Lords Sitting of 16 June 1964

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

TINNED CORNED BEEF AND HEALTH RISK
2.35 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: 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 tins of corned beef cooled with unchlorinated water are still on sale to the public.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, the direct Answer to the Question is, Yes. But I should point out that what is important—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will appreciate—is not whether the water is chlorinated but whether it is clean. The mere addition of chlorine may not always achieve that; on the other hand, it may not always be necessary, because the water is already clean.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how much corned beef cooled with unchlorinated water is, in fact, being sold, and how much is in stock?—because, judging from the figures given so far, there are vast quantities of corned beef cooled with unchlorinated water on sale to the public and presumably carrying a risk.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I never want to be at cross-purposes with the noble Lord. We are both looking for the same answer. The point I made in my substantive Answer was that what is more important is not whether the water used in cooling particular batches of tins was chlorinated but whether it was pure. What we have done is to single out those batches canned over a particular period which we have reason to suppose were
1108
cooled in unsatisfactory conditions, and those have been withdrawn and/or are being withheld from sale.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the batch responsible for the typhoid cases at Harlow last year, details of which have recently been reported in the medical Press, is among those now withdrawn from sale?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords. Measures were taken at the time, long before this, to withdraw the stocks which formed part of the batches involved in the three outbreaks at Harlow, South Shields and Bedford; and those stocks have not been re-issued.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not the fact that in order that there should be any danger, two circumstances are necessary—namely, that the cooling water shall be infected with typhoid, and that the tins should be defective in order that the water gets inside them?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The fact is—if I may put it in a picturesque way —that it is necessary for a droplet of water containing bacteria to coincide with a pinhole or a tiny fault in the seam of the can through which it can obtain entry. This might conceivably happen in one in several million tins.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, arising out of that question and answer, may I ask whether the tins in question are labelled in the country of origin and whether or not any examination is carried out of the gum by which the label is affixed and which might be infected and so might infect the contents of the tin in the act of opening?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer that question without notice. I thought that my noble friend was asking whether the tins are stamped as having been canned and processed under satisfactory conditions. In fact, that is so. Every batch of tins of meat coming from abroad carries a certificate to that effect from the Government of the country of origin.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as I have had experience of infected gum on the labels of tins in tropical countries, it occurred to me, when thinking of

1109
the minute pinhole and of the actual opening of the tin, that it is conceivable that the gum (which is a protein, I believe) might be infected, and I wondered whether the gum had been examined.
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords, I do not think so. We have absolutely no evidence of infection caused by the gum from the inside of the label finding its way into the tin.

EXPORT OF VEHICLES TO INDONESIA
2.41 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, whether they will refuse licences for the proposed export by Vauxhall Motors of 756 trucks and 252 bus chassis to Indonesia.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON): No, my Lords. Bus and lorry chassis are not subject to export licensing and the approval of Her Majesty's Government is not therefore required for their export. It is in any case not the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to impose restrictions on trade in non-strategic goods.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I then ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will not reconsider this question and take powers to impose a ban in this case? Is it not a fact that Indonesia is in a virtual state of war with our ally, Malaysia, and that our own troops are actually fighting in the field? Although, certainly, from the nature of the terrain, these vehicles could not be employed in the forward areas, could they not equally be used for transportation of both reinforcements and supplies from the port and base areas, and so indirectly contribute to the deaths of our men and our allies?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think I ought to emphasise that this is an ordinary commercial transaction, with no political or military significance, and, as Her Majesty's Government have always made clear, we are not opposed to the continuation of normal trade with Indonesia. Of course the export of arms
1110
and of materials which can be used against our troops have been prohibited since the beginning of the "confrontation" policy.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, does not my noble friend recall that on November 26 last he informed me in this House that Her Majesty's Government had asked the American Government not to issue an export licence to an American commercial firm for spare parts for American-built troop transports belonging to the Indonesian Government? Is not their present attitude extremely illogical, and can they not undertake to hold up these licences until President Soekarno's policy of "confrontation" in Malaysia has been abandoned?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course, that was entirely different, because the Government believed—and I am sure that we were right in thinking—that these transport aircraft were being used directly in aid of the Indonesian policy of "confrontation". The same is not the case, and could not be the case, with these lorries.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is it not a general proposition worthy of consideration by the House that, where there are differences of political opinion, trade is the best way of resolving them, and should it not be Britain's aim to maintain as widespread and as general a trade as possible?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the general proposition that economic sanctions do not do much good is one that will be accepted by everybody.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in order to get this clear, may I ask whether it is not a fact that there is a statutory power for Her Majesty's Government to require a licence for the export of arms; but is there in fact any power for any Government Department to restrain the export of purely commercial material, or would special legislation be required to enable that to be done?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I understand it, there are no powers which the Government have at the moment which they could use to prevent this export order from being fulfilled.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord properly answered the noble Lord who asked the original Question. Will the noble Lord say whether these vehicles, or parts, are capable of being used for the movement of troops of a country with which we are, at any rate in a secondary sense, at war?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, anybody who knows the country which we are talking about will realise that lorries are not much good for this purpose. There are not any roads within forty miles of the frontier. In any event, the Indonesians are supplying their troops by air, sea, river and porters, not by road.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as one who knows the country, I think it is unlikely that they are going to have the lorries used on the frontier, but may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that this action will encourage Malaysia to believe that we are serious in our support for them? May I further ask whether this is going to be financed in part with the help of Government funds —in other words, an export credit guarantee.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, I should have thought that what Britain has done to help Malaysia in the last six months was very good evidence of the support we are determined to give it. There are many thousands of British troops in Sabah and Sarawak and many have lost their lives. I should have thought that that was a very good indication of our support. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, it would be contrary to normal practice to reveal whether application for cover had been made to the Export Credits Guarantee Department on behalf of particular firms for particular projects, but in the present circumstances the E.C.G.D. are unable, on purely economic grounds, to cover business with Indonesia on any substantial scale.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there is just one question I should like to ask. Have we received any representations from the Malaysian Government on this subject? If we have not
1112
and representations were made, would the Government then be prepared to consider the matter again?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, so far as I know, there have been no representations, though, of course, if the Malaysian Government made representations, Her Majesty's Government would naturally consider them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that, at a suitable moment after 3.30 o'clock, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE ESTATES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, I move today the Second Reading of a measure which represents a useful and liberal reform of the criminal law. It implements the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on a number of questions relating to the issue of insanity in criminal proceedings, as set out in the Committee's Third Report which was published as a Command Paper (Cmnd 2149) last September. The Bill is in the form of the draft Bill annexed to the Committee's Report, subject to a few modifications and the addition of provisions relating to courts-martial. I should like to take this opportunity of saying that the Government are most grateful to the Committee for their valuable Report on these difficult issues.
The first question which the Committee were asked to consider was the form of the special verdict of "guilty but

1113
insane", which is given when a person charged on indictment with a criminal offence is found by the jury to have done the act charged but, owing to insanity, to have been not criminally responsible for it. This verdict, although in form a verdict of guilty, is in substance one of acquittal, and its present form was laid down in the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883. Both the 1923 Atkin
Committee on Insanity and Crime and the 1953 Royal. Commission on Capital Punishment felt that the verdict should be one of acquittal in language as well
as in substance, and this view was shared by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Clause 1 produces the necessary result, and provides that henceforward the verdict shall be that the accused is not guilty by reason of insanity.
The second question put to the Committee, which is dealt with in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, was whether an appeal should lie against the special verdict. There is at present no right of appeal against it, because under Section 3 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, it is only a person "convicted" on indictment who may appeal, and, as I have said, the special verdict amounts to an acquittal. The Atkin Committee thought that there need be no right of appeal, because in practice the accused must himself have put forward the plea of insanity, and because the issue of insanity was never raised if there was any real question whether the accused committed the act.
The position, however, has been to some extent affected by the introduction in the Homicide Act of the defence of diminished responsibility, and in giving the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v. Duke, in October, 1961, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said that the absence of an appeal might work injustice, although he did not suggest that it had done so. The Committee recommended that a right of appeal should be given, either against the part of the verdict which implies that the accused did the act, or against the finding of insanity, or both, and that it they substituted a verdict of guilty for the special verdict the Court of Criminal Appeal should have the same power to sentence the appellant as the court of trial would
1114
have had, save that the sentence for murder would always be life imprisonment, even when the murder was capital. No one, I think, would question that the death sentence should not be imposed as the result of any appeal against the special verdict.
Clause 4 of the Bill makes amendment to the law which governs the situation when a person appearing before a superior court on indictment for a criminal offence is found unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity—that is to say, if he cannot understand the proceedings so as to be able to make a proper defence, to challenge a juror to whom he might wish to object, and understand the details of the evidence. The present procedure is regulated by Section 2 of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1800, which, according to the preponderance of judicial authority, requires that any issue as to the fitness of the accused to stand trial should be determined by a jury at the outset; the section goes on to provide that a person found by a jury to be insane so that he cannot be tried shall be ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. The procedure is open to the objection that it provides no opportunity for testing the prosecution's case before the issue of insanity is put to the jury, and that consequently a person who would have been entitled to an acquittal on the facts, had he been able to stand his trial, may suffer injustice.
The Committee found some difficulty on the question whether the issue of fitness to plead should, as normally happens at present, be determined on arraignment or immediately it arises, or whether postponement of the issue should be allowed, as has occasionally been done; and they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. Some of the members felt that the possibility that injustice might result is in practice so small, and the difficulties about allowing a trial to start without first investigating the accused's fitness to plead when that issue has been raised are so substantial, that postponement should not be allowed. The majority of the Committee, however, favoured allowing postponement up to the opening of the case for the defence, including the determination of any submission that there is no case for the accused to answer, and that is the course which the Government think should be adopted.

1115
I should perhaps add that deaf mutes, even though not insane in the usual sense, are dealt with under the 1800 Act if by reason of their disability they do not satisfy the criteria of fitness to plead, and it seems particularly desirable in such cases to be able to delay the testing of the issue of unfitness if there is any real possibility that the prosecution will not be able to prove their case.
Here I should perhaps mention that the clause differs slightly from that in the Committee's draft Bill in providing specifically that in considering whether to allow postponement the court should take into account the nature of the supposed disability. As a further safeguard, the Committee recommended that there should be a right of appeal against a finding of unfitness to plead, and this is provided in Clause 4(6). A successful appeal against a finding of disability would result in a fresh trial, unless the Court of Criminal Appeal considered that the appellant should have been acquitted before the issue of fitness was determined.
Clause 5(1) of the Bill deals with the treatment of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead. As the law stands, the effect of a special verdict or finding of unfitness is that the accused is ordered by the court to be kept in custody during Her Majesty's pleasure, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary then orders his detention in a specified hospital from which he cannot be discharged without the Home Secretary's consent. There is also power under the Mental Health Act, 1959, which is sparingly exercised, to remit to prison to stand trial a person found unfit to plead who later recovers.
It might be suggested that in dealing with persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead, the courts, instead of having to order detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, should have the same discretion to make hospital orders, with or without the restrictions on discharge which make the patient subject to the Home Secretary's control, as they have in dealing with mentally disordered persons who are convicted. The Committee, however, came down in favour of retaining the present system, subject to slight modifications, primarily on the ground that it works satisfactorily in practice, that
1116
the Home Office is in a better position than the courts to investigate the questions relevant to the accused's treatment and that uniformity is highly desirable and is more likely to be achieved if cases continue to be handled by a single experienced authority rather than by a great many different courts.
I should emphasise that we are dealing here with a very small class of persons who have been charged before a superior court with an indictable offence, but who by reason of insanity have not been convicted. They are in a special category and they can properly be distinguished from mentally disordered offenders as a whole.
The procedure set out in Clause 5 will differ from the present system only in that the archaic reference to Her Majesty's pleasure will be eliminated, and that the court, not the Home Secretary, will order the accused's detention in hospital, although it will as at present be for the Home Secretary to specify the hospital concerned. In their report the Committee proposed a further modification, namely, that where a person was found, either by the trial court or on appeal, to be either under disability so as to be unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity, the court should have discretion to release him if they were satisfied that it would be safe for the public and the accused to do so, instead of requiring his admission to hospital.
The Government, however, consider that difficulties would be caused by dividing the responsibility in this way between the Home Secretary and the courts, and enquiry which has been made of the judges by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice has revealed that they are also of that opinion. We have therefore decided against including this provision in the Bill. In cases where the offence is not serious the Home Office is always ready to authorise discharge, even after quite a short time, if the accused person no longer needs treatment in hospital and no risk to the public is involved.
Clause 5(2) provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal, when they allow an appeal against the special verdict and substitute an acquittal, shall in certain circumstances order that the appellant should be temporarily detained

1117
in hospital for a maximum period of 28 days. The grounds on which such detention would be ordered are equivalent to those on which any mentally disordered person may be temporarily detained for observation under Section 25 of the Mental Health Act—namely, if his disorder warrants his detention in the interest of his own health or safety, or with a view to the protection of other persons. In the great majority of cases the appellant will already be detained in hospital in pursuance of the special verdict when his appeal is heard, and the order for his temporary detention in suitable cases will give a breathing space in which to make the best possible arrangements for his disposal. In some cases the hospital authorities may wish to invoke other provisions of Part IV of the Mental Health Act (which relates to non-criminal mentally disordered persons) in order to continue the patient's detention beyond the initial 28-day period.
The Committee were also asked to advise on another point referred to by the Lord Chief Justice in his judgment in Regina v. Duke. Under the Homicide Act, 1957, a person charged with murder may plead something less than insanity —namely, diminished responsibility. Acceptance by the jury of such a defence means a verdict of manslaughter, and may result in a fixed, and sometimes comparatively short, period of imprisonment. A verdict of guilty but insane, on the other hand—that is, the present verdict—means that the accused is liable to indefinite detention in a hospital and that his discharge is subject to the Home Secretary's consent.
The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that there was conflict of practice on the question whether, if the accused put forward a defence of diminished responsibility, the prosecution could call evidence to the effect that the prisoner's mental condition at the time of the offence went beyond diminished responsibility and that he was in fact insane. The Committee recommended that, to avoid uncertainty, provision should be made to allow the prosecution to call evidence of insanity when the defence is one of diminished responsibility, and that, although the matter is not in
1118
dispute, there should also be express provision for the converse situation by allowing evidence to be called showing that the accused was suffering from diminished responsibility when a defence of insanity is put forward.
Clause 8 of the Bill and Schedule 2 make corresponding provisions in the law concerning courts-martial, and Clause 9 is merely ancillary to the purposes I have described. The Bill, except as respects courts-martial, does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. I hope, from what I have said, that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships as making a significant improvement in the law. I am sorry that I have been somewhat long in describing the Bill, but I thought it better to go into detail at this stage, and perhaps answer in advance some of the questions your Lordships might have put. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
3.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given on this Bill, and I can assure him that he was by no means too lengthy. I can also assure him that I shall not be even as lengthy as he was. As the noble Lord said, the Bill certainly represents an improvement in the law, and I am sure that the whole House will be willing to give the Bill a Second Reading. As the noble Lord said, it arises from a Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, about which we had some discussion last Thursday. It is perhaps relevant to that debate to remind the House that this Committee was set up on February 3, 1959, and reported over four and a half years later, which is rather a long time. Of course, this is no reflection on the Committee itself; it is a reflection, as we said last week, on the manner in which these Committees have to do their business. They sit whenever they can afford to spare the time, and naturally a matter of this kind is bound to take a long time. But I submit to the House that more than four and a half years for the deliberation of a Committee on a matter of this kind is a long time.
Another interesting feature is that the Committee actually drafted the Bill,

1119
and although there have been some minor modifications the Bill is substantially in the form of the draft submitted. So there can be no excuse on the part of the Government of lack of Parliamentary draftsmen: the job was done for them.
The Bill itself can more appropriately be discussed in Committee. In principle, we agree with it. There is just one point which struck me as being a little doubtful, and that is in Clause 2, which provides that the Court of Criminal Appeal may dismiss an appeal if it is of opinion that but for the insanity of the accused the proper verdict would have been that he was guilty, but they may say he was guilty of an offence other than the offence charged. Now that seems to me rather peculiar. I do not know whether it is unique in English law, but for a Court of Criminal Appeal to find that a person is guilty of an offence other than the one with which he was charged seems extraordinary. The person charged will have had no opportunity on appeal of putting up a defence to the other offence upon which they are finding him guilty, or of calling evidence or anything of that kind. Therefore, it seems to me that he may be punished by the
Court of Criminal Appeal for an offence with which he has never been charged. It may be that this point can be better threshed out in Committee, but if the noble Lord has a ready answer now I should be very grateful to hear it.
Subject to that, I am sure we shall all give the Bill a welcome, particularly the rather humane provision—I think it is a humane provision—that where a person, but for the fact that he has had this special verdict would have been sentenced to death, appeals unsuccessfully, he is no longer liable to have the capital punishment imposed. I think that is right. Such a person has been through the ordeal of going through two hearings, and I think it is probably right that in those circumstances he should be treated as being guilty of homicide. We shall look at this Bill again in Committee, but I am sure we shall all wish to give it a Second Reading.
3.8 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I hope that the House will give this Bill a warm welcome. It is a moderate Bill of
1120
liberal intent, and based on humanity. I can assure your Lordships that I shall be even shorter than the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I agree that the points we want to discuss are better threshed out in Committee than now, but perhaps I might ask the Minister one question. I gather that one effect of this Bill will be to wipe out the verdict of "guilty but insane". Is it not possible that a crime may be committed where a man is in full possession of his senses but becomes insane before or when he is charged? A proper verdict, surely, should be "guilty of the crime, but insane at the time of the trial" and therefore, of course, meriting mercy.
3.9 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am sure we shall all welcome the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not quite clear why the final words of subsection (1) of Clause 5 of the draft Bill prepared by the Criminal Law Revision Committee appear to be going to be dropped, but no doubt we may consider that in the Committee stage. While I welcome the Bill, it cannot, I suggest, be put forward as a major contribution to the field of law reform. It has always been a principle of English law that if the insanity of an accused person was proved with that degree of strictness which the law requires, it must result in a verdict of not guilty, because that has always been a defence: not guilty on the ground of insanity. Whereupon, of course, the person charged was removed to what in those days was called a lunatic asylum. In 1883, however, when a lunatic shot at Her late Majesty, Queen Victoria, she expressed the very strong view that, as he had shot at her, he must be guilty whether he was insane or not. When the then Prime Minister was, unfortunately, unable to persuade Her Majesty that this was a wholly illogical view, it appeared that Her Majesty would not be satisfied unless the law was altered. Accordingly, after consulting the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister felt, for the sake of peace, compelled to introduce the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, substituting the verdict of "guilty but insane", which is, and always has been, in law, a contradiction in terms.
One appreciates that, having regard to those relations which no doubt should subsist between the Sovereign and her

1121
Prime Minister, it may well have been difficult to cure this obvious anomaly in English law during the lifetime of Her Majesty. But, since her late Majesty, five sovereigns have reigned, and this is an anomaly which obviously ought to have been cured by every Government since 1900. It is not a point which matters very much; it is a fiddling little point in relation to those reforms in our law which really are necessary. But the nature of the anomaly and the fact that it should be reformed was strongly recommended by the Atkin Committee, who reported 41 years ago, and was endorsed by the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1953. Normally, as I think I have ventured to point out to your Lordships' House before, once all lawyers are agreed that there is an anomaly in our law which ought to be reformed, on an average it takes only 35 years to have it put right; whereas, on this occasion, allowing for the fact that it would have been difficult to do it in her late Majesty's lifetime, it has taken 64 years. It cannot really be put forward as if to say to foreigners: "Look with what lightning speed we, in England, correct anomalies in our law". Therefore, while welcoming the Second Reading of this Bill, we cannot, I suggest, regard it as of any major importance in the field of law reform and can welcome it only on the principle of "Better late than never".
3.14 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two to what my noble friend has said. As one of those who took part in the discussions some years ago which led to at any rate some of these problems being remitted to the Law Revision Committee, I think that what has happened in regard to this matter strongly bears out what my noble friends Lord Silkin and Lord Gardiner have said in relation to it as an illustration of the slowness of law reform and its uncertainty in this country.
It was because this matter was raised in this House that these, I admit, very difficult problems in relation to the trial of people whose sanity is in doubt were referred to the Law Revision Committee —and I think that that ought to be borne in mind. This was not referred to the Law Revision Committee by anybody whose job it was to see that
1122
law reform was carried through; it was the direct result of debates in this House; and The Times drew attention to the point which had been made by speakers in these debates. Therefore I think we are entitled to claim some credit in this House; and we are entitled to regard this as an illustration of the very chancy and happy-go-lucky arrangements to which my noble friend Lord Gardiner and other speakers in the debate last week drew attention and underlined. That reinforces the need for having a permanent Commission to keep under review the state of our law, because if that had existed obviously this matter, which was very well known to the Judges and to practitioners in criminal courts years before it happened to come up for discussion in this House on another Bill, would have been remedied. Surely this proves beyond any question that we need very much better arrangements.
On the whole, I agree with the Government's view in relation to the actual proposals which have been put up by a majority in the Law Revision Committee on this particular matter. I think the Government have made the right decision. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Silkin says, that we shall wish to make some small changes at Committee stage, but I, too, would strongly endorse the actual contents of this Bill.
3.16 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for the general welcome you have given to this Bill. I take it that the historical speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was welcome, although it dealt with the past and not with the present. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think he is a little unfair about the Committee's work. In fact, since 1959 they have reported on Indecency with Children, on Suicide, on Criminal Procedure (Insanity), on the Order of Closing Speeches in Trials on Indictments and on Criminal Procedure (Jurors); and this particular matter we are discussing today was, in fact, sent to the Committee in 1962. It is a very complicated subject and I think they have worked extremely quickly on this matter, considering the number of people who have had to be consulted.
The other point the noble Lord raised

1123
was about the other offences of which the appellant may be found guilty. This refers to cases in which under the ordinary law a person charged with one offence can be convicted of some other related offence on the basis of the same indictment. It refers to cases where a man can be found guilty alternatively. I hope that I have made myself clear. On the question which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised, about the man who was sane at the time of his offence but insane at the time of his trial, I think it is true to say that he would be found unfit to plead.
May I say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley? He is indeed right in saying that this matter was raised in your Lordships' House not so long ago by the
noble Lord himself, among others. If I remember aright, he moved some Amendments to a Bill which came before your Lordships' House, and I think he was told at the time that that particular Bill was an unsuitable vehicle for his Amendments. But we are not unmindful of the fact that he did at that time press this particular point.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was not claiming any kudos for myself, but wished to emphasise that it was as a result of discussions in your Lordships' House that this measure was put forward.
LORD DERWENT: That, indeed, is true. Again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the general welcome given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 5:
Consequential amendments
(2) In paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1948 for the words from "possesses such immunity" to "His Majesty" there shall be substituted the words "is a person on whom any immunity from jurisdiction is conferred by or under the Diplomatic Privileges Act
1124
1964 or on whom such immunity from jurisdiction as is conferred by that Act on a diplomatic agent is conferred by or under any other Act".
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, is, unfortunately, unable to be here to-day and, curiously enough, he has asked me to move his Amendment. I do so with great readiness because the point raised by the Amendment is one which I raised myself in Committee—namely, the clause which was moved in Committee, as in addition to the Bill, by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Your Lordships' House may remember that on that occasion I complained that the language of the new clause added to the Bill was quite incomprehensible to the ordinarily intelligent person; and, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave us an explanation of the clause, which I have since read and which I think is intelligible, nobody would have connected the two or could possibly have guessed that the explanation related to the particular clause.
We had some discussion on it. Other noble Lords felt the same. And the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said two things: first, that the Parliamentary draftsman was listening to what was being said. He also said that he would see whether it was possible to simplify the language. I see nothing on the Paper simplifying the clause, and I submit that this House ought not to pass measures which are quite incomprehensible. I would therefore support the Amendment which was to have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, leaving out subsection (2), which is the subsection in question.
If the House agrees with me that this subsection should be deleted, I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to come back and, with his powers of persuasion, bring back to us a provision which means the same thing but says what it means in much more simple language. I will not trouble the House by reading out the subsection which I want to delete. The noble Lord himself admitted it was very difficult to follow. Indeed I would go so far as to say it is impossible to understand what it means. I would therefore ask the House to delete this subsection, and if the noble Lord

1125
attaches importance to having something of this kind in the Bill, he can put down something simple on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that by the time I have sat down your Lordships will find the subsection as it now stands a good deal more explicable than the unholy alliance between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lord Molson. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has explained, as I expected, that the purpose of his Amendment is not in effect to criticise the provisions which we have put in the Bill so much as to protest at the language used to achieve this end. The noble Lord and your Lordships are well aware that if the subsection were indeed to be left out the consequences would be very embarrassing. I explained this last week and I do not think it necessary for me to do so again. But it certainly would not be the intention of anybody in your Lordships' House that British nationality should be given to the children of members of foreign missions born in this country.
I will therefore confine myself to the drafting of the clause, which was the
subject of a good deal of criticism during the Committee stage. I said on that occasion that I would look at the drafting, I would consult lawyers in the Foreign Office and Parliamentary Counsel and would see what I could do to make the wording simpler, if it were possible. I gave no further undertaking. I have faithfully carried out this undertaking and have had a number of consultations on this matter. But I regret to tell your Lordships that it has been found impossible by those who are experienced in these matters to find any simpler form of words which could be substituted for those in the Bill as it stands at present. The difficulty is that this is quite a small point but it is a very complicated one, and it is not very easy to convey what is necessary in entirely simple language.
I wonder whether your Lordships or I were quite right in saying that the Amendment as it was on the Committee stage is as mystifying we thought on the last occasion, and here perhaps I was at fault in suggesting that that was so. Per-
1126
haps I might explain a little more fully exactly what this subsection does. When one Statute makes consequential Amendments to another it just is not possible to set out in full what is being amended to show it in its amended form. The Statute Book, which is bulky enough as it is, would be enormous if every time we had to set out in full a section as amended. And I should have thought that the right question to ask is whether when you read the new words called for by the amending Bill in their correct place in the amended Act they achieve their effect in an intelligible and economical way. This means that you must get hold of the amended Act and look up the relevant section and then put the amending clause alongside it.
May we do that with Clause 5 subsection (2)? We refer to Section 4 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. Substituting the words as required by Clause 5(2) the result is this—and I ask your Lordships to listen carefully:
"Every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth"—
here the new words are inserted—
"his father is a person on whom any immunity from jurisdiction is conferred by or under the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964"—
I think the meaning of that is quite clear: a child is not a United Kingdom citizen, even if he is born here, if his father enjoys immunity from jurisdiction under the present Bill. And then it goes on:
"or [is a person] on whom such immunity from jurisdiction as is conferred by the Act on a diplomatic agent"—
that is to say, the full immunity under Article 31 of the Convention—
"is conferred by or under any other Act".
As I explained to your Lordships at the Committee stage, there are various Acts of Parliament which confer diplomatic-type immunities on people who are not
diplomats in the strict sense. At present such people are covered by the saving
to Section 4 of the British Nationality Act if they enjoy an envoy's immunity. Under the Bill an envoy's immunity is that enjoyed by a diplomatic agent, so that is why we refer to
"such immunity as is conferred by the Act on a diplomatic agent".

1127
The reason why it looks more complicated than the existing saving to Section 4 of the British Nationality Act is that there will be various levels of immunity under the Bill, whereas at present diplomats all enjoy the same immunity—namely, such as is accorded to an envoy. As I have already said, the net effect of it all is that the same people will benefit, the same children will avoid being made into United Kingdom citizens against their parents' wishes.
My Lords, having looked at it again and looked at it rather carefully, I am quite sure that, provided you read this carefully, this is a comprehensible way of achieving this purpose. I agree you have to stop and think about it, but I do not think that is objectionable. I am no lawyer, but if I can understand it, I am perfectly certain the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, can understand it. I hope, therefore, that in the light of the explanation I have given and in the knowledge that I have done my best —and I really have tried—to find alternative words and failed, your Lordships will allow the Bill to remain as it is and the noble Lord opposite will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is quite true that the noble Lord now understands this clause. He was not quite so sure when he first presented it to the House. Since then he has had the opportunity of a number of conversations with the Foreign Office and with Parliamentary draftsmen. He has had ten days in which to think about it, and now at last he comes back to the House and says, "I understand it". Well, no doubt he does, but other people might do so as well if they had all the advantages that the noble Lord has.
LORD CARRINGTON: Noble Lords have had the advantage of listening to me!
LORD SILKIN: Is it not possible to reproduce the new position in the Bill? The noble Lord read out what the words would be if paragraph (a) of the proviso to Section 4 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, were amended in the form he wants. Why cannot that be inserted in the Bill?
LORD CARRINGTON: I explained that.
LORD SILKIN: I doubt whether it would be any longer at all, and it would at least be explicable. I would ask the noble Lord just to think about that. We have recently had a debate on reform of the law. One thing we talked about on Thursday was simplification. This is one way of simplifying it. Why not put what you really want into the Bill, instead of simply saying "instead of the proviso to the 1948 Act, read so-and-so"? It is then all there and anyone can understand it. If the noble Lord will give an assurance that he will think about this suggestion, I will gladly withdraw the Amendment. I hope he will be able to give that some consideration.
LORD CARRINGTON: As I think your Lordships know, I always try to help the House in these matters. I tried to explain why it would be most difficult to do what the noble Lord suggests. In Bills of this kind—and this is not by any means the worst example; it has happened in many Bills which have been passing through your Lordships' House in the last year or so—there have been consequential Amendments of this kind in large number; and if we did what the noble Lord suggests, the Statutes which we are passing would really be enormous. It would be creating a precedent which I am advised would be a dangerous one, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I, in support of my noble friend, say that I do not think it is quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests. I agree with him that it would, of course, he rather simpler if, on looking, at this Bill, you could see what the proviso to Section 4 of the 1948 Act would be hereafter. But if the Amendment were simply to do away with that proviso as it exists in the 1948 Act and substitute a new one, it would be difficult for the lawyer who had occasion to refer to the 1948 Statute to see precisely what was the Amendment that had been subsequently made. Lawyers hereafter may find it necessary not merely to look at this Act to see what it says, but to see precisely what was the Amendment made in the former Act. The view I formed on reading this subsection was that, difficult as it is, it does state in the

1129
minimum amount of words what it sets out to achieve; and the opportunity to bring about the result desired by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will come when there is some consolidation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.33 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to move. after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for certain bilateral arrangements
".—(1) Where any special agreement or arrangement between the Government of any State and the Government of the United Kingdom in force at the commencement of this Act provides for extending—

(a) such immunity from jurisdiction and from arrest or detention, and such inviolability of residence, as are conferred by this Act on a diplomatic agent; or

(b) such exemption from customs duties, taxes and related charges as is conferred by this Act in respect of articles for the personal use of a diplomatic agent;

to any class of person, or to articles for the personal use of any class of person, connected with the mission of that State, that immunity and inviolability or exemption shall so extend. so long as that agreement or arrangement continues in force.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes a notice specifying the States with which and the classes of person with respect to which such an agreement or arrangement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is in force and whether its effect is as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of that subsection, and shall whenever necessary amend the notice by a further such notice; and the notice shall be conclusive evidence of the agreement or arrangement and the classes of person with respect to which it is in force."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the debate in Committee, I said that we should be putting down a Government Amendment which would have the effect of preserving certain agreements and arrangements relating to immunity from jurisdiction and customs exemption. Before moving the Amendment, I should like to say something in explanation of it. Although the purpose of the Vienna Convention is to codify International Law on diplomatic privileges and immunities, it includes provision in Article 47(2)(b) by which it is open to the parties, by custom or agreement, to confer privileges and immunities beyond those laid down in the Convention. It would have been in accordance with this provision not
1130
only to preserve the present special arrangements for some States, but also to grant special treatment by agreement in the future. In theory, on this basis, we might give complete immunity to all members of the staff of a mission, and continue customs exemption to all; we might remove the exceptions to the immunity from jurisdiction under Article 31 and so on. But in the Bill there is no power to give effect to Article 47(2)(b). In other words, the Bill applies the Convention as it stands, and accepts it as containing all that is needed in the way of privileges and immunities.
This has been a difficult decision to take. Originally, we had intended to include a general power to make agreements going beyond the Convention. After careful consideration, we have concluded that the Convention should in principle be taken as being the last word on the matters with which it deals, and that such reductions in privileges and immunities as it entails should be accepted. But, as I said on the previous stage, in two respects, we cannot accept the Convention as it stands; and these are dealt with in the new clause. The effect of the clause is extremely limited. It relates only to existing agreements and arrangements. There is no question of our setting out to conclude any further arrangements.
The clause relates to two matters. The first is the immunity from jurisdiction and from arrest or detention and the inviolability of residence of persons connected with a mission other than members of the diplomatic staff. At present, all members of a mission, their families and certain private servants enjoy complete immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction under United Kingdom law. However, under the Diplomatic Immunities (Restriction) Act, 1955, provision was made for withdrawing certain immunities from persons connected with a mission of a country which was not according the same immunities to our representatives to it. As a consequence of the 1955 Act, Her Majesty's Government took steps to discover the immunity position in foreign countries, and in 1956 an Order in Council was made under the 1955 Act withdrawing immunities to a greater or lesser degree from persons connected with certain missions in London. A few foreign countries themselves had a rule of reciprocity in the

1131
matter of diplomatic privileges and immunities, and it was possible to come to an understanding with those countries that the complete immunity should be recognised on a reciprocal basis. On this basis, certain countries either were not included in, or were deleted from, the 1956 Restriction Order.
I have already dealt more than once during the passage of the Bill with the security aspect of the immunity from jurisdiction or persons connected with our missions abroad. I am sure that I need not labour the point to your Lordships. I will merely say that, from this point of view, the vital thing is to be able to assure the persons concerned, in particular sensitive countries, that in no circumstances whatsoever can they be made subject to legal process or proceedings against the wish of the head of mission. What we are proposing in the Amendment is to maintain the complete immunity from jurisdiction of persons connected with a mission in those cases where we already have an arrangement to that effect with a foreign country. On the face of it, this may seem to be a major exception to the policy which I have described of accepting the Convention as it stands. In fact, however, so far as we can tell at present, the provision will probably not apply to more than four States. Understandably, it so happens that these are States where the immunity is needed.
The new clause also deals with the customs exemptions of non-diplomatic staff. Under the Convention and the Bill, diplomatic staff enjoy customs exemption throughout their tour of duty. Administrative and technical staff enjoy exemption only in respect of articles which they import at the time when they first take up their post. At present, customs exemptions arc based on reciprocity, and in the case of non-diplomatic staff do not continue throughout their tour of duty unless there is a specific arrangement with the foreign country concerned to that effect. We have such arrangements with a number of countries. These arrangements cannot simply be terminated by us at will. As and when the States concerned become parties to the Vienna Convention, we may well be able to negotiate their termination.
It may perhaps help your Lordships
1132
if I add a few words of explanation about subsection (2) of the new clause. The purpose of this subsection is to enable public identification of the States to which the provisions of subsection (1) will apply. The States will, of course, be only those with which we already have special agreements or arrangements. The subsection will also enable States to be removed from the list when particular agreements or arrangements come to an end. As I have said, no new agreements will be possible, and we hope that circumstances may allow at least some of them to disappear in course of time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that at least this Amendment is intelligible and he has explained it fully. As I understand him, this applies to four States with whom we have existing agreements, and the purpose of this Amendment is to give wider immunity to diplomatic agents and their staff than would be available under the Vienna Convention.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it applies to four States with regard to subsection (a), and nine States with regard to subsection (b).
LORD SILKIN: I will not ask the noble Lord for the names of the States, but I understand that they are going to be published.
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
LORD SILKIN: I was puzzled about how much wider the exemption could be. I thought that the Vienna Convention gave pretty wide exemptions from arrest, from detention, inviolability of residence, and all the rest, which it was possible to give both to diplomatic agents and, to a lesser degree, to their staff. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain what further diplomatic immunity there is. It may not be the same kind of immunity in all cases. I found it quite difficult from reading this to see how much further it was possible to go, for I thought that the Vienna Convention went almost all the way. That is on subsection (a).
In regard to subsection (b) and the exemption from Customs duties, is it

1133
really the intention to grant not only to diplomatic agents but to members of their staff—even the proverbial chauffeur —the right to import goods at will without any restriction at all, so long as they are for personal use? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what we are letting ourselves in for. I quite understand the reason behind it—that these are reciprocal arrangements which we have to honour because our people overseas are getting similar privileges.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may answer the two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would emphasise that this is not giving anything new to anybody. It is merely a continuation of something which is in force at the moment. With regard to subsection (a) in relation to the fair countries, what we are doing by this is only restoring to those people immunities which they had before the Convention. Under the Convention certain people lose some of their personal immunity. All we are doing is restoring to them file personal immunity as it was before the Convention is ratified by the passing of this Bill. It is not anything over and above the full immunities of the diplomatic agent. With regard to the noble Lord's second question, this immunity does not apply to chauffeurs. It is diplomatic privilege to such people as consuls who normally enjoy it only on first installation in their office. It is a reciprocal arrangement with other countries which we can
not abrogate unilaterally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

U.N. GENEVA CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
3.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to read the text of a Statement which is being made at about this time in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade:
"The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which opened in Geneva on March 23, ended suc-
1134
cessfully earlier to-day. The recommendations adopted by the Conference will be presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 19th Session in the Autumn.
"The recommendations adopted by the Conference include proposals for diversifying and expanding the exports of manufactures from developing countries, on access to markets for primary products, on commodity policy and proposals concerning aid for development.
"Among the latter is an important recommendation which Her Majesty's Government initiated, inviting the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development to study the feasibility of a new scheme for multilateral aid, and, if appropriate, to work out such a scheme. This would be administered under the International Development Association. It would be designed to help developing countries whose development programmes were threatened by adverse trends in their export proceeds of a nature or duration which could not be adequately dealt with by short-term balance of payments support.
"I"—
that is, my right honourable friend—
"was also able to inform the Conference of four additional measures in the field of multilateral aid. These are:
First, at a conference to be held next Autumn we shall announce an increase in our contribution to the Special Fund and the expanded programme of technical assistance for 1965.
Second, together with other Western countries we are willing to support an increase in the United Nations budget which will make possible an expansion of the activities of the United Nations Secretariat in the field of industrial development.
Third, we are willing to provide capital assistance to the African Development Bank at the appropriate time.
Fourth, we are also willing to examine sympathetically the possibility of assisting other regional

1135
development banks including the Inter-American Development Bank.
"Another important recommendation adopted concerns the future institutional arrangements for dealing with matters considered by the Conference. It recommends that the Conference should be established as an organ of the General Assembly of the United Nations, meeting at intervals of not less than three years, and that when the Conference is not in session its functions should be exercised by a trade and development board composed of 55 members representing the different groups of States participating in the Conference.
"The Conference and Board will function over broadly the same area as the Conference which has just ended; they will have power to make recommendations, but these will not be mandatory. I believe the proposed new institutions can do constructive work in many fields which are not adequately covered by existing international bodies.
"I am glad to say that, despite some last-minute difficulties, broad agreement was reached over this wide range of issues. Perhaps the most encouraging feature was that it proved possible to negotiate compromises which in general avoided resolutions being passed which stood no chance of being implemented and which would have served only to emphasise differences of interest and approach between the richer and poorer nations.
"This has been the largest and most important Conference ever held on international economic relations. Its outcome will influence the course of world affairs, political as well as economic, for a long time to come. Its failure would not only have been a set-back to the expansion of world trade; it would have been a severe disappointment to the hopes and aspirations of the developing countries. Its success can contribute to the creation of a greater prosperity in which all can share".
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the Minister for giving us this statement. There can be no doubt about
1136
the importance of the Conference which has been in session, and there is no doubt a good deal of relief in this country because, although at one point it looked like breaking down, it has not in fact broken down but, I gather from the Statement, has come to certain conclusions. The Statement today, of course, summarises some of these, but we have not got the official report of the Conference itself. That will have to be examined in fairly close detail when we get it.
It is important for us to have another look at the four points which the Government have in mind with regard to the statements to be made in the autumn. But it would probably be helpful if we knew in advance that the increased contribution which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to offer in the autumn was likely to be supported. We talk about the other nations of Western Europe, but will they include France will they include Germany and the like? No doubt we shall have to wait for further information about this. We are hoping to have a debate next Wednesday week on the matter covered by this particular Conference and the statement today, but perhaps the Minister could get in touch with us to see whether it is possible for us to have certain further details in the meantime?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I shall, of course, do my best to see what further information can be made available to the House before the debate next Wednesday week. Noble Lords will realise that my right honourable friend returned from Geneva only this afternoon, so that it has not been possible for me to get much more information than I have been able to give to the House. But in these circumstances, and as we are to debate this matter on Wednesday week, perhaps noble Lords will be prepared to leave the matter there for the time being.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in the next day or two there will be an official communiqué from the Conference itself, giving the results of the Conference? I take it that what we have just had is a personal statement by the Minister on the work—it just summarises. But surely there will be in the next day or two an

1137
official communiqué covering the results of the Conference. That is really what we should like to have before next Wednesday week.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that the resolutions of the Conference, which I understand were carried through one by one yesterday, will be available by then. But I am afraid that I am not in a position to inform your Lordships exactly what other information will be available.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, while welcoming the statement generally, I should like to ask whether the noble Lord can give an assurance that the terms of this agreement will not apply to those underdeveloped nations which have not paid their subscriptions to the United Nations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if they were represented at the Conference, and took part in the Conference, no doubt they will be represented equally in the permanent body which is to be set up and which is to have the 55 members. But I do not think that the noble Lord will expect me to say more than that on this subject.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just three questions, because I think the answers might be helpful to us in the debate which we are going to have next week? The first arises out of reports in the Press that there was agreement between the developed nations about giving 1 per cent. of their gross national product per annum in money for overseas aid. My first question is: was such an agreement reached? The second question— and it arises from a question put by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough—is whether the other Western countries, including the United States of America, have agreed to associate themselves with the scheme for compensatory finance through the International Development Association, which appears to be the most important of all these recommendations. My third question is whether the proposals for increases in multilateral aid, to which Her Majesty's Government have agreed, will mean an increase in the total amount of overseas aid which we intend to give; or whether there will be a reduction in the overseas
1138
aid to which we are already committed in other directions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I might answer the last question first, my understanding is that what is intended is that there should be an increase in aid. On the other two subjects, with your Lordships' permission I think it would be wiser to wait until we see the actual text of the resolutions. I should not like to mislead your Lordships on this subject.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the Statement, and while welcoming the recommendations that have been made, may I ask him whether he could obtain information on two other points, in addition to the many important points that have already been raised to-day, before the debate on June 24? The first is: are the Western countries referred to in the Statement prepared to waive import restrictions, tariffs and other barriers on trade, so that these other countries may export their products to the richer parts of the world? Secondly, will the provisions under this agreement comprehend the necessity for rural development especially the expansion of small farmers' operations in these territories?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the first question is a very general question. Your Lordships will understand that different countries have different approaches and different reservations to the various recommendations for the way in which access for primary products should be assured and commodity agreements should be made, so it would be quite impossible to give a general reply to that question. The second question is rather more specialised and, with respect, I would suggest that this is the kind of point that would come out more easily in the debate.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to explain the situation in respect of some matters which have been raised by a national newspaper to-day? For example, will Egypt, which has declared its intention to push us out of the Middle East and to destroy Israel, and the country that is in trouble with Malaysia—along with whom we are in battle—be treated as well as members of the British

1139
Commonwealth which are developing, or will there be a distinction in these circumstances? Are the British Commonwealth countries, including the developing countries of the British Commonwealth, to be treated not less advantageously than the countries which I have indicated?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I should say that the Statement I gave does not mention preferences, since all that could be agreed upon at the Conference was to study this matter further.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not the case that unless the study takes into account the fact that these people have not only to produce goods but to sell them in the rich markets of the world, the study will be quite valueless?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this, of course, was one of the main factors that was at the basis of all the discussions in the Conference. Again, I think that this is the kind of matter which could not be dealt with quickly in question and answer.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth mean that the question that the agreement should include Egypt or Indonesia is still a matter for further consideration, or have we agreed to treat them as, say, friendly members?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. What I tried to convey in my answer was that agreement has not been reached at all on this matter so far. The only agreement is to study the matter further.

LAW OF PROPERTY (JOINT TENANTS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ADOPTION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

TREATMENT OF OFFICERS OF CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
4.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have further considered the situation with regard to undesignated federal and territorial officers, resulting from the ending of the Central African Federation. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I hope that the House will not feel that I am being unduly importunate if I raise yet once more a matter arising from the breakup of the Central African Federation, but I feel I must bring to the notice of your Lordships the hardships—indeed, in my view, the injustices—which this settlement seems to have inflicted on undesignated civil servants, both in the Federal Service itself and in the territorial services.
I would emphasise that these undesignated officers are confined to no race: they include Europeans, Asians and Africans alike. Indeed, the Africans who were in the Federal Service are, I think, probably in the worst category of all. Designated officers, as your Lordships know, are expatriate civil servants recruited in this country for service abroad, and undesignated officers are officers who did not at the relevant moment, at the ending of the Federation, come within that definition, either because they had ceased to be expatriate members of a Colonial Service (for a reason which I will explain in a moment) or because they were locally-recruited, and therefore never had been expatriate.
First, I should like to deal, if I may, with the Federal civil servants. So far as I know, the designated do not come too badly out of the ending of the Federation, though I understand that even here there have been cases of hardship. What I personally have to say to your Lordships this afternoon is concerned with the undesignated officers of all races. Practically all of these, I feel, have had a raw deal; and, of them, the most hardly treated of all have been, in my view, those who had been expatriate civil servants up to the time when the Federation came into being in 1953. There were a number of these Colonial

1141
Service officers who at that time happened to be serving in Central Africa and were faced with the extremely difficult choice of either joining the Federal Service, with the wholehearted blessing of Her Majesty's Government, or retiring with such pension as their service entitled them to at that time, but with no compensation for loss of career—and, indeed, with a certain amount of obliquity, for think how shocked everyone would have been if they had refused to take part in this great new experiment! Indeed, in a certain number of cases—I believe in a considerable number of cases—they can hardly be said even to have had that choice. Their departments became incorporated in the Federation, and those who worked in the departments became, almost automatically, Federal officers. In effect it was a matter almost outside their control.
Yet, what is the position of these people now? If they had continued to rank as expatriates, they could have claimed a full pension based on the number of years served plus, I understand, either a lump sum compensation for loss of career or an additional pension which usually amounted to something in the nature of one-third of their earned pension. But, because these people elected to try to make a success of the newly-established Federation, what is their situation today? They are undesignated—as it were, untouchables. They get no lump sum compensation at all for loss of careers; they get only their earned pension plus one-third if they are not offered re-employment by one of the territorial Governments, and only their earned pension with no addition at all of any kind if they are offered such employment and do not feel able to accept the offer.
There are also, of course, many cases of undesignated officers who were recruited locally. It might be argued that their case was not so hard, for they never have had expatriate status; but they are all men who joined the civil service of the Federation at a time when they had no reason to suppose they were not undertaking work which was greatly to the public interest and likely to last the remainder of their lives. And yet now, unless they undertake to accept employment under the new African Government,
1142
in circumstances where they will have no comparable security at all, many, through no fault of their own, but purely by reason of a change of policy by Her Majesty's Government here, suddenly find themselves, as it were, thrown on the scrapheap at an age when it is often very difficult to find new employment. One cannot think of their bleak future without a feeling of deep distress. So much, my Lords, for the Federal officers. Nor is the position of the undesignated officers who have been serving territorial Governments, and who find it impossible to continue their work under conditions where they have far less security of employment than before, a very rosy one, for they, too, had jobs which they had every reason to believe were blessed and sustained by Her Majesty's Government and which, they equally had every reason to believe, would last their lifetime. Now they find that that secure ground is cut from under their feet.
I recognise that some of your Lordships may feel that in what I have said I have overstated the case, and that the position is not all that bad. These unhappy people, it may be pointed out, might have got nothing at all, whereas Her Majesty's Government have at any rate remembered them in the settlement which they made. But I should like to give the House, if I may, one or two examples of how these terms actually work out in practice. I should make it clear that the cases I am going to quote relate to ex-Federal officers, though there are no doubt cases of comparable hardship in the territorial services.
First I should like to give the case of a man aged 45. He had been in the Department of Agriculture, and receiving a salary of £1,650 a year. He was married, with four children, and had a housing bond of £4,000 on his shoulders. He gets a pension, my Lords, of £256 a year. Now I give your Lordships a second instance. It is of a man aged 54, with thirty years' experience in a hydrographic survey. He, too, is married, and he has a housing bond of £2,000. He was getting a salary of £1,700 a year; he now has a pension of only £278 a year. Finally, I should like to give a case where the officer in question appears to be an African, not a European. This officer had been employed in the Customs; he had nineteen years' service,

1143
and his salary with the Government had been £828 a year. He is married and he has eight children. He gets a pension of £68 a year.
Even if these officers do make a great effort and try to get a job under the new, independent Governments, their situation is not really very much better. I have here the case of a man who, by his name, is probably an Indian, who tried to get such a job. He had been employed under the Federal Ministry of Education, and had fourteen years' service. He was earning a salary of £1,290 a year. He got in touch with the Nyasaland Government, and what was he offered? A purely temporary post at £512 a year. Nor, my Lords, are these unique cases. I could quote your Lordships many more cases of Europeans, Asians and Africans. The examples I have given are only three typical examples of a shattering blow which has been inflicted on these unhappy people, often elderly and with very little prospect of getting another job, or at any rate a job nearly as good.
Nor are these pensioners certain that they will get even the "mingy" pensions that I have described. Her Majesty's Government have accepted no responsibility for their payment: they have passed that over entirely to the local African Governments. They have not even obtained an assurance that these pensions will be paid in sterling. In fact, it is now certain that that will not happen; and if, therefore, by the mismanagement of its affairs, one of the African Governments—and this is not impossible—found that its currency had depreciated, the real value of these small pensions would go down with it.
Why these people who have worked so hard, so long and so successfully to uphold the dignity and efficiency of British rule should be given so poor a deal I do not know. It was not so, I understand, at the end of our rule in India or, more recently, at the end of the West Indian Federation. In the case of the West Indies, when the Federation was wound up a locally-recruited—not an expatriate —officer was offered comparable employment in the territories of the Federation and received, at his option, either his full earned pension plus one-third extra, about which I spoke at the beginning, or his pension plus a lump sum in compensation.
1144
But it seems, for some reason hidden from me, that there is a different standard for Africa. Moreover, although there is a nominal provision for dealing with cases of hardship, the definition of hardship has been so stringently interpreted that, although a special commissioner has been appointed, those closely in touch with these matters tell me they know of only two cases where he has made a grant of any kind at all. Indeed. it is made clear in the form which is sent to officers that there can be no question of compensation merely for loss of office.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government may have intended to be fair in the terms given to these people; but one cannot but feel that the treatment they have had given to them has turned out in practice to be extremely shabby. What I want to ask my noble relative the Duke of Devonshire to-day is that Her Majesty's Government should, in the light of the experience now gained, at any rate give the matter further consideration. This is something that I feel I can very properly do; for in the debate which took place on December 17 last on the subject of the Order in Council for winding up the Federation, your Lordships' House showed itself—and noble Lords who were there will remember it—deeply shocked on two points. The first was the provision dealing with Federal loans and the other was the terms offered to undesignated civil servants, which is the question we are discussing this afternoon. Indeed, the feeling was so strong that I believe that, if we had asked the House to divide on that debate, the Government would have been defeated. One of the main reasons why we did not press the matter to a Division was that we had an assurance from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that if we raised the matter at a later date in the light of the practical application of the Order in Council he would see—and we were most grateful for what he said—that it would have at any rate sympathetic consideration.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess was good enough to say that he was going to mention this point and I therefore took the opportunity of looking it up. I do not think this is very important; but I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I apologise for misrepresenting the noble Lord; but he gave me reason in the speech he made at the end to think that he would consider what we had said. At least that was the impression I got; and that was one of the reasons why we did not press the matter to a Division. But I agree that it is not really of great importance.
My Lords, I have not reverted this afternoon to the question of the Federal loan; but I am afraid that everything we prophesied came true, and those who put their money into those loans trusting the good name of Her Majesty's Government have made a poor investment indeed. Perhaps we may revert to that question later. But we are definitely concerned to-day with the treatment meted out to a number of most deserving civil servants. Here, at any rate, the Government can, if they wish, still rectify to some extent what many of us must feel are injustices done to a most deserving class of people. I would most earnestly ask the noble Duke to give us some assurance this afternoon that the Government will re-examine, in the light of the facts, the terms reached with regard to these people and will report to the House the result of their re-examination. That, I am sure the House will agree, is the least they can do in a situation of this kind. I fully realise that this is a Question and not a Motion and that I have no right to reply; but I reserve the right to raise the matter again if the answer of the Government should prove to be unsatisfactory.
4.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Marquess has raised this matter again and I am quite certain that the House will agree that he was not unduly importunate in doing so, because I think we should all take the view that our responsibility for these undesignated officers of all races, the ex-Federation officers, has not ended with the finishing of the Federation last year. I do not think any noble Lord who was present at the debate on December 17 to which the noble Marquess referred is satisfied by the arrangements proposed by the Government for the payment of terminal pensions to the undesignated officers of the Federal Government.
1146
One of the many unsatisfactory features of the proposed arrangements to which the noble Marquess did not refer was that they could not be concluded during the lifetime of the Federation. This meant that many loose ends were left to be tied up after we had lost our Parliamentary and constitutional responsibility. However, I think the Government have in fact recognised that we still have continuing moral responsibility for these officers, even if we do not have continuing legal responsibility. As part evidence of this, I should like to refer to the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to write to me in January to reply to some of the points I raised in the debate in December and to bring me up to date about the position of these officers. I am still completely unconvinced by the noble and learned Lord's reasons for maintaining, as he did both here and in his letter to me, that the locally-recruited officers of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland should have been treated differently by Her Majesty's Government from the locally recruited officers of the Federation of the West Indies. I agree with the noble Marquess that this is a perfectly valid parallel.
The essential difference is this: one must remember that in the case of the West Indies those officers who were unable to get employment with the territorial Governments in the West Indies after the Federation was wound up received a lump sum in compensation; whereas in Central Africa those officers who failed to get employment with the territorial Governments in Central Africa received no compensation at all. They had only the derisory sum of one-third added to their earned pension; and to this the noble Marquess has already referred. The simplification of the situation in these two cases is surely that since both Federations were terminated by an act of policy of the British Government, the public servants who lost their employment as a result of this act of policy should have been treated in the same way. The Lord Chancellor's justification for treating these Federation officers in Central Africa quite differently from and much worse than the officers who lost their employment in the West Indies is that

1147
the Central African Governments had agreed to it. Of course those Governments agreed to it. Her Majesty's Government held the purse strings and they had to do what Her Majesty's Government insisted that they should do.
The real reason for this difference in treatment is, quite simply, that Her Majesty's Government had a different policy in the case of Central Africa from the policy they were pursuing in the case of the West Indies. It is a fact that the British civil servants who argued the Government's case about the arrangement for these terminal benefits in Salisbury had been instructed to press for no compensation. Those were the instructions they received from Her Majesty's Government. If Her Majesty's Government had taken a different attitude and tried to persuade the African Governments to agree to giving a lump sum in compensation, and had, naturally, been prepared to give a contribution to the bill, I have no doubt at all that a compensation scheme would have been worked out and accepted. The Government really cannot escape their responsibility for this mean and shabby treatment of these public servants by saying that the Governments in Central Africa were responsible.
We cannot undo the past, unfortunately, and all we can do now is to alleviate the hardship, to work for a square deal for pensioners and to join in the request of the noble Marquess for a further consideration of these financial arrangements. Of course, if there had been compensation for loss of employment there would have been no need for special arrangements to deal with hardship cases. These officers would have drawn their money as of right, instead of being placed in the humiliating position that they are now placed in, of begging from a public authority. The difference is between drawing assistance from the Post Office and appearing before a public assistance committee. I think that one of the things the Government should most regret is that they have placed these distinguished public servants in this humiliating position.
I believe that a special commissioner has been appointed by the required agency to look into these hardship cases and I should like the noble Duke to answer one or two questions about the
1148
position of the special commissioner. Can he tell us what instructions the commissioner has received in relation to his handling of these hardship cases? He must surely have had some guidance about how to deal with them. I have seen the form of application for relief to which the noble Marquess referred and which applicants have to fill in, and the particulars on this form which have to be supplied suggest that the commissioner is expected to act as a sort of Scrooge. I hope that he is not. I hope that the noble Duke, when he replies, will be able to satisfy us that that is not the case.
Of course, everyone would agree that applicants should declare their income from all sources—that is only fair and reasonable. But is it reasonable that they should have to declare the value of their vehicles—a bicycle would be a vehicle—their furniture, and other household effects? Does this inquiry really mean that the special commissioner has been instructed to carry out a stringent means test? Surely a means test that goes beyond current income and forces a man to declare his savings if he is to receive any payment, is grossly unfair. This would penalise the thrifty man, who had saved during his life as a public servant, as against the spendthrift. I think it is important that we should know what assets would be disregarded by this special commissioner in the assessment of needs and what his instructions have been in regard to that.
There are many hard cases among these ex-officers. I had intended to quote some cases, but as the noble Marquess has quoted some I will not do so, because I think that one or two examples are typical of many others. It is extremely important to people living on as little as these men are living on that they should know whether, if they applied, they would be entitled to relief. It is widely believed in Salisbury that a man would have to be starving before the commissioner would recognise hardship. I hope that this belief is entirely unfounded, but, naturally, so long as it is entertained, it deters people from putting in an application. Can the noble Duke tell us, when he replies, how small a man's income has to be, and what he is allowed for his dependants, before he qualifies for relief?

1149
Finally, there are two matters I should like to raise in connection with the pensions that these officers receive. The first was mentioned by the noble Marquess. These pensions will not be paid in sterling, which is what the officers wanted, but in local currencies. This, of course, gives the pensioners no safeguard against devaluation, and I should like the noble Duke to consider whether the Government could not at any rate give them a guarantee against financial loss in the case of the devaluation of a currency in which their pensions were paid.
My second question relating to pensions was not referred to by the noble Marquess, but I think it is just as important as maintaining the monetary value of pensions. No undertaking has been given to these pensioners about increases in their basic pensions to bung them into line with rises in the cost of living. As your Lordships will remember, this is a statutory obligation in the case of expatriate officers, or designated officers, as they are sometimes called, who are covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962. I must say that I cannot see why locally recruited officers should not be treated in the same way. The three Territorial Governments should surely be asked by Her Majesty's Government to review the basic position at regular intervals and compare it with the cost of living prevailing at the time, and if an upward adjustment is necessary then the Government should be willing to contribute, with the other Governments, towards this additional payment.
We are not asking for any great sum of money. These are all small matters of public expenditure. I am sure it is not a subject which would give any anxiety at all to any Minister responsible for the expenditure of a Government Department. But if it is generally agreed, as I believe it is, that both we and the Government have a continuing responsibility for these men, I think the Government should respond to the request of the noble Marquess for further consideration and reexamination of the financial arrangements that have been made for terminal benefits of these officers. I do not imagine that a single noble Lord will defend these arrangements. I expect that at the end of this debate it will be obvious that the whole House takes the view that these
1150
pensioners are not being fairly treated. Therefore, I hope that the noble Duke—incidentally, may I congratulate him on the honour that has just been conferred on him: we are all delighted that the noble Duke, who has worked so hard in this House, has been recognised in this way—when he takes into consideration the view of the House in the matter, will be willing, together with his right honourable friend, to reconsider this matter.
4.29 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should like to support all that my noble friend Lord Salisbury and the noble Earl opposite have said about those described in the Question as the
"undesignated federal and territorial officers of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland."
Many of these matters have been discussed at great length and in great detail in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, very little progress has been made in dealing with this most important of the human problems posed by the dissolution of the Federation. The position, when we last debated this matter on December 17, was that while Her Majesty's Government felt unable to reopen the main issues covered by the agreement between the five Governments, there were certain supplementary points on which it was understood that Her Majesty's Government might be able to meet some of the grievances of the former Federal civil servants. Then, your Lordships will remember, some further light was thrown on this matter in a letter which the noble Duke addressed to me and which appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT on January 30.
Before I attempt to deal with these and other points which have arisen subsequently, I should like to say a word about the general attitude of the British Government towards the fate of the former Federal civil servants. At the time of the Victoria Falls Conference Her Majesty's Government made it clear that they intended to deal with this matter with the greatest sympathy. Mr. Butler, then First Secretary of State, said on July 11 last:
"We shall he judged by how we solve it."
Your Lordships will also remember that he said in another place, in regard to the Federal Public Service:
"Their future is in our hands."

1151
In practice, from the very beginning the attitude of the United Kingdom civil servants on Committee A and the Civil Service sub-committee which dealt with the detailed arrangements left much to be desired. With their great knowledge on matters of compensation, they undoubtedly succeeded in forcing their views upon the representatives of the Territorial Governments and the Federal Government, who lacked their experience of these affairs. Then, I am sorry to say, at a later stage the Commonwealth Relations Office, with no doubt the Treasury firmly behind them, have shown themselves, in my judgment, to be unsympathetic and niggardly to the point of meanness.
This unjust treatment of the Federal civil servants stands out all the more sharply because at this very time the expatriate members of the Oversea Service in the two Northern territories of the Federation are being offered terms of compensation, in the form of bonuses, amounting in some cases to twenty times what they would have received had they been Federal civil servants. The justification advanced by Her Majesty's Government for this shabby treatment was that the Federal Service was recruited locally. We all know, of course, that this was not always the case, and that the Federal Civil Service included a number of officers of the former Colonial Service who, because their departments were transferred wholesale to the Federal Government, had no alternative but to go over with them. We also know that, subsequent to the establishment of the Federation, large numbers of officers, mainly in the technical categories, were recruited in Britain and elsewhere overseas. But even granting the premise that it was technically a locally recruited service, the fact remains, as my noble friend has pointed out, that in the break-up of the West Indies Federation, which is analogous, local officers who were not offered further reappointment received similar terms to the standard expatriate terms.
I have pointed out previously in your Lordships' House that in the case of the Federation, on account of its multiracial character, very special considerations apply to the European and Asian civil servants taken over by the Northern
1152
Rhodesia Government and to the African civil servants taken over by the Southern
Rhodesia Government. In the case of Southern Rhodesia I am informed that 16 African members of the staff at Harare Hospital have been dismissed after accepting permanent transfers to the Southern Rhodesia service from the Federal Ministry of Health only a few months ago. Indeed, there are strong indications that, as was repeatedly pointed out by the Federal Public Service Staff Association, the Southern Rhodesia Government had recruited more civil servants than it could afford to employ: and the fear has been expressed that there is a risk that substantial reductions in salaries may have to be made in the near future.
Furthermore, there are about 1,200 officers from the Federal Service now serving in Southern Rhodesia on a provisional basis only, and these include doctors, teachers, agriculturalists and specialists in various spheres of administration. Many of them have already left, and I am afraid that many more will be leaving in the next two to five years. Warnings were given again and again by the staff associations—warnings which were repeated in this House—that this would happen if officers, and especially the technical officers, did not receive the treatment to which they thought themselves entitled.
To turn to Northern Rhodesia, there again the position of the civil servants transferred to the Northern Rhodesia Government is also giving rise to grave problems. The conditions under which offers of employment to former Federal civil servants would be made by the Government of Northern Rhodesia were accepted by the Federal Public Service Staff Association, and also by the Federal Government, on the assumption that no policy of Africanisation would be implemented during the career of the officers concerned. The Northern Rhodesia representative on the subcommittee for the Federal Public Service in fact strongly denied that a policy of localisation—which means the recruitment of officers of Northern Rhodesian origin—in Northern Rhodesia would mean Africanisation. It was on this basis that it was agreed there should be different terms for employment in Northern Rhodesia from those in Nyasaland, where a policy of Africanisation

1153
was fully admitted from the start. The Federal civil servants now employed by the Northern Rhodesia Government find themselves faced with a wholesale policy of Africanisation. They are deeply disturbed about this, and feel that they were "double-crossed" both on the sub-committee of the Federal Public Service and on Committee A. They are now asking that each officer should be allowed to have a second chance to opt whether to accept the previous provisions of service or to take contract terms, or, in the event of his refusing, to qualify for abolition of office with the additional one-third of his earned pension.
As I have also pointed out in a previous debate, there were a number of former Federal officers, who, on transfer from Northern Rhodesia to the Federation, were paid an allowance of £240 a year for a period of fifteen years on the basis of their having purchased or built houses within the Federal area. The Territorial Governments have refused to continue comparable housing grants. This means that a number of officers who had made their personal financial arrangements on the assumption that grants would continue have been placed in great financial difficulties.
When, at the insistence of the United Kingdom representatives on the Federal Public Service Sub-Committee, the Governments concerned finally agreed there should be no lump sum compensation it was also decided that sympathetic consideration should be given to cases of hardship. Those of us who felt strongly that lump sum compensation should be given throughout, as in the case of the Oversea Civil Service, reluctantly accepted the position on the assumption that this undertaking for dealing with cases of hardship would really mean something. What has it meant in practice? A special commissioner was appointed to consider these cases. He is a chartered accountant in Salisbury, and I understand that he was expected to complete his work by the end of last month. While everyone feared that an appointment of this sort meant that there could be no general scheme of compensation for redundant officers, we all thought that at least there would be a real attempt to provide adequate compensation for those most seriously affected.
1154
As the noble Earl opposite said, the terms of the special commissioner have never been divulged. But, as has already been said, out of 40 cases submitted to him only 2 have been accepted, and each of these was for a very limited amount— in one case, it was for a temporary officer in Nyasaland, an old lady, who received two months' pay. Each of the officers applying for relief of hardship had to fill up a form which I can only describe as a degrading type of means test, which included a number of items, to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has already referred. My noble friend Lord Salisbury quoted some examples of those rejected. If you read through the list, so it continues. They are mostly people with over twelve years' service and no prospect of employment, because of age, health or for some other reason. Surely, my Lords, it is not too late for this list to be revised on a different basis which would give some greater measure of satisfaction to these unfortunate people.
In other ways, too, the former Federal public servants are being discriminated against. On March 26 this year there appeared in the Daily Telegraph an advertisement on behalf of the Civil Service for 15 posts in the Commonwealth Service of the Home Civil Service. Special age concessions were given to candidates with regular service in Her Majesty's Forces, the Oversea Civil Service or the Sudan Service, but none for the former Federal Public Service. Is there any reason why a concession of this sort, especially in Commonwealth service, should not be extended, so as to include ex-Federal officers, at any rate those who were recruited from the United Kingdom?
I have repeatedly drawn your Lordships' attention to the discrimination against the former Federal Public Service in regard to the application of the Pensions (Increases) Act, 1962. It has been stated by the Government that members of the Southern Rhodesian and Federal Public Service would not be eligible under that Act. This is perhaps understandable in the case of Southern Rhodesia which, having been self-governing for some forty years, can be expected to extend fair treatment in the matter of pensions increases based on the cost of living to its retired civil servants. But in the case of the Federal civil servants, there will be no Federal

1155
Government and no one else to make any increases; nor will there be any funds from which increases can be made. It has been argued again that because the Federal Public Service was not recruited in this country or under the authority of a Secretary of State, it could not be brought within the scope of this legislation. But, surely, my Lords, this has no validity at all, considering the fact that the Sudan civil servants, who were far more remote than the Federal civil servants and, indeed, the former Egyptian civil servants from pre-1923 were included in the Schedule to the Act. It would seem that the barest justice would demand that the Federal Public Service should at once be brought within the full purview of this Act.
I was informed recently in Salisbury that a Permanent Pensioners' Association has been formed, and has applied for affiliation to the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association in London. I hope that they will be accepted, and I hope also that they will be recognised by Her Majesty's Government as the permanent channel for representations to them in matters affecting the former Federal Service.
There are many other questions I should have liked to touch upon this afternoon, some of which have already been mentioned. The question of currency was one, and security of pensions was another. I do not wish, however, to detain your Lordships any longer. I have been deeply perturbed by the attitude of Her Majesty's Government over the past nine months in regard to the interests of the former Federal public servants. It seems to me that there has been a most conspicuous lack of generosity and fairness towards members of that Service, the dissolution of which in the last resort depended on decisions and actions of Her Majesty's Government.
It seems to me that if there ever was a time when pressure should have been brought to bear on the Treasury to go out of their way to be generous, it was surely this. Instead, there seems to have been a policy of disengagement from matters concerning the implementation of the agreement on the Federal Public Service by Her Majesty's Government. In a recent letter to the Federal Public Service for example, the Commonwealth
1156
Relations Office said that in the application of the terms of the agreement the British Government were not competent to intervene. This leaves the former Federal officers with virtually no channels of appeal in matters of interpretation of the agreement by the territorial Government or Her Majesty's Government. Surely it is a responsibility of the British Government to keep a watch on this situation and to hear appeals where necessary, at any time during the period at any rate of provisional transfer which extends up to May 31, 1969.
I trust that when my noble friend replies he will be able to satisfy us on some of these points this afternoon. I can only say that, failing that, I hope that my noble friend will put down a Motion before Parliament rises, when we shall have an opportunity of bringing the matter to a Vote and testing the feelings of the House on this sorry affair.
4.44 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I think your Lordships must have been shocked by the case histories which my noble friend Lord Salisbury gave to you at the beginning of this discussion. I think you must have been shocked and ashamed at the things that are done in your name. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in a very persuasive speech, said that after all it was no great sum of money for which we were asking. But is that not the trouble? When it is a question of spending hundreds of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, the Treasury goes remarkably quietly—it is practically a passenger. But when it is a question of squeezing out a few hundred pounds for some loyal subjects of Her Majesty, whose only crime is that they have served Her Majesty faithfully for a number of years, then the Treasury shows that it has the strength and the power that it had a generation ago.
I should like briefly to give your Lordships one more case history. It concerns a humble person, a clerk stenographer, a woman, a person of no means whatever, the kind of person with whom the Treasury delights to have a trial of strength. This lady has served the Nyasaland Government for a period of seventeen years. She is not a designated officer, although at least half a dozen in precisely the same circumstances

1157
have been designated, two of whom were not even British subjects, one being an Austrian and one a German. This lady made such representations as she could, and she received a letter from the Chief Secretary of the Nyasaland Government
saying that he was ordered by my right honourable friend the Secretary for
Technical Co-operation to reply thus:
"I am to say that you are not acceptable for designation … as you were recruited in 1947 as a temporary clerk on local temporary terms and your initial appointments in 1940 and 1947 were to temporary posts which did not enjoy expatriate terms of service and which were not posts for which the Colonial Office or the Crown Agents were a normal channel of recruitment."
In other words, there were three points outstanding against this application.
The first point was that the lady was recruited as a temporary clerk. In fact, two years after her appointment as a temporary clerk in 1947 she was confirmed as a member of the permanent Civil Service. The second point was that her original appointments were on a temporary basis which did not enjoy expatriate terms of service. Again, when she was confirmed as a permanent member of the Civil Service it was on the normal expatriate terms of service, and in fact she went on overseas leave in 1950, 1954, 1958 and 1962. Finally, it was said that it was a post for which neither the Colonial Office nor the Crown Agents were a normal channel of recruitment. In fact, the Crown Agents were the normal channel of recruitment. She was able to show that each one of those three arguments was invalid, and nobody has denied that. When I raised the matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, he did not dispute that the points on which she had beer refused were groundless. All he could say was that you had to interpret the scheme in the broad spirit that there would be hard cases, and that this was one of the hard cases. I believe that that was very shabby treatment indeed, and I think it was unjustifiable.
When he raised this Question, my noble friend dealt with the whole field of non-designated officers, Federal or belonging to any of the three Territories, and I am confining myself simply to the case of Nyasaland because it is the Territory with which I happen to be
1158
more familiar; and the case of the Nyasaland non-designated officers seems to me to have very special circumstances. There are only a dozen of these unfortunate people, and, as the noble Earl said, it would cost practically nothing to give them fair treatment. It would not, in fact, create a precedent, because, in Nyasaland, as distinct from the other two Territories, there was no locally-based service; the whole service was expatriate. So the Government could deal with Nysaland, if they wanted to, without creating a precedent anywhere else.
There is just one other point I should like to make on Nyasaland. If it had not been a constitutional development, this case of the non-designated officers would normally have gone to arbitration under the Whitley Council machinery. But Her Majesty's Government, in the new circumstances, have said that arbitration is not appropriate. This lady, of whom I have been speaking, this unhappy clerk-stenographer, a middle-aged woman with no future to look forward to and nd compensation, personally wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Dr. Banda, asking him whether, in default of Her Majesty's Government, he would not submit the matter to arbitration. She received a reply through the Prime Minister's Secretary in which he said that the Prime Minister had studied her representations and
"while he appreciates the feelings which have prompted you to address him on the matter, he feels bound to observe that, in essence, the issue is one between the officers concerned and Her Majesty's Government."
He goes on to say that
"… even if he were to agree to arbitration, such arbitration would necessarily he fruitless unless Her Majesty's Government was prepared to be a party to it and to accept the arbitrator's ruling."
So, as far as Dr. Banda is concerned, the ball is firmly in the court of Her Majesty's Government, and it seems to me that they ought to play it. But not only did Dr. Banda send that reply to the clerk-stenographer; he also asked her to go to see him; and I think that is an indication that the Prime Minister of Nyasaland is not feeling very happy about the treatment which is being accorded by Her Majesty's Government.
My Lords, I hope that the noble Duke who is going to reply in a few moments

1159
will be able to say that the Government will have another look at this which seems to me to be a really quite scandalous situation. The Government must have another look at it. If he is not able to say that, then I very much hope that my noble friend will raise the matter on another occasion when we can put it to the test.
4.55 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in company with most noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I have also been in these three Territories fairly recently, and I have come across a good many former Federal civil servants who are very closely connected with the matter we are discussing to-day. But I will not repeat, though I easily could, a further list of hard cases, because those noble Lords who have spoken have said quite enough to make it abundantly clear that there are not just a few isolated instances of shabby treatment; they are, unhappily, far too widespread. That, I think, must be
accepted by all who have listened to this debate and who have studied the question. I would rather deal with the wider aspects of the matter.
It is surely a question essentially of what is just, fair and decent treatment. Here we have a group of men and women, Europeans and Africans, high and low-level civil servants, clerks and stenographers, male nurses, hospital orderlies, people of that kind, who, when federation started, for one reason or another decided that they would work for the Federation. Some of them went into the Federal Civil Service because, in fact, there was no other job for them to do. Others went in because there were certain opportunities for promotion, and very many went in because they really believed that this offered the solution to the problems of the countries where they had made their homes, where some of them had been born and to which some had gone out from this country. In other words, they went there to do a job which was considered important, which our Government
in this country also considered important and which they were doing their best to make a success. For reasons into which we need not go that venture has failed.
The question, quite simply, is: is there any moral, not legal, obligation, upon
1160
the Government and the people of this country to treat those men and women who tried to make a "go" of things fairly, generously or legalistically? It is not a question of putting the blame on the Treasury in this country. It is quite right, of course, for the Treasury to do its best to minimise the burden on the British taxpayer and to keep a very close eye on the expenditure of all Departments. So it would be wrong for us to think that this is purely a Treasury matter. It is a matter involving the goodwill of the Government and their desire to do the right thing to people who we all admit are being shabbily treated and who we all admit have done their best to do a good job, whether it was at high level or low level.
We often talk about the impersonal-ness of the Civil Service as a whole; how it operates by precedent; how it is afraid of doing anything new; how it is bound by rules. It is right that it should be bound by rules; it is right that it should be frightened of creating precedents. It is not the job of the Civil Service or the Treasury to create precedents or to embark on an action which is going to open the door wide to all sorts of expenditure in the years to come. But it is the job of the members of this Government from time to time, when the occasion warrants it, to say to the civil servants: "We agree that this is a dangerous thing, that this may create a precedent; but, in the interests of justice, fair dealing and the good name of this country, we are going to do it, knowing full well what we are doing." There is no mistake about that.
Surely, what should guide Her Majesty's Government in this matter is to make use of the same standards of behaviour that any member of Her Majesty's Government would use in his own business and in his own private affairs. I suggest to noble Lords and to the noble Duke opposite that if any of Her Majesty's Ministers in his personal capacity were confronted with the situation where he had been instrumental in bringing about a merger of three considerable businesses and had persuaded some of the executives in them at various levels to give up their jobs, their pension rights, and their prospects with the businesses they had been with all their lives and join the

1161
larger consortium because it was going to be good for the group that that should be done, and then some ten or twelve years later the consortium failed, went bankrupt, he would not wash his hands of his responsibility towards those people whom he had persuaded to go into that bankrupt business. He would not say, "We will leave it to the accountants, leave it to somebody else to work out what compensation should be paid". Of course, that would not happen. Of course, the individual members of the Government would feel personally responsible for the people they had personally persuaded to change jobs and would do all in their power to see they were not sufferers from having listened to that advice ten years ago.
And this is all we are asking Her Majesty's Government to do to-day. We are asking them to undertake the responsibility for the wellbeing of these people, of whom we have heard only a minute proportion of examples out of the total, so that they will not be the sufferers. And I can assure Her Majesty's Government that if they were to do this there would be no outcry whatsover from the country that taxpayers' money was being squandered; there would be a feeling of great relief that for once this country was acting in an honourable—not generous, but honourable—manner towards these people who had served us well and who, through no fault of their own, were being thrown out with pitiable pensions and very often no prospects at an age when it is impossible to get any other job.
I will not detain your Lordships longer. Enough has been said already to show that this case is one of the strongest which has been put forward to the Government for a very long time, and the sums of money involved are not astronomical at all; they are well within the competence of the Government to deal with speedily. All I would do is to echo the hopes expressed by other noble Lords who have spoken. While I very warmly congratulate the noble Duke on his new and very well-deserved honour, I express the hope that the fact that he has received this honour, which is an indication of the esteem in which he is quite rightly held, will add to the weight of his personal voice in these matters, which I am sure
1162
will be on the side of righteousness, and that he will be able, having listened to these arguments, even if he was not already convinced, to persuade his colleagues in the Government to think once more about this matter, and before it is too late prevent this wrong from being done to this large number of deserving cases who are dependent upon nobody at this stage other than Her Majesty's Government.
5.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am quite certain that all of us who have listened to this debate have been extremely impressed, and indeed moved, not only by the eloquence but by the burning conviction of Members of this House who have spoken on this matter. I have also been greatly struck by the fact that this criticism has come from all parts of the House. When I think of what some noble Lords have said, and the fact that their remarks have been agreed to by noble Lords from the other side of the House; and when I recall the radical differences of opinion on the future of the territory of Central Africa, I can but feel that the suggested adversity of some of the undesignated former officers of Central Africa has certainly made strange bedfellows this afternoon.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What does that mean?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It means that people who differ radically on how the future of Central Africa should be conducted are agreed on this point.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, this is the second time to-day—the other occasion concerned the Leader of the House, I think—that a Minister has rebuked two Members sitting on opposite sides of the House because they agree about something that is not of a Party political character. Is there something offensive about noble Lords on opposite sides agreeing?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene, since the noble Lord mentioned my name. I am beginning to wonder what has happened to his sense of humour.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, perhaps the noble Duke will excuse my interrupting, as he has been interrupted already. I would point out that ever since India became independent both Parties have taken an equally responsible, and I think equally wise and generous, view of the deserts of British servants overseas.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would certainly agree, and I would beg the House's pardon. In what is perhaps not an easy undertaking this afternoon, I was only making a remark that this was the case; and if I distressed the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition I am sorry, but it seemed a point worth making.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hearing us called strange bedfellows I remarked on the strangeness of the language used.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I will, if I may, deal first with the officers who have served only in one of the three territories and then go on to discuss the position of the ex-Federal officers. In Northern Rhodesia there are approximately 800 overseas officers who have not been designated under the Oversea Service Aid Scheme, which is administered by the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. The reason is this. The definition of eligibility for designation under the Oversea Service Aid Scheme, which has been agreed with the Northern Rhodesian Government, is based on the two concepts of overseas status and recruitment through one of the recognised channels for Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service. The officers in Northern Rhodesia who have not been designated have thus failed to qualify under one of those two criteria. In many cases they have been officers locally recruited to posts for which the Secretary of State or the Crown Agents have not been a normal channel of recruitment, and in other cases we have had to regard them as local officers who could not satisfy the test for classification as an overseas officer.
Much as the Secretary for Technical Co-operation regrets the need to refuse designation to many officers of British origin serving in Northern Rhodesia, it should he borne in mind that the Aid Scheme was designed only for those officers for whom the British Govern-
1164
ment have over a number of years accepted special responsibilities as members of the Oversea Civil Service, and for contract officers recruited in the same way.
It has been made clear on a number of occasions that the British Government cannot acknowledge a direct responsibility for these non-designated officers comparable to that they have accepted in relation to members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service, and that their terms of service are not the Secretary of State's direct responsibility. The question of any improvement of their terminal benefits lies, therefore, with the Northern Rhodesian Government. There is no possibility of designation for this whole group of officers; but individual officers' cases will continue to be carefully examined by the Department for Technical Co-operation.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I intervene? We understand, of course, about the entry into the Colonial Service in the past and the basis of qualification that would be required for designation. But surely there must be many cases among the people now concerned who have been appointed because you could not get other people to do the work through these designated channels, and who have been serving right the way through. Surely, on the basis of ordinary contract between employer and employee, in such circumstances there ought to be some humanity in the relationships now handed out to them.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's point, but Her Majesty's Government have taken the view, and remain in the view, that the distinction must be drawn between designated and undesignated officers. The Northern Rhodesian Government have, however, shown an awareness of the position of these officers by introducing last January a special scheme under which they can now leave with earned pension, which becomes payable at once. Formerly these officers would have forfeited all pension rights if they had retired prematurely. In addition, if they either extend their service by another two years or alternatively are displaced in favour of local officers their pension is increased by one-third. And then they may compute part

1165
of their pension at a higher rate than obtained before.
The representatives of the non-designated officers have from time to time sought to have this scheme improved, and the matter was recently considered by a special Whitley committee, which agreed to recommend an improved scheme which would include an element of lump sum compensation. The Northern Rhodesian Government did not accept this recommendation, and the staff association has subsequently declared a dispute with the Government, who have now agreed to the appointment of a conciliator to try to bring the two parties together.
There are also a number of expatriate officers serving on local terms, who have voluntarily opted in the past to take these terms, and thus given up any link with the Secretary of State. The Northern Rhodesia Government have recently announced their decision to accept a policy of Africanisation in place of the previous localisation policy; and they have also decided that the officers who opted for local terms may now be allowed to give them up and so become eligible to retire on the same terms as in the non-designated officers' scheme which I have already described.
I come now to my noble friend Lord Coleraine. My figures are that in Nyasaland there are 16, as opposed to 12, pensionable non-designated officers, and the Nyasaland Government has introduced a scheme which allows them to retire at any time on earned pension. If they are required to retire they are eligible for abolition-of-office terms, which are broadly similar to the terms being given to the Northern Rhodesia officers. With all respect to my noble friend, I think it would be difficult to take Nyasaland in isolation from Northern Rhodesia. I take the point, but I still think it would be extremely difficult to regard Nyasaland in isolation from the other territories.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I accept that. Then the answer would seem to be: treat them all alike, treat them more generously.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the Southern Rhodesia service is a wholly local service and is not within
1166
the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, so no question of designation arises.
I turn now to the position of ex-Federal officers whose terminal benefits are provided for in the Dissolution Order in Council on terms agreed between the Federal and the territorial Governments in Central Africa and the British Government. These benefits took account of the fact that as the terms of service of the Federal Public Service admitted no connection with any country outside the Federation, no question therefore arose of accepting Federal civil servants as members of Her Majesty's Government's Oversea Civil Service, or providing them on designation with the benefits of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. As I said in the debate on December 17 of last year [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 254 (No. 19), col. 121]:
"These arrangements were formulated after most careful and exhaustive discussion in Committee, and in the view of Her Majesty's Government constitute a fair and equitable balancing of all the complicated factors which had to be taken into account. They were agreed and accepted in full by all the Governments concerned—that is, by the Federal Government, as well as by the three territorial Governments and by Her Majesty's Government."
My noble friend Lord Colyton raised the matter of hardship cases. As the noble Lord will know, the Federal Public Service Association, before dissolution, submitted proposals which had the support of the Federal Government that, to give effect to the undertaking of the Governments concerned to give sympathetic consideration to cases of hardship among officers to whom no offer of further employment was made, there should be a general scheme of compensation over and above the terminal benefits for the public service provided for in the Dissolution Order. The territorial Governments and the British Government carefully considered these proposals, but took the view that a scheme of this nature would go beyond the intention of their earlier undertaking and would involve reopening the principles of the agreement on terminal benefits already reached. The Governments did agree, however, that there should be a scheme for the relief of individual cases of hardship among redundant Federal officers, and that the responsibility for this scheme should be placed on the Liquidating Agency as the competent body for making actual payments.

1167
The special commissioner for the consideration of hardship cases was appointed by the Agency and is responsible to it. His terms of reference and method of work are entirely matters for the Agency which, as my noble friend will know, consists of representatives of the three territorial Governments. Again, my figures are not quite the same as those that have been quoted on hardship cases. I understand that 28 applications for assistance have been received; five have been accepted; 21 rejected, and two are under consideration. I think we should consider these figures against the background that, out of a total of 35,000 former Federal officers in employment, 400 established officers were not offered employment by the Federal Governments; and in those circumstances 28 applications for hardship grants is not perhaps as unsatisfactory as might be considered if you take in isolation the figures of applicants applying and of applications being granted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, might I ask the noble Duke a question? Neither he nor the Government have given the terms of reference of the investigator. Of course, within the limitations placed upon him it may be that he has done his best. But it might not be possible for him to take account of many of those factors which to most of us are relevant. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to issue the terms of reference that have been given to the investigator.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he is in a position to answer my question, about what the special commissioner regards as a living wage? Does a man, or his family, have to be starving before he can get any help? If that is the view, as I believe it is in Salisbury, obviously a great many people who are entitled to help are not asking for it. Can he give any idea of what is regarded as being a living or a minimum wage, below which anybody would be entitled to help from the special commissioner?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as I have said, this is a matter for the commissioner appointed by the Liquidating Agency. I cannot give the
1168
House his terms of reference, but I have no reason to suppose that he is an inhuman man.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Nobody is suggesting that he is an inhuman man. I am sure that the last thing anybody in the House would like is for the special commissioner, or anybody in his office, to feel that we think that he is behaving in an inhuman way. All we want to know is what rules are being applied, and whether those rules can be regarded as equitable and fair.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point. It is a question of how hardship is assessed. I can only repeat the figures that I have given, that, of the cases remitted to the commissioner, by no means all have been refused. I agree that it is far from totally convincing, but it is evident that what the commissioner regards as hardship is reasonable. If I were asked to define what is "hardship", my reply would be that it is difficult to do so, as I am sure the noble Earl would agree. But it is for the Liquidating Agency to appoint the commissioner, and it is for the commissioner to decide. I think I can go no further than that.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask why we cannot have the terms of reference?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not the terms of reference with me; but I will certainly obtain them and let both noble Earls have them.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I know that it is unfair to press the noble Duke for details that he has not with him at the moment; but surely it is impossible for the House to come to a determination as to whether or not these people are being fairly treated without knowing what are the rules which are being applied and the terms which are being applied. It is true that that may not be a matter for Her Majesty's Government—I think most likely it is not: it may be a matter which has been settled by the Liquidating Agency. But surely it is impossible for the House to come to a conclusion as to whether we are dealing fairly with these people—in equity, not in law—unless we know what the conditions are. Would it not be possible, without now pressing

1169
the noble Duke for details that he does not have, for him to put in the Library, so that we can all see them, a statement of the conditions which this Liquidating Agency has laid down for the gentleman who has to assess the applications for compensation? Without such information, it seems to me, nobody could come to any conclusion as to whether or not this is fair.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI will readily give the House an undertaking to get as full information as possible from Salisbury as to the terms of reference for the commissioner who is to inquire into cases of hardship and the yardsticks by which he is to assess when a case is one of genuine hardship and when it is not. I will make the information available to the House as soon as I possibly can.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Duke also give an undertaking that there will be an extension of the period during which people can apply? I have been given to understand that it ran to the end of May. if there have been only 26 applications out of many hundreds, there ought to be an extension of the period to enable others to come forward, for I am sure that they exist.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is an undertaking which I cannot give, because the last word is not with the British Government. But no doubt this debate will be read by all those concerned, and the remarks of my noble friend will be duly noted. It would be wrong for me to say that I will give an undertaking that this will be done, because I have not the authority to say so.
I should like now to turn to the eligibility of ex-Federal officers for Home Civil Service competitions. It has been agreed that such officers who were previously members of H.M.O.C.S. and who subsequently transferred to the service of the Federal Government should be allowed the same concessions for entry as other ex-members of H.M.O.C.S. It is not possible to extend these concessions to Federal officers without previous H.M.O.C.S. service, since, as I have already said, the terms of service of the Federal Public Service admitted no connection with any country outside the Federation and the concessions are limited to those overseas officers for
1170
whose recruitment the British Government were originally responsible.
Representations have been received from the Federal Public Service Association to the effect that, since the Northern Rhodesian Government has now announced a policy of Africanisation, and thus moved away from the former policy of localisation which was in force when these people exercised their option whether or not to join the Northern Rhodesia service, they should be given the opportunity to reconsider their choice of option. My noble friend Lord Colyton made this point. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Northern Rhodesia Government on this matter, but I am not in a position to say anything further to-day than that discussions are going on. I should, perhaps, draw attention to the fact that, under their present conditions of service, these officers already have the right to retire after two years' territorial service with their pensions increased by as much as one-third.
My noble friend Lord Colyton raised a number of further matters relating to the general Public Service settlement. It is not possible at this stage to reopen these matters, already agreed between five Governments, but I might usefully say a few words in further explanation on a number of them. As your Lordships have noted, the three territorial Governments and the British Government have now entered into a Public Officers Agreement, to-day published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 2387). In this Agreement the Governments undertake not to alter to the detriment of any ex-Federal officer the pensions and terminal benefits laid down by the Dissolution Order and to maintain the arrangements for the Pension Fund, the Pension Agency and the Trustees of the Fund. The Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations have been appointed as Trustees of the Fund.
Clause 5 of the Agreement expresses the accepted obligation of the Governments to make good in agreed proportion any actuarial deficit in the Pension Fund to the extent necessary to meet the terminal benefits. Clauses 6 to 8 provide for
the Currency Option which all the Governments have agreed should be available to pensioners when separate territorial currencies come into operation.

1171
This was raised by my noble friend Lord Colyton. In view of the local character of the Federal Public Service and the nature of the Fund from which pensions will be payable the Governments did not feel able to accept the proposal that pensions should be calculated and paid in sterling. In Clauses 5(6) and 8(2) the Governments undertake not to place exchange control or other restrictions on remittances either to the Fund itself or to individual pensioners. Clauses 9 and 10 provide for the taxation arrangements which will be applied by the
Governments to pension payments and for the scheduling by the three territories of pensionable service with other Governments, so that arrangements can he made for calculating mixed pensions from all the Governments concerned when the officers retire. Finally, as regards pensions increases the British Government have carefully considered the suggestion that Federal pensions should be brought under the United Kingdom Pensions (Increases) Act, 1962.
This Act provides for the payment of pension supplements to officers of H.M.O.C.S. and certain other persons, such as members of the Sudan Political Service, for whose recruitment the British Government was responsible. The position of ex-Federal officers is basically different, since they were
recruited by their own Government, as members of a locally based service, and not by or on behalf of a Secretary of State. Moreover for the British Government, unilaterally, to provide for payments to ex-Federal officers under the Act would be inconsistent with the agreement reached on this matter between the Governments concerned.
Former members of H.M.O.C.S. transferred to the Federal Service will, however, be eligible for pension supplements in respect of that part of their final pension deriving from service in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland or any other overseas territory scheduled in the Overseas Service (Pensions Supplements) Regulations, 1963.
I think it was my noble kinsman Lord Salisbury who raised the point of Her Majesty's oversea civil servants who joined the Federal Service. This was carefully considered in the inter-govern-
1172
mental Committee last December before dissolution, but it was concluded that it was not possible to differentiate in regard to terminal benefits between those people and other members of the same Service.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I was not present at that Committee, but, as I understand their reasons, they were that once you drew a sub-distinction between two different members of the same Service you got yourself involved in a greater degree of inequality than you would do if you maintained them as one Service.
The position of ex-Federal officers is basically different, since they were recruited by their own Government as members of a locally-based service. Former members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service transferred to the Federal Service will, however, be eligible for pension supplements in respect of that part of their final pension. The Territorial Governments have accepted—and their acceptance is embodied in Clause 11 of the Agreement—that they will give the same general consideration to the interests of Federal pensioners as they give to the interests of their own pensioners. I think we should draw full significance from that.
Having listened with great interest to the debate, I am aware that much of what
I have said will be unsympathetically received by those who have taken part in
the debate, and possibly by those who have listened to it. This matter was gone into very fully by a Committee of all five Governments last December, and I am afraid I cannot accept (I am not sure which noble Lord said it, but it was said during the course of the debate) that the Britain Government told their representatives exactly what to say. I think that less than justice is being done. This Committee, represented by very distinguished civil servants, discussed the matter fully and frankly, and these are the conclusions which they have come to as being just and right. It would not be fair to cast Her Majesty's Government as the complete villains of the piece.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I was responsible for that remark, and I suggest to the noble Duke that, on

1173
reconsideration, he would agree that the Government must take responsibility for the actions and words of civil servants.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I would certainly do that, but what I intended to imply was that we were only one of five delegations. All five delegations were in agreement on it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am suggesting that the Government instructed their own civil servants. I am not suggesting that they instructed the civil servants of other Governments.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I must have misled the noble Earl. I was saying that we did not rule the whole roost at the conference. We were one delegation among five.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, the noble Duke said that all five Governments were in agreement on this matter. Does he really maintain that if the British Government had accepted the responsibility for its own people the other four Governments would have objected? That does not seem to me to be probable.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as I say, I was not myself present at the Conference, but we were one delegation among five. I can only repeat what I have said: that these conclusions were unanimously agreed to by all five delegations.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, the noble Duke has had a great many interruptions, but may I ask him about two points on which I did touch? One concerned the question of the advertisements for the British Civil Service, and whether it would not be possible to extend to the ex-Federal public servants the same age concessions as are extended to other members of the Oversea Civil Service? The other point is the question of housing allowances for the ex-Northern Rhodesian Federal civil servants.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to look at the first point, and perhaps I could correspond with my noble friend. On housing, I have made inquiries during the course of the debate to clear up this point, and I can say that it was put to the Territorial Governments at the Conference but
1174
received very strong opposition from the Territories, particularly from Southern Rhodesia, who did not want to make this a precedent condition.
LORD COLYTON: It referred only to the Northern Rhodesia officers, as I understand it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think that other Territories thought that if a concession of this kind were made it would make a precedent for this case. But the reason why it was not taken up was because of opposition from the Territorial Governments.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry to prolong the interruptions of the noble Duke. I think he has done his best to reply in the debate. But would he not agree that the circumstances in the case which the noble Marquess has raised today have no real precedent in the case of many of the countries for which we have agreed to independence in the last two or three decades, and that it therefore needs to be treated on a somewhat different basis? In almost every case that I remember there has been an ad hoc Government remaining for the ad hoc territory which has been given independence. Perhaps the biggest difference was the division of Pakistan from India; but, nevertheless, there were two Governments there, of native capacity, dealing with the whole territory then getting independence.
Here is a different situation. Here is a territory set up by the British Government, not in every case on a basis accepted by the constituent members of the territory to be set up, but set up by British Statute, in order that there may be a Territorial Government of that country. That Government was brought to an end by a decision of the British Government after certain troubles had arisen therein. Surely, on that basis they have an overwhelmingly greater responsibility for ensuring justice for the civil servants concerned than even there was in the previous cases which had mostly been settled so satisfactorily. Therefore, I think the noble Marquess has been absolutely right in raising the points which he has done, and I wish the noble Duke could assure us that the Government have a greater appreciation

1175
of their responsibility in this matter, and could say whether or not their general financial proposals were sufficient in the light of the matters now being proceeded with.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should very much like to be able to reassure the noble Earl, but I can only repeat what I have said. Her Majesty's Government have given this matter long and repeated consideration, and they believe that the conclusions to which they have come and the agreement that has now been signed to-day, and which can be read in the White Paper to which I alluded, are just. This is not a snap decision—we have given it long and anxious thought—and all the many long and complicated factors involved in it have been given full weight and full consideration. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government can see no reason to reconsider their decision.
EARL DELA WARR: My Lords, may I reassure your Lordships that I do not have the slightest intention of prolonging this debate? I came into the House not intending to speak, and having heard
1176
much of the case that was put to the Government I could not conceive that we should not get a satisfactory reply. There really seemed nothing more to say. I should just like to express profound sympathy, which I believe many of your Lordships will share, for the noble Duke in being sent into your Lordships' House with so miserable a case to present to us. I can only tell him, and other members of Her Majesty's Government here, that not only I but, I believe, many of your Lordships have found it most profoundly unconvincing, and I sincerely trust that the noble Marquess will take this matter further and will put down a Motion so that it will be possible for your Lordships to give expression to your feelings.

ISLE OF WIGHT RIVER AND WATER AUTHORITY BILL NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before six o'clock.