lord, this would be covered by the Bill. Am I correct in this? That is what he said.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think I said that. At that moment I was interpreting the meaning of "living conditions" in that part of the clause which is subsequent to paragraphs (a) and (b), and would be (c) in the Amendment. I was not divorcing it—as I did not, I contend, divorce it in my Second Reading speech from the conditions necessary to be fulfilled under (a) or (b), which are the hard criteria referred to by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe; that is, the physical conditions of the house.
LORD TAYLOR: In fact it would not fulfil the criteria of the case of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. The noble Lord is misleading us in saying that this would catch the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
LORD HASTINGS: I will read my own speech again carefully to-morrow, but I am confident that I said that, in relation to a multi-occupied house which a landlord was otherwise managing well and keeping in decent condition (although it seems inconceivable that this situation would be possible), the fact that there was some alleged form of intimidation would not by itself be sufficient unless it was possible to take action under Part II of the 1961 Act. If the noble Lord will read my speech again to-morrow, I think he will find that I made that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Molson. That is why I insisted so much on the necessity for the compulsory purchase order in respect of people who

615
would seek to evict tenants by this means, and why an authority would have to resort to a compulsory purchase order and could not act merely under a control order.
LORD MOLSON: The example that I gave—and I should like a "Yes" or "No" answer on this point—was that for the purpose of obtaining possession of rent-restricted property, a landlord like Rachman put in prostitutes to live in some of the rooms and West Indians playing noisy instruments by day and by night in other rooms. Would that constitute "living conditions" which would enable a control order to be used or not?
LORD HASTINGS: I thought I had made that quite clear, and I am sorry if I did not. That would constitute "living conditions" in the context of Clause 69 which, taken together with "physical conditions", would enable, under (a) and (b), a control order to be made. If the physical conditions warranting action under the 1961 Act did not exist, then "living conditions" alone would not enable a control order to be made. That is where we are thinking of the wider aspect of Rachmanism with which we propose to deal as a result of the findings of the Milner Holland Committee.
LORD TAYLOR: I think this has made the situation absolutely clear, and that is why I think we drew our Amendment right. I think we were right in putting in "or" instead of "and" and making it (c), and then taking out the words "living conditions", because it is precisely the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that we desire to see dealt with by this method. I think it is a very good method. I think the invention of the control order is a very good method indeed, and the Government deserve to be congratulated on it; above all, for the reason of its speed, because in these cases the intimidation acts quickly. When the matter was discussed in another place any number of examples were given of constituents who had cleared out very quickly as a result of intimidation. Very often where a young couple have a baby, the wife comes home, the steam is turned on in this sort of way and they clear out. It is intolerable. This control order seemed to us such a good
616
thing to apply in such cases—far better than a C.P.O., which is a slow machine, although, as the noble Lord has said, in the long run it is absolute. Five years is good enough, because during that time of local authority stewardship that house will be cleaned up and made a good job of.
I hope very much that noble Lords on both sides of the House will feel that this is right. I was going to suggest, if it would meet the noble Lord's case, that instead of the words "living conditions", we should have "physical and social conditions", because that would have covered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. But it is quite clear that that is not enough, because once again it will become "physical conditions" owing to the operation of (a) and (b), unless we can get (c) without the qualifying (a) and (b). We really must ask the Committee to accept our view that this is what ought to be done in the interests of the people.
LORD HASTINGS: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. The Government intend to deal with this—but not in this Bill, because we do not think it practicable. The local authorities are qualified to judge physical conditions—they do it every day of their lives. They have an objective test which they make, and if in addition to that, there are these bad living conditions, of the sort described by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and others, they will take that fact into account and deal with them at the same time. But we simply cannot try to deal in this Bill with the whole field of intimidation, which is not limited to multi-occupied property. It is a matter for the law courts, and I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree with that. The Government, therefore, based on the report they will receive, intend to bring in amending legislation respecting landlord and tenant rights—their responsibilities, liabilities and obligations towards each other—which will deal with the who1 field, and decisions on these matters would then be a matter for the courts.
I really do not think it can be seriously suggested that it should be left to 1,500 different local authorities, with different ways of judging these matters, to decide whether there is sufficient intimidation or proof of intimidation, to take that

617
subjective test and to exert the control order as a result of it, irrespective of the physical conditions of the house. That, we think, is not the local authority's business. It is the business of the law, which would have to be amended in order to deal with the situation comprehensively.
LORD MOLSON: Will my noble friend answer this question? If the local authorities in this particular case are not considered suitable for applying the control order, how does it come about that they are capable of applying a compulsory purchase order?
LORD HASTINGS: The compulsory purchase order, I think, results from habitual practice where there is hard evidence to be found, and it would not be taken to the courts unless it did exist. But the point is that, although the local authority might be right in a particular case if they were allowed to obtain a control order solely because of the bad living conditions, to use the phrase of the clause, endangering
"the safety, health and welfare of the persons living in the house",
it would be wide open to them to make control orders for that reason alone on insufficient evidence and, as my noble friend said yesterday, simply because they did not particularly like the landlord—irrespective of the real justice of the case.
We do not think that that is the sort of power to give to local authorities. They have already been given extremely drastic powers of immediate entry and management of the house against all corners, including mortgagees, a matter which is dealt with under succeeding Amendments. It would not be wise to put them in a position where they might exercise, and could exercise, these powers against a landlord against whom they should not be exercised. This is, surely, a matter for the courts; and, of course, a compulsory purchase order and the reasons for it has to be tested in the courts. Therefore I hope my noble friend will see the argument that you cannot really give these extremely drastic powers to local authorities and at the same time give them the power of taking action against a landlord divorced from the objective test of the physical conditions of the house.
LORD MOLSON: There is also an appeal to the court against control.
LORD SILKIN: I think the noble Lord has, at any rate, succeeded in one thing With his multiplicity of words he has made quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government to deal with Rachmanism in this Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: Not to deal with the noble Lord's definition of Rachmanism, I would say.
LORD SILKIN: Not to deal with the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, if you like. The noble Lord did not disagree with me on my definition of Rachmanism; he is only saying that it cannot be dealt with in this Bill. The issue between us really is which is the better instrument for dealing with Rachmanism: by means of a control order under this Bill or by means of a compulsory purchase order. All his talk about subjective tests applies equally to a compulsory purchase order as it does to a control order. The local authority has to make up its mind, according to the noble Lord, on the evidence which is submitted to it of intimidation, Rachmanism, or whatever you like to call it, whether or not it should make a compulsory purchase order. I suggest to the Committee that the local authority is equally capable of making up its mind whether there should be a control order. The difference between the two is that in one case it can be done now under this Bill; and if the Government are really serious in their intention to deal with it, why cannot they do so in this Bill?
I suggest that where there is this intimidation it ought by itself to be a ground for making a control order, regardless of the physical condition of the house. In the case of a compulsory purchase order there is a public inquiry, if the owner requires it, and time is taken, but in the case of a control order the local authority step in. But that is not necessarily the end of the matter. If the landlord feels he is being unjustly treated, he can still appeal against a control order, and it will still be for the Minister, I think, to decide whether the local authority wrongly made the control order. But, at any rate, the local authority act instantaneously. They come in and take possession of the house and manage it, and the tenant is

619
thereby protected, but if there is a compulsory purchase order the tenant has no protection. While the machinery of the compulsory purchase order is going on it is possible to evict the tenant.
LORD HASTINGS: Not under Clause 68, which makes it impossible to evict a tenant for twelve months.
LORD SILKIN: Surely that cannot be so. The mere threat of a compulsory purchase order does not give that protection. But whether or not that is so, I do not base my case necessarily on that. The machinery of a control order is
LORD SILKIN: I move this Amendment in order that I may express the hope that, in view of the closeness of the vote on the last Amendment in this Committee, the Government will be prepared to look at that matter again. It is a very difficult question and it may well be that the language of the Amendment could be improved upon. But I hope when the noble Lord looks at the Division List he will find that those who supported the
620
speedy and effective and can be dealt with in this Bill. I suggest that if the Government are serious they should accept the Amendment. I do not think we can discuss it profitably any longer—I see that the Whip shakes his head; maybe he is having some difficulty in keeping his team available—and I propose to divide the Committee on it.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Killearn, L.

Shannon, E.

Alexander of Hillsborough, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Latham, L.

Silkin, L.

Brocket, L.

Listowel, E.

Sinha, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E.

Somers, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mansfield, E.

Stonham, L.

Falkland, V.

Meston, L.

Summerskill, B.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Molson, L.

Taylor, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ogmore, L.

Walston, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Just, L.

Willis, L.

Henley, L.

Samuel, V.

Wise, L.

Hobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ilford, L.

Alport, L.

Dudley, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Atholl, D.

Dudley, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blakenham, V.

Fortescue, E.

Milverton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Soulbury, V.

Coutanche, L.

Greenway, L.

Spens, L.

Croft, L.

Grenfell, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Swinton, E.

Derwent, L.

Hastings, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Devonshire, D.

Horsbrugh, B.

Wolverton, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment are not confined to one Party and that it is a matter which is well worth further consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 7, leave out ("and") and insert ("(c)").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [General effect of control order]:
5.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "one month" and insert "one year". The noble Lord said: Clause 70 deals with what follows after a control order has been made. One of the consequences is that the local authority can give security of tenure for not more than one month at a time to the tenant.
LORD HASTINGS: Will the noble Lord deal with Amendment No. 66 as well?
LORD SILKIN: Yes, I will deal with No. 66 at the same time. What the Amendment seeks to do is to give to the tenant the right to stay in possession for one year. The control order is of course effective for five years, and it is only right that a tenant should feel secure for a period of more than one month once the control order is made, and that the period of notice should be not four weeks but a longer period. Amendment No. 66 suggests six months. I do not think this needs a great deal of advocacy. If the intention of the control order is to ensure that no improper changes are made in the tenancy, then I think it is right to extend the period of one month to a year, and the period of notice from four weeks to six months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 28, leave out ("one month") and insert ("one year").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD HASTINGS: Her Majesty's Government feel that this Amendment is unnecessary, for two reasons. The first is that there is a proviso attached to subsection (3) which enables the local authority to create longer leases or tenancies with the agreement of the landlord. That, of course, could be a most useful bargaining counter when the local authorities are contemplating the termination of a control order. They can negotiate with the owners with a view to leaving the tenants' position secured for an agreed period.
In addition, under Clause 83(2) if the county court propose to revoke a control order they may, quite irrespective of the landlords' or owners' agreement, authorise the local authority to create
622
leases or tenancies of up to six months' duration before the property is handed back. For these two reasons, we feel that this Amendment is unnecessary; the position is already safeguarded. But apart from that we feel that this Amendment is wrong. After all, Part IV of the Bill is an instrument for rescuing tenants or other residents from bad living conditions which exist in multi-occupied houses, and it is not primarily a device for creating long rights of occupation before the local authority's surrender of control. If it were that, then it would provide a backstairs method of imposing a version of rent control on the owner. That is not really the purpose of the Bill.
Difficulties arising out of such a possibility are, for example, that even if the local authority were to make an order which, on appeal, was revoked by the court, they could still have created long tenancies or leases pending the appeal, and that situation could not be undone immediately. If, for example, the dispossessed proprietor were himself a lessee on a short lease, or a tenant, the creation of long-lived rights of occupation by the local authority might not even operate against him but against his superior landlord, who might be entirely innocent of the mismanagement or neglect of the house.
Finally, it could nullify the provisions of Clause 82(6) whereby a ground landlord who wishes to undertake desirable works of redevelopment may apply to the court for the order to be revoked on that ground. Of course if it were subject to this long tenancy he would not be able to go ahead with his redevelopment works. So there are technical reasons as well why the Government feel that they cannot accept this Amendment, apart from the fact that we feel, for the two reasons that I gave, that it is unnecessary.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In regard to this particular Amendment, I feel that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Opposition are right. I agree with the Opposition that one month is too short a period for a tenancy, but, on the other hand, I consider that a year is ridiculously long. Would the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, take this back and, between now and

623
the Report stage, arrange for an intermediate period which would be acceptable to both sides, rather than have the extremes for which the points of view have been put forward just now?
LORD HASTINGS: Perhaps the noble Earl did not hear me say that the court has power, on revoking a control order, to authorise the local authority to grant leases or tenancies up to six months before handing over. That is already in the Bill.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has given a number of reasons for not accepting this Amendment, some good and some bad. I should like to read them all carefully, and possibly I shall come back to this on Report with the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that perhaps a year is too long, and certainly that one month is too short. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clauses 71 to 73 agreed to.
Clause 74:
Periodical payments to dispossessed proprietor
74.—
(5) For the purposes of the references in this section to the gross value of the house—
(c) if the house consists of or forms part of more than one hereditament, the gross value shall be ascertained by determining the gross value of each hereditament or part as if it were a separate house and aggregating the gross values so determined,
and any dispute arising under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be referred for decision by a valuation officer appointed under the enactments relating to rating.
(6) In this Part of this Act, "dispossessed proprietor" means the person by whom the rents or other periodical payments to which the local authority become entitled on the coming into force of the control order would have been receivable but for the making of the control order and the successors in title of that person; and if different persons are the dispossessed proprietors of different parts of the house, compensation payable under this section shall be apportioned between them in such manner as they may agree (or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by a valuation officer appointed under the enactments relating to rating) according to the proportions of the gross value of the house
624
properly attributable to the parts of the house in which they are respectively interested.
(7) This section shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—

(a) for the references to gross value, to the valuation list and to a hereditament there shall be substituted respectively references to gross annual value, to the valuation roll and to lands and heritages;

(b) in subsection (5), paragraph (c) shall not apply, and for the words from "shall be referred" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall be determined by the sheriff on the application of either party";

(c) in subsection (6), for the words "be determined by a valuation officer appointed under the enactments relating to rating" there shall be substituted the words "be determined by the sheriff on the application of any of such persons".

LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "any dispute arising under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be referred" and insert:
"if any dispute arises under paragraph (b) of this subsection, the local authority or the person claiming the compensation may by means of a reference in writing submit the dispute".
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 go together; Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are the Scottish equivalent, and are therefore consequential. With your Lordships' permission, I will take them all at the same time. In fact, they are not much more than drafting Amendments. They deal with the compensation as between two or more proprietors of a house in multi-occupation. It is thought it would be as well for the references to the valuation officer to be made in writing, so as to ensure that the facts basic to the determination of valuation—for example, the extent of the dispossessed proprietor's occupation—shall be on record between the parties, and that it shall be a matter of certainty whether the valuation officer is or is not required to act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 17, leave out from ("and") to ("for") in line 18 and insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment is moved formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 28, at end insert ("and on a reference in writing,").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment, too, is moved formally.
Amendment moved —
Page 79, line 40, leave out from ("from") to second ("shall") in line 41 and insert ("'and if any dispute' to the end there shall be substituted the words 'and any dispute arising under paragraph (b) of this subsection'").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: This Amendment also is moved formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 44, after ("words") insert ("and on a reference in writing").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Scheme listing works involving capital expenditure]:
5.10 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "shall" and insert "may". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the scheme which the local authority have to make after a control order has been applied to a property, and it is a very complicated business that has to be gone through. The local authority take over the house from the landlord who is failing to do his duty properly, and then have to indulge in a large amount of clerical and administrative work in financial estimation before they complete what they are required to do in this clause. In particular, they have to make estimates of the capital works needed to make the house a decent place, and also say how many people should live in it when it has been made decent. They then work out an elaborate balance sheet showing how much money they expect to get from the tenants in rent, how much they have to spend on improving the property, how much in administration, and how much they are going to pay over to the owner of the property from time to time. On that information he can make an appeal.
We feel that this scheme is extremely elaborate and imposes an enormous burden on a local authority. Whilst it was not unreasonable to expect them to make an estimate of capital costs and perhaps of the number of people who ought to live in the reconstituted house, to make
626
a detailed balance of the situation, showing all the expenditure upon and all the revenue for such a property, and to have to do this as a condition of making a control order, is taking it a little far and making it rather hard for the local authority. I am by no means sure that the word "may" in our Amendment is in the right place. Having examined this, I should like it to be further down the subsection, after paragraph (b), making the first two paragraphs mandatory and making the estimates of balances a voluntary exercise on the part of the local authority.
In brief, this is the reason why we want to simplify this complicated procedure— so that there shall not be any inhibition in making control orders where they are needed. It may be said that it will be a little unjust for a tenant of a property which is being taken over not to know his own precise situation at the earliest possible moment. I should have thought that perhaps he himself is not without guilt, and if at the end of the financial year he knew his situation in relation to the balance for the first year's working of the scheme, that ought to be good enough. But that he should know it all in advance and have these estimates from a local authority, thereby putting the authority to a great amount of work, seems to be going out of one's way to protect somebody who has not done his duty by society. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD HASTINGS: I appreciate that the noble Lord may think that this is putting a lot of work on the local authority. No doubt it is, but I am afraid that this way of operating the scheme is fundamental, and merely to give discretion to a local authority to make a scheme whether it likes it or not would disastrously upset the whole procedure. These surpluses on revenue account, or in short the "settled surpluses," become a fixed write-down figure by which the local authority, under Clause 76, are periodically to reduce the capital debt due to them for works undertaken in the house. It will thus settle how much of the cost of capital works is to be regarded as recouped from revenue on the one hand, and on the other hand left

627
over to be recovered later on from capital under Clause 76(4).
There are two main advantages of this system. The first is that it obliges the local authority to set out the whole of the financial aspects of their proposed management for everybody to see, and therefore it is an important and essential part of the appeal machinery when people are appealing on the grounds that costs and estimates are excessive, and so on. One cannot have that procedure without striking a balance sheet of this nature. Again, it should not be forgotten that, by making the unrecovered capital debt recoverable by legal charge against all interests, the Bill jeopardises ground landlords and mortgagees, who may be innocent of the evils the control order is designed to remedy. It is only fair to such people that they should see how their interests are to be affected.
Secondly, it puts the local authority under a certain discipline. We feel that this is necessary. Since they have to write off the capital debt at a fixed figure derived from the scheme, they cannot, except at their own risk, manipulate the rent income so as to produce a nil revenue surplus and, as a result, leave the whole capital debt recoverable from a possibly blameless superior landlord or mortgagee, later on, after the control order is revoked. I think your Lordships would agree that that would not be reasonable. It would be possible to recover considerable sums of capital outlay—one cannot say whether it would be the major part or the lesser part—out of revenue during the process of management and reorganisation. The Amendment would eliminate these advantages and would not only nullify the whole recovery procedure but also complicate the appeal procedure. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: While I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that these proposals are distinctly complicated—and I think unnecessarily so—I feel that the Government are absolutely right and that it would be highly undesirable to suggest to local authorities that they should undertake large and expensive schemes
628
without letting themselves and the ratepayers know what they are in for. I cannot imagine anything more unsatisfactory. Although I should like to see these provisions distinctly less complicated than they appear in the Bill, I do not think that your Lordships would be justified or wise to accept this Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR: I see the point of what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is saying, but it is the complexity involved in what they have to do which is worrying me, and also, apparently, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I wonder whether the noble Lord would look at it again? When he was speaking I found it quite difficult to follow the processes which had to be gone
through and which he was describing. Of course the local authorities should not make a loss on these transactions; it should not be a burden on the ratepayers. I do not agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken. This should be a self-balancing operation, and at the end of the day there should perhaps be some money to be recovered from the original owner—or perhaps not, depending on how much the local authority was able to charge up to capital costs as it went along. Can the noble Lord hold out any hope of simplifying this clause, or is it really as simple as it can be?
LORD HASTINGS: I can inquire, of course. I feel sure that local authorities have been consulted about this matter. But I would just draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 79(2). There is a right for a local authority or any person having an interest in the house to apply to the county court at any time for a review of the estimate of these surpluses. So if something has gone wrong, they can go to the court and get it altered, so that neither side would run into unnecessary financial difficulties.
LORD TAYLOR: I thank the noble Lord. We will not press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, at end of subsection (3), to insert:
"(d) state what monies are lent and outstanding on the security of any property or properties subject to the control order, and the persons or bodies by whom such money has been lent."

629
The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to Her Majesty's Government, I shall discuss Amendments Nos. 71A and 71B together. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for indicating that that can be done. As your Lordships know, when a control order is made the proprietor becomes a dispossessed proprietor and he virtually disappears from the scene for a period of about five years. Someone—for example, a building society—may have lent money on the security of a mortgage on the house which is the subject of a control order.
Dealing first with Amendment No. 71A, I would submit that this is such an important matter that a scheme made under Clause 75 should specify precisely,
"what monies are lent and outstanding on the security of any property or properties subject to the control order, and the persons or bodies by whom such money has been lent."
Passing on now to Amendment No. 71B, I should like to know what happens if, during the existence of the control order, the terms of the mortgage are not complied with by the mortgagor. In most cases the dispossessed proprietor will be the mortgagor, although not necessarily so, and I want to know what will happen if the local authority, who have dispossessed the proprietor, who have taken over the premises, do not keep up the terms of the mortgage. Can the building society in those circumstances enter upon the property under the terms of their mortgage, and sell the property and reimburse themselves for the monies which they have lent? I think that the true answer is that they might have to spend £10,000 on law cases which would eventually come to your Lordships' House.
I want to avoid that happening, and I want to suggest that the mortgagee —for example, the building society— should have the right to go to the county court, and that the county court should be able to make such an order as it thought fit for the purpose of maintaining and enforcing the security. The local authority who made the control order would be respondents to the application. I may say that throughout I have mentioned the building society, but this applies equally to any chargee or mortgagee who has lent money upon the security of a house which is the subject of a control order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 42, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Meston.)
5.24 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (EARL JELLICOE): If the noble Lord will forgive me, before I reply to his Amendment I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to noble Lords opposite for not being here when we resumed our discussion of the Amendment on which we divided. I explained the reason to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: I am afraid that I was irretrievably committed to other business. But I do apologise as we were in the middle of our discussion when we adjourned.
LORD SILKIN: We might have carried the Amendment if the noble Earl had been here.
EARL JELLICOE: I think it is extremely fortunate that I was not here: I think we might well have lost the Division. We should not have had the advantage of my noble friend's advocacy. I must also apologise to myself for coming back into our discussion at this particular moment, on matters of such legal complexity that I find them very difficult to follow.
LORD MESTON: There is no one in your Lordships' House who can answer these questions better than the noble Earl can.
EARL JELLICOE: I am going to have a "crack" at it, but I do not suggest that I shall necessarily get it right. I will try here to explain briefly to noble Lords the position as I understand it. I gather that the noble Lord's Amendment is really designed to give the county court jurisdiction to safeguard the maintenance and enforcement of the mortgagee's rights of foreclosure, for example, and sale in the event of the mortgagor's default. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having clarified that.
I think it would be useful—in fact, the noble Lord has invited me to do it—if I explained briefly the mortgagee's position in such circumstances. Plainly, as the noble Lord has recognised, his rights are impaired, since by Clause 70 the control order will give the local authority possession of the house against all the

631
world. His right of foreclosure, therefore, will be subject to this. This means that he can only take over and sell the mortgagor's right: first, to receive compensation during the order, and, secondly, to come back into possession at the end of it. I would, however, remind the noble Lord that Clause 74(3) gives the mortgagee a more direct access to the dispossessed proprietor's compensation. It is deemed to be comprised in the mortgage or charge, so that he can move to get possession of the compensation just as, save for the control order, he could move to get possession of the property itself.
I should be the first to grant that there may be cases in which the dispossessed proprietor's compensation, which is half the gross value, will not be enough to cover the mortgage repayments, and then the mortgagee may have difficulty in getting the balance of the repayments from the dispossessed proprietor. Frankly, I think that this is something which cannot be helped. The compensation, as noble Lords know, has been deliberately set at a level low enough to permit a margin of income for the rectification of the squalor that caused the control order to be made; and plainly, in our view, the interests of the people living in these bad conditions must come first. I do not think it would be practicable to provide that the compensation should be increased to a level sufficient to cover the repayments due under any mortgage—and that for a very simple reason: that this would simply leave it open to the Rachmans of this world to secure a guaranteed income at a "sweated" level by fixing up a "front man" with a fake mortgage. That is what we think would happen in these cases.
That is the position, and I have tried to put it as bluntly as I can. One might take the view, feeling sympathetic towards the mortgagee, that I should go some way to meeting the noble Lord on his point here. But I am afraid that I cannot do so—for two reasons. First, his Amendment at least seems to put the interests of the mortgagee before those of the people who are being oppressed by the bad living conditions; and I am sure that no public-spirited mortgagee would want that. Secondly, assuming that the Amendment is
632
designed, as I think the noble Lord's Amendments are designed, to enable a mortgagee to recover physical possession of a house for the purposes of sale, the mortgagee might then well sell it into hands in which the bad living conditions could develop all over again, and we should have to start the whole cycle once more. That is the position as I understand it, and it is for those reasons that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendments.
LORD MESTON: I must say that I am rather disappointed at the attitude taken up by the Government in this matter. When premises have been mortgaged, the mortgagee has the first right. If we are going into questions about how many people sleep in a room, how many people are oppressed and so forth, it is quite hopeless. After all, the mortgagee may be a building society, which has only the money of the people who invest in it. I can talk about the poor widow and all sorts of things if you like, so as to offset the sentimental observations which have been made on the other side, but I want to make it quite clear that where money is lent on mortgage, on the security of a house which is the subject of a control order, those people come first. Indeed, it will be disastrous if they do not come first. It is absolutely hopeless to allow somebody else to come in and take a place before the mortgagee. It makes absolute nonsense of the Common Law and of the law relating to mortgages. It is absolutely unknown. If the Government wish to do that, then I say that the Act of Parliament should specifically say that the Common Law and the law as to mortgages is abrogated, and that a local authority which makes a control order takes priority over everybody and can do what it likes. That is quite sensible: but, in the absence of anything like that, the Committee will find that, as the Bill stands at the present moment, there will be thousands of pounds spent upon litigation—and I have no objection! But, as no one is in favour of this Amendment, it remains for me to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Termination of control order]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "five" and insert "seven" [years]. The noble Lord said: I do not propose to make a great oration about this Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was not present, but the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, made a great point of the fact that these control orders were of only five years' duration, and that at the end of that period the tenant might be in exactly the same position as he was before, with a bad landlord and so on. We have rather anticipated that argument in our Amendment by suggesting that the period of five years might be enlarged to seven years. It is a maximum period. The language of Clause 82 is that the control comes to an end at the end of five years, and we want to say that it should come to an end at the end of seven years. But it can come to art end earlier if the local authority is satisfied that the premises are in a satisfactory condition, and it can come to an end at the instance of the landlord, by application. Therefore, the period is a limiting period. It is the maximum period during which the control order can be in existence. I think that seven years is a more realistic period than five. I do not want to put the case too high, but I can conceive instances where it will be necessary for a control order to be in existence for longer than five years. I therefore hope that, with the safeguard that it can come to an end earlier if the local authority is so satisfied or on the application of the landlord, the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 27, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Silkin.)
EARL JELLICOE: I rather wish the noble Lord had told us a little more why there is this particular magic about seven years here.
LORD TAYLOR: It is a lucky number.
LORD SILKIN: Why five, then?
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord asks me why five. I admit we are playing the numbers game. It is very difficult to make a precise case for five or four, six or seven; bat the purpose of a
634
control order is to enable a local authority to rectify bad living conditions, and I should have thought that, if a local authority could not do that in five years —which, after all, is about the length of the First World War—it is not doing its job very well, or that the house has got into such a bad state, has gone so far "down the drain", that it ought to be pulled down. I should have thought that a period of five years would give the local authority plenty of time to get a grip on the situation.
Although the noble Lord did not say it, I suppose one might say that there may be some landlords against whom possession is being made who are so wicked or untrustworthy that one needs these extra two years. I cannot see that, if a landlord is going to be a hopeless case, he is going to be any less hopeless in his sixth year than in his fourth year. I do not see how the extra two years would help one there. I should have thought that, in that sort of case, in really bad cases, the answer is not a control order at all but a compulsory purchase order.
Here, I should merely remind the Committee that Clause 70 (5) provides expressly that the existence of a control order is not to be prejudicial to the authority's power of compulsory acquisition. Therefore, you can make a control order and, if things still remain appalling, you can then apply for a c.p.o.—and this is expressly provided for. Indeed, my right honourable friend in another place gave an administrative assurance that he, for his part, would be very willing to consider on their merits c.p.os. on houses in respect of which control orders already existed. I do not feel passionately, I must confess, about this matter of five or seven, but I should prefer to rest on five, given this extra power of the c.p.o. which lies behind one all the time. On the whole, that is what I would advise the Committee.
LORD SILKIN: I do not feel passionately about it either, but I should like the noble Earl to think again. For one reason, the local authority may well have a great deal on their hands. Taking the whole of this Bill, with all that is involved in Parts II, III and IV, they will have a great deal on their hands in certain areas; and, while they may make a control order as a matter of emergency,

635
it may not always be possible for them to deal with the matter as speedily as one would like. They may not have the staff; they may not be physically able to deal with it. That is why such a long period as five years was put into the Bill. It may be that even in the five years they will not have been able to get round to carrying out completely all the work necessary, and I should have preferred to give them a longer period. I know that noble Lords are waiting to come on to the next debate, and I do not wish to detain them, but I would suggest that the noble Earl think about it again. I hope he may be able to give me more satisfaction when I put the Amendment down again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Interpretation and construction of Part IV]:
EARL JELLICOE: This is consequential on an Amendment previously agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 23, leave out ("house") and insert ("premises").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 88 to 97 agreed to.
5.42 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—
Improvements to Dwellings occupied by Agricultural Workers
(" . A person occupying a dwelling under a contract of employment within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1957 may make representations under section 19 of this Act as if he were a tenant of the dwelling. The cost of any works which in the case of a tenant could be recovered by an increase in the rent may be recovered under the provisions of section 7(3) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD TAYLOR: I want only to ask a question on this new clause. It is very similar to but rather simpler than a new clause which was moved in another place. Its purpose was to make sure that agricultural workers were fully covered by the provisions. I think in
636
the earlier clauses and new subsections moved by the Government we have got what we wanted; but I wished to make sure and to ask the noble Earl whether he could give an assurance that agricultural workers were fully covered in respect of their rights to get their dwellings improved and to pay for the improvement in the appropriate manner.
EARL JELLICOE: I am in a position to give the Committee that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 98 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [General interpretation, and temporary modification as regards London]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, at the end of subsection (5), to leave out "This subsection shall come into force on 1st April 1965". The noble Earl said: I should like to move Amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78 together. Amendment No. 78 ensures that we provide that Part I of the Bill, together with certain clauses in Part V which are linked to it, come into effect on the passing of the Act instead of one month after the Royal Assent. The purpose of these Amendments is a simple one. We propose that the Housing Corporation should begin operating as soon as possible, and there is no reason why the setting up of the Corporation on a statutory basis should be delayed for a month after the Bill is passed. The position is rather different for Parts III and IV, where a good deal of preparatory work needs to be done; but Part I deals with the Housing Corporation which we hope to "get cracking" straight away. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, leave out line 12.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Short title, citation, repeals, extent and commencement]:
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 14, leave out ("any other provision of this Act") and insert ("the following subsection").—(Earl Jellicoe.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I think this is the last Amendment, and in moving it formally, although I did not play a prominent part in this Committee stage, I should like on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hastings to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and who have made a far more considerable contribution than I am afraid I have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 111, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) Part I of this Act and the following provisions of Part V of this Act, that is—

(a) section 95, and

(b) sections 100 to 103, except section 102(5),

shall come into force on the passing of this Act; and the said section 102(5) shall come into force on 1st April 1965.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD LATHAM: My colleagues and I think the noble Earl's remarks most gracious.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

MALAWI INDEPENDENCE BILL
5.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 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 interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill is to provide for the independence of the Nyasaland Protectorate under the name of Malawi. I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to know that it was the unanimous wish of the Nyasaland Legislature that the independent Malawi should become a member country of
638
the Commonwealth and that Her Majesty should remain its Sovereign, as Queen of Malawi; and I know that your Lordships will share with me the satisfaction that I feel in commending the Independence Bill to the House.
The history of the British Government's responsibility for the Nyasaland Protectorate extends over some seventy years and, particularly on this occasion, we are all most conscious of the special ties which have grown up since the early days of our connection when missionaries and administrators from these islands first concerned themselves with the chaos of tribal warfare and the degradations of the slave trade which for centuries had effectively hindered the progress of Nyasaland's peoples. In this relatively short time, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of those of our countrymen who have lived and worked in Nyasaland, a stable foundation has been laid for the development of a modern State based on a progressive economy.
Our recent relations with Nyasaland have not been without controversy, and it cannot be disguised that her membership of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland created formidable political difficulties which were surmounted only with the Federation's dissolution. But, despite the controversy of the past decade, the material benefits which the Territory derived from its temporary
union with the other Central African Territories are evident. Unfortunately, it is equally evident that the dissolution of the Federation has seriously increased the pressures on Nyasaland's limited financial and economic resources.
At this time, however, we are not concerned with history, however recent it may be. Both here and in Nyasaland we look to the future; and while the economic difficulties which will lie before the newly independent Malawi must not be under-rated, there is one factor which should prove of inestimable value in meeting these difficulties. The people of Malawi have a sense of unity and cohesion remarkable, and perhaps unique, in the African territories now emerging to nationhood. There can be no doubt that they are overwhelmingly behind their present Government—a fact convincingly demonstrated at the recent elections; and tribal rivalries which continue to pose formidable problems elsewhere in Africa

639
pose no problem in Nyasaland. This is a considerable and favourable element in the situation and one that will contribute greatly to future stability.
Moreover, the British Government will continue to do all they can to assist Malawi, just as, in the past, they have aided the Nyasaland Protectorate. We have recently had inter-Governmental talks with the Nyasaland Finance Ministers on the scope and nature of the financial assistance which Nyasaland may expect to receive from Britain after independence, and there will undoubtedly be need for further regular consultations between us on financial and economic matters. Evidence of our good will in this field is, I think, convincingly provided by the fact that we are contributing aid up to £5 million in 1964 to cover the deficit in Nyasaland's current Budget.
Your Lordships will recall that, following the discussions between my right honourable friend the then First Secretary of State, Dr. Banda and the Government of Nyasaland, in September, 1963, it was announced that Her Majesty's Government would grant Nyasaland independence on July 6 this year and that proposals for the Independence Constitution would be worked out in Nyasaland by the Governor, in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. These proposals have now been received and have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The precedents of previous independence Constitutions have been closely followed and the detailed proposals will be promulgated in an Order in Council which is to be laid before Her Majesty's Privy Council. We are not at this time concerned with the details of the Independence Order, but your Lordships will wish to know that it is proposed that the Bill of Rights embodied in the present Constitution is to be retained.
The Constitution will also provide for Malawi citizenship to take effect from the date of Independence, and for a Legislature of fifty members elected on a General Roll and three members representative of European opinion, elected on a Special Roll. There will be a Cabinet system of Government and the judicial system will provide for mini-
640
mum rights of appeal from subordinate courts to the High Court. There are also to be rights of appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Order will also contain the normal provisions for public, police and judicial service commissions.
I should now like to say a few words about the detailed provisions of the Bill. Its principal object is to confer on Malawi fully responsible status within the Commonwealth. Clause 1 provides that on and after July 6, 1964, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall no longer have responsibility for the Government of the Territory. Clause 1 also provides that future British legislation will not extend to Malawi, that any enactment or instrument passed before July 6 shall continue in force, and that no alteration in the law of the territory shall result from the change of status from a Protectorate to one of Her Majesty's Dominions.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill deal with nationality matters. At present, the majority of the population are British protected persons, but there are also a number of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and these include persons who were until recently citizens of the former Federation. As I have already said, it is proposed that detailed provisions affecting Malawi citizenship should be included in the Independence Order. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that a person who becomes a citizen of Malawi will, by virtue of that citizenship, possess the status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen, that British protected persons will not lose their status as such until they acquire Malawi citizenship, and that on July 6 citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies will be withdrawn from persons who acquire Malawi citizenship. Your Lordships will observe, however, that this last provision is modified by Clause 3, where citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is preserved for those persons who, becoming Malawi citizens, nevertheless have substantial connections with the United Kingdom. These provisions relating to citizenship and nationality correspond with similar provisions in other Independence Acts applicable to former British Protectorates or Trust Territories in Africa.
Clause 4 of the Bill and Schedule 2 deal with modifications of various

641
United Kingdom enactments consequent on the grant of independence and require no special explanation. Clause 5 enables provision to be made conferring jurisdiction in appeals from Malawi and in proceedings concerning judges of Malawi courts to be conferred on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and excluding a right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council. This provision is similar to the provision made in the Kenya Independence Act, and its purpose is to permit the establishment of appeal arrangements in the Constitution of the territory, which can remain unaffected should the territory later become a republic and consequently cease to be under Her Majesty's sovereignty.
Clause 6 terminates the divorce jurisdiction of courts in Malawi in respect of British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom and makes provision for transitional arrangements. As your Lordships will see, Clause 7 is an interpretative clause, and Clause 8 deals with the Short Title of the Bill.
In commending the Bill to the House, I confidently look forward to a continuation and strengthening of the friendship and understanding between our two countries. Her Majesty's Government will gladly continue to do all they can to assist Malawi in meeting the problems which will confront her: and I am sure that the House would wish to join with me in sending greetings to the Government and peoples of our new Commonwealth partner and in wishing them every future prosperity. I may add, perhaps, because I know that it is a source of great satisfaction to the peoples of Malawi and to everyone interested in the future of the country, that the senior representative of Her Majesty's Government at the Independence Celebrations on July 6 will be my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I know that this is something which has given great satisfaction in Nyasaland.
Finally, I would say that there is great urgency for this Bill, as the Title shows, and, after noble Lords have spoken, I would propose to move at the end of this debate that the Bill be not committed, unless I receive some indication from your Lordships that there is a desire to have a Committee stage. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill and we are grateful to the noble Duke for the way in which he has presented it to us. We are also glad to hear that the principal representative of Her Majesty's Government to the Independence Celebrations in Malawi will be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is a compliment to the whole House that the choice of the Government has fallen upon a Cabinet Minister and the occupant of the Woolsack in our own House.
I was grateful to the noble Duke for his explanation of the contents of the Bill, but there is one matter about which I must say I am still puzzled, and perhaps in his reply the noble Duke will remove my doubts and difficulties. This is in relation to nationality and citizenship, which is always the most difficult part of these Independence Bills. I dare say that other noble Lords will have experienced the same difficulty as I have experienced. Although this is a matter of law, it is also a matter of great practical importance. It is of very great importance to all the Britons who stay on in Malawi after independence—and I am sure we all hope that a lot of them will stay on—to know exactly what their future rights as citizens will be.
As I understand Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill—no doubt the noble Duke will put me right if I am wrong—a person who possesses United Kingdom nationality will lose his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, with certain exceptions, and these exceptions are the persons who belong to the categories mentioned in Clause 3 of the Bill, and who have a special connection, by birth, for example, with the United Kingdom or a British Colony. These persons, when this Bill is passed into law, after July 6, will presumably have dual nationality. I see the noble Duke shakes his head.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, perhaps I may explain the position. As I understand it—and I agree with the noble Earl that these are most complicated matters—they will not have dual nationality, but they will have the right to revert to citizenship of

643
the United Kingdom and Colonies should they so wish at any date in the future.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I, too, had some difficulty in understanding this point. Would it not be possible, even at this stage, to amend the Bill to make this clear? I noticed that a lot of Members in another place were equally befogged by it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Perhaps I can deal with it in my reply.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Possibly I should make the difficulty as clear as possible in order that it may be easier for the Government to find some solution. As I see it, they will have dual nationality in British law—and we are dealing with British law at the moment —but under Malawi law they will not: because, as the noble Duke has pointed out, under the Malawi Constitution there will be only one nationality, and somebody who becomes a Malawi citizen cannot be a citizen of any other country at the same time. I think that is an accurate description of the position. Therefore, it is a difficult situation to understand for the British official who stays on. If it is difficult for us to understand when we make a genuine effort to do so, it is certainly going to be difficult for the British civil servant in Malawi to understand.
What I think he will want to know is whether he will lose his British nationality and have a lot of complicated processes to go through before he can recover it, or whether when he leaves Malawi (it does not matter when he is working in Malawi) on retirement, or for some other reason, and comes back to this country, he will automatically be regarded as a British citizen. I think this is a practical point, apart from the legal aspect, that ought to be cleared up so that he can really understand the implications on his own future.
That is the only detailed point I want to make, but I should like to make one or two comments on broad matters of policy. I think the most outstanding fact about Malawi is that it will be the poorest of all the British African countries to which we have granted independence; it will be one of the poorest
644
independent countries in the world. Malawi will not have a chance of success in these early stages of independence unless we go on helping her financially —in fact, unless we give her an exceptionally large measure of financial support. That is the plea that I want to make to the Government this afternoon. Nothing was said during the debate in another place, which I read carefully, about specific proposals by the Government for economic aid for Malawi after independence. The noble Duke went rather further than I think his colleague in another place went, and said that £5 million is being given this year to meet the budget deficit; and this, of course, will cover the beginning of the period of independence. But he did not go further than that, and I should be glad if in winding up the debate he could give us more information about the Government's proposals in relation to economic aid for Malawi.
After all, the statement made yesterday that we are giving Kenya a parting gift of about £53 million is a very good precedent for Malawi. I think some people may regard this as being too large, but, for my part, I regard it as being both generous and equitable. I think it is an overdue recognition by the Government of the financial needs of Colonies when they become independent: because their financial need is greater when they become independent than it was when they were dependent on us. It seems to me that, with this example of Kenya, we must also be very generous to Malawi. Indeed, as Malawi is even poorer than Kenya, there is a strong case for treating Malawi with even greater generosity.
Malawi is further handicapped by its lack of Africans qualified for administrative and professional work. There is only a handful of these, and only a small handful of Africans who are being trained for such posts at universities and technical colleges. Since the number of Africans in Malawi qualified to do this work is lamentably small, it is vitally important that the Government should encourage British officers, and especially technical officers, to stay on for as long as possible after independence. It would be a tragedy if most of these retired immediately with their compensation. They will be desperately needed

645
until they can be replaced by qualified Africans.
What these officers, if they are to stay on, must be convinced about is that their prospects will be as good under a Malawi Government as they were under British rule. This, of course, is not by any means entirely a matter for us; it is largely and mainly a matter for the Malawi Administration and their policy in relation to promotions and appointments in their own Civil Service. On the other hand, that does not relieve us of a direct responsibility. What I think the British Government should do is to give these officers as much sense of financial security as possible. In the case of a poor country like Malawi, this is surely a case where we should take over responsibility for the payment of compensation, pensions and pension increases to the expatriate officers serving there, who until the take-over will, of course, he members of the Overseas Civil Service. I think we should also go on, as we are doing in Kenya, paying the difference between salary and allowances of the expatriate officers and those who are locally recruited and in the Government service. I should be obliged if the noble Duke could say something about our proposals for helping in the financial arrangements with expatriate officers.
It is clear that Malawi will not be able to find out of its own revenue the money to cover its expenditure. I think it is equally clear that it would he unreasonable to saddle this poverty-stricken country with a crippling burden of debt. As I have pointed out, the Government of Malawi will be short of money and of technical skill. The reason for this increasing shortage of money is that with the dissolution of the Federation it has lost the annual subvention to its budget from the Federal Government. Furthermore, it will lose the grants it used to receive as a Colony from welfare and development funds. Moreover, after it becomes independent there will be further calls on Government expenditure which will make it quite impossible for the Government to cut its expenditure to match these losses of revenue.
I am sure that everyone realises now—I wish we had realised it five or six years ago, when our African dependencies
646
first became independent—that independence is a very expensive business. Every country spends more when it becomes independent than it used to spend under British rule. Apart from large calls on its expenditure, it assumes a new and expensive responsibility for external relations and defence. Here again I hope that we shall help Malawi. I hope that we shall save Malawi the expense of a number of diplomatic missions abroad by representing it in foreign and Commonwealth capitals, wherever it so desires. In this respect, of course, other Commonwealth countries, particularly its African neighbours, could help considerably.
I know that the fact that we are making a contribution to the budget of Malawi, as we have done to the budget of Kenya, is an innovation from the point of view of our practice in relation to independent Commonwealth countries in Africa. But I am sure that this contribution ought not to be regarded as the last, and that the Government should consider the desirability of enabling Malawi to balance its budget until it is in a position to pay its own way. T cannot see any other way in which the country will be able to meet the increased expenditure which will continue over several years, resulting from independence, and reach ultimately a stage in which it is able to pay its own way in the world. I hope we shall give capital grants, or long-term loans at a very low rate of interest, for the economic development of the country, and for the expansion of the social services. I am sure that international agencies, such as the World Bank and the Agencies of the United Nations, will also appreciate the need of Malawi for public investment and technical aid. This, of course, is particularly important just after independence, because private capital will not come into Malawi until the private investor has had time to assure himself of its political stability.
The economic future of Malawi in the longer run will depend a great deal upon the degree to which it can integrate its economy with that of Northern Rhodesia and preserve its good relations with both Northern Rhodesia and its Southern Rhodesian neighbour. Looking still further ahead, the day may come when there will be an East African Federation. It is a long way off, but that is an aim

647
that is worth striving for, especially for a poverty-striken country like Nyasaland.
I was glad to hear from the noble Duke that Malawi, when it becomes independent will stay in the Commonwealth. This, of course, will make it eligible for Commonwealth economic aid. For example, now that the Colonial Development Corporation has been authorised to operate in independent countries, it can start new projects in Malawi. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, has fallen out of the list of speakers, because I had hoped that we might hear from him what the Colonial Development Corporation is doing at the moment, and what its intentions are. I should like to mention this, especially as it was not mentioned by the noble Duke.
It is very gratifying to us in this country that Dr. Banda has invited the present Governor, Sir Glyn Jones, to stay on for a time as Governor-General. That is a very pleasant compliment to the British. Of course, whether at a later date Malawi becomes a Republic or remains a Monarchy is a matter for Dr. Banda and his Government. It certainly does not seem unnatural, judging from the course of events in the past, that an African country should choose an African Head of State. At the same time, this has never implied any discourtesy to the Queen, who in this situation remains Head of the Commonwealth; and this has already become a well-established practice in republican countries. I believe that race relations can be left safely to Dr. Banda. He is a man who bears no grudges, and he wants the white man as a partner in building up his country. He is also a man who likes and respects this country, where he spent so much of his early life. I believe that Malawi is fortunate to have a man of such outstanding qualities to guide it during the difficult early years of Statehood. I should like to associate myself and my friends on these Benches with the good wishes expressed by the noble Duke to Dr. Banda on his discharge of his great and responsible task, and to wish to the people of Malawi of all races happiness and growing prosperity as they start on the great adventure of national freedom.
6.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the
648
welcome the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has given to this Bill. We have had a long association with what, up to now, has been called Nyasaland—an association which started in an extremely good way. Unhappily, in some parts of the Commonwealth the association was not so good. In some places our earliest association was as slave traders; but we went into Nyasaland in the first place represented by the missionaries, and by that great missionary and explorer, Dr. Livingstone, who was the representative there of the London Missionary Society. That Society still has a considerable interest in Nyasaland, and I am glad to say that the present General Secretary of the Society, whom I know very well, has just paid a visit to Nyasaland and has come back with a glowing account of the work there.
I am glad to find that over the last year or two the Nyasaland Ministers have been preparing themselves for independence. They have become interested in matters outside the boundaries of their own territory. The Foreign Minister was present at the Organisation for African Unity Conference at Lagos. The first Labour Administration Course of the International Labour Organisation was held recently in Nyasaland, and was a success. In March last, the first meeting of the reorganised Agricultural Research Council of Central Africa was held in Blantyre. We all know that in places like Nyasaland agricultural development must be the basis of their prosperity.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke on two occasions of Nyasaland as "a poverty-stricken country". I do not think the Malawis would like that description, and I do not think it is a true one. It is an agricultural country. Of course, the people have not the cash resources, but very often in countries of this sort they still live a happy and contented life in their traditional way. I do not think it is right to describe them in that way, which might give offence. I should have preferred to call them, as we now call countries of this kind, "underdeveloped". I think it betrays an urban attitude of mind, and I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whose interest in these territories we know only too well, did not intend in any way to be disrespectful.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if we are competing for terminology, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the word "developing" is even more up-to-date than the word "underdeveloped"?
LORD OGMORE: I consider either of them are preferable to "poverty-stricken", because I think that has rather an offensive connotation. I should not like to be called poverty-stricken—although I may be—but I should not mind being called "developing" or "underdeveloped".
Recently, the new Grain-Legume Pathological Laboratory at Chitedza was opened by
the Governor. Its intention is to investigate diseases which attack the various crops which Nyasaland grows, in the first instance the diseases of the ground-nut crop. Ground-nuts grow there and in fact are becoming an important export for Malawi. About 20,000 tons were produced in 1963. The importance of nucleus estates as the focus of smallholder farmers is recognised in Malawi, and they already have instances of this type of undertaking, which is very important in this type of country. As Mr. Woods, the new President of the World Bank, pointed out recently, smallholder development in agriculture is the basis of development in this type of country.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to one quite remarkable achievement of one of these smallholder plantations. There is the Kasungu Tobacco Estate, and a nucleus estate run by Europeans with the idea of teaching the Africans the best methods of growing tobacco and so on. In 1962–63 the African smallholders actually beat the nucleus estate in the production of tobacco. It is the first time that that has happened anywhere and it is a quite remarkable achievement. The nucleus estate produced 980 lb. of tobacco to the acre, realising £161 to the acre, and the smallholders, the farmers themselves, produced 1,160 lb. to the acre, realising £190 to the acre. This is a really remarkable achievement and I should like to send my own note of congratulation to them.
In these territories, as we know, the problem of increased wages and standards of living is a difficult one, and I am glad
650
to find that in Malawi it is proposed to make continued use of the social security already existing in the villages, based on the kinship system. This is an old African tradition which has largely, I think, disappeared in Western countries —that a man helps his relatives so far as he possibly can, and the relatives who are sick or become old depend on their kinsman for assistance. This is to go on for the time being and I think is very valuable.
Dr. Banda in a speech recently to the Nyasaland Tea Association, made it clear that existing land titles would be recognised and that he is anxious to encourage and secure investment in Malawi. We are all, I am sure, pleased to receive that assurance from Dr. Banda which is a very helpful one at this particular moment.
As to citizenship, it is interesting to note that there are 1·8 million registered voters in Malawi of whom over one million are women. It certainly gladdened my heart, and would certainly have gladdened the heart of my mother, who was a great suffragist in the old days before the First War. Suffragists believed in women's suffrage, but did not believe in blowing up post offices, and so on, in order to achieve it.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has spoken to-day on the difficulties we find in the citizenship proposals, particularly in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. I should not be prepared to be examined on it, but I think I understand what they mean, after the explanation given to-day by the noble Duke. But Dr. Banda has said that citizenship is not to be regarded as a right, even to people born in Malawi, and I think, therefore, we have to scrutinise these provisions very carefully.
I consider they are quite clear with regard to people who were born in Malawi and can be regarded in every way as Malawi citizens, as the normal inhabitants of the country. I think we can also be clear as to what is going to happen to people who were born in this country and would normally be regarded as citizens of the United Kingdom. But I am not so sure that I understand what is going to happen to the Asian population. Under the provisions of the Commonwealth immigrants Act I presume that they would have no automatic right to come here. They will be regarded under this Bill as

651
citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies if they so desire, but I am not sure to what extent that will be a valuable privilege if the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill prevents them from exercising their right under it. That is one point on which perhaps the noble Duke could clarify the position.
Many of these people—I have had the pleasure of knowing some of them—have lived for a considerable period in what was Nyasaland. They have never had any contact whatsoever with India, or Pakistan, as the case may be, and now at this stage, if they are prevented from coming here because of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and have no contact whatever with India and Pakistan, their future must be subject to some doubt. I think we might have some assurance in regard to them.
There is one clause I am very pleased to see in the Bill. The noble Duke did not spend any time on it to-day—perhaps he thought he would leave well alone—and that is Clause 5. I suppose that in the last ten years I have made exactly the same speech on this point on every one of these Bills. I have said how dreadful it is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will no longer have power. In the old Empire, the Supreme Court for the Empire was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and not only were the Judges, as they still are, extremely eminent, and nearly all Members of this House as Law Lords, but they retained a corpus, a body of law, one Law for the Empire, so to speak, in this higher tribunal.
One, and possibly the only one, of the sad effects of independence has been that in many countries they have done away with the right of appeal to the Privy Council. If I am right, there is an exception in this Bill and appeals will still be able to come to the Privy Council from Malawi. If I am wrong, no doubt the noble Duke will correct me. If I am right (and the noble Duke has not jumped up to correct me), I should like to congratulate him and the Government upon the persuasive powers which no doubt they have shown in this regard. It is a good omen for the future, and will be of the greatest assistance to the people in Malawi.
652
As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel has said, Malawi certainly needs a great deal of trade and aid, and in this regard I would put in a plea for trade as well as aid. In the case of so many of these countries the infinitely richer Western Powers have been prepared to give a certain amount of aid, for which the countries themselves often have to pay, but they have not always been prepared to trade, and they have put up barriers, quotas and other impedimenta affecting the flow of trade from these countries. These countries such as Malawi want to trade with us, and I think the Western World in general, and we, in particular, should give them every encouragement to trade and should do away with all the tariffs, quotas and other restrictions that are the curse of international trade in the modern era.
My Lords, I have only one further point. I was very glad to hear, when coming to the House to-day, that Mr. David Cole has been appointed High Commissioner of Malawi. I say that because back in 1950 he, Mr. Fowler and myself were concerned together at the United Nations Assembly in looking after Commonwealth matters there. I can assure your Lordships that Mr. Cole is a first-class man, and I am delighted that he is to be the first High Commissioner in this important State. Strangely enough, it has been announced in the last week that Mr. Fowler will be the High Commissioner in neighbouring Tanganyika, which is now joined with Zanzibar. I am pleased to think that in the case of these two gentlemen ability has been recognised when they are still comparatively young men. I wish them well. That is all I have to say on this Bill, and on behalf of my friends and myself I wish the State of Malawi a prosperous and happy future.
6.30 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, first of all I feel bound to say to your Lordships how regrettable I think it is that we should have been asked to debate this important measure at such very short notice. It was, of course, put down for Monday. I myself learned of it only barely more than 24 hours ago, and then only by chance. At this busy time of year it is difficult and often inconvenient to prepare a speech containing a fair amount of statistics and

653
technical information at such brief notice.
However deeply many of us may regret the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and deplore the way in which this was brought about, the past is the past. Our task and duty now is to deal with the facts as we find them in the interests of all the peoples concerned. It is in this spirit that I approach this Bill. Like the noble Earl opposite, I also was anxious to obtain additional explanations in regard to the question of dual nationality. I am still not sure whether I understand the position correctly, but perhaps my noble friend will enlarge on it in his reply. Meanwhile I should like to add a few observations on what I think independence means for Nyasaland, or Malawi as we have to learn to call it in future.
It was said in another place the other day that one of Dr. Banda's great achievements arising out of the turmoil of the past few years was to create a Malawi nation, and no doubt politically it is true. Nevertheless, I think it would be wrong and unfair to the people of Nyasaland to suggest that their national characteristics and qualities are of recent creation. My first personal connection with the Nyasa people was for a brief period with the K.A.R. in Ethiopia and French Somaliland in 1942. I formed an admiration for them then which I have never lost. Everyone who has studied the history of Central Africa, from the days of Dr. Livingstone, Sir Harry Johnston and Dr. Laws onwards, must be aware of their very special qualities, both as fighting men and as skilful, industrious and reliable workers. It is not only on account of overpopulation and the inherent poverty of the country that Nyasalanders have been tempted to emigrate and take employment elsewhere; it was also because of the very qualities to which I have just referred.
I was amazed to read in the speech of an honourable Member in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill that he believed that it was urgently necessary that these men should be encouraged to return home. It has been estimated that there are at least 132,000 Nyasa labourers in Southern Rhodesia alone, with many thousands more in Northern
654
Rhodesia and South Africa. The money which these people remit to Nyasaland cannot be accurately estimated, but there is no doubt whatever that it forms a very important contribution to the balance of payments.
Malawi will start on its independent existence with the advantage of a people largely united behind its leader, Dr. Banda. For them he is a hero and a saint and in their eyes he can do no wrong. Indeed, power is centred in his hands to an extent unknown with any other political leader in the world to-day. Whether this was indeed the intended result of 70 years of British colonial apprenticeship is perhaps beside the point. But his very power lays upon him the personal responsibility of dealing with the many problems which are bound to face an independent Malawi. These are largely in the economic field, and once the excitement of political rallies, of kwacha, of freedom, one man one vote, and all the rest, has died down it will be with the hard facts of economic life that Dr. Banda and the Malawi people will be faced. In this respect, I regret to have to say that Malawi enters into independence with many grave disabilities. It does no good at all to ignore these. It is better that they should be brought out openly so that we can all see in what way we and others can help to meet them.
I feel sure that Dr. Banda must know that, however much some of us may have disagreed with his approach to Federation and to the question of an independent future for Malawi, once the issue has been settled he can count on all of us to collaborate in doing what we can to help his country to achieve prosperity. Nyasaland, of all the newly independent countries of Africa, is bound to look outwards. One friend of mine, writing some time ago, said that should Malawi turn her frontiers into ramparts they may become prison walls. Her boundaries are purely arbitrary; they are the legacy of the colonial scrambles of seventy years ago. If she is to prosper she is bound to retain and enlarge her contacts with her immediate neighbours, whether they be Northern Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia or Tanganyika and Mozambique.
To turn for a moment to the immediate problem of Nyasaland and its

655
people, the country is already overpopulated and it is said on reliable information to be doubling its population every 25 years. What is to become of this small country if steps cannot be taken to improve its agricultural production, on the one hand, and to provide for additional resettlement in neighbouring countries, on the other? And here I am afraid I cannot share what I felt was the rather complacent approach of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the continuation of the traditional way of life in Malawi. Hitherto the problem of over-population and unemployment has been met by European capital investment, mainly in the Southern Province, while the emigration of the young men to earn money elsewhere has to a great extent been offset by infiltration of tribes from Mozambique. At the same time there has been, not only there but in other parts of Malawi, the wholesale destruction of the natural forest, the impoverishment of the soil through desiccation and the lowering of the water table. A devoted agricultural department has helped to minimise these ills, but often against tremendous odds.
One of the essential necessities to-day is to ensure, as the noble Earl opposite said, that the departure of British experts will be stemmed so far as possible, and their loss replaced by agricultural and other experts from elsewhere. Nyasaland, as I say, is a poor country. It has virtually no minerals as yet discovered, no prime mover and a most unreliable rainfall. There is much talk now there of industrial development, but industrial development itself without some increase in the purchasing power of the peasant farmer will be valueless. Ways have got to be found for raising the peasant farmer from the subsistence level, or the traditional way of life the noble Lord referred to, to a cash crop production, whether by land settlement schemes, by co-operatives, improved farming methods or extended plantation farming. Industrial development can never advance unless it is geared to the home consumer market, and new factories must be specifically related to the products of the land, the demands of the farming community and the progress in its expansion.
Of course all this will depend on increased investment from abroad, whether
656
from private sources, from Governments or from international organisations. The present financial position of Nyasaland is precarious. The Minister of Finance's budget statement in January this year forecast a total expenditure for the year of £15·6 million. This included £2·3 million to cover compensation and commuted pensions for retired expatriate civil servants, and that I am glad to see will be paid for by Her Majesty's Government. Against the total remaining current expenditure of £13·3 million, revenue is expected to amount to only £9·1 million. And we should remember that that revenue is three times the amount of the revenue of Nyasaland at the time of Federation. There will thus be a deficit of some £4·2 million, which I understand from my noble friend Her Majesty's Government will finance through grants-in-aid.
The public debt in January totalled £17·8 million, of which £12·1 million resulted from the apportionment of the Federal debt. The cost of servicing this debt, which is included in the expenditure to which I have referred, will amount to £2·6 million. I should perhaps refer to the fact that the fears which many of us expressed in this House in our debate on December 17 about the effects of the treatment of the Federal public debt, have unfortunately been more than confirmed. The value of Federal stocks has fallen by eight to ten points since they were allocated to the Nyasaland Government.
Proposed expenditure on development plans amounts to £3·5 million, of which £1·8 million is to be provided from internal sources and from various international funds and institutions. The British Treasury has agreed provisionally to provide the difference of £1·6 million. I understand—and perhaps my noble friend would say something about this—that a further development plan has been worked out over the last two months of which the results have not yet been published. The cost of the Nkula Falls hydro-electric scheme of £2½ million, which the Nyasaland Government, your Lordships will remember, refused to accept from the hand of the Federal Government, is now expected to be covered from loans from the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Standard Bank, Barclays D.C.O., and an additional £350,000 from the Kariba Power Surcharge Development

657
Fund, which I understand is in compensation for the fact that little Federal money was spent on electrical development in Nyasaland under the Federation.
Foreign trade and balance of payments figures are difficult to estimate because Nyasaland since 1952 has been dealt with statistically as part of the Federation. But there has been an increase in foreign trade of some £3·3 million. On the other hand, there has been a tendency for exports to countries other than the Rhodesias to fall and for imports to rise. No doubt, once independence comes, Malawi will find it possible to obtain funds from countries other than the United Kingdom, who will in any case this year be called upon to provide £5½ million. I share with the noble Earl opposite the hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to provide these funds in future years in one way and another. Already the United States are doing something; the Federal German Government has given assurances of aid, and Israel is already reported to be considering assistance.
Once there is independence no doubt the pattern we have seen elsewhere will be repeated, and the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Government will be coming forward with offers of loans and other forms of assistance. But all of this, and a great deal more, will be required if, having regard to the increase of population in Malawi, the existing pitiful standard of living in Nyasaland is to go in or even to remain static. So we must face the fact that in the long run a great deal will depend on the private investors. I have no doubt that if they can be given assurances of security of land tenure, guarantees against nationalisation, which is breaking out like a rash over other parts of Africa, of freedom from penalising taxation and from impossible forms of trade union harassment, these funds will be forthcoming. Above all, they must be assured of the rule of law.
I do not propose to enter to-day into the alarming accusations which have been made recently about the physical attacks on individuals in Nyasaland who were not prepared to conform to the political ideas of the majority. At least nine of these people lost their lives. But, according to the latest information available to me, Dr. Banda has taken
658
the matter in hand and he is taking steps to ensure that the enforcement of the law shall be carried out; and this matter I believe he is tackling as confidently and as resolutely as he is tackling other problems. We must wish him and his Government all success, and assure them once again that, provided that the basic conditions essential to foreign investment are carried out, they will not lack for people in this country eager to help.
One of these conditions must be security from Communist subversion. Although Dr. Banda, in a speech on Whit Monday, said that he would make an alliance with the Devil if it suited the interests of his people, he has emphasised his goal of a new theory of what he calls "discretionary alignment" after independence. I do not know what is exactly meant by this, but I believe that Dr. Banda is basically, by upbringing and instinct, a man of the West, and that he must be as alarmed at the Communist trend of events in Zanzibar between January and April as were the other East African leaders. Our task must be to prove to him and his people, without in any way infringing on their newly-found independence, that their interests lie, if not directly with the West, at any rate in resistance to the alien and non-African Communist subversion which now threatens. Dr. Banda is essentially a realist and he will know what fertile ground disillusion, unemployment and poverty can provide for such subversion once the initial enthusiasm and fervour of independence has died down.
I hope also that the relations of Malawi with their immediate neighbours, as exemplified by the invitation to Mr. Smith, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, to attend the Independence Day celebrations, and their amicable relations with Mozambique, will continue. In all these matters it is Dr. Banda who will play the predominant, and perhaps indeed the unique rïle, of an all-powerful ruler. From July 6 on, the responsibility will rest with him, and him alone. However much I may have differed with him personally in the past, I can now only wish him success in his task, for the future of the people of Malawi lies in his hands.
I should not wish to conclude without a word of tribute to the Governor, Sir Glyn Jones, who has played such a helpful part in these affairs. I welcome the

659
fact that he is to be invited to remain as Governor General, and I feel sure that his personal friendship with Dr. Banda will still bear fruit as it has in the past. To him, and to all the expatriate and other members of the Nyasaland Civil Service, past and present, I should like to offer grateful thanks for their devoted labours on behalf of the people of Nyasaland all these years.
6.57 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, and to the noble Earl opposite and other noble Lords, for their extremely helpful and constructive contributions to this debate. I feel that I echo the feelings of all noble Lords here to-day when I say that we could not fail to be most impressed by the great knowledge of my noble friend Lord Colyton in regard to the affairs of Malawi. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that as his speech developed my admiration became tinged with envy at his comprehensive knowledge of the subject.
I think there are only two points to which I need devote attention in reply: one is nationality, and the other is aid. I hope to be able to shed some light on the nationality problem, but I am acutely conscious that in trying to do so I may make confusion even worse. However, I will do my best. As I understand it, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who automatically becomes a citizen of Malawi on independence will retain his United Kingdom citizenship if he has such a connection with the United Kingdom as is specified in Clause 3 of the Bill. He will therefore for a short time have dual citizenship; but after one year from July 6 Malawi will take away his Malawi citizenship if the individual concerned has not in the meantime renounced his United Kingdom citizenship. If he does renounce it he will be a Malawi citizen only; if he does not renounce it he will be a United Kingdom citizen only.
I would add that if he does take up Malawi citizenship he will have, if he comes within what is laid down in Clause 3, the automatic right to revert at some future date to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I hope that that explanation will have cleared up this point. I should add that when I say automatic right "I mean that he can
660
have it at any time for the asking. I should also add that under the Constitution citizenship of Malawi will be conferred on every person born in former Nyasaland who is a United Kingdom citizen or British-protected person, provided that at least one of his parents were born in Nyasaland.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Do I understand the noble Lord correctly in this respect? Suppose a British officer decides to retire on the compensation and settle here. He has become a Malawi citizen because that was a condition of his being allowed to continue in the service of the Malawi Government. If he wants to come and settle here, the noble Duke says that he would automatically recover his right to be a British citizen. That means that he does not spend the qualifying period of five years without British citizenship; that is to say, he qualifies under the Nationality Act of this year. All he has to do is to write to the Home Office for a British passport. He does not even have to have his claim adjudicated by the Home Office. That is what people will want to know—that they can recover their British citizenship without any difficulty at all.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Earl is perfectly right: that is the case. It is as of right, without any delay, always provided that it comes within the specifications of Clause 3.
LORD OGMORE: Is this right also given to the Asian population?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I was going to come to the Asian population. They have not, as of right, got to revert to United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship, nor do they automatically become citizens of Malawi; they have to apply for it. But if they do apply they automatically acquire Malawi citizenship. In both cases they come under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, there is a small coloured population in Nyasaland, so far as I remember. Could the noble Duke make clear what their position will be?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If they apply to the Malawi Government, they have the right then to have Malawi citizenship. I hope I have not made confusion even worse.

661
I should like now to say a word about aid, which has been mentioned in the debate. I can assure the noble Earl that this system of "topping up" the
salaries of expatriate officers applies to Nyasaland and will continue to apply to Nyasaland after independence. I would agree with the noble Earl how important it is that these people should stay on, so that Nyasaland can continue to have a stable and technically competent administration. I think that is of great importance.
In regard to aid generally, the Government appreciates that Nyasaland is a special case and will require very considerable aid, both recurrent aid and aid for development projects in the future. I should like to quote what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in a debate in another place on December 17. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 686 (No. 26), cols. 116970]:
"… I can tell the House that we have in mind the provision of a substantial amount of aid to Nyasaland for some years to come, both in balancing her budget as well as for capital development."
With all respect, that is a fairly forthcoming statement from a senior Treasury Minister, so I hope the noble Lord's anxieties in this field will be relieved by that statement. I am sure that Mr. Cole and Mr. Fowler will much appreciate the kind and, if I may say so, well-deserved remarks made about them by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I will see that their attention is drawn to his remarks in Hansard.
I should like also to associate myself with what Lord Ogmore said about trade. Trade and aid go hand in hand with national prosperity. I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Colyton said some timely words about the conditions that these independent countries must create in their territories if they wish to attract overseas investment. Of course the developed countries will invest, but only if they can see security for their investment. As they came from my noble friend, I am sure his remarks will be read, digested and weighed in Nyasaland.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me about the Judicial Committee. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that appeals in certain cases to the Judicial Committee are maintained in this Bill, but I think he is not correct in
662
suggesting that there have been no appeals under previous Constitutions to the Queen in Council. I think there have been such appeals allowed to the Queen in Council in some cases.
LORD OGMORE: I think in very few cases, and in one or two cases it has been done in a rather different way. However, I was congratulating him on doing it here.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The reason is that should they become a republic at some future stage the appeals can still go on. I would associate myself with the noble Earl in saying that should they wish to become a republic at some future date, we shall fully understand. We shall realise that no discourtesy is intended, and we shall not have hurt feelings about it. I am glad that the noble Earl made that point.
I hope that I have covered the points raised in debate, and I am most grateful to my stalwart friends on all sides of the House who take part in these debates. We have had a number of such debates in the last few years and it is always the same friendly faces that one sees around one. I am grateful to all those who have taken part, and I join with those who wish Nyasaland, or Malawi, every success in the future, that she may take her part in the Continent of Africa, and indeed the whole world, and play a full rïle.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.