Lords Sitting of 16 December 1965

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

RHODESIAN CONSTITUTION
2.36 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the additional clauses they propose to add to the Rhodesian 1961 Constitution, and what is the reason for the delay in making known these clauses.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to amendments which might be required to be made to the 1961 Constitution in order to enable Rhodesia to proceed towards constitutional independence, that can be considered only when constitutional government has been re-established.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he does not realise that, unless the Government state what are the amendments that we require in the 1961 Constitution, the vast majority of people in Rhodesia believe that there is no alternative between supporting U.D.I. and unconditional surrender? Surely that is not the result the Government desire.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Earl means by "the vast majority of people in Rhodesia". We have no evidence to suggest that the vast majority are thinking along the lines he indicates. With regard to the Amendment which would be required, as I understood him to say, in the event of a return to a constitutional position as a dependent Territory, I think my right honour-
812
able friend the Prime Minister made the position clear in the statement which he made last Friday.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord. Certainly his information may be different from mine; but is he aware that a vast number of white Rhodesians who were strongly opposed to U.D.I. have now got into the hopeless state of mind that there is no choice between unconditional surrender and supporting U.D.I.? Do the Government not realise that to call for an unconditional return makes it almost impossible to get the negotiations going which the Prime Minister said he wished to get started?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again I am not quite sure what the noble Earl means by "unconditional surrender". If he means that the régime in Rhodesia, which is an illegal régime, must unconditionally return to constitutional government, then surely this is something upon which we are all agreed on both sides of the House.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, again I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but this matter is so serious and the time is so short. Is the position of the Government this; that by "return to constitutional government" they mean that a sufficient number of people in Rhodesia should say that they are willing to work the 1961 Constitution and go hack to the status quo as it was before the negotiations were broken off? Is that the position of the Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what is required, in the first place, is that the régime now illegally holding the machinery of power must unconditionally give up that machinery. That is quite clear. The position then would be as the Prime Minister indicated: that there must be an interim period in which there would be direct rule by the Governor, supported possibly by responsible people in Rhodesia, during which time the details of any constitutional changes can be discussed.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, is that not in fact unconditional surrender?
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer

813
to me, I have read what the Prime Minister has said in another place and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is basing his reply on the five principles
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am basing my reply upon the Statement which the Prime Minister made in another place, but in the course of that Statement he said that once a constitutional Government is re-established in Rhodesia, it will be necessary to sort out, as he put it, in the period of direct rule, amendments on the basis of the five principles.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government a question—although I am by no means an expert on Rhodesia—simply as a psychological problem, in which Her Majesty's Government have probably had more experience in the past than anyone else? We are here in the position of a strike. Do Her Majesty's Government think that the people in Rhodesia are less determined and less persistent than those who carried on a strike in this country in the past, probably for years and years, and won admiration, rightly or wrongly, for the way in which they held out? And do not Her Majesty's Government think that it would be psychologically advisable to make some sort of terms for ending the strike which might be acceptable to the strikers?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I believe that on both sides of the House there will be some sympathy with what the noble Lord has just said. It would be useful if one could precisely say what the terms are, but it depends in part on the circumstances under which Smith and his régime—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Mr. Smith.
LORD BESWICK: —give up the power that they illegally hold.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to trespass on the House, because we have Rules and we must not ask too many supplementary questions; but I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. Does what he said mean that in no circumstances will the Government negotiate about Rhodesia, with Mr. Smith or without Mr. Smith, until Mr. Smith has left office?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that that will possibly arise under the
814
next Question, but what I can make quite clear is that Her Majesty's Government cannot negotiate with the present illegal Government in Rhodesia.

RHODESIA: MINISTERS' STATEMENTS
2.43 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to reconcile the statement made on December 7 by the Lord Chancellor in this House that the Government would be prepared to consider proposals from Mr. Smith with that of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on the same day in another place that the Government could not deal with Mr. Smith in any way.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, as I pointed out to the House, there are two separate Rhodesian problems, the short-term problem and the long-term problem. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was speaking in one context and I in the other. In the Daily Mirror interview my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had said that it was open to Mr. Smith to make representations to the Governor and that we should consider any such representations received from the Governor, and in the debate I said:
"The question has been raised: Would Mr. Smith be able to make a proposal? Certainly. It is open to Mr. Smith, now, to put before the Governor any proposals which he has to make, and any proposals which he makes will be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government ".
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could give me clarification of two other points. First, does Her Majesty's Government consider that the excuses and explanations that have been made here and in another place will only make the people of Rhodesia view Her Majesty's Government with even greater mistrust and make the chance of negotiations even more difficult to obtain? Secondly, do they consider outbursts and personal remarks such as "small

815
frightened men", "not to be trusted", "liar", from Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers in keeping with their high office, and that they can materially help the situation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question, I do not think there has been any confusion at all except that those raising questions have confused the short-term problem with the long-term problem, which are two entirely different things. In answer to the second supplementary question, it is, I think, relevant to take into account those with whom we are dealing, and in the course of the debate I myself pointed out that the Order signed by the Governor declaring a State of Emergency was obtained on a direct representation by Mr. Smith to him that this was not a pelude to a U.D.I., when we in fact now know that it was.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord emphasis, in answer to questions of this sort, that this is not just a Rhodesian problem; it is a problem which affects Africa, our relations with Africans and Europeans, and our relations with the rest of the world?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I entirely agree with that, and that is why the House may feel that they ought to weigh their words when they make observations which are reported everywhere in the world.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, all noble Lords in this House have been, and I am sure still are, against U.D.I. But anyone who dares to criticise the Government's handling of this terrible situation is branded as a Smith supporter causing a rift in the British approach.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I was trying to answer the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say
816
whether Mr. Smith has been clearly informed of the possibility of putting forward proposals through the Governor, as otherwise he might have been misled by what was said on one occasion in the other place?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Mr. Smith knows perfectly well that that is the position, and indeed, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the course of the Daily Mirror interview, he had already made proposals to the Governor. He is therefore well aware of his rights.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST SOLICITORS
2.47 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state, in respect of the current year to date, how many complaints, excluding matters concerned with legal aid, have been considered by the Disciplinary Committee appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 46 of the Solicitors Act 1957; in how many instances such complaints have been found to be justifiable; and how many cases are pending or under review.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am informed that during the current year to date the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society have considered complaints involving 22 solicitors. The Committee found the complaints justified, in whole or in part, in the case of 14 solicitors and imposed penalties on them. Complaints against 4 other solicitors have been heard, and the Committee's findings and orders will be pronounced shortly. Complaints against 11 solicitors are still pending.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply.

COMPLAINTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY
2.49 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state, in respect of the current year to date, how many complaints, excluding matters concerned with legal aid, have been made to the Law Society; in how many instances the Society has considered it appropriate itself to make an application to the Disciplinary Committee; and the average time which has elapsed between the lodging of complaints to the Society and the time when a decision has been taken by the Society itself to make an application to the Committee.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no information about the number of complaints made to the Law Society in any year, or about the average interval of time referred to in the third part of the noble Lord's Question. These are not matters falling within the sphere of ministerial responsibility. In answer to the second part of the Question, applications to the Disciplinary Committee were made by the Law Society in respect of fourteen solicitors during the current year to date. In each instance a penalty was imposed on the solicitor by the Committee.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I would again thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.

RHODESIA: INSURANCE CLAIMS
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice—namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that Lloyd's of London and British insurance companies are not now being allowed to pay on claims arising in Rhodesia, and if they will make a statement on this aspect of the Government's economic controls?"
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be answering this Question with a Statement at a suitable moment after 3.30 Also, at a suitable moment, my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on the Plowden Report.

HERIOT-WATT COLLEGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.50 p.m.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of December 13), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

WEST MIDLANDS ORDER 1965
2.51 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. This is itself a long Order—I notice that it is so long that it costs 8s. net to buy a copy from the Stationery Office. It follows on discussions, consultations and disputes which have been going on ever since 1959. I should venture a guess that every conceivable point has been raised at least once in the course of those proceedings, and if I were to start trying to raise them again we should be here until Christmas, unless your Lordships were to take some summary steps with me before then. I hope that what I am going to do will meet the convenience of the House. First of all, I am going to say briefly what the Order is about. A distinguished friend of mine was once asked to write an article for an American journal—"400 words on the future; highlights only". This is "highlights only". Having done that, I am then going to justify what I have said just now about the length and the variety of the proceedings which have preceded the Order. Then I am going to sit down and hear which of the objections raised from time to time may appeal to your Lordships, since they may be raised again, and defer any answer to them until I see which they are.

819
The Order relates to a crowded industrial area North-West of Birmingham. For convenience, I will call it the "Black Country". It is the Black Country; but so are other parts of that, I was going to say "countryside", but that district. It stretches from Birmingham, which is down in the South-West corner of the area, up to and including Wolverhampton, and, if you take a line across from the South-East to the North-East, it stretches from Stourbridge up to and beyond Walsall. It is at present the seat of a mixed system of local government, of counties, county boroughs and urban districts—nineteen authorities altogether. The Order proposes that they should be replaced by five all-purpose authorities.
In order to effect that, the Order proposes substantial increases to five existing county boroughs. Of those existing county boroughs three have populations below 100,000, and their total population at present is under half a million. The increases will bring them up to populations of between 160,000 and 250,000—a better size, I suggest, for a county borough—and a total population of nearly one million. The result on the other side of the account will be the virtual elimination of five non-county boroughs and eight urban district councils.
This slaughter of the not-so-innocent was bound to produce a considerable degree of friction. I take the history of the matter quite shortly. The Local Government Commission started its review of this area in 1959, and in carrying it out, rightly and naturally followed the directions of the Local Government Act under which it was functioning. Accordingly, it began with investigations and consultations with all the local authorities concerned. Then there appeared these draft proposals. These, again, follow the scheme of things set out in the Act; and to those draft proposals there were, as might well have been expected, numerous representations. They are not, I think, called "objections" at that stage.
They were considered at a four-day conference in Wolverhampton which I might perhaps refer to as the first Wolverhampton conference. There was another later—at which 63 local authorities and other bodies attended and expressed their views; and in May, 1961,
820
the Local Government Commission, which so far had made no communication by way of a Report to the Minister, made its Report to him, and its definite proposals. Those proposals have been printed and published. Again, as one might have expected, they, too, elicited objectors, and three Inspectors were appointed.
They held an inquiry into the objections, and I think I might just quote one short paragraph from the Report which they finally made. It is paragraph 7 at page 3, and it says:
"The objections have been made not only vigorously, but voluminously. The Inquiry extended over three-and-a-half months; there were fifty daily hearings; 70 witnesses were called; 73 proofs of evidence submitted; 44 maps produced; 12 Queen's Counsel, 21 Counsel, and 2 Town Clerks examined, cross-examined and re-examined witnesses, and made closing speeches. The case submitted by the Staffordshire County Council alone lasted 10 days."
Nobody can say that the matter was not discussed for quite a long time, and by many people.
Then these were the objections to the proposals. Next a Report was made by the Inspectors, and this, too, was presented on March 26, 1962. The then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Sir Keith Joseph, in July, 1962, made a decision in principle. He issued what is commonly called a "decision letter", accepting the broad conclusions of the Report. It was subject to some minor points. On November 26, 1962, he dealt with those minor points.
Then, on May 24, 1963, five of the urban districts concerned issued a Writ, as of course they were entitled to do, claiming that the local inquiry was irregular and invalid. This is the one in which 12 Queen's Counsel, 21 Counsel and 2 Town Clerks examined the witnesses.
This claim was heard by a Judge in the first instance, and the judgment was given on May 31 dismissing their claim. Nothing daunted, they proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which gave judgment on July 29, 1965. That did not frighten them. They then tried to appeal to your Lordships in your judicial capacity. They could not get leave to do that, and they were similarly unfortunate on a Petition to the Special Orders Committee of this House. The operative decision letter was made on June 30, 1965, on substantially

821
the same terms as the one which Sir Keith Joseph had made three years earlier, in 1962. It was made, of course, by my right honourable friend the present Minister. The decision letter is the first step, and the subsequent Order—eight shillings' worth—took some preparation afterwards, and it appeared on November 3, 1965. The last stage after all these vicissitudes is that the Order was approved in another place quite recently, on the 2nd and 3rd of this month—quite literally on those dates because the discussion began before midnight and ended afterwards. That is what has happened.
I hope that I am taking a course convenient to your Lordships; I will sit down in a moment and wait to hear what your Lordships have to say. Before I do so, I would remind the House of the Paper about the areas and status of local authorities in England and Wales, which was presented by the then Minister of Housing in July, 1956, and which dealt in general terms with the operations which were intended to be carried out in the conurbations—and the West Midlands is a conurbation area. In effect, it preceded the 1958 Act under which all this has happened. There is a short passage from paragraphs 40 and 41 which I want to quote:
"There are various possible methods of improving the pattern of the local government within the conurbations. One is to acquiesce in the continued existence of a patchwork of local authorities of different types and with different powers but to endeavour to reduce their number."
Then it says how that could be done. It continues in paragraph 41:
"A second method is to reorganise the area on a uniform basis. The county borough is the normal form of government for a big town, and county boroughs do in fact form the core of most of the conurbations. In the large conurbations the creation of a single all-embracing county borough would not be practicable, but it might be possible to form a group of county boroughs which, between them, would cover the whole area."
Then there are some other comments, and the summing up is at the top of page 10, in paragraph 43:
"It is thus clear that there is no simple or wholly unobjectionable solution to the problem of local government organisation in the conurbations. Moreover, conditions in the different areas are not identical; and the same treatment may not necessarily be appropriate for all. It may therefore he right that provi-
822
sion should be made for alternative solutions "—
it was made, of course, in the Act which followed—
"and that the Commissions should be asked to recommend the one which seems most appropriate in each case."
In fact, in this particular case it was really a group of county boroughs which, between them, would cover the whole area.
I fully recognise—as did the Minister who was responsible for this Report before the Act, as did the Local Government Commission in making its Report, and as did the inspectors in considering the objections—that in a case of this kind there is a very great deal to be said on all sides. I suggest that the Act indicates that the Local Government Commission should take these matters carefully into account and look at them in detail, as it did in this case; that there should be room for objection, as there was here; that there should be careful consideration of these objections, as there was here: and that the last word, subject to Parliamentary approval, should rest with the Minister who has the collective responsibility for this whole area. Therefore, my Lords, I commend the Order to your Lordships, and suggest that if we try to argue it all over again we should take a very long time about it and should be doing something which had been done by others more than once already. I beg to move.
Moved, That the West Midlands Order 1965 be approved.—(Lord Mitchison.)
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this matter inasmuch as I have the honour to be a President of the Urban District Councils' Association. In the speech to which we have just listened I could not help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, was rather making fun of all the objections, when he mentioned the number of counsel employed, and so on, on this Order—I am glad to see that he shakes his head. But I must remind your Lordships—and it is indeed my excuse to some extent for addressing you on this subject—of the Report of your Lordships' own Special Orders Committee, a Report issued the other day on the Petition which was sought by certain local authorities, and to which the noble Lord has referred. I

823
will read the relevant parts of it. The Committee say this:
" They are of opinion that there ought not to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee."
That was what was asked for. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that in our debate on this matter on July 15 that right was specifically preserved by this House, despite a recommendation to the contrary. The Committee go on:
"The Committee are also of opinion that the Order raises an important question of policy and principle, namely the method of reorganising local government in the West Midlands Special Review Area."
Your Lordships' Committee go on to say:
"In the opinion of the Committee, the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention."
Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if I ask that special attention should be given to this Order this afternoon.
One of the main objections is that, although objections have been heard at many inquiries, as the noble Lord has said, alternative suggestions, which are believed to be as good as, if not better than, the one in the Order, have never been properly considered throughout all these processes, as I shall show later. This is a quite considerable Order when one considers the number of authorities and people involved. The noble Lord has given the number of authorities of different types which are involved, and I will not repeat them, but there are also about a million people concerned in this matter. Those for whom I speak believe that there is a credible alternative to this proposal which has never been properly gone into under the present procedures.
One of the objections is that the present procedures under the 1958 Act do not give sufficient opportunities for alternative proposals to be considered. Broadly speaking, the alternative which those for whom I speak believe to be the right one is that, instead of a number of adjacent one-tier systems trying to agree among themselves on problems which affect the whole area, there should be a continuous county with a two-tier system. This possibility has never been seriously examined by the Commission or the Ministry before they made the present Order. The Order which is before the House provides for a separate main drain-
824
age authority. The Home Office are insisting on a single police force for the Black Country. The Minister said in the House of Commons that he would prefer a single fire brigade, but under the existing law cannot compel it. Under a new type of continuous county authority, such as is suggested, all such things could be done. These things cannot be done except by other methods if we have these five boroughs trying to agree among themselves.
The new type of continuous county could much more effectively deal with major planning matters, major road matters, etc. than five county boroughs trying to agree among themselves.
What we say is, why not consider a plan which would give an authority over the whole area power to perform those services which are best planned and administered over the area as a whole, leaving to the lower-tier authorities those services which are better administered at local level? This is, indeed, what the Commission have themselves proposed for Tyneside, which is a similar area to the Black Country. So why they propose one method for one area, and another method for another, it is very difficult to understand, particularly when there has been no proper inquiry into a similar proposal in this area, as, in fact, the Commission have proposed for Tyneside. I shall conic to that matter, again a little later.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to some remarks by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which were made, I think, at the conference of the Association of Municipal Corporations. He was referring to the necessity for an analysis of the two main problems which arise over local government reorganisation. He put the problems in this way—and I should like to quote exactly what he said:
"They seem to me to be, first of all, the relation of size and function in local government under modern conditions, where many services are regional in character; and, secondly, and equally important, the way to resolve the conflict between local democracy, which is inherently small, and efficiency, which is sometimes large."
He then went on to say:
"… that analysis will have to culminate in the enunciation of principles of action."
At present, there are no principles of action for what is to be done in these various reorganisation schemes, and there

825
seems to be complete confusion. To illustrate this, I want to compare what is happening in the case of Tyneside with the Order in the West Midlands which we are discussing.
In the case of Tyneside, which is a similar area, the Commission recommend the very thing for which we are asking for the Black Country—namely, a continuous county with second-tier authorities. The Minister has turned down that recommendation for Tyneside, but he has also turned down for Tyneside what he is imposing on the Black Country by this Order—namely, a suggestion there for four county boroughs. It seems extraordinary. Here are two areas which are more or less the same, yet the Minister is recommending different things for them; and the Local Government Commission have actually recommended for Tyneside what we are asking for in the Black Country.
I suggest that, in the absence of the analysis to which the Minister referred in his speech, nobody knows the right answer, and that the Black Country proposals should be put off for a further look at what is the right answer. It may be argued that after all this time the area will stagnate, but in the past (I have figures to prove this, although I shall not trouble your Lordships with them at the moment) the performance of the county districts in housing, slum clearance and the provision of various amenities, has been superior, and in some cases markedly superior, to that of the county boroughs. There is no reason why that should not go on.
To sum up, there is a credible alternative for the Black Country which has never been properly examined under the present procedures. Such an alternative has, in fact, been proposed for another similar area. The Minister himself has spoken of the need for further inquiry into the problems of the reorganisation of local government; and this point, as I said, was referred to yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The Special Orders Committee say in their Report that this Order "raises important questions of policy and principle", and enjoin special attention by your Lordships' House to this matter. Although the Special Orders Committee have, in their wisdom, turned down the request for
826
further inquiry by the process of Select Committee, I earnestly suggest to your Lordships that, for all the reasons I have endeavoured to deploy, further inquiry of some sort is necessary if we are to get the right answer for the Black Country out of all this confusion. In the meantime, I suggest that the execution of this Order should be stayed.
3.16 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think I shall probably have your Lordships with me when I suggest that, whatever solution had been first proposed for the Black Country by the Local Government Commission and then accepted by the Minister, there would have been very powerful objection. I always find these questions of the various alternative means of reorganising local government anywhere extremely difficult. I have found them difficult not only in your Lordships' House, but also when I was in another place—unless, of course, one has one's own particular local loyalty, and very often one has.
My noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury has this afternoon argued very powerfully that what he called a credible alternative would have been to provide for the Black Country the same sort of organisation which I gather is now recommended for Tyneside. I find it very difficult to make up my mind on the merit of this proposal. I certainly accept what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said, that one should always realise that different solutions may be equally appropriate in different parts of the country. It certainly would help me, and it might help others of your Lordships, if the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, could say something on the question raised by my noble friend. Could the noble Lord say whether or not what he called the system of a continuous county, with two tiers in it, was considered definitely at one time or other during this very long period of—shall I call it?—litigation, either by the Local Government Commission, or by the Department or the Minister, or both? That might be of some help to my noble friend as well as, certainly, to me.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I wonder whether I can help the House and the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The system was considered in the first place by the Local Government Commission, in the second place by the inspectors who were hearing

827
the objections, and in the third place by the Minister in making his decision. It appears in all three documents.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is it not true to say that what were being considered at the public inquiries were the objections to the scheme proposed by the Commission? The suggestion which I have adumbrated, which was suggested for Tyneside by the Local Government Commission, was never discussed at a public inquiry in the same way as the objections. That is the point.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I reply to that very shortly? The objections fell into two main categories, based on the arguments that, first, the two-tier system of local government is better than the one-tier system in the area now being considered. That is exactly what the noble Lord was urging. Secondly, the Commission were guilty of fallacies or mistakes in arriving at their conclusions. That is what they went to law about, unsuccessfully.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, whilst in the North in the early part of this week—
LORD MITCHISON: I do not think Lord Newton has finished yet.
LORD ROYLE: I am sorry.
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Really, my Lords, I have not very much more to say, but I do find it very difficult. I do not feel absolutely satisfied from what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has just said: that in fact active consideration was given to this alternative system of reorganisation—that is to say, the continuous county—as opposed to consideration of objections to the proposal of the Local Government Commission, although they may have been based on the idea that the other method of organisation would be better. Can the noble Lord tell us rather more categorically, rather more clearly, whether the Boundary Commission did of their own volition consider organisation on the continuous county basis and then turn it down in favour of their own proposal?
LORD MITCHISON: I thought so, from the passage I have just read. Perhaps I had better not involve myself in any
828
more detail now. They were dealing with the main grounds of objection. That was one—the first one.
LORD NEWTON: I did not think it was quite the same thing, my Lords.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was in the middle of a series of questions or whether he was making a speech, so I apologise for the fact that I interrupted during that series. I was about to say that earlier this week, while on a visit to the North, I noticed that a similar system is now to be adopted (or has at all events been suggested) for South-East Lancashire; and so far as I could gather from my reading it would appear that the suggestions now being offered for South-East Lancashire are much more in line with the Tyneside idea than they are with those for the Black Country. I must confess that I am somewhat moved by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, that there is some room for uniformity here. It seems to me that if we proceed along the lines of having our great conurbations completely different in their set-up, we might be heading for a great deal of trouble.
I also declare an interest in so far as I am a Vice-President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and therefore probably my views would differ to some extent from the views expressed by the President of the Urban District Councils Association. Therefore, I may perhaps be thinking much more in terms of larger authorities than he is himself. But, for all that, I do feel that there is a great deal to be said for the proposition that, whatever scheme is adopted, there should be some uniformity so far as the various parts of the country are concerned. I am a wee bit concerned, having seen the South-East Lancashire proposals, to find that they are entirely different from the proposals put before us for the Black Country. I am wondering whether my noble friend can give an assurance that the Ministry are certainly taking this question of uniformity into consideration.
LORD WADE: My Lords, perhaps I might follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Royle. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, used the expression, "the broad conclusion of the report". I do not want to ask him to

829
make another speech, but I wonder whether he could summarise that in about one sentence. This is, of course, a rather complex Order for us to study. For example, we are told that
"Nothing in the order shall affect … the Wild Birds (Bullfinches) Order 1955".
I imagine that that is not one of the main principles of the Order. But there are differences between the treatments of Tyneside, Tees-side, the Black Country and South-East Lancashire, and it would appear that there are differences between the mind of the Minister on these matters and the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, at any rate in some parts of the country. I wonder whether we could be informed if there is any consistent general principle in dealing with this kind of problem in different parts of the country. It is very important at the present moment.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to associate myself most wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in all they have said in regard to this problem. I speak—and I should declare an interest—as a Midlander; a West Midlander who lives in. knows and much loves this area of approximately 180 square miles within the Birmingham area. I feel that in his remarks the Minister set aside and dealt somewhat humorously with a very slow and very earnest survey, a very expensive undertaking which took place over a period of four years. If I may say so, this survey shows the extent to which local loyalties thrive in our part of the world.
We feel most earnestly about our county boundaries and our local authority boundaries, and they are held with great pride, indeed the civic pride which exists in the West Midlands. We feel as an ethnic group in the West Midlands that this matter is being dealt with somewhat lightly. If I may speak personally here as one who attended the Droitwich Inquiry and was refused leave to speak by the inspector, those who visit us from Whitehall are not always welcome for the reason that they do not always listen to what the local objectors have to say. We feel that this is a serious matter; we feel that it deserves your Lordships' most earnest consideration; and for these reasons I would seek that we should
830
negative this Motion which is before us.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, this is a very minor point, and nothing at all to do with the main argument, but I wonder whether the noble Lord when he replies could just tell me if he knows why it is that, under paragraph 32, a certain slaughterhouse at present in the urban district of Darlaston should have been exempted from all the usual regulations applying to slaughterhouses.
3.27 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think I did in fact make it quite clear that, in the 1956 White Paper, part of which I read out, great emphasis was placed, not on the need for uniformity but on the opposite: that, in different conditions and in different parts of the country, there must be different solutions. I quite agree that this is not the same type of Order as has been made in other parts of the country; but I also say that the local patriotism to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, so properly referred may be prevalent there as well as here. It is possible that they prefer that kind of local government there, whereas the kind of local government I am talking about now is preferred here.
At the risk of being tedious to the House, I will again read out the same passage. Of course, the Act which followed this expressly intended (and I think that by its terms it made it perfectly clear) that the Local Government Commission should in the first place have the widest power to report, not merely on the type of local authority but also on questions of powers. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that a previous attempt to reorganise local government had broken down because it was considered that the Local Government Commission or its equivalent in those days lacked any ability to interfere with powers; and it was to meet that sort of difficulty that they were given much more extensive terms of reference, including a scrutiny of powers.
I must say that I am a little surprised at people who think there ought to be the same pattern everywhere. I have never heard this proposal put forward except by one side of what I will call the two-tier county borough controversy arguing against the other. They always

831
say in those cases that the particular system which they favour ought to prevail everywhere; and therefore there ought to be uniformity. But I did not understand your Lordships to say that. I was not quite clear. I should have thought that it was unlikely, on the face of it, and certainly quite inconsistent with the intentions expressed by a Conservative Government before the 1958 Act and carried out in the 1958 Act, that you ought to have the same arrangements in every part of the country.
I refer again to what was said with specific reference to conurbations. Your Lordships will excuse me if I read it again, but I cannot help thinking that some noble Lords who spoke may not quite have picked it up. They said this in paragraph 40:
"There are various possible methods of improving the pattern of local government within the conurbations …"
and then they set them out. One method they described as acquiescing in
"the continued existence of a patchwork of local authorities of different types and with different powers ",
but endeavouring to reduce their number. That possibility was put forward. I would suggest, with respect, that it is untrue to say that the question of a two-tier system was not considered. It was the main point all through.
Further on they say:
"A second method is to reorganise the area on a uniform basis."—
I am cutting a few words, but not the sense. They continue:
"In the large conurbations, the creation of a single all-embracing county borough would not be practicable, but it might be possible to form a group of county boroughs which, between them, would cover the whole area."
That was the recommendation in this case. Either approach would still leave questions of co-ordination of local authority services to be dealt with; as they would have to be, whatever the solution. Paragraph 43 contains the passage I rely on:
"It is thus clear that there is no simple or wholly unobjectionable solution to the problem of local government organisation in the conurbations. Moreover, conditions in the different areas are not identical and the same treatment may not necessarily be appropriate for all. It might, therefore, be right that provision should be made for alternative solutions, and that the Commis-
832
sions should be asked to recommend the one which seems most appropriate in each case."
This was two years before the Act appeared; and, of course, when the Bill appeared in draft that provision was made and was discussed at considerable length, both here, no doubt, and certainly in another place. It made that provision.
In the West Midlands there were two alternative solutions. One of them was the two-tier solution which the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, and others favour to-day and which, of course, is always going to find some supporters everywhere. I have never known any question of this sort on which everybody was agreed. The other alternative was the one that was finally adopted. When I say "two solutions", I hope I shall not be picked up on this point, but the matter was a little complicated, in the sense that the advocates of the two-tier solution shifted their ground repeatedly, and in the result some of the urban districts wanted one thing at one time and one thing at another. I am not sure that that ought to be held against them. Their view for the whole time was that they wanted a two-tier solution with a continuous county covering the whole area and a series of district councils as a second tier.
Sure enough, when you come to the Reports, you find it quite clearly. In the original Report, Chapter 8 sets out the basis of the Commission's final proposals. Then, in paragraph 131, the question of one-tier and two-tier local government is considered; and the Report continues for two long paragraphs about that. There is not the least doubt that the Commission considered it. They could not have made their Report otherwise; because, after all, one of their statutory duties was to consult with all the local authorities concerned. Is any noble Lord here to-day going to tell me that these district councils at any time wanted a solution which would result in the extinction of some of them and the substitution of larger county boroughs? That is the solution that has finally been adopted, and I would repeat that this question of principle was, in fact, considered by the Local Government Commission, having been—
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, it was never inquired into in the same way as were their proposals.

833
That is the point. It was never inquired into in the same way that they discussed it in the paragraph.
LORD MITCHISON: With great respect, my Lords, I must rely on the Reports and on what the Commission say was the foundation of their decision. This was it. One-tier or two-tier local government was the main point through the whole of these proceedings. What is true is this. You may, for instance, have last-minute shifts of position by one particular district council, which may make the form of a view of two-tier local government slightly different from one time to another. That is not really the point which is being urged to-day and not the point at this stage which matters. What really matters is whether we are going to have one-tier government, as recommended by the Local Government Commission. With great respect, Parliament sets up a Commission by this Act, a long, carefully considered Act, to do certain things. This was undoubtedly one of the things it could do. And it did it rightly; and when you come to look at the legal proceedings you see that the numerous objections—and these, too, were argued at great length—to the conduct of the inquiry in relation to the objections were misconceived. The objections were turned down, first by one court and then by a second. I know that those concerned in a local authority when it is going to disappear become a little desperate; and I do not hold it against them as I entirely agree with what was said just now about local patriotism.
My Lords, I am turning from that to the question of the objections. It was the district councils who sought to make a distinction that I am bound to say I have never clearly appreciated (and I do not think the courts upheld it) between the hearing of objections by the inspectors and the other form of proceedings, the administrative arrangements under which the Local Government Commission had previously acted. We first of all read in the Inspectors' Report an Introduction and then we come to the objections generally, and then to the objections based on the argument that a two-tier system is best for this particular part of the Black Country. Next we come to the objections based on the argument that the
834
Commission were guilty of fallacies and mistakes in arriving at their conclusions.
How can it be said, if that is what the inspectors were considering, that they never thought about the question, never considered the objection, or never considered representations about the objections founded on the choice between two-tier and one-tier government? I repeat this from paragraph 12:
"The objections fall into two main categories based on the arguments that (a) the two-tier system of local government is better than the one-tier system in the area now being considered;".
There is no getting round that. That is what the objections were founded on—unless one is going to say these very eminent gentlemen were entirely wrong and the whole thing is a fabric of misunderstandings. Short of that, it is clear. The second point is the question of whether the Commission had proceeded logically and rightly. That has really been settled by the court proceedings. But this was the whole main point. So far from its not being mentioned, it was what this was all about.
They go on in detail. I have already recited the length of time taken and not by way of gibing at it. I am not gibing at it in the least. I am simply saying that this is a very complicated question and, with very great respect, your Lordships would have to think very carefully before differing from conclusions on the very point on which this Report was founded.
If we look again we see that Chapter 2 refers to alternative proposals. They considered those. Chapter 3 relates to objections to particular proposals of the Commission and that goes on to the end of a 70-page Report. My Lords, you cannot say that the matter has not been fully considered. You cannot say that full consideration omitted the main question, whether it should be a two-tier or one-tier system of Government. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said on local patriotism, and in paragraph 11 of the Report there is a passage, just before the passage I have been reading, which says:
"Perhaps the deepest impression left on our minds by these proceedings is the ardour and reality of local patriotism. The Black Country said the Commission—'is an area where feelings, whether of pride in a craft or loyalty to a place, are intensely local.' It is these feelings

835
which led the district councils, supported by their inhabitants, to defend their existence and their reputations so vehemently. They believe that this sense of 'place' and community' is a factor of great value in local government which will he lost if communities for local government purposes are merged into larger units."
Then there is this significant sentence:
"We think this must be said before we proceed to the more formal presentation of the objections."
What that comes to is this. These inspectors were fully seized of the feelings of local patriotism and its importance, but they came to the conclusion that in the best interests of local government, and of those concerned as (how may I put it?) local government's inhabitants in the area, the alternative that they finally suggested was the better one. There is no greater local patriotism in an area because it is small or large. The inhabitants of Birmingham or some other large town can be just as patriotic as the inhabitants of a small urban district. What we are concerned with here is the efficiency of local government, and that was what these people were considering.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, there is a basic principle at stake here. It is the question of the effectiveness of local government, and I think it has been brought out in the Report that there is no question that the existing local authorities are inefficient or not carrying out their functions correctly to the great benefit of the people in the area concerned. The feeling locally is that local government should stern from the local authorities for which there is no substitute; and I think, further, that it is felt that the first duty of government is to govern. If their functions are being carried out, it is held that any rapid move to alter or merge the system into a different form—call it a two-tier system, or anything you like—would not be a benefit to those interested.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, a great deal of what has been said applies just as much to a county borough as to a county or an urban district. It is perfectly true that local authorities should be left to carry on their job, subject to the kind of supervision that any Government has always exercised on broad questions of policy or on decisions which might fall on the Minister of the day. Here we have had two Ministers, one supported
836
politically by noble Lords opposite and the other by noble Lords on this side of the House, who both came to exactly the same conclusion, and it is too much to say that they did so without any regard to local feeling or anything of that sort.
The inspectors who were appointed had plenty of opportunity to see the people concerned. They had the very long inquiries for the purpose, and they were very sensitive to these feelings. But they reported that they had come to the conclusion that the right answer was the county borough solution. What I am saying, with respect, is that we have not—I hope that we shall not have to do so—sat here for 63 days to listen to witnesses, and on a question of this sort it is very doubtful whether we ought to interfere with a matter which has been subjected to such skilled and continuous inquiry, and which has led to ministerial conclusions which have not differed whatever the politics of the Minister concerned. I think it raises a very strong presumption that that is the right conclusion in that area.
The noble Lord said one thing with which I must disagree. He objected to a sudden change. There has not been much that was sudden about this. It began in 1959 and we are now in 1965. I am not blaming anybody, because people are entitled to do these things, but how much of the ratepayers' money has been spent on all this argument is anybody's guess. I repeat, people are entitled to do this. If there is too much opportunity for inquiry and consultation, objections and so on, given in the Act of Parliament, it is the fault of Parliament, and the Act should have been made a better one in that respect. But nobody can look at what happened in this case and say that there was any sudden changeover. It is the very opposite. There have been inquiries for so long that my information about local feeling is that people are rather fed-up. I do not know if it is put in those words, but it is what I should feel had I been living in the area and connected with local government there and had had these changes hanging over my head in one form or another.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, also wants change. Practically no one seems to want to leave things as they were. It is the form of the change which was the subject of argument. Reference was made (I think that I

837
should refer to this) to what my right honourable friend said in a speech to the A.M.C. He took the instance of this Order. He spoke at some length about it. He felt that if an Act gave these opportunities for objection and for what really amounted to obstruction—I do not say "obstruction" in any offensive sense—one should look rather carefully at it. With the background of this Order, he was considering whether there ought not to be some even more general change in the local government structure over the country.
All I need say about it is that this was his idea, and he is Minister of Housing and Local Government. It is a very good thing to have a Minister of Housing and Local Government who has ideas about housing and local government. This was one of them. He made perfectly clear that he would not regard the prospect of any further change as a reason for not making this one, although this state of affairs has been going on for so long and the period of suspense—I trust your Lordships will not omit consideration of that—has been so long. He came down emphatically, before the Association on the occasion mentioned, and in another place during the discussion on this Order, in favour of getting this Order approved now, and not postponing things until some wider rearrangement of local government could be considered and brought into effect.
If there is any question of a wider reorganisation of local government, I think that your Lordships, including the noble Lord who is President of the Urban District Councils Association, would object strongly if full consultations were not held with the local authorities beforehand. That takes time. They have to consider the matter in relation to their members, and so on. There are of course other bodies also concerned, and I assure your Lordships that the mere consideration would be bound to take time. If any more is to he done, clearly there is a very troublesome piece of legislation ahead for somebody. I should think it quite wrong to defer the approval of this Order because of the possibility of something else. If we go on doing that, we are going to get stuck permanently. It reminds me of the man whose motor car was out of order, who was thinking of getting a new one, but he could not have a new
838
one for a number of years because the money was not available and he had to repair the old one. We can do without a motor car, but we cannot do without effective local government, and we cannot get effective local government if the question of reorganisation is kept hanging over the heads of the officials all the time. The same thing was said with regard to the two-tier question.
We have the very weighty authority both of St. Paul and of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for saying that we must not differ from the Commons except when there is a trumpet call. I have listened to what has been said with great attention, and all I would say is that here we have not one trumpet call, but a bewildering variety of discordant trumpets, and I do not think we had better move on that particular call. I feel that in a case of this kind, which has been given full consideration and has been passed without a Division in another place, we ought to think twice before putting things back to square minus-1, or whatever the present confusion represents. There is a muddle in the Black Country and this Order represents the way out of it—I think, the best way out of it. But if your Lordships turn down the Order to-day, you will be doing nothing for the urban districts or counties except to continue one particular calamitous piece of confusion and thereby cause a lot of discomfort and annoyance to the very considerable population in that area.

RHODESIA: INSURANCE CLAIMS
3.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps with your Lordships' permission, this may be a convenient time to answer the Private Notice Question which the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, asked earlier this afternoon. May I remind your Lordships of the Question?
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that Lloyd's of London and the British insurance companies are not now being allowed to pay on claims arising in Rhodesia and if they will make a statement on this aspect of Government economic controls?"
The reply given by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is as follows:
"Yes, this is one of the types of contractual payments for which permission has been refused since December 1 of this year."
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for responding so promptly to my Private Notice Question, though I cannot say that the Answer gives me any cause for satisfaction? Do the Government realise that British insurance has a world-wide reputation for prompt payment and that overseas premiums make an important contribution to British invisible earnings? Has Her Majesty's Government taken into account that this petty restriction will do far more harm to British insurance in the eyes of the world than to the unfortunate Rhodesian claimants? In view of the Government's noble gesture in reversing their policy in the payment of pensions to Rhodesian pensioners, could the noble Lord urge Her Majesty's Government, and will they be prepared to consider what I am about to say, to at least allow payments to be made in cases of hardship, such as when life policies mature and when an unfortunate insurer has lost his house through fire or some other cause?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly share the view of the noble Lord as to the reputation of British insurance and its benefits to this country in the balance of payments. I think the noble Lord will agree that very special circumstances are involved. The Government have taken the view that we must deny sterling to Rhodesia as part of our economic and financial measures. I think I should make it clear that contractual obligations are in no way involved. It is merely that payments cannot be made.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord at least allow himself to make the statement that Her Majesty's Government will consider hardship cases?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in regard to that, the noble Lord will remember that in the original Treasury statement of December 1 the words "in general" were included in the paragraph dealing with restrictions on payment. Per-
840
haps I should say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is seeing to-morrow the chairmen of the two organisations mentioned in the question. I think it would be wrong for me to say anything which would affect that discussion.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, confessing my interest in one of the insurance companies, may I say that this to all appearances is a complete breach of contract? Many of these undertakings by insurance companies were made years ago—at any rate, so long as they were made before independence was declared, it seems to me to be a breach of contract.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is no question of breach of contract. The obligation of the companies to their clients in Rhodesia remains. However, it is a question of the Government's decision under the Exchange Control Act 1947, and part of their policy, which I thought had wide support in your Lordships' House, to bring Southern Rhodesia back to constitutional Government within the Commonwealth, is to apply these measures, which have been adopted with the greatest possible reluctance.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, obviously the obligations remain; but if we are not allowed to pay we cannot fulfil our obligations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, payments will be made as soon as Southern Rhodesia returns to constitutional government within the Commonwealth.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government realise that this particular action is taken, not against the purported Government with which Her Majesty's Government say they have a quarrel, but against private individuals who have contracts with legal persons in this country? This frustration of a contract seems to be exactly the same as it would be if there were war at this present moment between this country and Rhodesia. Is it really the desire of Her Majesty's Government that that should be the legal position and that all contracts should be frustrated in exactly that way?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will remember the words I used when

841
speaking in a recent debate on this subject: that we had to bring it home to the peoples of Rhodesia—because all are going to be involved in sanctions, whether black or white, industrialists or farmers, or merely farm labourers—that there is no future for Rhodesia outside the Commonwealth and under an illegal régime. I should have thought that that was clear. Certainly it is the Government's policy. I recognise that these measures have to be lodged against individuals, but the noble Lord will appreciate, I am sure, that at this moment of growing tension, any retraction by Her Majesty's Government in applying sanctions, which have the long-term aim of bringing Rhodesia back to the Commonwealth, would have disastrous consequences to peace, not only in Africa but throughout the world.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question? The noble Lord said that his right honourable friend would be meeting the insurance interests to-morrow. Do I understand from that that there was no consultation with Lloyd's and the insurance interests before Her Majesty's Government took a step which might have such great consequences on the permanent interests of this country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I could not answer that without notice. This measure was all part and parcel of other actions taken, such as in regard to dividends, interest and the like. But I could not specifically answer the question now put to me.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, surely the proper interim measure would be first to open an account with the Bank of England into which British insurance companies and Lloyd's may pay monies which they admit are due from them to residents in Rhodesia, and the money should stay in the account until such time as it is possible to transfer it to the people to whom it is due. Otherwise it will start to be said all over the world that British insurance companies and Lloyd's are being enabled to escape from their admitted liabilities and to retain monies which they admit are due to people in Rhodesia.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly take the point the noble Lord has made, but I would not accept what
842
I think was the reflection implied in the question: that the British insurance companies would use the particular circumstances to default in their responsibility to people in Rhodesia.
LORD AIREDALE: Of course not. But there will be people in parts of the world who will start saying this.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, the observations of noble Lords are becoming less and less interrogative. This is not the first one that has failed to be interrogative. I hope that noble Lords will preserve some semblance of the interrogative form.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, is it not the utmost casuistry on the part of Her Majesty's Government to claim that the contracts of insurance are still perfectly effective and in existence, when at the same time they preclude the implementation of these contracts by making these regulations with regard to currency transactions?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gather that that was a statement.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SHEPHERD: If that is the case, could the noble Viscount repeat it in the form of a question?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I did put it in the form of a question. Is it not in the opinion of the Government the utmost casuistry for them first of all to claim that the contracts of insurance are effective, and at the same time to preclude their implementation by passing these currency regulations?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the contracts are still effective, and the obligation remains, but, as with the question of interest, dividends and other forms of payment, for the time being and in the present circumstances we have had to deny payment to Rhodesia.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, as a director of an insurance company that has policy-holders in Southern Rhodesia, as, I suppose, in most parts of the world, may I ask the noble Lord this question? He said it was impossible for the Government to retract. Why cannot they retract on this matter, as they did on Government pensions? Are not the cases

843
in some respects parallel? Is the noble Lord aware, for example (well, he cannot be aware) that there came to my notice this morning the case of a policyholder who died in Rhodesia within the last few days? It is impossible to pay to that policy-holder's estate what is due to it. I do not know the case in detail. It may be a case of tremendous hardship. Is not this exactly in parallel with the Government's pensions prohibition, on which the Government retracted; and can they not retract here?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on grounds of hardship—and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, referred to this, I think, in his first supplementary—I indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to have discussions with the chairmen of the two organisations concerned. With regard to pensions (and I should not have thought that pensions was in the same category as insurance), we did not retract. We took into account the humanitarian considerations which we said all along would be taken into consideration, and we made our decision: and I think it was the right decision.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, is it not a fact that, in substance, we are in a state of economic war with Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that the principle of sanctions was unanimously agreed, or, at all events, authoritatively agreed, between the Opposition and the Government some weeks ago?
A NOBLE LORD: No.
LORD CITRINE: Is it not a fact that there has been a constant attempt on the part of some members of the Opposition to weaken the operation of those sanctions at a time when we are being urged by world opinion to make them still more severe and effective?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I can perhaps best reply to the question that has been asked by my noble friend by saying that responsible Members—responsible, that is, in the sense of having to decide what is the right policy for the Government and for the Opposition—have realised that there was a choice either of military force or of economic sanctions to deal with the situation in Southern Rhodesia. I think we have
844
rightly taken the view that we should use economic sanctions. As I said in the debate the other day, if economic sanctions fail, then the responsibility for Rhodesia will fall from our hands, and the dangers to Southern Rhodesia and to the world will increase.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, is it not—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that there must come a moment when the House will feel that we have given this a good enough airing for to-day. I venture, with great deference, to suggest that that time has arisen.

PLOWDEN REPORT ON THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY
4.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation in another place on the Plowden Report. The Statement is as follows:—
"The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry, under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden, has now been received and printed. Copies will be available in the Vote Office at 4.30 p.m. to-day.
"This is a most valuable Report, and the Government are indebted to Lord Plowden and the other members of the Committee for their sustained work and penetrating analysis.
"The Report proposes a set of guidelines for future policy, with a number of detailed recommendations for future action. Among the subjects dealt with in detail are the organisation and future ownership of the industry. As a preliminary to coming to conclusions on these subjects, I shall be holding exploratory discussions with the industry shortly.
"The House will, I am sure, appreciate that the Committee's Report requires the most careful study both by the Government and by the industry. We are also anxious that there should be a full opportunity for consideration

845
by the House. I therefore hope to make a fuller statement about the Report when the House reassembles after the Christmas Recess."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement and to echo the gratitude which is expressed in it to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his colleagues for the great deal of work they have done in this connection. May I say straight away that I think the Government have been wise in their decision to explore further with the industry the important issues involved, before coming to any firm or final conclusions.
May I ask just two questions of the noble Lord? In the first place, may we assume that the Government will take no definite decisions on any of the major issues involved before Parliament has had time to discuss this Report? My second question arises from the fact that this period of delay, for which I recognise the reason, will, of course, increase the uncertainty—and I think one can say the Government-created uncertainty—which hangs over the aircraft industry at the present time. With a view to mitigating that uncertainty meanwhile, can the noble Lord assure us that the Government are determined to do all within their power to make certain that the British aircraft industry—and by this I mean not only the airframe industry, but also the air engine industry, the air electronics industry and all the associated industries—will retain its ability to compete effectively with any other aircraft industry in the world?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I can give the noble Earl the assurance on the first point, that no decisions on major issues will be taken without Parliament having an opportunity to discuss them. But, of course, it is open to argument as to what are major issues. When the noble Earl sees the Report, I think he will see that time is bound to pass in discussion with the industry, and that there will be suitable opportunities. On his second point, I thought I was going to be able to give the noble Earl the assurance he wanted, but I am not quite sure that I understood what he meant when he referred to the industry's ability to compete, I think he said, with any other industry in the world.
EARL JELLICOE: With any other aircraft industry in the world.
LORD SHACKLETON: On this, I think I would make only this point. It has always been the Government's policy—and certainly continues to be—that we have an effective and viable industry. But the noble Earl knows that, in the present situation, the future of the aircraft industry—and I do not wish to pre-judge what is implied; these are views I have expressed, and I think he has also—must in many respects depend on co-operation, rather than on competition with the industries of other countries. I have particularly in mind the Anglo-French cooperation involved in the Concord, and the Anglo-French VG and Jaguar aircraft. I think the noble Earl rather implied that we ought to have been able to "go it alone." Clearly; he would not expect me to give an assurance on that.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder if I might correct the noble Lord: I think he has slightly misunderstood me. I am as keen as he is that there should be full and deep co-operation between the British aircraft industry and similar industries in Europe. But the assurance which I was requesting from the noble Lord was an assurance that we shall retain in this country a firm national base for such cooperation.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think that is rather different, and I would certainly hope that when the noble Earl sees the Plowden Report, and subsequent Government decisions on this matter, he will be satisfied that his wishes are met. But I think this is a subject at which we should look in detail, rather than purely in the round.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while we on these Benches welcome the fact that the Plowden Report will be available in sixteen minutes, we should have been happier if we could have seen it before making comments on it, even in this brief fashion. Therefore, I do not propose to say anything on it at this moment, but will simply ask the noble Lord whether we can have a debate on the Report at an early date after the House reassembles following the Christmas Recess. I think the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—that is to say, the future co-operation of the British aircraft industry with European industry, and also to what

847
extent the Government should be implicated in the future of the industry—are very important. At first sight, at all events, we would not wish any incursion of the Government into the industry which would in any way make it a nationalised industry. We do not feel that that would be in the best interests, either of the country or of the aircraft manufacturers.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord sees the Report, he will see the impossibility of dealing with it by means of Statement and question and answer. His suggestion about a debate is clearly one that is open to the Opposition to press, either through the usual channels, or through other ways that are open to them. Certainly all these major issues are dealt with in the Plowden Report.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I raise with the Minister one point of clarification? If I understand him aright, he said that there would be a future report on the recommendations of the Plowden Committee. As I understand it at the moment, the Report deals mainly with the organisation of the aircraft industry and not so much with its future place and size, as there has not been any Statement from the Government with regard to the Defence Review. May I take it that the Statement to which the Minister referred will be made more or less in conjunction with a Statement on the Government's Defence Review? While considering this whole question of the size of the aircraft industry, will the Government also consider very carefully what was written in the brochure recently produced by The Society of British Aerospace Companies.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord in linking this to the Defence Review. I hardly ever make a Statement in this House without mentioning the Defence Review. May I remind the noble Lord, who I know is deeply interested in this subject, that it is the intention of the Government to consider the Report very carefully (it has been in the hands of the Government only a comparatively few days) and to study it and, as necessary, to have exploratory discussions with industry. Clearly, all the views of industry, many of which have been put to the
848
Plowden Committee and are available to the Government, will be taken into account. I assure the noble Lord that the object must be on all sides with good will to arrive—to use the noble Earl's phrase—at a satisfactory and effective base; indeed, a viable and effective aircraft industry.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the fuller Statement to be made by the Government will be the outcome of further consultations that are to be had with the aircraft industry itself?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know how much longer the noble Lord wants me to go on. I hesitate to use the words "there will be a continuing process". But once again the Government will make available to Parliament and to the country, as quickly as possible, their views on various aspects.

WEST MIDLANDS ORDER 1965
4.18 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I now revert to the West Midlands Order, and also have your Lordships' permission for so doing, because I have already spoken once on this Order, as, I think, have several noble Lords? I have only one or two things to say very shortly. First, I feel very much happier since the last speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, than I did before as regards consideration being given to other and alternative forms of organising local government in the country. At the same time, I recognise that my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury may still feel that not enough consideration was given. Although this is a highly controversial matter, it is not a Party political, controversial matter. Therefore, I am not sure to what extent it is appropriate for me to offer any advice to your Lordships. If it is appropriate, then my advice would be that, as this controversy has been going on for a very long time indeed, ever since 1959, and as this Order has been passed in another place without a Division. I would feel that your Lordships ought also to pass this Order now.
On Question, whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gridley, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hankey, L.

Rea, L.

Addison, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Royle, L.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

St. Just, L.

Boston, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Segal, L.

Bowles, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shackleton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Shepherd, L.

Carrington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Citrine, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cohen, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strang, L.

Devonshire, D.

Lothian, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Macphcrson of Drumochter, L.

Tenby, V.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wade, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefleld of Kendal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mitchison, L.

Walston, L.

Gage, V.

Newton, L.

Williams, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ogmore, L.

Wolverton, L.

Goschen, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Brentford, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Effingham, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Newall, L.

Greenway, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Soulbury, V.

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Lords Amendments disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Reason to be printed.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Certain earnings payable by the Crown to be arrestable in execution]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): This is merely a drafting Amendment. In line 20 of page 2, Clause 2(1), there is mention of "the following proviso" being substituted. As the earlier part of the clause indicates, what is in fact being substituted is a paragraph of a proviso. The Amendment puts this right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("proviso") and insert ("paragraph").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Power to vary amount of wages excepted from arrestment
".—(1) If at any time after the commencement of this Act it appears to Her Majesty in Council that the sum of four pounds specified in section 2 of the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act 1870 (limitation of liability of wages to arrestment) (whether by

851
virtue of the said Act as amended by any other Act or as previously amended under this section) should be further varied, Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the said section shall he further amended so as to substitute, for the sum specified in that section, such other sum as may be specified in the Order.
(2) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under the last preceding subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) Any Order in Council made under this section may be revoked by a subsequent Order in Council under this section which substitutes another sum for the sum specified in the Order which is thereby revoked.
(4) An Order in Council made under this section shall come into force on the expiration of a period of one month beginning with the date on which it is made."
The noble Lord said: I indicated to your Lordships on Second Reading that I proposed to bring forward a new clause providing for variation of the amount of wages which would be protected from arrestment. This is a point upon which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, also spoke during Second Reading. Amendment No. 2 is the result, and I would suggest to your Lordships that as Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are consequential it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I spoke to all three Amendments at the present time.
The Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act 1870, as amended, protects part of a worker's wages from arrestment for debt. The figure was 20s. per week in the 1870 Act and was raised to 35s. per week by the Small Debt (Scotland) Act 1924. The McKechnie Committee on Diligence in 1958 suggested a more flexible rule, which is the current law under the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act 1960. This provides protection of the first £4 of weekly wages plus half the remainder. The McKechnie Committee took note that the figure had only once been changed since 1870, and they proposed that power should be taken to vary it by statutory instrument. The 1960 Act did not do so, but I would remind your Lordships that this was an Act proposed by a private Member in another place and in fact it limited itself to the introduction of the £4 plus half the remainder rule.
The proposed new clause provides for variation of the figure by Order in Council, subject to Affirmative Resolution by
852
both Houses of Parliament. The extent of limitation on arrestment has long been laid down by Act of Parliament, and may be an important matter for those concerned. The Government accordingly think it right that any future change should be on the positive decision of Parliament and this the Affirmative Resolution procedure secures. Provision is made for a month's interval between the making of the Order in Council and its coming into force, in order to give ample opportunity for those concerned to take account of the new limits. This follows the precedent of the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1960, which came into effect one month after enactment.
The two associated Amendments, Nos. 9 and 10, are drafting. Amendment No. 9 is consequential on the new clause. The new Clause 10(1) as it stands provides that any reference to an enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any other enactment. The Amendment, adding the words "including this Act", is required to ensure that the reference to the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act 1870 in Clause 2(6) extends to that Act, as amended by the new clause providing for variation by Order in Council of the amount of wages excepted from arrestment. Amendment 10 extends the Long Title of the Bill to provide for the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should just like to thank the noble Lord for explaining the purposes of this Amendment. We entirely agree with it. We think it is right that Her Majesty's Government should have the power to vary the amount, and we are very delighted to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
After Clause 4 [Adopted person to be treated as child of natural parents for purposes of succession in certain circumstances]:
4.36 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
". In section 7 of the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act 1878 and in section 2(1)(a) of

853
the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 for the words ' fifteen days' there shall be substituted the words 'sixty days' ".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. I think the intention of this Amendment is clear, even without the publicity which has been given to it. What I should like to see is the end of the misuse by people other than Scots, who are not intended to be affected by this Amendment, of certain provisions in Scottish marriage law; who come to Scotland, in order to get married as it were under a flag of convenience.
This has created a serious social problem, and the trend, particularly among very young couples from the Continent, is probably on the increase. Many come over, too, in ignorance of the present law, with its fifteen days residence qualification, and they think that if they come they can put everything right over the weekend. It may be that many such young couples have found happiness as a result of their marriage in Scotland, rather than in their own country, where parents' consent is necessary. But there are many others who have not found that happiness, and they are my concern to-day.
There are—and it is understandable—no relevant statistics to show what has been the result of these marriages, since the couples are dispersed all over Europe, and it is probable that many of them do not find in this form of marriage the real foundation of happiness in married life. I have tried to find a simple way of ending this without having any bearing on any basic principle of Scots law and without affecting any Scotsmen living in Scotland or previously domiciled in Scotland. I think my Amendment does so; but if it does not, I think it can be amended in order to achieve this.
I do not wish to exaggerate the problem, nor to present the case as having any element of England v. Scotland. That is very far from my intention. This is not a Scottish problem or an English problem: it is a problem for which we share responsibility. I think it has been recognised for a long time that there has been need for some reform, and it is a pity that nothing has been done before. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will know as well as I do that the Church on both sides of the Border, the local authorities
854
on both sides of the Border, the National Assistance Board, the police, moral welfare organisations on both sides of the Border, and German welfare authorities here in London, would all like to see some change. I have even heard it said—I admit that it is hearsay—that the Registrar at Gretna would like to see some change. There are undoubtedly some who would like to see the position stay as it is, probably because they make money out of it; and there is undoubtedly some Press interest, particularly when some frustrated millionaire's kids are chasing around the country, followed by reporters and cameras. But I do not think that ought to deter us this afternoon.
This problem has its origins in the romances of the eighteenth century runaway marriages, before the days of any requirement of residence, and when couples, having reached Scotland just ahead of irate parents, made appropriate affirmations before the first convenient Scotsman, who often happened to be the Gretna blacksmith; but there is no particular magic in Gretna, and as the noble Lord knows Dundee would have done, and still would do, just as well, except that the railway fare or travelling time is that much heavier. This marriage without parents' consent was made use of even by Members of your Lordships' House.
There is one famous case where a Member of your Lordships' House went to Gretna as fast as his horses could carry him, with the daughter and heiress of the great Robert Child, the banker; and after a pitched battle just South of the Border he did marry his bride in Scotland. But he did not gain all that he had hoped for, any more than some of the couples do to-day, because the father-in-law, who was a rich man, made sure that no shilling of his fortune—and the great House in Osterley was part of his fortune—descended to his son-in-law, or to any male heir of his son-in-law's body.
While most of us realise that this has changed, it is still widely believed in England, and more so on the Continent, particularly in Germany, that once you have arrived in Scotland you can marry "on the nod", and therefore it does not matter what sort of mistakes you make: that if, for instance, at the age of sixteen or seventeen you put your

855
fiancée in the family way, all you have to do is to get to Gretna, make an honest woman of her, and all will be well in the end. That, of course, is not the position as it stands: it takes longer. Foreigners sometimes come over, with that purpose, misled by the residence qualification, only to find on arrival that they cannot achieve all they want over the weekend. They have to wait fifteen days or more, and they decide to "sweat it out". And "sweating it out" is not marriage on the cheap, because there are lodgings to pay for. Although things are better since 1960, thanks to the efforts of the local authority, such people still can find that their money does not suffice, when they may have to take to tents or caravans. If a young man sees his girl both hungry and shivering with cold, he is tempted to resort to petty crime, as the police will bear out. Many, as a result of this, over-stay their leave and then lose their jobs, and become a charge on National Assistance.
Some, admittedly, are wiser; and they get to know the ropes. One of the North Country newspapers the other day carried a picture of a young private soldier in the German Army who had come over here for the second time in two years. I have here a picture of him with his second bride. I did not intend to mention a particular case, but I thought it had some bearing on my argument. Having mentioned it, I apologise to him; and wish him and his bride every happiness.
As to the numbers concerned, I do not think it is generally known how many of these marriages are, in fact, celebrated all over Scotland. In the Gretna district alone in 1964 there was 461 civil marriages, and not all the parties were from the local inhabitants of that small place. Of the 461, 188 couples were English; 154 couples were German; 192 couples were under the age of 21, and in 49 of those marriages, I understand, one of the parties was only 16.
It is a considerable trade, and it was said by a most responsible Scotsman the other day that
"only a small proportion of these marriages are of Scots people; many are far too young to be married at all, usually without their parents' consent and probably without the love of their parents. In many cases they are
856
impecunious. This is no way to begin married life. I draw attention to this only because it is a trend which I regard as undesirable. The Scots marriage law is being brought into disrepute. This is something which we Parliamentarians might bear in mind".
Those are the words of the honourable Member who at present represents Dumfries-shire in another place. It could hardly be more strongly or clearly put.
No one contends that the position to-day is satisfactory, or has been satisfactory for quite a long time. One Member of Parliament, a Scot whom I knew, now dead, was working hard some years ago to try to get something done, and was disappointed at the lack of sympathy she found in high places in Edinburgh. I am going to suggest that my Amendment is a practical, simple Amendment which should commend itself to the Committee. Here I should like to try to anticipate some of the comments or criticisms which may be voiced. It could be said that the figure of 60 days which I suggest should be inserted in the Statutes, in place of the present 15 days, is too long a time. If the noble Lord puts that to me, I will say that I am quite willing to accept any better figure that he may suggest. It could be said that under my drafting, although it is not my intention, some Scotsmen living out of Scotland might be affected. If that is so, I am quite willing to accept any Amendment to my Amendment which would ensure that all Scotsmen were excluded. Knowing the ingenuity of all Departments in drafting, even at a high speed, I am sure that this is not beyond the resources of the noble Lord's Department.
I believe that, if this Amendment is accepted by your Lordships, consequential Amendments may be necessary, including one to the Long Title of the Bill. That is not difficult. Lastly, it could be said that it is too long to make even a small administrative change in the marriage laws without full discussion between civil and ecclesiastical authorities. On major issues I would agree. But if that argument were applied to my Amendment, I would say that it had little force beyond being delaying tactics. After all, we are concerned here with the happiness and lives of young couples, rather than with the tidier processes of the most generous of bureaucrats or ecclesiastical lawyers.
The honourable Member, if I may quote his words again, said that:
"the Scots marriage law is being dragged into disrepute. This is something which we Parliamentarians might bear in mind."
So I am going to suggest that we should now take this opportunity of doing something which ought to have been done a long time ago. Let us take such action as is in our power to clear away the misunderstandings and the deception. If we do, we shall be earning the thanks of many parents, but, what is more important than that, we shall be helping often desperate young couples not to rush into ill-thought-out precipitate unions; and helping them to honour marriage as a sacrament rather than to treat it as a gimmick of the tourist trade.
In a peculiar way this is our special responsibility, because the other place, under their Standing Orders, cannot amend this Bill in this way. It is impossible for us here just to accept the principle that something should be done and arrange for the effective action to follow in another place.
Since in this instance it cannot be done, so it is for us here to take action. It is in our power to give help where help is needed, or, like the priests and Levites in the parable, to pass by on the other side. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Inglewood.)
4.48 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, described his Amendment as simple and practicable. So far as the first adjective is concerned, I cannot dispute it at all. So far as the second is concerned, I must entirely disagree with him. He anticipated some of the arguments which might be deployed against his Amendment. That is not entirely surprising, considering that we spent an hour yesterday morning in my office discussing the Amendment and the possible deficiencies that it held. I must say quite frankly that yesterday, as to-day, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, showed the greatest willingness to alter the Amendment so that it would accomplish his purpose of interfering with unwise, runaway marriages without causing any hardship in any other direction.
858
I would remind your Lordships that the occasion of these couples from outside Scotland coming across the Border to be married, whether they be English or German, does not arise from the residence period in Scotland, because the total period involved in waiting to be married in Scotland is almost identical with the period in England. In England it is a residential period of seven days, plus a period of notice thereafter of 21 days, making a total period which must be waited before marriage can take place of 28 days. In Scotland the residence period is 15 days with seven days thereafter for publication and two days' interval between the expiry of the residence period and the expiry of the publication period, which makes a total of 24 days. Between 28 days and 24 days there is virtually no difference.
The real reason why these couples come to Scotland is that there is nothing in the marriage law of Scotland which requires parental consent. They come to Scotland for that reason only. Therefore, it would be obvious that the logical Amendment to have been moved by Lord Inglewood, if the primary purpose which he is seeking were to be carried out, would be to require parental consent to be imported into the law of Scotland either for all marriages in Scotland or for certain marriages in Scotland. But as there has never at any time, so far as can be ascertained, been a requirement for parental consent in Scotland, it could not by any stretch of the imagination be suggested that such a proposal would be a simple or minor amendment of the Scottish marriage law.
I must congratulate the noble Lord in seeking to accomplish the purpose which would have been served by the need for parental consent by making the period of residence such that only the comparatively wealthy youngster could afford to come and stay for a period of sixty-plus days or forty-plus or thirty-plus, whatever was accepted as the figure, before marriage could take place. He readily agreed, in our discussions yesterday, that he had no desire to interfere with the freedom of Scots and he accepted that the effect of his Amendment, as it stood, would be quite wrong so far as Scots were concerned. In fact, when I tell your Lordships that as the Amendment stays it would mean that

859
no marriage could take place without sixty-nine days' residence plus notice—no marriage for anyone, neither scot nor foreigner—as against twenty-eight days in England, it would obviously be a condition which would be wholly unacceptable to the people of Scotland. I must risk the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if therefore I come back to the point that the real objection which he has is to the absence of parental consent in Scotland.
On the Second Reading of this Bill, he raised another matter altogether in connection with offences in England being taken into account when a man was being tried in Scotland. He put forward a plea, one which has often been made, as to the desirability of having as much uniformity as possible between the laws of England and of Scotland, a plea to which all of us would subscribe in principle. But it is by no means certain that, in this day and age, if uniformity in this matter of parental consent is achieved, it will necessarily be by means of parental consent being imported into the law of Scotland.
There is at least a movement, the strength of which I am not in position to gauge, to alter the law of England to remove the need for parental consent, at present up to the age of 21. It may be that that move would be for the abolition of parental consent entirely in England and Wales. It might be a substitution of eighteen or some other figure for twenty-one. One has heard proposals to reduce the voting age to eighteen. It rather envisages the possibility that if this were done in England and Wales, an eighteen-year-old could be allowed to vote only if he at the same time produced his parents' consent to vote in a particular way. I suggest to your Lordships that the motive behind Lord Inglewood's Amendment is one which would certainly commend itself to all of us, but I can commend to your Lordships' House no variation of the Amendment which I have looked at.
I will indicate the sort of way in which we looked at possible variations of this Amendment. We thought in the first instance, as Lord Inglewood has suggested, of substituting for the period of 15 days something more than 15 but less than 60. The extent to which we would get near 15 days would frustrate his
860
object. The extent to which we would go towards 60 days would be unduly inconvenient to Scots generally. The second way we considered was to provide that the new period of residence should apply to only one party of the marriage, and that therefore where one of the parties was a Scot it would be quite simple; or to provide that the new period should not apply to persons who can show that they are normally resident in Scotland. In the case of each one of these variations the strongest arguments were brought against their being a workable part of the marriage law of Scotland.
Apart altogether from the civil law, we have the position—and this is not news to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—that there is Church law on this matter. The Church has strong powers in this connection. In Section 18 of the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878 it is provided that nothing in statute law or custom shall prevent the Church of Scotland from altering the regulations governing the proclamation of banns, except that it is not competent for the Church to rule that the period of residence required of a person seeking the proclamation of banns shall be less than fifteen days. By an act of the General Assembly, dated June 1, 1932, the residence qualification was fixed at fifteen days, so that in this matter Church and State are at present in agreement.
If the new clause were enacted, or if it were enacted in some form substituting some higher figure for fifteen days, there would in this regard be a difference between Church marriages and civil marriages. I do not think that it would be long before those who were seeking to evade the absence of parental consent, whether in England or in Germany, would discover that they could still be married in Scotland without parental consent by having the banns proclaimed after a residence of fifteen days. We should therefore be in a position that, while the Church had been given full authority to determine what its period for proclaiming banns was going to be, provided that it was not less than fifteen days, it would be manœuvred—by accident, not by intention—into the position where it would have to make its law conform with the civil law, or accept the odium that only the Church was helping to carry out these runaway marriages.

861
As an elder of the Church of Scotland, I must declare an interest and say that I would not willingly place the Church in such an invidious position. The position of runaway marriages is something to which many Scots have given their attention in the past. I know of no one who has been prepared to say that nothing need be done on the matter; but, as in other very difficult situations, nothing has been done, for the simple reason that there is no easy solution to the problem. In all conscience, all I can advise your Lordships to do to-day is to accept an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are willing and anxious that this shall be one of the matters to be considered by all the authorities concerned in a review of Scottish marriage law, and that anything which Her Majesty's Government can do to expedite that general consideration will be done.
When I mention the fact that there are involved not only the various legal organisations and societies in Scotland, as well as the Church and the Registrar-General, but also the law of England, it is obvious that this is not a subject which can be disposed of by a simple Amendment in your Lordships' House, however well intentioned. I agree personally with the spirit behind the Amendment, and I hope that a solution will be possible. This is contrary to what I said in speaking to the Second Reading, when I pointed out that there were times when one ought to pick up a particular item where a speedy solution was possible rather than wait for the solution of the whole problem, which was the argument I deployed in favour of altering the appeal periods in connection with certain procedures at criminal appeals; but this is not a case, I think, where we can easily and correctly separate this subject from a reconsideration of the marriage laws as a whole.
It is not for me to suggest, either, what the Scottish Law Commission could do, but this may well be a point on which they will have something to say. However, I must hasten to remind your Lordships that what is intended here is not just a simple amendment of lawyers' law, and it must be a matter upon which the decision is finally taken by Parliament itself. This is an alteration of social conditions of very long standing in Scotland, and it cannot be done lightly or
862
hurriedly; and, if it is to meet with the approval of the people of Scotland, it cannot be done without the clearest evidence that the change has overwhelming support. For these reasons I must ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, and I cannot even, for the reasons I have stated, give to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, any hope that it will be possible at the next stage to substitute an alternative Amendment which would accomplish his purpose.
5.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I very seldom have the effrontery to interfere in any Bill which is Scottish, but it seeems to me that this is a Bill which is of considerable importance outside Scotland, and that, no doubt, is the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is moving this Amendment. It is quite obvious from what he has said that there is a growing state of affairs which can only be described as a public scandal. Hundreds of these marriages of young people, who obviously are not fit to be married and who would not be allowed to be married in this country, are taking advantage of the unsatisfactory legal arrangements in Scotland to get married. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, it is clear that a large number of these marriages are unfortunate and lead to a great deal of misery and despair.
It may very well be that the technical arguments against the Amendment are very strong, and, obviously, as is so often the case when Governments oppose the Amendments of Private Members, they have been ably set out by the Government spokesman. He said that there is no clear and easy solution to this problem, but, from what he said, this situation has been obvious for a very long time. I had not myself appreciated that that was so. But if it has been obvious for a very long time that this unsatisfactory state of the law existed, then surely it was the duty of the Government—the Scottish Office, in particular—to take steps to see that the remedy was produced. It seems very unsatisfactory for the Government spokesman to come forward at this late hour and say that they have no satisfactory solution.
I appreciate that it is difficult for the noble Lord to press his Amendment, in view of what has been said. But I hope

863
that he will persist in his endeavour to remove this very serious sore from the body politic, because it obviously is such. The opinion which he read of a very knowledgeable Member of Parliament, who has seen this trend developing until it almost looks as though it might become a runaway sore, was most impressive, and I hope that the noble Lord who replies for the Government will appreciate that this is not a matter which can be dealt with lightly.
The Law Commissions Bill provides that the appropriate authority may ask the Law Commission to look at something and to prepare a report, and I think it is implicit that it can be asked to do so very quickly. I should have thought that this ought to be done, and that the Law Commission ought to be asked to go into the whole matter and to put a report before Parliament very quickly; for, clearly, this is a matter for Parliament. It is a matter of very considerable social importance, but if the Law Commission for Scotland could propose something within the next few months, it might be possible during the next year to get the matter right. I certainly feel that very prompt and quick steps ought to be taken to deal with this problem.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was very courteous in his reply to me this afternoon, even if not convincing on every point. I would also say that he was very courteous to me yesterday, when he said that he would use his best endeavours to look into some of the possible variations of this Amendment, to see whether it would be possible to adopt any of them. It is very disappointing to be told to-day that he does not think that that is going to be possible. However, I do not think that the Report stage is to be taken until the end of January, so he has a whole month to see whether he can think of something which we could include in this Bill. I can hardly believe that the difficulties are quite as big as the noble Lord suggested.
I have very great respect for him, and I should like to say that I hope that neither he nor I is going to be labelled as a "spoilsport" for discussing this Amendment, because that is not our
864
purpose at all. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested, early on in his speech, that the one and only solution was the question of parental consent. He seemed a little surprised that I had not embodied this in my Amendment. But, of course, if I had put an Amendment on the Order Paper based on parental consent, it would obviously have affected Scotsmen, and I said from the start that it was not my intention that any Scotsmen now living in Scotland, or who were ever domiciled in Scotland, should be affected. That is why I rejected it.
I was sorry that the noble Lord brought the question of wealth into this. Getting married is very rarely a cheap business, which I think is common knowledge. Furthermore, it is not marriage on the cheap when you come to Scotland from Germany and stay in lodgings, which can easily be expensive, for a fortnight or more. So I think his suggestion about my Amendment making marriage one law for the rich and one for the poor was hardly worthy of the rest of his speech. He referred several times to the Church, but I wish he had said, as an elder of the kirk, that the Church disapproves of what we all consider the squalid parts of this business. He did not say so.
Lastly, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that this is not entirely a Scottish problem. I think the noble Lord on the Front Bench tried to represent that this was a Scottish problem, and that it solely concerned the decision and wish of the people of Scotland. Most of the people whom we have been discussing here this afternoon only go about a mile over the Border, and stay in Scotland for the minimum time. This is a problem which concerns England just as much as Scotland, and it is really a stain on the good administration of Great Britain as a whole. Much as I should like to press this Amendment, I do not think I should be helpful to do so; but the discussion has been valuable. I hope the noble Lord will use his good endeavours to find a solution to this problem, and will appreciate that it is not a Scottish problem alone but one that concerns the whole of Great Britain—and, in fact, people beyond our shores. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Amendment of section 5 of Trusts (Scotland) Act 1961]:
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved to add to subsection (1):
"and a direction to accumulate income during a period specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not be void, nor shall the accumulation of the income by contrary to the said section 5, solely by reason of the fact that the period begins during the life of the grantor and ends after his death."
The noble Lord said: If I may, I will take this and the next Amendment together. As I indicated to your Lordships on Second Reading, the Scottish Law Commission suggested to the Government a possible improvement to clarify Clause 5. The first of these Amendments—that is, Amendment No. 4—is intended to implement the recommendation of the Commission. I am advised that before the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1961, there was some doubt in Scotland (although apparently not in England) in relation to whether permitted accumulation under deeds having effect in the lifetime of the grantor could run only so long as the grantor was alive. The 1961 Act, in Section 5(4), made it clear that, so far as Scots law is concerned, the death of the grantor did not prevent such accumulations from being legal. As the two additional periods covered by Clause 5 are in the same category as the period referred to in Section 5(4) of the 1961 Act, the Government accept the Scottish Law Commission's view that it is advisable to amend Clause 5 to make it clear that the two periods added by the clause similarly are not affected by the death of the grantor of the settlement. This would be the effect of the proposed Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, first of all to apologise on both his behalf and on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, for their unavoidable absence this afternoon, and, secondly, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the steps he is taking to amend this clause in accordance with the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission and also, I think, in accordance with the views put forward by the
866
noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, himself at the last stage of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord asked me to thank the noble Lord on his behalf for amending the Bill in this way and also (and I say this now to avoid my having to speak on a later Amendment as well) in Clause 7.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2) to leave out:
"in relation to a power to accumulate income whether or not there is a duty to exercise that power, and that they apply."
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 go together, and, with permission, I will speak to both. Amendment No. 6 is consequential on No. 5. Your Lordships will recall that on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, expressed the view that the first half of Clause 5(2) was not in fact declaratory of the law of Scotland, and that he had particular misgivings about its effect on the administration of charitable trusts. My right honourable friend the Lord Advocate has reconsidered the clause with regard to the noble and learned Lord's observations, and the Government agree that the provision cannot safely be regarded as a declaratory one. The Government have had further consultations with the Law Society of Scotland, who in earlier consultations had agreed with the clause, and the Government have also been in touch with the Scottish Law Commission. In the light of these consultations, the Government consider that the right course would be to withdraw this provision from the Bill and to request the Scottish Law Commission to examine the matter on its merits. Amendment No. 5 deletes the provision from the Bill. Amendment No. 6, which alters the reference from "power to accumulate" to "direction to accumulate" is a drafting consequence of Amendment No. 5.
I should like to say that the Government and I are most grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Guest, for the ready way in which they accepted my invitation to consult with the Government on suitable Amendments to this clause and to Clause 7. The Amendments which are on the Marshalled List in respect of both these clauses are the result of that consultation and enable me to come forward, both on Clause 5 and on

867
Clause 7, and assure your Lordships that we have now evolved a form of words which commands such weighty Scottish legal support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out from ("apply") to ("whether") in line 41.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I ought to have said what I said on the last Amendment on the occasion of this Amendment. Nevertheless, I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for bringing this Amendment forward.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out ("power") and insert ("direction").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Variation and recall by the sheriff of certain orders made by the Court of Session in respect of maintenance, custody etc., and amendment of section 2 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1938]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2) after "and" [and the sheriff], to insert
"subject to the provisions of the next following subsection,".
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. These Amendments have been put down in accordance with an undertaking which I gave on Second Reading. Clause 7 in its present form has been subject to some criticism—criticism which was reinforced by noble Lords who contributed to the debate. In view of these misgivings, the Government have felt that the right course would be to amend the clause to limit the sheriff court's jurisdiction to cases where both parties desire it. Thus the case would be dealt with by the Court of Session at the wish of either party, but parties could go to the sheriff court if both of them feel it is more economical and generally convenient to do so.
Amendment No. 7 is merely a paving Amendment, making it clear that the application of subsection (2) is limited by
868
the requirement introduced by the new subsection, which is the subject of Amendment No. 8.
The general effect of the new subsection—that is, Amendment No. 8—is that in applications made to the sheriff court to vary orders made by the Court of Session concerning maintenance and custody of and access to children, the responding party may if he or she chooses have the application remitted to the Court of Session. He must exercise this right not later than the first calling of the application. I am advised that this is, broadly speaking, the stage at which the responding party would first appear in court and indicate whether he intended to oppose the application. The Amendment provides that on every application the sheriff clerk shall obtain the relevant process from the Court of Session. This was a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, attached importance in the Second Reading debate.
The clause, as amended to require the agreement of both parties to the application, would thus enable any party to insist on the jurisdiction of the Court of Session in those cases which some of your Lordships felt were better dealt with in the Court of Session, and yet it will leave the advantages of the sheriff court procedure available where both parties desire them. The Government are confident that this will offer an acceptable and more convenient procedure for many of the people affected, while removing the misgivings which some of your Lordships felt, that a difficult issue which was appropriate to the Court of Session might be decided elsewhere, against the will of one of the parties. I should like to reiterate our acknowledgement of the debt which the Government feel for the counsel of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Guest and Lord Reid, who so kindly accepted my invitation to be consulted about the preparation of these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after ("and") insert ("subject to the provisions of the next following subsection.").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like only to say that I regard these Amendments as a very considerable improvement to the Bill, and to welcome them from this side.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: As one of those who criticised the principle of this clause, I should like just to add my thanks to the noble Lord. I am sure that these two Amendments, which have the blessing of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Guest and Lord Reid, will make the Bill much more practicable and more workable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
("The application shall forthwith be intimated by the sheriff clerk to the Principal Clerk of Session, who shall transmit the process in the said action to the sheriff clerk.
( ) Where in any application under this section the other party, not later than the first calling of the application in court, requests that it be remitted to the Court of Session, the sheriff shall so remit, and the Court of Session shall deal with it accordingly.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation, repeals, citation and extent]:
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, at end insert ("including this Act ").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
The Title:
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment in the Title is also consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 5, after ("Crown") insert ("and to provide for the variation from time to time of the amount of wages excepted from arrestment under the Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act 1870.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
First Report from the Committee made; to be printed, and ordered to lie on the Table.