Lords Sitting of 21 January 1965

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

LORD ARWYN
Arwyn Randall Arwyn, Esquire, having been created Baron Arwyn, of Glais in the County of Glamorgan, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD WYNNE-JONES
William Francis Kenrick Wynne-Jones, Esquire, having been created Baron Wynne-Jones, of Abergele in the County of Denbigh, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Tenby—Took the Oath.

COMMITTAL PROCEDURE AND PRESS REPORTS
3.26 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: 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 when they intend to introduce legislation to implement the recommendation of the Tucker Committee on Proceedings before Examining Justices (1958) to the effect that, unless the accused has been discharged or until the trial has ended, any report of the committal proceedings should be restricted to particulars of the name of the accused, the charge, the decision of the court and the like, and whether they have any statement to make concerning the general reform of committal procedure.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Government have decided that reports of proceedings before examining
1012
justices should be restricted in the manner recommended by the Tucker Committee. They have also decided that the use of statutory declarations instead of oral testimony and of draft depositions as evidence-in-chief should be allowed in committal proceedings in accordance with the recommendations of the Byrne Committee.
Before reaching these decisions careful consideration was given to the views which Judges, magistrates, and others, concerned in the administration of criminal justice, expressed in answers to a questionnaire about the nature and purpose of these proceedings.
The legislation necessary to give effect to these decisions will be introduced in due course.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the Answer to my Question. I am very glad that Her Majesty's Government have decided to implement the recommendations of these two Committees—something which, in my humble opinion, should have been done long ago.

U.N. RESOLUTION ON CONGO MERCENARIES
3.28 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: 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 why they supported the Resolution on the Congo adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on December 30, 1964, demanding, inter alia, "as a matter of urgency" the withdrawal of the mercenaries, having regard to the fact that these troops have already rescued hundreds of hostages and are the only hope of survival for many others who are still held prisoner.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHAL-FONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government supported the Resolution because they believe that if it were carried out it would contribute materially to the solution of the problems of the Congo. and would indeed improve the chances of survival of those non-Congolese civilians still in rebel-held territory.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I should like to ask him this further question. As the Resolution was purposely drafted so as to make it ambivalent, how did Her Majesty's Government know when they voted for it what they were supporting? Would it not have been much more sensible if they had joined with France and abstained from voting?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the Resolution as a whole appeals for a cessation of outside intervention and for a cease fire, which is quite unequivocal. If these things could be arranged, then the negotiations for the release of hostages might become easier. But I would point out to the noble Lord that, until a ceasefire is arranged, there is no question of the Congolese Army's unilaterally holding up its operations and ceasing its rescue work. The reason why Her Majesty's Government supported the Resolution was this attempt to bring about a cessation of all outside intervention and a cease-fire in the Congo.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, now that the United Nations has withdrawn its own force from the Congo, surely it will incur a terrible responsibility if it is going to press the legal Government of the Congo to abandon its only effective instrument for preventing the barbaric massacres and tortures of these innocent victims. Ought we not at least to have dissociated ourselves from that responsibility?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the Congolese Government is, of course, entitled to obtain and keep assistance from whatever source it wishes. But I would point out to the noble Earl that the Congolese Government has indicated its willingness to dispense with the aid of these mercenaries if aid to the rebels from outside the Congo can be stopped. Her Majesty's Government therefore feel that the most important thing to do is to achieve a cease-fire, to stop intervention from outside, and then to allow the Congolese Government, with whatever help it wishes, to solve this problem on its own.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the Minister say why these soldiers are called "mercenaries", when in the
1014
Spanish Civil War such people coming in from outside and being paid were called "volunteers"?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether it is not the case that this Resolution insists on the withdrawal of any external support, either to the Government or to the rebels; and that it asks for co-operation with the Organisation of African Unity for this purpose? Secondly, will the Government do all they can to assist in the implementation of this Resolution?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the answer to both parts of that question is, Yes.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the difference of status between those who are so loosely described as "mercenaries", in the service of the legal Government of the Congo, and British officers serving in Nigeria and Kenya, or, indeed, American officers serving in South Vietnam? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Since the rebel leaders Christoph Gbenye and Gaston Soumaliot are quite openly operating under Chinese and Soviet influence, and are being illegally supplied with arms from Algeria and the United Arab Republic, do Her Majesty's Government really welcome the prospect of the withdrawal of these mercenaries when all that can ensue will be chaos and Communism?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the answer to the first part of the question is that those British officers who are serving with Kenyan and other forces are there at the invitation of the Government—
LORD COLYTON: So are these.
LORD CHALFONT: —and with the express consent of Her Majesty's Government. I am not really prepared to enter into a discussion as to what constitutes "mercenaries". The official interpretation is that they are people who join armies, and fight, for pay. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I would again repeat that the object of the Resolution is to bring about a cease-fire and the cessation of all outside intervention.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I take it that Her Majesty's Government are not taking the

1015
line that the so-called mercenaries should be withdrawn before those who are aiding the rebels are withdrawn? May I take it that the aim of the Government is to secure the withdrawal of all outside assistance, on both sides, and that each side should be entitled to be satisfied that the other side is going to withdraw its assistance?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords. I would repeat that there is no question of asking the Congolese army to hold up its operations unilaterally. The object is to get a cease-fire and a multilateral withdrawal of intervening forces.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is not asking for operations to be held up unilaterally. But I must ask him this: is he really suggesting that Her Majesty's Government are quite impartial as between the legal Government of the Congo and these Communist-supplied rebel forces which have committed these appalling atrocities?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, there is no question of that. As I have said, and say again, what we are trying to achieve is an overall cease-fire.

ADMINISTRATION OF SOUTH WEST AFRICA
3.35 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to give evidence to the International Court at The Hague, when oral hearings commence on March 15, on the question of the fulfilment of the conditions of the Mandate for the administration of South-West Africa conferred by the League of Nations on His Britannic Majesty for and on behalf of the Government of the Union of South Africa].
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the United Kingdom has an interest in this case within the terms of Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, or that any useful purpose would be served by trying to intervene.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government will reconsider their decision on this matter, and whether they will pay some attention to the very weighty reasons for so doing which were given in the last Parliament by the present Solicitor General? Also, and in particular, will they bear in mind the following points: that the United Kingdom was a leading member of the League of Nations and took a prominent part in the establishment of the mandate system; that the terms of reference to the mandatory Power included progress towards self-government by the people, and social, educational and economic development; that the Government of the Republic of South Africa has applied to South-West Africa the system of apartheid, which all Parties in this country condemn; that special British responsibility lies in the fact that the Mandate was conferred on His Late Britannic Majesty and, through him, on the Government of the Union of South Africa; and, lastly—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am afraid I must ask my noble friend to curtail his remarks a little as we are in Question Time.
LORD BROCKWAY: I was going to make my last point and I hope I may be—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid I must ask my noble friend to consider whether it would not be better to leave it where it is now. I am afraid I must put that point quite firmly.
LORD BROCKWAY: Then I shall put my last point as a supplementary question.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the point that was raised by the noble Lord about the League of Nations and Britain's membership of the League of Nations is not entirely relevant to this issue because the two parties to the Mandate were the League of Nations and the mandatory Power, the Union of South Africa; and, while the noble Lord is right in saying that His Late Britannic Majesty accepted the Mandate, he accepted it on behalf of the Union of South Africa. He was acting, not on behalf of the Government of the United

1017
Kingdom but as Head of State of South Africa, which was then a fully independent member of the Commonwealth.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will consider the further point that, when this Mandate was conferred, there was no anticipation that the present policy of educational, social and economic segregation would be applied in South-West Africa, including the confiscation of rich land for the exclusive use of the white population?
LORD CHALFONT: While taking into account the points raised by the noble Lord, I must say again that Her Majesty's Government have been notified of this dispute under Article 40, and that we therefore have no right to intervene in this dispute.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, will the Government carefully watch the manner in which the United Nations interpret the recent judgment of the International Court, declaring that countries belonging to the United Nations are obliged to subscribe to the Congo and other special forces, and that those countries which do not pay up forfeit their vote in the Assembly, so that we may have some criterion for judging the sincerity with which the United Nations applies future judgments of the International Court?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, as has been made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, at the United Nations, do indeed very firmly and very sincerely support the principle of Article 19.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, may I ask one supplementary question? Apart from the fact that it seems strange that, in the wording of this Question, it is taken for granted that the United Nations is the heir of the League of Nations, it is also taken for granted that the Union of South Africa is not, apparently, the heir to the responsibilities, such as they may have been, which were at that time undertaken by His Late Britannic Majesty. But, apart from the guilelessness of that conclusion, may I ask whether it is in order in this House, under the guise of a Question, to make statements such as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has made, detrimental to the Administration of the Union of South
1018
Africa, which statements have no relation whatever to this Question and which, incidentally, happen to be totally untrue?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, perhaps I could deal with the last point. I think I made it plain by my intervention that I was rather worried by the form of the questions put by my noble friend, and I do not think I need add anything to that.

TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
3.41 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they now have anything to add to their reply to the Question put on July 13 last concerning the transport of dangerous substances.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods, which lists more than 800 substances or groups of substances as dangerous, is expected to come into operation this year. The final form of the Agreement is not yet known, but we shall meanwhile take the opportunity to consult the interests concerned on the way in which the Agreement is to be implemented in this country, and the ways in which the scope of the existing regulations concerned with the carriage of dangerous substances by road and the marking of vehicles should be extended.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when I put my Question last July I was assured by his predecessor that a decision on this point was expected in the immediate future? In fact, it was said that I could expect an answer, or could expect to find a code laid down within six months or sooner. Is he aware that this delay is causing deep anxiety to those best able to judge of the extremely dangerous conditions which prevail, not only for members of the Fire Service, who would have to deal with any disaster that might occur, but also for the general

1019
population who could so easily be involved in a serious accident? Further, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that at the conference last June of The British Fire Services Association a resolution was passed in the following terms:
"That this Conference recommends and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce immediate regulations to control the conveyance of dangerous liquids and chemicals by road in the United Kingdom, and to prevent such loads being transported by road through centres of population"?
This resolution was forwarded—
Several Noble Lords: Order! Order!
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask if the noble Lord is aware that this resolution was forwarded to Her Majesty's Government on September 10 and that as yet no answer has been received?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have, of course, studied the Answer given to the Question which my noble friend put on July 13 last. The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in replying did not give the hope of immediate action, though the period of six months was mentioned. But the position is that until five countries have ratified this Agreement we cannot proceed. Four countries have, in fact, ratified, and a further ratification is expected quite soon; and six months thereafter annexes to this Bill can be put into operation.
Her Majesty's Government are, of course, fully aware of the dangers to which my noble friend referred and are anxious to deal with them as expeditiously as possible. I was not aware of the terms of the resolution to which the noble Lord referred, but I will undertake to investigate the matter, and an answer will be given.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for coming to my defence?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that volume is as important as substance, particularly in regard to road transport? While there may be regulations with regard to substances carried, would he not agree that it is equally important, if not more so, to
1020
effect strict regulations about loads carried, particularly on British roads?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said. This emphasises the importance of waiting for the European Agreement to which I have referred. The regulations and controls which it will then be possible to impose go far beyond any present powers. They will cover not merely the extent of the loads, but also their quality, the permissibility of mixed loads which are undesirable, and include regulations with regard to the safety of vehicle loads and all things which can be reasonably regarded as providing safety in this very wide range of more than 800 dangerous substances.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. He will not be surprised if I do not find it wholly satisfactory.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gardiner.)
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I should be glad to have the opportunity of making a brief comment at the Second Reading of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, and to take the opportunity of drawing attention to one rather complicated point that arises with regard to the discharge of mortgages. At this stage I would declare an interest: the fact that I am a director of a co-operative organisation and a director of a co-operative insurance society which will be affected by this Bill.
Clause 33 of this Bill would have the effect of requiring discharges of mortgage through an industrial and provident society to be signed by two members of the committee and countersigned by the secretary. On the face of it that would appear to be a right and proper thing to do. But it raises rather a special problem for any very large society that may

1021
be registered under the Industrial and Provident Act and is undertaking a large volume of business. I would suggest that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act in this particular field is not designed to cover particularly the requirements of a very large insurance concern. To illustrate my point I will, if I may, make reference to the Cooperative Insurance Society which, prior to 1959, affected discharge of mortgages by having a receipt of mortgage signed by two members of the company. By 1959 this procedure was found to be a great, if not an intolerable, burden; and I can point out that in 1958 some 10, 900 mortgages to the Society were discharged. These figures include discharges of mortgages on surrender value of life policies. The number of discharges now dealt with has increased to more than 500 per fortnight. I mention "per fortnight" because board meetings are held fortnightly.
In 1959, it is interesting to note, the Co-operative Insurance Society—and possibly others did likewise—took counsel's advice on the possibility of using the discharge procedure provided in Section 115 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. Counsel at that time advised that the Society could use this procedure, whereby the seal of the Society was affixed to the discharge, thus avoiding the signature of two committee men. Under Clause 33 of the Bill in its present form, the Society would be prevented from discharging mortgages under the procedure provided by Section 115 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. I express the hope that there will be a possibility of effecting some amendment or modification of Clause 33 in such a way as to permit the use by an industrial and provident society, where justification is apparent, of the alternative to the signature of two committee men for discharging mortgages, by adopting the procedure of Section 115 of the Law of Property Act. In passing, I may point out that, in practice, solicitors are found to welcome the seal of the society as being indicative of the greater authenticity of a document than would be provided by two signatures, apart from the fact that the signatures themselves are often indecipherable.
1022
To deal with this problem, which applies especially to large organisations particularly the insurance organisations to which I have referred, would necessitate only slight amendment. I feel that any amendment along the lines I have suggested would be of a minor nature and would certainly not prejudice any other industrial and providentsociety. I draw this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House because, whil I welcome this Consolidation Bill, at the same time I feel that it somewhat overlooks the exceptional difficulty which this clause would bring to large societies which are involved in the type of work I have indicated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did not think that it would be courteous to interrupt my noble friend Lord Peddie, because, of course, I have no say in the procedure of your Lordships' House, which is entirely a matter for your Lordships, but, as I understand it, your Lordships have always taken the view that on the Second Reading of a Consolidation Bill the only question which can properly be discussed is the question: Is this a field within which it is a good thing to have a Consolidation Bill? The whole object of appointing the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills is precisely in order to consider the kind of point which my noble friend has raised; and I would ask him to be good enough to put his point to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, who is Chairman of the Committee, or to any other member of the Committee, because this is just the kind of point that the Committee look at and report upon to the House. I would suggest to my noble friend that it is not a matter which properly can be considered on the Second Reading of a Consolidation Bill.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the comments he has made. I appreciate them very much indeed, and I will certainly take the advice he has offered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS BILL
3.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Bowden to move the Second Reading of this Bill. In addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, I beg to ask that your Lordships' customary and traditional indulgence may be extended to me. When this House was "another place"—that is, when your Lordships allowed the Commons to sit here in the war after the House of Commons had been destroyed—I made my maiden speech here, in 1942, so when I have finished this speech I shall have made two maiden speeches in this Chamber. May I also ask your Lordships to forgive me for making this, my maiden speech, from the Front Bench?
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to substitute new provisions for Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, which establishes the machinery for determining the salaries of teachers paid by local education authorities and enables the Secretary of State for Education and Science to give statutory effect to the salaries as determined under that machinery. Under Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, the Secretary of State constitutes negotiating committees comprising representatives of the teachers, on the one hand, and representatives of the local education authorities, on the other, under an independent chairman. These are the Burnham Committees, and there are at the present time three of them: first, the Main Committee, covering full-time teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools; secondly, the Technical Committee, covering full-time teachers in maintained further education establishments other than farm institutes; and, thirdly, the Farm Institutes Committee, covering full-time teachers in farm institutes and teachers of agricultural subjects on the staff of local education authorities. When a Burnham Committee submits agreed recommendations to the Secretary of State, he may accept them or reject them and, if he accepts them, he may put them into effect by
1024
Order. The salary scales determined in this manner under Section 89 are binding on the salaries of the teachers covered.
In 1961, and again in 1963, the Burnham Committee and the Minister of the day—Sir David Eccles (now the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles) on the former occasion; Sir Edward Boyle on the latter—found themselves in disagreement over recommendations that the Committee had put forward. On each occasion it was evident that the disagreements over the salary provisions themselves were seriously aggravated by the inability of the existing statutory machinery to deal with such contingencies, and the deadlock that arose on the latter occasion was eventually resolved only by recourse to Parliament, which granted the Minister exceptional temporary powers, through the Remuneration of Teachers Act, 1963.
These events, and the discussion of the existing machinery to which they gave rise, pointed to weaknesses in the existing statutory machinery in the following respects. First, the existing machinery provided no opportunity for the Minister to join in the process of negotiation, but gave him an unqualified power of veto after negotiations had resulted in agreement. Given that a Minister of Education could hardly abstain from holding any view on teachers' salaries at a time when teacher supply was a critical problem, this was bound to be unsatisfactory: for if he were to put his views to the Committee at an early stage, when the Act gave him as yet no standing in the matter, this might embarrass the course of free negotiation, whereas if he remained silent until the negotiation was completed and then vetoed its outcome "as a bolt from the blue", the time and patience of the negotiators would have been spent in vain.
The next weakness is that Section 89 provided no legal means whatever of resolving the deadlock that would occur if the Minister rejected the recommendations of the Burnham Committee and the Committee then declined to modify their recommendations in a manner that the Minister would find acceptable. Section 89 also made no provision for the contingency that a committee might fail to agree; and although some might argue

1025
that this provided a valuable incentive to the negotiators to be accommodating, and to reach agreement at almost any price, others would think it preferable to be able to have recourse to independent arbitration in the event of disagreement as is familiar practice elsewhere. Fourthly, Section 89 did not allow a salary settlement that was agreed after negotiation and approved by the Minister to be introduced with retrospective effect. Therefore any serious delay in achieving agreement and approval—and the preceding points indicate that there was plenty of scope for it—would run the risk, for the teachers, of losing the benefit of the improved salary provisions during the period that the delay lasted.
In the course of the debate on Second Reading of last year's Remuneration of Teachers Bill (House of Commons, April 25, 1963) the existence of these weaknesses in the existing statutory machinery was acknowledged by many Members. Sir Edward Boyle, as Minister, said that he thought the time had come to consider whether the existing machinery and procedures were adequate for present needs, and that he proposed to discuss with the interested parties what changes might be desirable. The last Government accordingly held discussions with the representatives of the teachers and of the local education authorities which resulted in proposals put forward by Sir Edward Boyle as Minister and Mr. Hogg as Secretary of State in letters of March 3 and July 28, 1964. Mr. Hogg (as he again is) discussed these proposals with representatives of the teachers and of the local education authorities together on September 22. He did not seek to commit them for or against his proposals, but in summing up at the end of the meeting he expressed his own judgment that sufficient progress had been made to justify the preparation of a Bill for introduction early in the following Session of Parliament.
On taking office the Secretary of State examined the arguments that had led Mr. Hogg to conclude that the time had come to legislate and the proposals that he had put forward as the basis for such legislation. He was at once convinced that Section 89 required to be amended. An intention to legislate to this effect was accordingly mentioned in the Queen's Speech on November 3. The Secretary
1026
of State also judged that the proposals that had been worked out in discussions with the representatives of the teachers and the local education authorities were broadly sound, and he held meetings with them on November 6 to invite their further views. The proposals that the Secretary of State makes in the light of all these talks are embodied in this Bill.
Although the Bill would make significant changes in the machinery established under Section 89, its general principle is to retain and reproduce so much of the former machinery as has stood the test of time and met with general approval and to make changes only where they are required to meet the weaknesses that have been observed. Thus the whole machinery is founded, as was that under Section 89, on the principle of collective bargaining. Secondly, it continues the practice that the forum for such free negotiations shall be a statutory committee under an independent chairman. Thirdly, it ensures that whatever salary settlements are produced by this process shall continue to be made statutory and binding by order. And finally, though this is rightly left open in the Bill, the present structure of three Committees will be retained. Thus what is preserved and continued under the Bill of what has evolved through 40 years of experience of the Burnham machinery is probably of greater weight than what will be altered.
The negotiating committees to be established under the Bill, like those under Section 89, would include representatives of the teachers on one side and representatives of the local education authorities on the other, under an independent chairman to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The important innovation, however, is that representatives of the Secretary of State would join the representatives of the local education authorities to constitute (although the Bill does not use this phrase) a joint management panel. This change frankly recognises the fact that in to-day's circumstances the Secretary of State cannot abstain from having a point of view on teachers' salaries, both as the contributor of a large proportion of their cost and because of their importance to teacher supply, and that his point of view can be most constructively expressed by joining him in the negotiation at the beginning.

1027
The management panels in the three negotiating committees will resolve any differences among their members in private and will each speak with one single voice in the negotiations. The Bill does not lay down how this is to be achieved. But the Secretary of State has discussed these matters with the local authority associations concerned and has reached a general agreement with them. Except on questions of total cost, where it is accepted that the Government must retain the last word, the Secretary of State is not demanding an overriding position. What he and the local authority associations have in mind is that any differences of opinion on questions other than total cost should be resolved by the exercise of free voting, for which purpose the voting strength of the Secretary of State would be rather less than that of the local authority representatives combined. The general intention is that the Secretary of State would have to win the adherence of one of the major associations or its equivalent in individual votes for his view to prevail: this would be reflected arithmetically, in the case of the main committee, by giving the Secretary of State a voting strength of 15 (without, of course, requiring him to appoint 15 persons as his representatives) if the local authority representatives continued to number 26 as at present: and, as your Lordships know, the teachers number 29. Similar proportions would obtain in the other two committees.
This arrangement contemplates that on questions other than total cost the Secretary of State could be out-voted within a management panel and that a management panel view which was contrary to his own could be put forward in negotiation. Moreover, if agreement were then reached with the teachers on the basis of that view, the Secretary of State would remain bound to it and would have no power subsequently to reject or override it. The proposal makes explicit the Secretary of State's belief that "the man in Whitehall" does not necessarily know best on all occasions and that if, on a matter affecting the distribution of a salary award among different kinds of teachers, he finds himself in disagreement with the great majority of the local authorities' representatives, then he may well be wrong and should accept their judgment.
1028
As regards the teachers' panels, the Bill makes the Secretary of State responsible for deciding which associations are to be represented and how many representatives each may have. If the associations could have proposed a distribution of representation which was acceptable to all of them, the Secretary of State's task would have been easy. They have, however, been unable to do so, and the Secretary of State has accordingly informed them that he proposes, at any rate for the purposes of the immediate negotiation, to continue the present representation in each of the three teachers' panels unchanged. Each panel will be under the obligation to resolve any internal differences, by whatever process they choose, in order to be able to speak with a single voice in negotiation with the management panel.
The Houses of Parliament were to be lobbied this afternoon by representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters, but I gather that this has been called off. However, in view of the fact that I understand the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, is speaking later and is possibly going to raise this subject, I think, although it may involve my speech being a little longer, it would be right if I put on the Parliamentary record the letter which was written by the Secretary of State to Mr. Casey on January 13. With your Lordships' permission, I think this might be the appropriate moment to read the letter. It is addressed to "T. A. Casey Esq., General Secretary, National Association of Schoolmasters" and it says:
"My attention has been drawn to Press reports of the National Association of Schoolmasters' meeting at Brighton last Saturday. We have both met and corresponded recently about the matters in question, but in view of the decisions reached at your meeting on Saturday, as reported in the Press. I am writing to you again to set out my position on each of the three main questions which arise. These are the composition of the teachers' panel on the new committees to negotiate teachers' salaries, the Amendments introduced in the House of Commons at Report stage to enable the Secretary of State to change the composition of the committees and the confidentiality of the proceedings of the new committees.
"On the first point, I made it clear to the various teachers' associations that I would adopt their proposals for the composition of the teachers' panel if they could reach agreement among themselves. This did not prove possible, and it fell to me therefore to consider the composition. In doing so I took into account representations put to me by the associations. Some, like the N.A.S.,

1029
claimed increased membership. Others indicated that if any changes were made they also would claim increased membership.
"In these circumstances I judged that the only way to get an early start on the negotiations over future salary scales was to constitute the teachers' panel on the same basis as the present Burnham main committee.
"I have made it clear to all the associations that, in doing this, I am not pre-judging the long-term composition of the panel and that I would consider with an open mind any representations that any of them might make when the first negotiations under the new machinery have been completed.
"Secondly, it is suggested that the reason why the Bill now before Parliament to provide for the new machinery (the Remuneration of Teachers Bill) was amended in December, so as to give me power to exclude associations from representation, was in order that I might be able to exclude the N.A.S. This is quite wrong. It is clear that the Bill must provide for a. power to change, the. composition of the committees unless the composition as first determined by the Secretary of State after the Bill becomes law is to last for all time. I should have thought your Association would particularly value this. One of the local authority associations wrote to me querying whether, as drafted, the Bill achieved this aim. On legal advice, I proposed Amendments to remove all doubt that changes could be made.
"On the third point—negotiations under the new machinery—it is my personal view that while negotiations are going on it is a sound principle to keep them confidential. But the application of this principle to the negotiation of teachers' salaries is a question, not for me alone, but for the new committee as a whole when it first meets.
"The fact that the National Association of Schoolmasters feels justified in refusing to participate in the forthcoming negotiations and are calling on their members to strike on the 21st January makes these points of concern to the general public and I am therefore sending a copy of this letter to the Press.
" (Signed, Michael Stewart.) "
The Secretary of State will be made a party to the negotiations under the new machinery, and as he will be bound by any agreement reached in the manner just described, even though he may disagree with some parts of it, it follows that any recommendations reached by agreement ought to be put into force automatically. This is what the Bill provides. The Bill deals at some length with the way in which this is to be achieved. Discussions of the details would not be appropriate on Second Reading, but it may be noted that the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the negotiating committee on the drafting of the document through which he proposes to put their recommendations into effect, and to accept any agreed
1030
representations about the draft that they may make to him.
The next major innovation in the Bill is the provision for arbitration in the event that agreement cannot be reached between the two sides of the negotiating committee. The Bill does not go into detail as to how the arbitration is to be managed, but requires that there shall be arrangements which the Secretary of State is responsible for making after consultation with the constituent associations. The Secretary of State has in fact begun this consultation by sending the associations a draft of the arrangements he has in mind to make. It would not be appropriate to disclose these while the associations are still considering them, or to discuss them on Second Reading, but one point may be noted. The Secretary of State is most anxious to guard against two separate dangers: that a question might be rushed to arbitration prematurely without full and proper negotiation on it, and that the purpose of arbitration might be defeated if either side were in a position to induce perpetual deadlock. The arrangements the Secretary of State has proposed avoid both dangers by giving the independent chairman of the negotiating committee the power to decide when deadlock has been reached and the conditions for arbitration fulfilled.
As the Secretary of State will be a party to the arbitration by virtue of his membership of the management panel, it might be invidious for him to appoint, pay and service the arbitrators. It is a familiar and well-understood function of the Minister of Labour to set up facilities for arbitration in a manner that all concerned accept as impartial, and the Bill makes it possible for him to act in this way in respect to teachers. Although the Bill is permissive and not mandatory on this point, the Secretary of State firmly intends to employ the good offices of the Minister of Labour should the need for arbitration arise.
It is, of course, to be expected that in all but the most exceptional circumstances the recommendations of arbitrators will be accepted by all concerned and put into effect; and as I shall show later, the Bill obliges the Secretary of State to do so by the same technical means as are employed for implementing agreed recommendations. Both for

1031
reasons of constitutional propriety, however, and as a matter of prudence in the national interest, the Government could not accept a legal duty to implement, without possibility of escape or variation, whatever recommendations independent arbitrators might decide to submit. It may be thought unusual to provide explicitly in a Statute for the recommendations of arbitrators to be rejected. But it is equally unusual for a Statute to place a legal obligation on a Minister to implement arbitrators' recommendations. There is no such legal obligation in the matter of the police or the National Health Service. The two things go together: the obligation on the Minister must include an escape clause, and it is the obligation rather than the escape clause that is so unusual. The Bill accordingly provides for the contingency that exceptional circumstances might justify the rejection of the arbitrators' recommendations. To limit the use of this power and to safeguard against its-abuse, the Bill provides two separate safeguards: (i) the decision to use it is not to be rested in the Secretary of State, but in Parliament, and requires an Affirmative Resolution, not merely acquiescence in both Houses of Parliament; and (ii) the criterion by which Parliament must judge a proposal to reject the arbitrators' recommendations is whether national economic circumstances require it.
There can be no doubt that these two requirements taken together offer a very effective safeguard of the teachers' interests in all save exceptional circumstances. Since it is in the nature of exceptional circumstances that they cannot be foreseen with any exactitude, the circumstances which would justify its employment could hardly be any more narrowly defined in the Statute, and the Secretary of State is confident that the safeguards the Bill provides should reassure any who might have misgivings about the inclusion of such a power in the Bill at all.
However remote we may consider the contingency of such Parliamentary action to be, the Bill must leave no hiatus but must provide means by which matters may still move forward to a final determination of the required salary settlement. If the negotiating committee in question were willing to meet again and
1032
to negotiate afresh in the light of the Parliamentary decision and the arguments advanced in the debates on the matter, then they should be given an opportunity to do so, and if those negotiations led to an agreement this would be a satisfactory outcome. But it is quite possible that, in the exceptional circumstances which the Parliamentary action itself implies, the negotiating committee might be either unwilling to resume negotiation or unable to agree; and some means would then be needed of resolving the resulting deadlock. The Bill deals with this situation by first obliging the Secretary of State to consult the negotiating committee, thus giving them an opportunity to resume negotiation if they are willing, but then by putting him in a position to determine the matter by himself if in the last resort there appears to be no alternative. In the latter case, the Secretary of State must again show his draft to the committee, but he is not obliged (as with agreements or arbitrated settlements) to accept their representations.
It has never been possible in the past to make salary changes with retrospective effect. The Bill enables this to be done, subject to a proviso which ensures that no teacher's pay can be reduced retrospectively. The proposal to make this change has been welcomed by all concerned.
It is desirable to repeal Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, from the date of passing of this Bill, since otherwise the Secretary of State would be under legal obligation to establish two parallel sets of negotiating committees simultaneously; and the Bill provides for this repeal. The position concerning the Remuneration of Teachers Act, 1963, is rather different. For one thing, it was not concerned in any way with negotiating machinery: it touched neither Section 89 nor the Burnham committees. But it does provide, through the orders made under it, the statutory basis of the current salary provisions, and it is important that this statutory basis should be maintained until orders under the new Act come into force to supersede it. The orders under the 1963 Act could, of course, be kept in force after the repeal of the Act itself if that were desired, but there could be some advantage in retaining the order-making power of the

1033
Act as a bridge across the period until new machinery under this Bill is actually in operation, since otherwise there would be no legal means whatever of making even small technical amendments in the present provisions. Under the terms of the 1963 Act, of course, the order-making power automatically expires on March 31, 1965. In these circumstances, the most prudent proposal is clearly to keep the 1963 Act in being until a complete new statutory basis has been provided under the new Bill, and to repeal it from that date: and this is what the Bill provides.
My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think I should refer to the urgency of the timetable. When the present salary provisions were introduced in 1963 it was understood by all the parties concerned—the teachers, the local authorities and the Minister at the time—that the provisions would remain in force for two years; that is, until March 31, 1965. Even though the proposed power of retrospection would enable the proceedings to continue a little after April 1, 1965, without loss of earnings to the teachers, it is most desirable that the new machinery should be constituted, and negotiations under it begun, at the earliest possible moment. It is for this reason that the Government, in their legislative programme, have given priority to the Bill, and they are gratified that it made good progress, with the support of Opposition speakers, through the House of Commons. Your Lordships might therefore recognise the urgency as well as the importance and merits of the changes proposed and agree to give the Bill a Second Reading to-night, and so help us to move nearer a civilised country where the Secretary of State for Education is more important than the Secretary of State for War. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bowles.)
4.22 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very happy to have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, and to congratulate him, I am sure on behalf of all your Lordships, on an excellent maiden speech. The noble Lords comes to us with a distinguished reputation from another place, where he was Deputy Chairman of Ways and
1034
Means, and he now occupies the dignified post of Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard. I know that all your Lordships will welcome him and will hope to hear him on many other occasions.
He has given us a very concise and clear account of the provisions of this Bill, and I would assure him straight away that we support it most warmly. Therefore, there remains not very much for me to comment upon. I would begin by saying that we recognise the urgency with which this Bill is required, and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward early in their legislative programme. At the same time, I am sure that if I offer my bouquet to noble Lords opposite, they, in turn, will agree that the previous Government deserve a great deal of credit for this Bill. In particular, I would mention my right honourable friends Sir Edward Boyle and Mr. Quintin Hogg (the noble Lord did mention them), who undertook much of the painstaking negotiations which eventually resulted in agreement on the clauses of this Bill. In fact, it was Mr. Quintin Hogg's decision to accept the principle that the Minister should not have parity of voting powers on the managerial side of the committee, except in respect of the global sum to be awarded, which finally led to agreement between all the parties concerned.
My Lords, we agree on the urgent need for this Bill. The old Burnham Committee did its work very well for many years, but in the course of time certain weaknesses emerged. The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, listed those weaknesses in full, and I need not repeat them: but I think that it is a satisfactory way of proceeding to accept what was good in the old Burnham Committee procedure and to eliminate the weaknesses.
There are just two matters which were mentioned by the noble Lord on which I might perhaps be allowed to comment. The first is the difficulties that have arisen with the National Association of Schoolmasters. The first point that occurs is their claim to a larger representation on the Committee, in view of the fact that they claim a membership of 35, 000 and claim to be the second largest body representing teachers. On the face of it they certainly seem to have a good case there and one well worthy of consideration. But I fully accept what the noble Lord told us when he read out the letter of January 13

1035
addressed by the Secretary of State to Mr. Casey, that there are considerable difficulties, as the teachers' organisations themselves have not been able to agree on the different proportions of their representation. Much the most sensible thing for the moment, in order to get this machinery working, seems to me to build on the old distribution that existed at the time of the Burnham Committee.
On the second point raised by the National Association of Schoolmasters, the powers of the Secretary of State to determine which bodies shall represent teachers and to vary his decision from time to time, I would say merely that in my opinion this seems to do no more than spell out what have always been the Secretary of State's powers. Someone has to make this decision as to which bodies shall be represented on the committee, and it seems to me that the Minister is the only person who can do so. In fact, had the Minister not got this power, the representative of the National Association of Schoolmasters would never have been added to the committee. Moreover, he must also have power to vary the number of representatives of the different bodies, and this can be done from time to time as seems necessary in light of the facts. Here again, if the National Association of Schoolmasters are to succeed in their desire for greater representation, then the Secretary of State must have these powers to alter the number of representatives.
So, although I appreciate the fears of the Association, they are, I hope, groundless. We have heard from the letter which the noble Lord read that the Minister is fully aware of his responsibilities and does not wish in any way to expel any organisation of teachers, and I am sure that no Minister would ever wish to take such an unpopular action. As I have said, I have some sympathy with the Association on the question of representation, but not so much with their other complaints. In any case, I hope that they will pursue their case in a statesmanlike way and will not withdraw precipitately from the Committee. I cannot believe that this would be in the best interests of the teachers they represent.
My Lords, the other point I was going to mention was the question of arbitration. I was hoping that the noble Lord might be able to give us more details as to what these proposals were.
1036
The Bill is, of course, necessarily vague. It speaks of arrangements to be made for arbitration
"… in such manner as may be so provided."
But he did explain that the Minister was consulting with the bodies concerned, and therefore, presumably, cannot give us any more information at the moment. But I was pleased to hear that the chairman of the committee will have an important rôle to play before a dispute is referred to arbitration, because I agree with the noble Lord that, while it is obviously desirable to have arbitration available in the last resort, every effort should be made to reach an agreed solution before referring to arbitration.
So, my Lords, in general we welcome this Bill, and we hope that it will provide satisfactory machinery for the settlement of teachers' salaries. All of us on this side of the House recognise the importance of the teaching profession in our national life and want to see our teachers fairly rewarded for their services.
4.28 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should first also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, on his maiden speech and on his introduction of this important Bill. There are many of us here who have affectionate recollections of him in another place, where he used to preside over our Committees with dignity and efficiency.
My Lords, I also welcome this Bill which, with one reservation to which I shall refer later, has my full support. It has been said already that it is really the product of my right honourable friends Mr. Quintin Hogg and Sir Edward Boyle, who spent many difficult hours on negotiations, and I think they, too, as well as the Government, should be congratulated on the results. Its main features, as the Minister said, are the participation for the first time of representatives of the Government on the negotiating bodies, the provision for arbitration in the event of a deadlock, and the proposal for making salary awards retrospective: all three extremely important and a great improvement on the old machinery. But it is this first proposal, the direct participation of the Secretary of State through his representatives on the negotiating bodies, eminently desirable though this is, which has led to difficulties and on which I feel bound to express my anxiety.

1037
During the course of the passage of the measure through another place, at a very late stage in the proceedings, on the Report stage, an Amendment was introduced which now forms Clause 1 (3), and it states as follows:
"The Secretary of State shall determine which bodies to which paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section applies are to be represented on each committee constituted under this section, and the number of persons by whom any such body is to be so represented, and may from time to time vary or revoke any such determination."
This, as I understood it from the explanations given in another place, was alleged to be simply stating in precise terms what powers the Secretary of State or the previous Ministers for Education already held. Nevertheless, I believe that in practice no Minister, from Mr. Butler onwards, has ever claimed to exercise any power to expel an association from the negotiating bodies.
However this may be, this subsection to my mind in fact represents a major change in the position. Whatever the powers of the Secretary of State or the Minister may have been previously, it seems to me that the position has been entirely altered by the fact that he, or rather his representatives, will now be participating on the employers' side on the negotiating bodies, with this explicit power, laid down in the Bill, to determine which bodies are to be represented on the committees, and to vary or revoke such decisions from time to time. It seems to me that in effect what this will do will be to make the Secretary of State both plaintiff and judge in his own cause. I understand that in fact this is regarded as a contravention of Convention 87, Article 3, and Convention 98, Article 4, of the International Labour Organisation, both of which Articles protect workers, and indeed employers, from interference with one another or by one another. It also, I would venture to suggest, to some extent represents not an attack on, but at least some divergence from, generally accepted free trade union principles.
The Secretary of State, in his speech in another place on November 20, said:
"If I cannot claim that this is a measure on which all the parties concerned are wholeheartedly agreed. I can claim that nobody takes the view that the Government are proceeding in an unreasonable or dictatorial manner, or that they have not fulfilled their duty carefully to consult those concerned before putting
1038
proposals before the House."—[Official Report, Commons, Vol. 702 (No. 17), col. 787.]
Unfortunately, this is no longer true. As the Minister has said, the National Association of Schoolmasters, which represents 35, 000 schoolmasters, consider that by the insertion of this Amendment the Government are in fact proceeding in an unreasonable and dictatorial way. They have felt so strongly about it that they have in fact decided to carry out a one-day strike in protest. Whether one considers that a strike is the best way for teachers of the young to press their case against the Government I am not quite sure, but that certainly is not the issue. The real issue is that the National Association of Schoolmasters feel that, after struggling very hard for, I believe, 40 years up to 1961 for recognition, which was finally granted by my noble friend Lord Eccles, there is a real danger in this clause of their future representation, or the representation of other associations, being placed in jeopardy.
For this reason they feel that some amendment to the Bill as it now stands is necessary, either by the deletion or the amendment of Clause 1 (3) as it was passed in the other place, or by the addition of a new clause and perhaps a Schedule to the Bill, laying down the list of associations to be represented on the committees. This list could, no doubt—and here I am seeking to meet the point made by my noble friend Lord Aberdare—be altered by Order in Council with the safeguards provided by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I have been so impressed by these arguments, as retailed to me by a number of representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters in the South-West, that my intention is, when the Committee stage comes, to move an Amendment or to put down a new clause to cover this point, and I will therefore refrain from pursuing the issue at any greater length to-day. I fully recognise the urgency of the Bill, but at the same time I feel that the case of the National Association of Schoolmasters—and it is not only their case; it might be the case of other associations, now or in the future—is sufficiently important that I

1039
am obliged to put down an Amendment to cover the point.
4.38 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think there is any doubt that this is a good Bill and a Bill which we can all welcome. But there is no hiding the fact that it has got off to a very bad start. The Bill, as it says, sets up machinery for determining the remuneration of teachers, and this is perhaps as much as a Bill can do. But in this case in is rather less than half the battle. Something else is required if the remuneration of teachers is to be determined satisfactorily and to be accepted without constant fuss and squabble. And that further thing which is required is confidence by all the parties concerned that the machinery, the very much better machinery which is no proposed in this Bill, is going to be fairly and justly used. I would say that it is this confidence which the Government have so far failed to secure.
The Government have here a Bill which will set up much better machinery. They had most of it worked out for them already. But they have, I would say, impaired the confidence and the harmony which was essential if the machinery in this Bill was to work satisfactorily. They are fortunate that they have not on their hands to-day a strike by the schoolmasters of the National Association. No one wants to make this unfortunate situation any worse. I am sure the National Association of Schoolmasters would not want to do so; the Opposition do not want to do so. The Government have time to make affairs better, and they could do so now, before this Bill goes any further, and at any rate during its later stages, if they would explain their actions a little more fully than they have already done. I think this is what needs explaining.
When the Minister saw the representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters during the passage of this Bill through the other place, and explained to them why the Government did not want to change the balance of the teachers' representation at this early stage, why they wanted to get straight on with negotiations, why did the Minister at that stage, at that moment, not make it clear that the Government were about to table the clause which they in fact
1040
tabled at the Report stage, giving the Secretary of State for Education explicit powers to make such changes as he wished to make in the teachers' panel? I believe the reasons for doing this are quite clear, quite obvious and quite sensible reasons. But the fact remains that the Government failed to include them in the original draft; they failed to include them at the Committee stage, and they failed to mention to the representatives to the National Association of Schoolmasters that they were about to do so on the Report stage.
In all the circumstances, and taking into account the unhappy background of the relationships between the two Associations of Teachers, surely it is not the least bit surprising that what the Government have done has been misunderstood and suspected. I beg the Government to make clear that they have throughout this Bill so far acted in good faith, that they have no ulterior motive designed to impair the representation of the National Association of Schoolmasters, and that there is nothing more in this than a little inept handling. Unless they can do this—and the sooner they do it the better—then I think that this suspicion and this sense of injustice will remain; and, despite this better machinery which we shall have, the future of our great teaching profession, on which so much depends, will be marred, and will continue to be marred, by unseemly squabbles in public and in Parliament, and that is the one thing which we all deplore and the one thing which the Burnham machinery was built up to avoid.
4.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BOWDEN): My Lords, I think the first and most important thing that I have to say is that it is obvious to everyone that this Bill, except for perhaps one or two minor points that need clarification, has the support and, I think, in general, the confidence of all your Lordships and in fact all Members of all Parties both in this House and in the other place. It is of course in large measure due to the enormous amount of highly skilled work which that great constitutional lawyer, Mr. Quintin Hogg, engaged in when he was Secretary of State for Education that this Bill

1041
is in the state we now find it. Certainly the greater part of it is right, is known to be right, and is strongly welcomed by everyone; and it gives us great confidence on this side of the House that your Lordships should have spoken so warmly about it.
The Burnham Committee was one of the most remarkable creations of the Government machine, and for many years it commanded the confidence of everyone in the educational world. I think that we must mention the great work which was done by Sir Thomas Creed, who was its chairman until recently when he retired to become Vice-Chancellor of the University of London. It was his skill which made it possible for it to work in the changing circumstances which have come about as a result, first of all, of the enormously increased cost of education, and, secondly, because of the obvious need for the Secretary of State to have much more power in the negotiations than the original Burnham Committee had.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, in that extremely lucid maiden speech of his, described the history of the Bill and its function quite clearly and there is really little I can add to it. But I must, I think, take up one or two points, particularly this vexatious question of representation. The first and most difficult part of the whole position is that the Secretary of State has become involved in this despite himself, not because of himself. He had hoped that the various associations of schoolmasters, the National Union of Teachers and other bodies representing the teachers would themselves have been able to work out a satisfactory method of negotiation, and he had hoped that they would be able to determine among themselves the numbers of their representatives on the Committee.
He found himself in the embarrassing position that it was not possible for them to come to an agreement. He had, therefore, quite arbitrarily to do something in a hurry lest the whole process of negotiation should be indefinitely postponed, and I think your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that it was better to make an arbitrary decision and to get negotiations started than to devote an indefinite time to a decision about the numbers of people on the Committee to represent the different parts of the scholastic profession.
1042
One of the embarrassing things in the present situation is that many teachers are members of more than one association. Some of them, I believe, are members of as many as three or four. This makes calculations based on the exact count of heads rather misleading. None the less, the Secretary of State was obliged to make an arbitrary decision, and he decided that the only thing to do was to carry on as before, at least for the time being. I wish to make it clear that in so doing he made no commitment at all beyond the present round of negotiations about to be begun, which it is reasonable to presume might be completed in six months' time. The next round will be begun a year or so after that, and by then let us hope that this vexatious difficulty will have been resolved and that everyone will be satisfied with the representation that has been given to him.
The Secretary of State went to considerable length to pursuade the teachers to agree on their numbers, and he found that almost every one of the groups involved felt that it was under-represented, and it was this, I think, that caused him to feel with some confidence that his proposals were reasonably equitable. On the other hand, the Amendment which apparently changed his powers seems, so far as I can make out, to have been regarded in the first instance as merely a legal clarification of a point which he thought implicit in his powers in any event, and the arguments which were brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, from the international bodies have not been heard by the Government before, so far as I am aware. When he moves his Amendment on the next stage of the Bill the Government will then have considered its implications and will have decided whether or not they can accept the proposal which he makes.
I would assure your Lordships that there is nothing in the least sinister in the intention of the Secretary of State. It is most necessary that one should be able from time to time to vary the number of representatives. For example, supposing—this, I think, is a most remote possibility, but I think I may raise it hypothetically—that the N.U.T. absorbed all but one member of the National Association of Schoolmasters, this body would not then be entitled to two places on the new Committee.

1043
I feel, therefore, that it must be possible in the end for the Secretary of State to determine the numbers, and even that there should be some method by which membership to the Committee can be denied to a body which ceases to have a substantial number of members. It may be that there is a better method by which the membership can be determined than that which the Bill proposes, and the Government will consider any suggestions which may be made in this House on the next stage of the Bill. I do not think there is much more I should say in winding-up this debate. There has been much support for the Bill, and many noble Lords have spoken in support of it. It seems to command the confidence of your Lordships. I think it is essential that it should be passed expeditiously. It is obviously important that negotiations be started on this most important question of teachers' pay as soon as may be. For that reason I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

BACKING OF WARRANTS (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its main purpose is to modernise and put on a more satisfactory footing the arrangements under which persons who are alleged to have committed offences in the Irish Republic, and have come to this country, can be returned to the Republic to stand trial there. Although the Bill widens existing arrangements to the extent of making them apply to Northern Ireland (as they have not done effectively since about 1930), it also affords some protection for the liberty of the subject by introducing safeguards and restrictions which have not previously existed.
1044
The arrangements under which we now operate depend on the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. Under these Acts a warrant of arrest issued in the Irish Republic, as well as in Northern Ireland, can be executed in this country, and vice versa, once it has been endorsed by a magistrate in the country to which it is sent. We have always proceeded on the basis that the magistrate who endorses the warrant does not have to satisfy himself, as he does under the Extradition and Fugitive Offenders Acts, that a prima facie case has been made out; and the offender, once he has been arrested, is returned to the country where the warrant was issued, without any court hearing.
This procedure was laid down at a time when the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, but it has continued since the establishment of the Irish Free State and the subsequent departure of the Irish Republic from the Commonwealth. In view of the close proximity of the two countries and the lack of immigration controls, it is clearly essential that a quick and comparatively simple procedure of this sort should be available, so that offenders shall not escape from justice merely by crossing the Irish Sea. At present about 100 warrants issued in the Irish Republic are executed in Great Britain each year, and a slightly larger number of British warrants are executed in the Republic.
In the case last year, however, Regina v. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police: ex parte Hammond, these arrangements came under scrutiny by the Divisional Court and by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, which discovered a technical defect in the warrant which had been sent over for Mr. Hammond's arrest. This was that the Irish warrant had not been endorsed in the Republic, for execution in England, strictly in accordance with Section 27 (3) of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, which requires that, before being dispatched from Ireland, the warrant shall be endorsed by a senior officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Royal Irish Constabulary, of course, ceased to exist in 1922, and was in due course replaced in the Irish Free State by the Garda Siochana. An Order in Council, made in 1923, under Section 6

1045
of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, provided that the requirements of the law relating to the backing and execution of warrants should continue to operate after the establishment of the Irish Free State, but unfortunately no adaptation was made to take account of the abolition of the Royal Irish Constabulary. This omission had never, before the Hammond case, led to any doubt being cast on Irish warrants. But the effect of the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House was that it became impossible to return offenders to the Irish Republic, though it was still possible to return them to Northern Ireland, and for offenders to be returned from the Republic to Great Britain.
The previous Government therefore decided to remedy this defect, and last summer, as a stop gap, the Republic of Ireland (Consequential Adaptation of Enactment) Order, 1964, was made. This dealt with the immediate difficulty arising from the decision in the Hammond case, and made it possible once again to return offenders to the Irish Republic.
But, apart from the technical difficulty, the courts gave much consideration to the propriety of arrangements under which persons can be arrested in this country on an Irish warrant and returned to the Republic without there being any necessity for a court hearing; and both the Divisional Court and the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House expressed concern about the lack of safeguards in the present arrangements. I might mention that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, in particular, said that it would be necessary to give urgent consideration to the whole matter of sending accusal persons from this country to the Republic. These observations clearly necessitated careful consideration, and Mr. Henry Brooke, when announcing in another place on July 29 last year that he intended to remedy the technical difficulty which had arisen in the Hammond case, pointed out that wider questions arose and that more comprehensive legislation was being prepared for introduction this Session. When the present Government came into office we thus inherited a draft Bill which, in the light of further consultation with the Irish authorities, we have further amended, and, I hope, improved.
1046
The main point which arises is whether the arrangements for returning offenders to the Republic should be similar to those governing return to Commonwealth and foreign countries under the Fugitive Offenders and Extradition Acts, or whether some simpler machinery and procedure would be appropriate. As your Lordships will be aware, the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act both require that, before a fugitive can be surrendered, he must be brought before a Metropolitan magistrate, whose duty it is to satisfy himself that a prima facie case has been made out. The fugitive is explicitly given the opportunity of exercising his right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus against his detention under the magistrate's order, and the final decision on whether to surrender him is made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, exercising his statutory discretion.
My Lords, the Government consider that if arrangements similar to those provided for by the Fugitive Offenders and Extradition Acts were to be made to govern the return of offenders to the Irish Republic, a situation would soon arise in which criminals were avoiding justice simply by travelling to this country or to Northern Ireland. There are, as your Lordships are well aware, No 1mmigration or travel restrictions between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. It is nearly as easy to go from the Republic to London as it is to travel from London to Scotland. If. every time an offender came here from the Republic, the Irish authorities had to send over all the documents and evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case, the result would almost certainly be that they would do so only in the most serious cases, and this country would thus become a haven for petty criminals from Ireland. To make the point more emphatically, I would point out that whereas, as I have said, about 100 offenders a year are returned to the Irish Republic under the present arrangements, in 1964 only one offender was returned to a foreign country under the Extradition Act, and one to a Commonwealth country under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
Moreover, the common source of Irish and British law, and the closely comparable nature of its administration and enforcement in the two countries, make

1047
it unnecessary, in the Government's view, to insist that a prima facie case should be made out. There is also the fact that under the Fugitive Offenders and Extradition Acts we may be returning persons to countries thousands of miles away, and it is therefore only right that the basic requirement of a prima facie case should be established before we return them. But it is quite a different situation, with the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic in such close proximity.
Nevertheless the Government are convinced that arrangements which were appropriate when the whole of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom are no longer wholly satisfactory in the changed constitutional circumstances of to-day. It is, in our view, essential that certain additional safeguards should be introduced, and they are contained in this Bill. At a later stage your Lordships will doubtless be considering the Bill in detail, and will not wish me to make any prolonged examination of it now. It may, however, be helpful if I refer briefly to its main provisions, and in particular to the safeguards it contains.
At present, any Irish warrant for any offence, however trivial, may be endorsed and executed here. Under Clause 1 of this Bill, however, the application of the Bill is confined to offences against the laws of the Republic which are either indictable or are punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for six months. Thus, warrants for trivial summary offences will not come within the scope of the Bill. Under Clause 1 we should proceed in this way. When a police officer in whose area an offender is believed to be receives a warrant from Ireland for his arrest, the warrant will be taken to a magistrate who, if satisfied that the offence specified in the warrant comes within the scope of the Bill, will endorse it for execution. Under subsection (2) of Clause 1, if the warrant is for a summary offence it cannot be executed unless the offender has had the summons, or a notice of issue of the summons, served on him previously, and has failed to appear, or if he has entered into a recognisance, or has already appeared before a court, in respect of the offence in question and has failed to reappear on the due date. Subsection (3) of Clause
1048
1 deals with warrants for the arrest of convicted persons: for example, escaped prisoners, or persons who have jumped their bail while awaiting appeal after conviction. But the subsection also provides that no convicted person may be arrested on an Irish warrant for the purpose of serving imprisonment in default of payment of a fine or other sum of money.
Clause 2 provides, for the first time, that a person arrested under the provisions of Clause 1 must be brought before a magistrates' court; in other words, a repetition of the Hammond case would be quite impossible. This court will not order his return to the Republic if the offence specified in the warrant is an offence of a political character, or an offence under military law which is not also an offence under the general criminal law, or an offence under an enactment relating to taxes, duties or exchange control; nor will the return of the offender be ordered if it is shown that there are substantial grounds for believing that the person named in the warrant will, if taken to the Republic, be prosecuted or detained for another offence, being an offence of a political character or an offence under military law which is not also an offence under the general criminal law. Moreover, subsection (2) of Clause 2 provides that an order for the return of an offender shall not be made if it appears that the offence specified in the warrant does not correspond with an offence under British law which is an indictable offence or is punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for six months.
I hope your Lordships will agree that these new safeguards introduced in Clause 2 are both desirable and necessary. The present position is that, generally speaking, acts which are offences against the law of the Republic would, if committed here, also be offences against British law. But we must have regard to possible future developments and to any divergencies which may arise between the criminal law of our two countries. The Government consider that it is right that Irish warrants for offences which are acknowledged to be offences in both countries should be executed, but that it would not be right to return to the Republic a person who was alleged to have done something which was unlawful in the Republic but not unlawful in this country. As to the provision regarding political offences, this

1049
is customary in arrangements for extradition and is clearly appropriate as between two independent States. Similarly, military and fiscal offences have not been extraditable in our arrangements with foreign countries.
I have discussed Clauses 1 and 2 in some detail because they contain the most important of the new safeguards which the Bill contains. I would add briefly that under Clause 3 a person ordered to be returned to the Republic shall not be delivered up for fifteen days, unless he consents to surrender in a shorter period. This delay would allow time for an appeal to be made, under Clause 3 of the Bill, to the High Court against the decision of the magistrates' court. Another important safeguard is in Clause 5, which provides that the magistrates' court may, at any stage, including the period after the rnakinig of an order for return, remand an arrested person on bail.
At this point I should like to refer briefly to one important matter arising out of the Hammond case. Your Lordships may recall that a feature of that case which caused especial concern was that Hammond was arrested on an Irish warrant for the alleged neglect of his children, who were then in Dublin. In fact, they had been taken away from this country without his consent. The poor man had been over to Ireland and tried to effect a reconciliation. He had sent money regularly, without having had an acknowledgment of it. Then suddenly, years after, Hammond found himself arrested in this country on an Irish warrant for this alleged neglect, although he had, in fact, never lived in the Irish Republic and had made only one short visit there—the visit when he tried to effect a reconciliation. The authorities of the Republic have now given us an assurance that no outgoing warrant in a child-neglect case will in future be sent to the United Kingdom for execution where the matrimonial home is not in the Republic. The Government of the Irish Republic have most helpfully agreed that this assurance should be conveyed publicly to Parliament here.
I hope your Lordships will agree that with these improvements over the existing arrangements the Bill provides a reasonable and sensible compromise between the claims of justice and the rights of the individual. But, of course, this
1050
Bill is only one half of the story. There must be a quid pro quo. It is essential that we should, for our part, be able to obtain the return to this country to stand trial of persons who commit offences here and then flee to the Republic.
Until recently, British (but not Northern Irish) warrants have been executed in the Republic under the provisions of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. But just as these arrangements came under the scrutiny of our courts in the Hammond case, so they were critically considered by the Trish courts last summer in the case of a man named Quinn. In that case, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the present arrangements were contrary to the Constitution of the Republic, and as a result of this judgment we are unable to obtain the surrender of persons wanted here who have gone to the Republic. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships, therefore, that the Government of the Irish Republic have before the Dail an Extradition Bill with which they propose to proceed shortly, and Part III of which will provide for British warrants (including Northern Irish warrants) to be executed in the Republic.
The provisions of the Irish Bill will be, broadly speaking, reciprocal to those contained in the Bill now before your Lordships, and we and the Irish authorities have been in close consultation over both Bills. Thus, once the Dail have enacted the Irish Extradition Bill a warrant issued here will be capable of execution in the Republic, subject of course, to certain restrictions and safeguards, which we may expect will be on the lines of those contained in our Bill.
When both Bills have been enacted and brought into operation there will be in existence a reciprocal scheme which will ensure that, subject to the necessary safeguards, persons who are alleged to have committed offences in one country will not be able to evade justice by taking advantage of the geographical proximity of our two countries and of the ease of travel between them. I would emphasise that these provisions represent a very considerable increase in the safeguards of the liberty of the subject, while preserving, so far as is proper, the speed and efficiency of the present arrangements. I therefore hope that this Bill will commend

1051
itself to your Lordships as both essential and desirable, and that you will agree to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.——(Lord Stonham.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, and I think your Lordships should be exceptionally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the care with which he has explained it, because it means that I shall have to speak for only two or three minutes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told your Lordships, in somewhat different words—but, after all, he is now a Minister—the Republic of Ireland and ourselves have been suddenly found by your Lordships, sitting in your Judicial capacity, to have been living in sin together for something over 40 years without knowing it—and this is one of the occasions when living in sin was not only reprehensible but even undesirable. This finding by your Lordships' House came as something of a surprise, and it was necessary to do something at once. The last Government tried to do something temporarily, on an Order in Council basis, and they at once started the drafting of the necessary legislation; and I am very glad that the present Government have gone ahead with that legislation, making a few alterations which were obviously necessary after discussions with the Irish Government.
The only word of criticism I have (if it is a word of criticism) is that this is a matter of considerable urgency—because anything that strengthens either our hands or the hands of the Irish Government in dealing with criminals is an extremely urgent matter—and I might have hoped that the Second Reading of this Bill could have been introduced before Christmas. It is not a serious criticism, but one does not like to see any unavoidable delay.
As regards the reciprocal legislation which the Irish Government are bringing in, I wonder whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to ask the Irish Government, through the usual channels (which means behind the scenes), whether they will bring their part of the legislation into law at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps it is not
1052
a suitable thing for me to say in your Lordships' House, but if Her Majesty's Government could have a word which might hurry things up I believe that it would be very advantageous, because I do not like to think of the present position, in which our criminals can easily escape to Ireland without much risk of being returned.
My Lords, I will not say anything further about the Bill. The noble Lord has explained it in great detail. If there are any minor details, we can deal with them on the Committee stage. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will get this Bill through all its stages in Parliament as quickly as they can, and I, too, hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if, with your permission, I may reply very briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. has said, I would first of all thank him for his warm and kindly welcome to this Bill. I look forward to receiving his further support in removing another injustice to Ireland, and at the same time removing an injustice to ourselves. We agree that this is a matter of considerable urgency, but I can tell the noble Lord that, despite the anxiety in my Department that this Bill should go forward as soon as possible, it was quite literally out of the question to bring it forward before Christmas since we should not then have been able to come forward with the complete agreement which we now have.
The noble Lord suggested that we should ask the Irish Government, tactfully, to bring this matter to fruition at the earliest possible moment. I can tell him that they are as anxious as we are that it should be concluded satisfactorily, and that the consultations are amicable and continuing. We have a common objective in all respects. Their Bill may not take precisely the same form as ours, but the arrangements will be reciprocal.
I would, however, remind the noble Lord, Lord Derwent (although I am sure he is well aware of this), that the Irish Extradition Bill—a much wider Bill than the one we now have under consideration—was introduced into the Irish Parliament at the end of 1963. It went through its Committee stage in February, 1964, when its progress was suspended

1053
owing to the repercussions of the Hammond case. Obviously, Ministers over there have to agree and approve, and I cannot anticipate anything they may have to say. Nevertheless, it seems likely that, with all that has gone before, and with the good will which exists there, as it does here, the matter will now go forward in the Dail just as expeditiously as I hope it will go forward here.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole louse.

CONWAY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read la.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past five o'clock.