Lords Sitting of 1 July 1965

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield

SOUTH AFRICA AND COPYRIGHT PLAYS
3.6 p.m
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made with regard to the proposal of the South Africa Government to introduce legislation which would enable theatres in South Africa to produce works by British and other authors without their permission, which is in clear conflict with Article 11 of the international Berne Copyright Convention to which Britain is a partner and which provides that authors
"shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorising the public presentation and public performance of their works".]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, no representations have been made to the South African Government with regard to the legislation to which the noble Lord has referred. It appears that the South African Government are relying on Article 17 of the Berne Convention, which confers a right to permit by legislation or regulation, the circulation, presentation or exhibition of any work or production in regard to
which the competent authority may find it necessary to exercise that right.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but would he not agree that copyright is in fact an expression of ownership, and this policy by the South African Government is a denial of the basic right of ownership and therefore is in direct contravention of the Berne Convention, to which I referred in my original Question? Would the noble
1012
Lord not agree further that writers, who may be boneheads and eggheads, are entitled to as much protection in regard to the rights of private property as are businessmen?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I would, without qualification, agree to the second question. With regard to the first, the Berne Convention is a highly technical and complex document, and Article 17 of that Convention, which is the relevant Article, is open to several interpretations. We ourselves are not fully satisfied that the South African Government's interpretation is the correct one, but I should not like to say more at this stage.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Lord whether, on the basis of what he has just said, it is intended to follow up this line of thought?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if at any time the rights of British authors were, in our view, infringed by any action of the South African Government, we would certainly consider making representations to them; but, as the noble Lord knows, the Berne Convention itself is about to undergo some revision, and it is probable that the matter will be raised then.

POST OFFICE WEIGHING MACHINES
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: 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 the case that all post offices are to be supplied with new counter weighing machines for the parcel post; and, if so, what the cost is estimated to be.]
LORD ROBSON: My Lords, some post office parcel weighing machines have been, or are being, replaced or modified to bring them into line with Board of Trade standards. The cost, most of which has already been incurred, is estimated at about £140,000.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he can tell me if an estimate for the various capital expenditures was made before the revised postal charges were made, and if this

1013
included the figure which he has given me now, as well as the figure of £109,500 in respect of advertising, and the estimate for the proposal to change 28,000 stamp-selling machines which at present do not sell 4d. stamps? I presume that it is taken that people do not want to go to the trouble of getting a threepenny and a penny stamp.
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, there are three questions there. With respect, I do not think the last one arises, but I shall be only too happy to answer it. In regard to the question of capital expenditure, this has been going on for a period of eleven years. This is part of a programme of renewing the scales and bringing them into line with Board of Trade standards. This operation first started in 1954, and the job will be completed in 1969. At the present moment it is the turn of Scotland.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether these changes have been approved by the firm of American consultants recently appointed by the Postmaster-General?
LORD HOBSON: My Lords, it has nothing to do with them. The noble Lord really ought to know this, because it went on when he was at the Board of Trade in 1961.

THE RIGHTS OF MINORS
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: 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 contemplate any alteration in the law which imposes restrictions on the power of persons under 21 to hold and dispose of property and prevents them from marrying without parental or other consent.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I am glad to say that Mr. Justice Latey has agreed to act as Chairman of a Committee with the following terms of reference:
"To consider whether any changes are desirable in the law relating to contracts made by persons under 21 and to their power to
1014
hold and dispose of property, and in the law relating to marriage by such persons and in the power to make them wards of court".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for this somewhat tentative gesture in favour of youth. May I ask whether we may anticipate some similar measures in relation to voting?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I understand it, that is being considered by a Speaker's Conference.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us what sort of inquiry this will be? Will it be a private or public inquiry?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it will be the ordinary Committee, of ladies as well as gentlemen, who will be chosen for their specialised knowledge in this field.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask whether the inquiry will also go into the squalid so-called marriage practices at Gretna?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it will be an English Committee, limited to the law of England.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the House knows, it is not the practice to make statements on future Business, but I think that it would be for the convenience of the House on this occasion if I informed your Lordships of the arrangements proposed to deal with the Rent Bill. It had been arranged to take the Second Reading of this Bill on July 8, but unfortunately, due to the progress of the Bill in another place, it is not expected that it will receive a Third Reading there until July 5.
As the House knows, Parliamentary time, as is often the case at this stage of the Session, is short. The Government are most anxious to give adequate time between the Second Reading and the

1015
Committee stage of this Bill. I therefore propose that we continue with the arrangement for the Second Reading of this Bill in this House on July 8, and steps will be taken to see that the Bill, as amended in another place on Report, will be circulated by the week-end to all Peers who normally receive Bills and Amendments. It will also be available in this form in the Printed Paper Office. If we take the Committee stage of the Bill on July 19 this arrangement will ensure adequate time between Second Reading and the Committee. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation to the usual channels for their help and understanding in arranging Business at this particularly difficult time.
May I also inform the House that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. there will be two Statements. I shall be making a statement on the German off-set agreement and my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a statement on coal policy.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Chief Whip's statement on Business, he ended rather disarmingly, and though I am not a "usual channel" I would say, on behalf of my noble friend, that I am very grateful to him. But I hope he will not think it churlish if I say that, although of course we agree to this course, it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation: to have the First Reading of a Bill on a Monday and the Second Reading on the Thursday is not quite good enough. Nevertheless, those of us who sit on these Benches do not want to be obstructive. We do not want to sit any longer in August than necessary any more than noble Lords opposite do. But the fact is that we are helping the Government out of the appalling muddle they have made of their legislative programme, and I should not like it to be thought by noble Lords opposite either that we like it or that it should be taken as a precedent.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble Leader. As I understand it, the Rent Bill will not receive its Third Reading in another place until Monday night, and at the moment we have it now only as amended
1016
in Standing Committee F. On the Report stage last night there were further Amendments. I think that it is rushing the House too much to give it about two days. I quite agree with my noble Leader: we ought to have adequate time, at least ten days or a fortnight, between Second Reading and Committee stage. It is extremely short notice on an important Bill like this.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will remember that all that he is saying now is what we have repeatedly said in past years at the same time in the Session, and there was quite as good excuse for noble Lords opposite as there is to-day.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I express our appreciation to the Chief Whip for the helpful arrangement indicated. He is leaving a long time between Second Reading and Committee stage—eleven days. Would it not be possible to put the Second Reading later than July 8.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say that, while I agree with everything said by my noble Leader, in the opinion of many of us the interval between Second Reading and Committee stage is of very great importance? Many of us think that, given the time available, the noble Lord has made the right allocation in bringing the Second Reading forward and giving us the maximum time thereafter before Committee stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am for the remarks made by noble Lords from all quarters? We would not accept that there is a muddle, either here or in another place, in regard to Government business. The present Government have always tried to give adequate time for Members of both Houses to discuss the very important legislation that we have brought before Parliament. We are in a difficulty particularly, I think, due to the fact that this is the first Session of a new Parliament and a new Government, with all the events that flow from that.
I am very conscious of all that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said about having adequate time. But I felt (and this was the reason I made this suggestion) that the particular principle of this Bill is already known to us, and

1017
therefore when the Bill is printed for this House will not have much effect. We can have a useful and, no doubt, penetrating debate on Second Reading, and since the Bill is one that perhaps needs public discussion in considerable detail, it would seem to me right to bring the Second Reading forward and thus give adequate time for the preparation of Amendments, and for discussions between both sides, and among colleagues, as to what we should do and say on Committee stage. I hope that, in these circumstances, the House will agree to this proposal.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (MELTON MOWBRAY) BILL
3.20 p.m.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWTON-LE-WILLOWS) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (ROTHERHAM) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order):
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

CONSOLIDATION
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move a Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Lloyd of Hampstead be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the place of the Lord Spens.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE BILL
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD TAYLOR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short but most important Bill, which extends and develops the provisions of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1959 and 1963, and the Overseas Service Act, 1961. It is concerned with two great aspects of overseas aid—namely, capital development and technical assistance; or, in other words, money and men. Clause 1 deals with the money; Clause 2 deal with the men. Clause 1 is confined to the remaining dependent territories; Clause 2 makes it possible to offer technical assistance in any part of the world. Clause 1 is limited in time, and Clause 2 is unlimited.
Clause 1 deals with the capital aid to our remaining dependent territories, and your Lordships will be familiar with the method that has been adopted in the series of Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, in which provision has been made for spending cumulative sums of money or of advancing dates. This Bill raises the ceilings on the money which may be spent on Colonial development and welfare, and advances the date by which the money may be spent for a further four years. Since its provisions overlap with the existing Act of 1963, the Bill makes provision for five years in all: that is, from April 1 last until March 31, 1970.
A good deal of the money provided under the previous Acts remains unspent. This is partly, indeed largely, because the territories for which it was provided became independent, and money for their development could no longer be provided under these Acts. Including this balance, which is carried forward, the total amount available in the new period will be £95 million in grants and £40 million in loans. This is money for dependent territories only. These figures compare with the totals available under the previous Acts

1019
of £68½ million for grants and £32 million for loans. But both these periods were of a duration of three years only. The new figures of £95 million for grants and £40 million for loans are spread over five years. This is a comparison of an annual average of about £33½ million available under the old Act and £274 million available under this Bill.
In the meantime, however, the population of the dependent territories has fallen from 18¾ million to 5½ million as territories have become independent. In fact, during the period Kenya, Zambia, Malawi, Zanzibar, Malta, Gambia, Singapore, Borneo and Sarawak have all become independent, and the result of the arithmetic is that the money per head for development rises from £2 a year to £5 a year. It is only fair, of course, to add that these remaining territories for which this money is required are small territories, where difficulties of development may be even greater than in the larger territories which have already gained their independence.
Your Lordships will notice that in Clause 1(2), for grants, and Clause 1(4), for loans, ceilings have been provided for expenditure in the first three years. This is to assist in controlling the rate of outflow of the money. Admittedly, expenditure in recent years has been so far below these ceilings that perhaps they do not appear to have a great deal of significance. We have, however, continued what was done in the previous Act by the previous Administration, and we think it useful to have some sort of governor for the rate of outflow of this money, even though we do not expect anything like it to be reached.
Now a word about grants and loans. The money provided for Colonial development is in most cases a mixture of grants and loans. Under the previous Act the ratio of grants to loans was slightly more than 2:1. We have increased this proportion a little, so that 70 per cent. of the aid available in this Bill will be by grants. In other words, the new ratio is 7:3 instead of 2:1.
Grants are manifestly more important than loans, not only numerically but inasmuch as they do not put a further burden on the developing territory. This is particularly the case in regard to the remaining developing territories. The grants
1020
must be for specific projects. Most of these territories also receive budgetary aid. They have their budgets made up with assistance from us, so the servicing of any loans may fall back on us. Therefore, in a way it is better that they should get their help by grant. Assuming a territory receives a 7:3 mixture of grants and loans and has to pay the full rate of interest on the loan, the mixture of grant and loan would have the result that the overall cost of development finance would be reduced to something like one-third of the nominal lending rate.
The rate of interest on loans provided under this clause would normally be the rate at which the Government itself could borrow for a similar period, plus a small service charge. At the moment this total charge is running at about 6¾ per cent. for 25-years money, although this is not the real cost to the territories of their overall development finance. However, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced on June 21 that it was her intention to make interest-free loans to developing countries in appropriate cases. The criteria relate to the poverty of the territory and its development capacity. These apply to each country in question, and the Colonies will be eligible for loans which we may agree to make in the future on the same criteria as will be applied to other developing countries.
For the sake of completeness, I will say a word or two about interest rate on loans paid by the Colonial Development Corporation, although it is not strictly in order under this Bill. As the Minister has already announced on June 21, there will be a concession on certain projects which the Corporation undertakes. Instead of interest being deferred and, as a result, accumulating during a fructification period, the Corporation will be relieved of interest during that period, so there will be a considerable gain to the developing country's finance at a very difficult time. This will make a significant difference to the cost of the Corporation's money for such schemes, and will enable it to develop fresh schemes in those countries where its capabilities are already well known. The concession will apply mainly to the agricultural schemes which cannot be expected to produce a return in their early years.

1021
The grant money available under the Bill is provided only for individual schemes within Colonial Development plans. So far as loans are concerned, money is available towards the cost of development plans generally. Under the main Act, such plans have to be approved by the Colonial Secretary, because of his overall responsibility for administration of the Colonies, and he consults fully with my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. We therefore make this money available only towards the execution of plans which have first been approved. All the advisory services of the Ministry of Overseas Development are available to be brought to bear on the development problems of these territories, and we are, of course, in close touch with their administrations. So we should be able to secure that this money is spent as effectively as possible. We appreciate that some administrative procedures have become rather cumbersome, and we hope to have them tidied up before the Colonial territories actually start to spend money under this Bill.
The Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill in another place on February 24 with the intention, as she stated, that allocations should be available to the territories much earlier in the planning period than the similar allocations had been in 1963 under the previous Government. However, the Committee stage of the Bill in another place was more protracted than had been the case on previous similar Bills, so it again looks unlikely that the Act can receive the Royal Assent much sooner than did the previous one. It is a little sad because it means that there is that much less time for the territories to work out their plans. One must not complain about this meticulous Committee examination, but it is a pity that a Bill, introduced on February 24 in another place, should reach us only on July 1. I hope, however, that our Committee stage need not be too protracted.
I now come to Clause 2, which seeks to do two main things. It repeals and replaces the Overseas Service Act, 1961, a very valuable Act which is the authority for the present Overseas Service Aid Scheme. It extends that scheme to people who are performing public or social services in overseas territories outside the Civil Services of Governments. The exist
1022
ing scheme was announced in a White Paper, Cmnd. 1193, which was published in August, 1960. The main problem at that time was to help the remaining dependent territories to attain independence with public services that would be equal to the strains which would follow from independence. The British Government had already promised that the members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service, who were filling many of the senior posts in these territories, should be permitted to retire with compensation when the British Government could no longer protect their terms of service. The White Paper recognised that the need for skilled people in the dependent territories would not stop at the point of independence, but would continue for some years as these countries developed their economies and their public services.
The Overseas Service Aid Scheme therefore offered to the Governments of the territories then dependent financial help from the British Government towards the salaries, education allowances, passage costs and, where appropriate, compensation of British expatriate officers serving in the Civil Services of those countries. Forty-one agreements have been signed under this Scheme and at its peak over 15,000 officers were designated. Because of resignations under the compensation schemes, this number has now dropped, but over 10,000 officers are still in post under the Scheme in both independent and the remaining dependent countries. Of these about 5,000 are members of H.M. Oversea Civil Service, and the rest are designated contract officers. All these men are in the service of overseas Governments and receive the payments due to them from those Governments, who in turn are reimbursed at an agreed level by the British Government.
During the lifetime of the Scheme the requirements of overseas Governments have been steadily changing. Most designated officers serve independent Commonwealth Governments, and these Governments no longer need expatriate officers for a lifetime of service. Virtually all appointments are therefore now made on a short-term contract basis which is renewable by agreement between the employing Government and the individual officer. The emphasis of this vast

1023
Scheme of technical assistance has therefore come to be placed on maintaining through a large number of short-term contracts a considerable body of officers in the field to help overseas Governments to attain independence and to develop that independence as effectively as possible. Independence has not reduced the need for this help, and although about 1,800 appointments were made under the
Scheme last year by the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Crown Agents, the vacancies outstanding at the end of the year exceeded the appointments made. We can therefore be confident that this considerable Scheme, which is our major vehicle for technical assistance and which is costing the British Government between £15 and £16 millions a year, has proved, and is proving, of great benefit in supporting the Civil Services and Governments of many overseas countries. However, one aspect of the scheme has assumed increasing importance since it was introduced. Over the past five years, salaries and the general standard of living have increased more rapidly in this country than in the great majority of the under-developed countries where these officers serve. Without the help in improving salaries provided by this scheme it would always have been difficult for these relatively poor countries to pay the full cost of employing men from overseas. But the increasing prosperity here has widened the gap between our living standards and theirs and so made the scheme much more essential, both to encourage serving officers to stay and to make new recruitment possible.
While some independent countries have established their own recruitment machinery here, many are content to continue to rely on the services of the Ministry and the Crown Agents, with their longstanding contacts with the authorities and professional bodies here, from whom most of our overseas recruits are drawn. The scheme is now to be extended outside the Civil Services of overseas Governments to a great variety of bodies and institutions overseas performing public and social services in their countries. The bodies covered by this extension are generally described in subsection (5). This subsection was the subject of a great deal of debate in Committee in another place,
1024
and the first version of it aimed at setting out in detail the kinds of employment in which people might be supported. However, it was partly redrawn to describe in more general terms the bodies which now come within it.
The concept behind this extension is that many services are of equal value to a developing community, whether they are undertaken by the Civil Services or by somebody else. Thus in many countries schools are run partly by the Government, partly by institutions set up by, or supported by, the Government and, perhaps, partly by charitable or other non-public bodies. It is the same with railways: in one country the railways may be run by the Government and in another by a public utility. But there is clearly no special logic or value in the distinction drawn by the existing scheme between a railway engineer employed by the Government and one employed by a public corporation, or between a teacher employed by the Government and one employed by an independent technical institute. At present we can support only those people who are in Government service. Under the extension we shall be able to bring in the railway engineer and the teacher who are not in Government service, the local authority employee, the co-operative society officer, the highly skilled employee of a research institute, people in the Health Services of those countries, and the university professor or lecturer. We are sure that this will prove a sensible and helpful extension of the present scheme, and we already know that it will be welcomed by many Governments and authorities overseas.
With one major exception, we have not yet decided the bodies to whom this help will be offered. We have begun a process of consultation, so as to make out a list of a large number of bodies who might be eligible for it. and then to assign some order of priority in the offers of help that we can make. It will be seen from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that we anticipate that the cost of this extension will rise in due course to a maximum of about £1½ million a year, a figure which assumes an average payment of about £1,000 per designated officer. In opening the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Minister did, however, say that she proposed to use this extension of the scheme to discharge

1025
the undertaking given by the British Government to the Commonwealth Education Conference at Ottawa last year, to offer help in respect of British expatriate staff in overseas universities. As funds become available, the scheme will be offered to other bodies potentially eligible for it, and from our initial soundings it looks as though there will be no shortage of claimants for this aid.
Because this extension of the scheme is not concerned with the Civil Services of Governments, or with members of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service, no question arises of compensation payment under it; nor will any pension be paid. The benefits will consist of inducement or overseas allowance, given in addition to local salaries, paid by the employers, education allowances and a contribution towards passage costs. While it is possible under Clause 2 to offer the benefits of the scheme to bodies performing public or social services in any country in the world, it is likely that the bulk of the help provided will be within the Commonwealth. This is partly because our limited resources will make it necessary for us to administer the scheme on a system of priorities, and partly because technical assistance is one aspect of our general aid programme, and we assess the need for it as part of our general aid programme for a particular country.
We know that this extension of the aid scheme made by the present Bill will be welcome in many countries. While there was argument in another place about the Bill's drafting, there was a general welcome from all sides of the House for its provisions. We hope that it will prove equally acceptable in your Lordships' House, and will be given a speedy passage to the Statute Book. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Taylor.)
3.47 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the very clear way in which he has presented this Bill to your Lordships this afternoon. In common, I think, with all noble Lords on this side of the House, I most certainly give this Bill a wholehearted welcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has told us, it is one in a long
1026
series of similar Bills, and I like to remember that the first one of the series was introduced in 1940, when we committed this great act of faith and courage in what has been described by one of our greatest men as "our finest hour".
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has told us, it is true that the amount of money which is being made available is a little less, but the number of people with whom we are dealing is very much less: approximately 13½ million fewer will be covered by this Bill than were covered by the Act of 1963. I, for one am very pleased that Her Majesty's Government have not reduced accordingly the amount of money to be made available; and, as the noble Lord has explained, it will be £5 per head of population available as opposed to £2 per head of population available under the Act of 1963.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, however, the needs of the remaining 30 territories for whom we are directly responsible are very great, and I feel that everything that we can afford should be made available to these territories. Perhaps it is a little invidious to mention particular territories by name—and one might be tempted to name only territories of which one has personal experience. But I should just like to put on record my own view—and I should make it clear that I am speaking only for myself. I hope that the Minister, when considering the allocation of aid, will pay particular attention to the needs of the Seychelles, to the needs of Mauritius, to the needs of what we used to call the High Commission territories—Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland—and to those two lonely territories, St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha. I also hope that, if the difficulties with which Gibraltar is having to contend continue, special consideration will be given to her needs, as well as generous consideration to the needs of the West Indian Islands, which we sincerely hope may before long achieve federation.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, of something to which I drew his attention on the occasion of the Gambia Independence Bill. I suggested to the noble Lord that, in considering aid for The Gambia, it might be wise to consider aid which would be of use also to Senegal. I suggested

1027
that these two countries had similar interests, and that, in considering aid, that would perhaps be a proper way to look at the problem; and the noble Lord was good enough to say he would bear this in mind. I hope he has not forgotten what he said then. Also, I particularly welcome the fact that this is a five-year Bill and not a three-year Bill. In 1963 I for one bitterly regretted that we were not able to get a five-year Bill, and I should like to congratulate the right honourable lady upon her success with the Treasury in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the alteration in the emphasis between loans and grants and said—I am sure that this is right—that 70 per cent. of the £135 million will now be payable by way of grant and only 30 per cent. by way of loan. I think I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the right honourable lady, now the Minister of Overseas Development, said in 1959 that she considered that the rate of interest of 5 per cent. on Exchequer loans was too high. Of course, in these countries we are now considering the servicing of these loans makes them extremely unattractive. I was glad to see that the Minister went on to say that loans would be considered only as a last resort.
Now, however, we have this added news that there is the intention (if I have understood the noble Lord aright) of giving Exchequer-free loans. I do not know how they are going to be administered. I think it is going to be extremely difficult for the Minister responsible to decide where these loans should go. I should rather like to know from the noble Lord—perhaps he could tell me when I sit down—whether the ordinary 6¾ per cent. rate will be charged on other loans. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to tell me if that is still to persist in certain cases, because we still have £45 million, I think it is, in loans. I would be interested to know what proportion of this money is going to be for interest-free loans and what proportion of it is going to be for interest-bearing loans. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us about this later on. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the new arrangements that have been gone into by the C.D.C. I think this is
1028
very good news and most satisfactory, and of course it will be particularly helpful in regard to agricultural schemes which are slow to produce returns.
I should now like to say a word about Clause 2—that is, the extension of the OSAS scheme. I think this is an admirable and very necessary alteration to the existing law. I speak from a certain degree of personal experience, and I welcome this wholeheartedly. I am a little disappointed that the Minister was not able to make an absolutely overall offer of this aid. So far as I understand it, she is going to have to get Treasury approval. She is going to select and is going to say that so-and-so is a high priority, and then she has to try to weaken the resistance of the Treasury. I wish her luck, and I only hope that the Treasury will feel able to allow the right honourable lady to administer this alteration in the law as widely as she can.
The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that there is no question under this extension of the scheme of there being any pensions or compensations. I think I am right in saying that no pensions are added by this extension of the scheme; nor are there any compensations for loss of employment. Here is a point that I should like the noble Lord to consider—and here again I speak from direct personal experience of many conversations with designated officers. This is a problem with which many of them are faced. When they come home what is going to happen to them? I do hope that we are not just going to encourage these admirable people to give their services abroad and then, when they come back to this country, just forget about them.
I know that in the medical world, and, I believe, in the teaching profession up to a certain extent, something has been done to arrange for the promotion of people who fall out of the main stream, as it were, through their overseas service. In my opinion, they are all the better for their service overseas, and they are probably far more useful because of it. They should not be penalised when they come back to this country by losing the chances of promotion that they would have had had they remained here. I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, whether he is able to give us any encouraging information on this

1029
score, and whether we have in fact been able to make any progress here. It does seem to me to be a matter of great importance, and I hope that something has been devised.
There is another point I should like to raise on Clause 2, by which the Minister proposes to give this aid under the OSAS scheme directly or indirectly. As noble Lords who are interested in this subject will know, previously this aid had been given only indirectly. This was very, carefully thought out, because we considered it might be an embarrassment to overseas territories if this money were not to go into their Exchequer for them to pay out, and for those who received it to appear not to be entirely their servants. I understand that further consideration has been given to this problem, and that it has been thought to be rather embarrassing for there to be shown in their accounts quite large figures of monies coming from the United Kingdom. Apparently the Minister now proposes in certain cases to give this aid directly to the officers concerned. I am a little dubious about this and question whether this alteration will in fact achieve the desired result. I merely wish to utter a word of warning on this point.
I am very pleased indeed, as I said earlier, that the scope of OSAS has been widened to include people outside the ordinary central Government services, but there is a point that is not clear to me, and perhaps when he comes to reply the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, can enlighten me on it. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pay direct to organisations or institutions without the money being channelled through the Exchequer of the Government of the territory concerned? In other words, will there be a direct dealing between the Department and other organisations? I should very much like to have the Minister's information on this point, also.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships for a long time, but there are one or two general points to which I should like to allude. I hope that special attention will be paid to the teaching of English. I know that we are sending more English teachers overseas than we did, but the number still seems to me to be pitifully small. I think it was 200 in 1964, and I am told that it may reach the figure of 300 this year. This really does not seem to me
1030
to be enough. I would have thought that, with greater effort, it would be possible to increase this figure. There are many people of good will in this country who would be only too pleased to give their services in this direction, and, fortunately, it does not require very high qualifications.
It is not necessary to have a university degree to be able to qualify for the elementary teaching of English. I should have thought that there might be many young men and women who were unfortunately unable to get into a university, not having reached that academic standard, but who would be only too pleased to go overseas and teach English during the years they would otherwise have spent at the university. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this suggestion. I should like also to ask the Minister to pay particular attention to avoiding the risk of over-emphasis on urban development and industrial development. I think there is already a tendency in this direction. I do not believe that too much attention can be given to agricultural development; I think this is vital, and I hope that the Minister will watch and see that sufficient attention is paid to this.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I regret that the Bill has come to us so late; but the reasons for this are the long debates which took place on it in another place. I remember that in 1963 we had the same trouble: the allocations were made late in the year and this was of great inconvenience to the territories concerned. In these long discussions in another place there was the question of the creation of a career corps of overseas specialists. I hope that this thought will be examined closely. We in this country have many families with long traditions of overseas service. For generations these families have given of their best to territories overseas. One thinks, of course, of the great Indian Civil Service, a wonderful body, about which we all feel very proud; one thinks of the sons and daughters of the officers of our present Colonial Service or, as we now call it, Overseas Civil Service, a Service with which I, for one, was very proud to be associated as Minister.
We have this tremendous experience and this great good will in abundance in the British people. I only hope that in

1031
the years to come we shall have the wisdom, wit and generosity to make full use of these qualities which are to hand. I am convinced that the British people will continue to want to go overseas and to serve abroad. In the future, they will not be going as Governors, as High Commissioners or as District Commissioners; they will go (as they used to go in the old days before the creation of our Empire) as missionaries, teachers, nurses and doctors. We must give them encouragement and help. Here is something which we can continue to do.
This is not a Party matter at all. I am sure that we on this side welcome this Bill because it is a means of pursuing this particular type of aid to those countries which are less fortunate than ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, told us that Overseas Service Aid Scheme (Clause 2) is universal in its application: it is not limited to the Commonwealth. But I hope that help—I do not want to use the word "charity"—will begin at home and in the Commonwealth. Surely this must come first. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I welcome this Bill; I think it a very important piece of legislation and one of the most important things that will happen for our overseas territories until the next Bill comes in five years' time.

COST OF BRITISH FORCES IN GERMANY
4.4 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be convenient if, with your permission, I now repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the First Secretary to the Treasury. I will use his own words:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the foreign exchange cost of maintaining British forces in Germany.
"On the 28th and 29th June I discussed with Mr. Dahlgrün, the Federal German Minister of Finance, the question of German payments offsetting
1032
these costs. Our discussions covered both the current two-year Agreement ending 31st March, 1966, and the extension of that Agreement for a further year to March, 1967.
"During the current two-year period the foreign exchange cost of our forces in Germany is expected to be about £170 million; in the first 15 months of that period German offset payments have totalled £30 million. The German Government has now agreed to these additional measures:
"First, an immediate payment of £42 million on account of sums falling due by 31st March, 1966, in respect of contracts already placed or foreseen;
"Second, finance for additional British exports of £45 million. Half of this will come from the release of moneys belonging to the Germany Government but already held in London: it will not, therefore, represent new money for the reserves, but it will represent additional exports and the cancellation of an outstanding debt. Drawings from this account will be matched, pound for pound by new German transfers across the exchanges.
"Thus, I expect German offset payments in, and in respect of, the current two-year period now to total some £117 million.
"In the third financial year, 1966–67, the German Government will see to it that offset payments total some £54 million. This figure will, of course, be additional to the payments which I have already described for 1964–66.
"I hope that the House will share my view that this represents a satisfactory settlement of an issue of the greatest economic and political importance to both countries. I feel that this outcome owes much to the spirit of good will and real friendship which I found in my discussions with the German Finance Minister, and in particular, to the new understanding and sense of urgency which was imparted to this subject by the Prime Minister's talks with Dr. Erhard in March of this year. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the Communiqué issued in Bonn on 29th June."
Following is the communiqué referred to:
No. 28.
June 29, 1965
Anglo-German Talks on Offsetting the Foreign Exchange Costs of British Forces in Germany June 28 and 29, 1965
Final Communiqué
When the British Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, visited Germany on the 8th and 9th of March of this year he agreed with the Federal Chancellor, Professor Ludwig Erhard, that the Federal Minister of Finance would meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to negotiate improved arrangements for offsetting the foreign exchange costs of the maintenance of British Forces in Germany for the period ending April, 1967. These talks were held on 28th and
29th of June, 1965. The British delegation was led by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. John Diamond, who was accompanied by the British Ambassador to the Federal Republic, Sir Frank Roberts together with representatives of the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the British Embassy. The German delegation was led by the Federal Minister of Finance, Dr. Rolf Dahlgrün, who was accompanied by Ministerialdirektor Dr. Féaux de la Croix and representatives of the Federal Ministries of Finance, Foreign Affairs, Economics, Defence and Economic Co-operation as well as the German Federal Bank. The negotiations took place against the background of the special political and economic importance of solving the problem of offsetting the DM expenditure incurred by Great Britain through the stationing of British troops on the territory of the Federal Republic. They were conducted in a spirit of friendly understanding and ended in complete agreement.
The Ministers agreed:
To recommend to their Governments
that the current Agreement shall be extended for a further year. i.e. to 31st of March, 1967. The Federal Government will sec to it that the volume of payments for purchases during that additional third year will total about DM 600 million.
The two Ministers also examined progress under the current Agreement, considered various ways in which performance under it could be improved and satisfied themselves that with the help of the following new measures this performance would not fall short of expectations.
In order to accelerate the implementation of the current Agreement, which covers the period from the 1st of April, 1964 to the 31st of March, 1966, and under which recognised payments so far total DM 336 million under contracts already placed, the Federal Republic will promptly make an advance payment of DM 464 million. This sum is intended to meet payments due by 31st March, 1966, under contracts already placed or foreseen. This will enable a beginning to be made with drawings on the Deposit Account amounting at present to 23·6 million (the equivalent of about 250 million DM). These drawings, which will not be transferable across the exchange would be used by the Federal Government
1034
together with German payments to finance additional purchases from the United Kingdom amounting to twice that sum in respect of the two year period ending 31st March, 1966.
4.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we have all been very greatly concerned about the disparity between the mounting expense of maintaining our Armed Forces in Germany, which has the nature of an unrequited export, and the very small receipts, whether through German purchases or arms from Britain or in other ways, which could be set against this heavy drain on our balance of payments. This disparity has always provided strong arguments for those who advocate that we should no longer maintain British Forces in Germany. I hope very much that this new Agreement which the noble Lord has just described and which, I take it, covers something between one-half and two-thirds of the cost, will be fully implemented in the next three years. I hope it will make it a little easier for us to discharge our present obligations towards NATO. I hope it will also have the effect, which is very much to be desired, of promoting a greater amount of general trade and greater Political co-operation between the United Kingdom and Germany.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that this is quite a substantial improvement on anything that has been negotiated in the past? Can he give any indication of the extent of the improvement?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome to this Statement given by both noble Lords. This is indeed a significant improvement on the previous Agreement. I think the improvement falls into two parts. The previous Agreement, arrived at by the previous Administration, left the German authorities in the position that they would make a contribution as far as possible. This may, perhaps, be one of the reasons why there has been this short-fall between what was hoped for and what eventually was received. No particular blame may be attached to the German Government it may well be a failure on our part to supply the right type of goods. The difference is that under this Agreement the German Government will see

1035
to it—those are the words written into the Agreement: "will see to it"—that these offset payments are made. There is therefore a firm undertaking in that respect. Not being a great mathematician, I cannot immediately say what is the difference, but there is a very substantial difference between what has been the position and what will now arise.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think this Agreement will be regarded on both sides of the House as a very important one, and I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed by the whole nation. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he might convey to his right honourable friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury the general sense of satisfaction which obtains, and indeed congratulate him on the successful outcome of his negotiations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful, and I will certainly see that the comments of the noble Lord are passed on. I hope—I am sure that my hope will be shared in all quarters—that what will arise from the Agreement will be not only the immediate results, but also a new sense of understanding of the very great problems which exist between countries in NATO regarding the financing of their defence commitments.

CAPITAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE COAL INDUSTRY
4.13 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I now repeat a Statement, made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Power in another place, on the capital reconstruction of the coal industry. I will use his own words.
"I am, with the assistance of my Energy Advisory Council, making good progress in the formulation of a national fuel policy. Meanwhile, the Government are satisfied that the coal industry is substantially over-capitalised and that the burden of its debt must be reduced to correspond with the realities of the situation and the prospects. The coal market has
1036
contracted by about 30 million tons in the last eight years: many uneconomic pits have been closed and discussions in the Energy Advisory Council suggest that some further contraction may be unavoidable in the years ahead. I reckon that these developments affect in all about £400 million of the Board's capital debt. The Government propose that this amount of the Board's debt to the Exchequer should be written off. This will make a major contribution towards finding a basis for a healthy and viable coal industry capable of providing funds for further colliery investment from its own earnings. In addition, the Government are prepared to enter into discussions with the industry for a scheme to provide special funds to speed the disappearance of uneconomic collieries. The funds would be available to accelerate the provision of alternative industrial development in the areas mainly affected, and also to assist the industry in meeting the social and human costs arising from this programme.
"I will, when the necessary consultations are completed, lay a White Paper before the House explaining Government policies for coal in the context of national fuel policy and our proposals for legislation on coal later this year."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just made, is, I think, of great importance to the coal industry. He said that £400 million is to be written off. According to my reckoning, this corresponds to approximately 35 per cent. of the total capital. By any standards that is a colossal sum of money, and we shall, of course, wish to study this Statement very carefully.
The Statement said that this was being done in order to bring the coal industry into line with the realities of the situation and the prospects. One is tempted to ask the noble Lord precisely what are the prospects. Can he say whether the Government have in mind any particular quantity of coal per year that will be required to be produced? The noble Lord referred to a drop of 30 million tons per year over the last eight years. He followed that with the fact that some

1037
pits have been closed and that others would probably be closed, and went on to describe this as "developments". I should have thought that word a trifle inappropriate. It might more reasonably be described as contraction of the industry.
Can the noble Lord say how this £400 million is made up? Is the accumulated deficit of the Coal Board to be written off, or only some of it; and, if some of it, how much? How much will the interest on £400 million amount to? Can the noble Lord give a clear assurance that when this capital is being written off there will also be closures of the most uneconomic pits operating at the moment? If we are to have a reorganisation of capital where a certain amount of capital is being written off, and if the same pits are operating, clearly the result will he some form of hidden subsidy. If the noble Lord will give an assurance that at the same time the least economic pits will be dealt with in a suitable fashion, I think that the House will be very grateful.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a question about the special funds to which he referred? Are they to provide new industries in areas where pits have been closed—for example, in the South-East Northumberland coalfields, where the County Council and local authorities are embarking on building the new town of Cramlington? It occurs to me that it would be unfair if they were left out of any bounty which the Government are giving in this respect.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, awaits the publication of the White Paper which will give the details of these particular proposals regarding the special funds. Apart from that I should say that it is the intention, so far as the Government's general policy with regard to development is concerned, that there should be no distinction between an area where redundancy has just been created and one where it will be created in the future, if the new industry and if the social and human costs arising from this programme need attention.
I will do my best to reply to the many questions which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, addressed to me, but if I forget
1038
any, perhaps he will remind me. First of all, in regard to the net annual saving to the Board, the Board will be relieved of interest payments of about £18 million a year, and their loan repayments will also be reduced. The precise amount, as the noble Earl will understand, will depend on the way blocks of capital with varying repayment terms are dealt with in the scheme that is being worked out.
With regard to the Board's financial and capital position, I would not argue with his arithmetic in reaching a figure of about 35 per cent., but the value of fixed assets at March 28, 1964, was £8306 million; current assets stocks, and stores, etc.—was £203.7 million, and the accumulated deficit on current account was £91·3 million, making a total indebtedness of £1,125·6 million. The writing off of £400 million, which I mentioned in the Statement, includes the deficit of £91·3 million on current account, because we consider that it is not right to burden the industry to-day with the results of past undercharging, for which the noble Earl's Government were responsible. He will remember the enforced payment by the Board of losses on the import of American coal, costing the National Coal Board some £70 million, which goes a long way towards meeting the accumulated deficit.
As to the reasons for the situation that has arisen, here again the previous Government must accept a great measure of responsibility; because, doubtless with the best of intentions, the industry was over-capitalised as a result of the decisions taken in the '50s by the Party opposite to expand the industry to meet a high level of demand, of the order of 230 to 240 million tons a year—decisions which proved, in the light of hindsight, to be wrong. Because the industry was over-capitalised as a result, this reduction has to be made.
In regard to the closure of uneconomic pits, I am sure that the noble Earl will be aware that this has been going on all the time. Indeed, a typical example of the assets likely to be written off is a pit waiting closure which is making losses on running costs, even before any contribution to interest, depreciation and unavoidable overheads is met. But I can give a categorical assurance on this point.

1039
The noble Earl seemed to find some contradiction between writing off and my mention of further development. There is no contradiction between closing down uneconomic pits and writing off redundant capital, and the development of good pits and spending money on them. Indeed, it is expected that in the years ahead the National Coal Board will be spending some £500 million on further capital development, a great part of which, it is expected, will be raised from its own resources.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, this Statement probably means that a considerable number of coal miners will become out of work or redundant. Would this not be a suitable moment for Her Majesty's Government to consider giving a tax incentive, as they do in Canada, in Eire and in other countries, to encourage mineral exploration in this country, so that this skilled manpower could be properly used? Will the Government bear this suggestion in mind?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. As he says, this contraction will mean redundancies, but it is the Government's intention to make quite sure that these redundancies do not result in unemployment. As the pits become exhausted or uneconomic, the men thus becoming redundant will be needed to fill vacancies in other areas, or they will be able to be employed in new industries which it is the Government's intention to set up where necessary. But the suggestion that the noble Lord has made will be considered by my right honourable friend.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We must remember that these men are skilled. There is no encouragement at the moment to do mineral exploration in this country. In Ireland, a considerable amount of money has been spent trying to find new deposits. I think that this might be a suitable moment for the Government to look at this.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the announcement that has just been made. There is nothing more discouraging than to be landed with a load
1040
of debt on which interest has to be paid, with no sign of its coming down. I am sorry that the Minister added some observations of his own which tried to fasten on the late Government the results of their attempts at forecasting. His own Government are pretty good at trying to forecast, and we shall see what the results are there, to.
I should like to say that the Coal Board are doing a magnificent job, under the leadership of an esteemed Member of your Lordships' House. They are trying—and not only trying; they are succeeding—to increase their efficiency. They have been doing this month after month (I understand that that is what the noble Lord means by "expansion"), as well as opening up new pits, which has to be done as others fall out. I, for one, welcome this Statement. In my view, it is a good step, and the Government are to be congratulated.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I warmly welcome and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, for what he has just said. I am sure that, coming from a former Minister of Power, it will be a considerable pleasure to my right honourable friend Mr. Lee. I welcome still more what he said about the coal industry. Coal prices have been stable for a number of years. There has been no general increase since 1960 and no selective increase since mid-1962. It is true that the coal industry has increased its efficiency more than almost any other industry in the country. So far as development is concerned, the first fully automated pit is just coming into operation. And it is development of this kind on which the new capital is being spent. I also welcome the words of the noble Viscount with regard to my noble friend Lord Robens of Woldingham.
I do not think it is generally recognised throughout the country, as it should be, what a truly gallant and successful fight has been put up in the coal industry against all sorts of odds. It must never be forgotten that our balance of payments owes a great deal to the coal industry. Coal is our one major indigenous mineral, and we shall be depending on the coal industry for our base-load power for many years to come. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, may I say that we realise that not only is the coal industry an important source of national capital, but the men who work the mines are a

1041
supremely important source of national capital. We shall use their skill first in the mining industry and then, in the cases where that is not possible, to the utmost advantage within the national economy.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE BILL
4.30 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, perhaps we may revert now to a less controversial subject than coal. I admit that when I came down to your Lordships' House, I had no intention of speaking on the Overseas Development and Service Bill, which was introduced with so much skill by my noble friend Lord Taylor, but it seems to me that this is such an important and useful Bill that it might create a false impression if the only speakers in the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House were the two official spokesmen of the two main Parties. Therefore I should like to associate myself with the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in welcoming this Bill very cordially indeed.
The terms of financial aid to the Colonies in Clause 1 of the Bill are an immense improvement on existing terms. I think the extension of financial assistance under Clause 2 to persons other than Government employees will be of great advantage to overseas countries. I wish to emphasise, however, one point in that connection which was made by the noble Marquess. In spite of the financial inducements, young men from this country will not go out to these poor countries overseas as doctors, engineers, local authority employees, co-operators or whatever it may be, unless they have a real incentive to do so. Surely the most essential condition for a real incentive is that it should be absolutely certain that when they come back they will not be prejudiced in their own professions.
This is not at all a matter for the Government, but it is certainly a matter for your Lordships' House. I am convinced that there will be no incentive until the bodies representative of our great professions—some have done so already, but I am afraid the majority have not—make it their official policy that young men who go out overseas for a short period (and
1042
it will be a short period of not more than a year or two) at the start of their professional careers will not be prejudiced in so far as promotion or status is concerned when they return to their normal work in this country. Unless this sense of confidence is created in our younger people, the financial provisions of the Bill will not be effective, because these people will not go out to do this sort of work.
There is one thing I should like to say with regard to the financial provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill. Here, again, I would endorse the question asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, about the proportion of the £40 million in loans which will be provided in the form of interest-free loans, as distinct from loans at the normal Treasury rate of interest. I think it is admirable that the proportion of grants to loans is now 70 per cent. to 30 per cent. I only wish that financial aid to the independent Commonwealth countries were provided on such generous terms. But as all these small Colonies to which these loans will be made are extremely poor, I should have thought that it would be only in a most exceptional case that the normal Treasury rate of interest could be charged.
I should be glad if my noble friend could say whether his right honourable friend who is responsible for financial aid would be willing in the great majority of cases to give interest-free loans. I think this policy of interest-free loans is an admirable departure. It is a new policy, and I very much hope that it will become part of the national aid-giving policy of this country, and that any future Government will continue the policy that has been started by the present Government.
4.35 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I should like to address myself briefly to Clause 2 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne specifically referred to one or two countries within the Indian Ocean—that is, the Seychelles and Mauritius—and in view of the provisions of Clause 2, I should like to refer to another country in that area, as I am the Chairman of the Anglo-Malagasy Society, and that is the Malagasy Republic. I would echo the words of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne with regard to the question of sending out teachers.

1043
I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to consider soon sending out to that country some teachers of English; and also, perhaps at a later date, some university professor could possibly be sent, with the approval of the Malagasy Government, to the University of Tananarive.
Here I should like to take this opportunity of saying how delighted I am that the Minister of Overseas Development has given her consent to four or five students starting on a nine months' course during the coming autumn at the Thurrock Technical College. This is the first time it has been done for students from the Malagasy Republic, and I hope that it will be the beginning of many more students coming from that part of the world.
There are one or two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord. I was wondering whether the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill will enable his right honourable friend to consult with the British Council, or provide funds or assist the British Council in any way, to set up an organisation in Malagasy, which I am sure would meet with the approval of the Government there. This is something which has been considered for a few years now, and I understand that the cost would be in the region of £25,000.
The other question is with regard to equipment being sent out to such overseas
territories not within the Commonwealth. Will the funds which are required to
buy equipment be provided under Clause 2 of the Bill? I am thinking particularly of milk pasteurisation plant, which I understand is shortly to be sent out to hospitals in Tananarive. I understand that this is proceeding satisfactorily. But should further plant or equipment be sent to other territories who need such technical and specialist equipment, could it be done under Clause 2 of the Bill?
4.38 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I apologise for rising to speak after my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has already spoken from the Front Bench on this side of the House, but I am encouraged to do so by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by my noble friend Lord Merrivale. As one who has always taken a great interest in our Commonwealth
1044
and colonial development overseas, and who for a time had the privilege of speaking from the Government Front Bench for the previous Department of Technical Co-operation when it was first formed, I, too, should like to welcome this Bill.
I wish to associate myself with everything that has been said by all speakers so far, and particularly with what was said by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne with regard to agricultural development. I feel that for a long time to come the economies of the territories with which we are dealing in this Bill—not to mention many of the independent territories—must depend upon the development of their agriculture.
The second most important matter is the educational programme. These two things together will do more than anything else for the territories about which we are speaking. In that respect, I think my noble friend Lord Lansdowne brought out clearly that there is no question of pensions or compensation for people going out under the extended powers of this scheme to non-Governmental authorities. At the same time, I think I am right in saying that there was never any question of pension or compensation for contract people, and that this referred only to the original Act dealing with overseas civil servants who were continuing as employees of the newly independent territories.
That brings me to a question raised in my mind by the final paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, where it is pointed out that the figure of some £16 million now being spent under the Overseas Service Act. 1961, is likely to diminish as instalments of compensation under the Compensation Schemes are completed. That paragraph goes on to say that the extra cost to the Exchequer in this coming year might be £500,000, and may rise to £14, million in subsequent years. Are those last figures taking into consideration the diminution referred to in the first part of that paragraph, or are they quite separate from it? It is perhaps not a very important matter, but it is one of some interest.
May I ask one or two further brief questions? The first one is with regard to a reference in Clause 1(6) to the

1045
Tanganyika Agriculture Corporation. I am not quite clear of the meaning of that when it refers to some payments arising, apparently, before 1957. Is this in fact a writing-off of an old debt? I read it in that fashion, and I think we ought to have an explanation of that point. The other point which occurred to me is that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who introduced this Bill so admirably and lucidly, said that this money could be used—I think his words were these—anywhere in the world. At the end of his speech he said that of course the bulk of it would be going to the colonial territories.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I think I had better clear this matter up straight away. What I said was that the provisions of Clause 2 could apply anywhere in the world. The provisions of Clause 1, which is the main money portion, apply only to the remaining dependent territories.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very grateful for that explanation. I did not quite make out what the noble Lord said. I was going to suggest that these figures would not have been quite accurate when he referred to a certain expenditure per head. I am very glad of that explanation. I welcome this Bill most heartily, and wish the development programme set out under it every success.
4.43 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I will try to answer the questions which have been put to me. First, I should like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, my noble friend Lord Listowel, and other noble Lords who have spoken, for the very kind way in which they have received this Bill. I would acknowledge at once that it is one of a long line of Bills which started, as the noble Marquess reminded us, way back in 1940 when things were very difficult indeed. Nevertheless, we did not hesitate to do what was right by our dependent territories—or to begin to do what was right—and even now, though things are difficult, we are doing more than we have done in the past.
The noble Marquess mentioned a number of territories: the Seychelles, Mauritius, the Protectorates St. Helena,
1046
Tristan and Gibraltar, among others—they are all in our minds a good deal of the time—and, of course, the Western Indian Islands, the federation of which we hope to see, though I must say that things are not quite as rosy as they were. Indeed, it will be a great help to us, and to them, if they do federate, particularly from the point of view of an efficient programme of economic development.
The noble Marquess mentioned Senegal and The Gambia. Of course, these two territories do not come into Clause 1 of the Bill, though they come into Clause 2—The Gambia certainly, and Senegal possibly, though I was careful to say that we thought, as he did, that aid to the Commonwealth must come first under Clause 2, and we could not say how much of it would be used for assistance in non-Commonwealth territories at this stage. I should like to say that I have borne in mind what he said in a previous debate about the importance of co-operation between The Gambia and Senegal, and the possibility of giving aid to encourage this. I know that The Gambia themselves are taking active steps to improve their economic relations with Senegal, and they are in a happy commercial relationship at the moment, as I had the opportunity to find out during the recent Prime Minister's Conference.
The noble Marquess asked about the question of Treasury approval in relation to the decision to make a payment under Clause 2. Under subsection (4) Treasury consent to designation may be given generally and not in relation to individual officers. Subsections (3) and (4) taken together take account of the general need of a Government Department to act in accordance with the Treasury in disposing of large sums of money. In fact, the provisions of the present Bill continue what has been done in the past. General criteria are worked out between the Ministry and the Treasury in respect of each country, and then these
criteria are applied by the Ministry to individual cases without having to go back to the Treasury, unless some new point of principle arises. But when a new point of principle arises that has to be referred back to the Treasury, because it may have a wide implication. But it is only when new things arise and a new precedent may be created with a

1047
wide implication that it is necessary for the Minister of Overseas Development to go back and get a clearance, as it were, and I think this is sensible and reasonable. I went over it before the noble Marquess raised the point, and I think it is quite a sensible procedure, and should not be unduly cumbersome.
The noble Marquess and my noble friend Lord Listowel asked about what will happen when people come home from these short-term contracts. I agree entirely with what they said. First, it is vitally important that this should be a proper step in their careers, and not a backward step. Increasingly in teaching and in medicine this is being recognised as a very good thing to do; and in the case of civil engineering I know that a period of service in the tropics is a good thing to have done, because so much of modern contracting and civil engineering is done in tropical countries.
However, there is also one practical point, and that is that these are short-service contract officers. They are on a short-service contract and they normally receive a substantial gratuity at the end of their period of service which helps them over the period when they are looking around for something else, and may need help for them to settle in. We have been familiar with such people in medicine for many years, men who take short-service contracts in the R.A.F. or other Armed Forces. It is vitally important that we should watch this to make sure that they are being reabsorbed properly; and my right honourable friend will watch very carefully to see that all is well in this respect.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord whether the gratuities to which he has referred are paid by the employing Governments or by our Government?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, as I understand it they would be paid by the employing Government, but it would not be amiss for Her Majesty's Government to make up a portion of the gratuity in the overseas aid payment.
LORD HASTINGS: That would refer to the extended scheme also?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think I am correct in saying this, although I should really want to take advice before making any final statement. University people, whether they are working in overseas universities or in this country, are normally covered by the universities' superannuation scheme, so that wherever they are working their superannuation scheme will continue. Again, I think it is being increasingly recognised that service in an overseas university is an additional qualification when it comes to applying for jobs here. The only group of people who will definitely benefit, about which a decision has already been made, are people in universities, under the expansion under Clause 2.
The noble Marquess also asked about direct payment, and when direct payment would be made. I have two notes on this. First, direct payment has already been asked for by some of the Governments concerned. They have said they would prefer the people to be paid directly rather than to the designated officers, and it certainly will not be done except with the agreement of the Government or the employing authorities concerned. It will be the exception, rather than the rule, to make direct payment, but there may be occasions when it is desired by all parties, and we felt it should be an exceptional situation for precisely the reasons which the noble Marquess stated, namely, that it is important for these people to have loyalty to their employing authority and not to Her Majesty's Government in these circumstances. The noble Marquess also asked about the payment of the bodies as opposed to the Governments. Here, again, it would be proper, and we think it would probably be usual, to pay the bodies rather than the Governments if the former were autonomous bodies, but again with the agreement of the Government concerned. I think that has made that particular point clear.
The noble Marquess and also the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, referred to the question of the teaching of English. Of course we attach just as much importance as the noble Marquess does to the teaching of English, and indeed to the teaching of teachers of English. However, I understand, and here again I speak subject to correction, that the teaching of English is primarily and almost exclusively an activity of the British Council, and it is not

1049
part of our purpose in this Bill to assist in the teaching of English. A little while ago I described from this Box the increasing amount that is being done, and the limitation now is simply the supply of teachers of English to do the job. I can write to the noble Marquess with more information about that if he wishes.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, what I was trying to suggest was that young men and young women who perhaps had hoped to go to university but who had failed to do so might form a recruiting ground. They would not have to go away for very long—it might be for the time they would otherwise have been in university. Has that possibility been looked into?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I would hesitate to say whether it has or not, but the noble Marquess will know that many young people now, under Voluntary Services Overseas, can go overseas and teach English in schools before they go to university. I am a little hesitant to say that the person who has failed to get into a university is automatically going to be benefited or to benefit others. He may benefit others to whom he is going to teach English, but when he comes back he will not have any skill which will fit him for a position at home, and he may find himself in a difficult situation. However, I should not like to be dogmatic about this without having checked the matter, so I will look into it.
The noble Marquess also asked about a career corps of overseas specialists. That is something to which we have been giving much thought, but we have not yet reached final conclusions and certainly it is not a matter for this Bill. We are dealing here primarily with people who will be on a short contract of service and who will be recruited not by Her Majesty's Government in the capacity of the Government recruiting to build up its own corps, but by the Government or the Crown Agents or the Government of the country concerned recruiting for the service of that country and to that country. Therefore it will be different from any career corps of overseas specialists which may emerge in due course.
My noble friend Lord Listowel referred—as did the noble Marquess—to the proportion of interest-free loans to non-interest-free loans. Here I am afraid I
1050
cannot give a figure, but I would remind your Lordships of something I stated, which was that in developing countries of the kind with which we are dealing it was likely that most of the money would be by grant in any case, because they were countries which were in considerable economic need, and the grant money is substantial here. I also reminded your Lordships that many of them have budgetary deficits which we make good, so if we lend them money at ordinary loan rates we may find ourselves paying back the interest on the loan, which is really a bit silly. So it is likely that it will not be a major portion of the money that is spent. Before the noble Earl spoke he had already asked me if I would find out about the possibility of extending the length of loans. I did so, and I am afraid the answer is that they would not normally be extended. The kind of loan which I mentioned would be for the usual period.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am not quite happy about this. I do not want to press the noble Lord too much, but we have£40 million available: is this going to be interest-free or not, or will the interest-free loan come from some other source?
LORD TAYLOR: A part of this can be interest-free and a part of the loans made to countries not in the category of developing colonial territories can also be interest-free, but it is not covered by this Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to my noble friend for his reply to that question. I do not think it is fair to ask him the question, but would he urge his right honourable friend, as I am sure he will do, and support him in doing so, to make the largest possible part of this£40 million loan an interest-free loan?
LORD TAYLOR: Certainly; but I would remind my noble friend that the criteria which the right honourable Lady laid down in relation to these interest-free loans and which she intended to apply whether the loan be to a colonial dependent territory or some other territory are, first, poverty, and secondly, the possibility of successful development in the area, and to its being used for productive development. She will, I know,

1051
strive to get as much as she can within the category of interest-free loans.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, asked about Malagasy and the teaching of English there, and I think the answer is that again the teaching of English in such a country is a function primarily of the British Council, in so far as it is a responsibility of ours. He also asked about the provision of apparatus in a country which is not within the category of a colonial territory. The answer is that it does not come within this Bill, but it is borne on another Vote of the Ministry of Overseas Development.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, stressed the importance of agriculture, and with that I entirely agree. Of course, it is particularly important when it comes to C.D.C. loans, where the fructification period is going to be interest-free in the future. He also mentioned the question of the Tanganyika Agricultural
Corporation which is mentioned in Clause 1(6). I think he was quite correct in supposing this was the winding-up of commitments in connection with ground-nuts development in that country. I do not know whether I have covered every point your Lordships put to me. If I have missed out anything I will try to answer in a letter. I would finally thank your Lordships for having received this Bill so kindly and warmly, and I hope you will now give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GAS BILL
5.4 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 3 [Rating of Gas Council and other gas authorities]:
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)moved, after subsection (10) to insert:
"( ) In this section, in its application to England and Wales, expressions used in the Rating and Valuation Act 1925 have the same meanings as they have for the purposes of that Act and, in its application to Scotland, expressions used in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 have the same meanings as in the said Act of 1956."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point that was raised on the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Wise. The point of his Amendment at that time was that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill that the word "rate" in Clause 3 does not include drainage rates. I then explained why the Government considered the Amendment unnecessary, but to meet the concern felt by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and other noble Lords, that the meaning of the clause should be made more easily ascertainable I promised to consider it. This Amendment carries out the promise I then made.
The Amendment which Lord Wise moved in Committee, by expressly excluding drainage rates, would have given rise to the unfortunate implication that other forms of special rates which are not treated as rates for the purposes of the Rating Acts were not excluded from the ambit of Clause 3. It follows that we ought to make it clear that "rates" has the same meaning as in the Rating Acts. But—and this is always the difficulty of the amateur Parliamentary draftsman: and, indeed, one of the difficulties of the Parliamentary draftsman—this remedy itself leads to a further complication. If the Amendment were confined to the word "rates" it would raise the implication that other rating expressions used in the clause—for example "valuation list" and "hereditament"—did not have the normal rating meaning. The Amendment therefore adopts the solution of giving rating expressions used in the clause the meanings which they have in the Rating Acts.
We are confident that this meets the purpose of Lord Wise's Amendment since, in both the Acts referred to in the Amendment, the definition of "rate" specifically excludes drainage rates. I hope that this is clear. I must admit that I had to give it some thought before I was absolutely satisfied about it. But I am now satisfied, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, at end insert the said subsection—(Lord Champion.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend for this Amendment. It

1053
shows that he bears a good deal of good will, and the strength and success of a Minister can be measured by his willingness to accede to reasonable requests and representations. The Minister has done this, and I thank him. There is one point on which one would like to be clear, and that is the meaning of the word "rate" in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. If I may do so, I think I can make it perfectly clear, for the Record, exactly what we have arrived at.
According to the 1925 Act:
" 'Rate' means a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to local purposes of a public nature and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a rate as before defined, but does not include—
(a) any rate which is assesed under any commission of sewers, or in respect of any drainage, wall, embankment, or other work for the benefit of the land …"
Then the definition goes on to include other rates which have not been levied by the local authorities. For the Record, I think that this matter has been properly dealt with by the Minister.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his very clear exposition of this point. Having studied the matter himself so carefully, he has put it to us with his customary clarity.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have welcomed this Amendment. I would say to my noble friend that I will try hard to live up to the standard which he has now set for me. I thank him, too, for relieving me of the task of reading this part of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. I did look it up, and I studied it very carefully, and found that it also referred to what was called a "square rate". I had some little difficulty with that term: I thought that it had to do with not being "with it", but I then found that it had to do with London squares and the rest. If one attempted to consolidate into a section of this sort everything that might apply we should have written almost a completely new Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Storage authorisation orders]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, at end insert ("and Part IV of that Schedule shall have effect for the purpose of adapting the other provisions of that Schedule in their application to Scotland ")—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Discontinuance of an underground gas storage]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this, too, is a drafting Amendment designed to remove an ambiguity from subsection (1). I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this now and explain it at great length. It is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 37, leave out from ("Minister") to ("be") in line 38 and insert ("necessary in the interests of safety that an underground gas storage should")—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Application to the Crown]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 22, leave out ("of Power").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Registration in local land charges register and General Register of Sasines]:
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the next three Amendments are drafting Amendments. They have the same intent. I beg to move the first of these Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 19, leave out ("local land charges register") and insert ("register of local land charges").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 21, leave out ("local land charges register") and insert ("register of local land charges").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 22, leave out ("local land charges register") and insert ("register of local land charges").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, could we not on this occasion have an explanation?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. What I have on my Paper here asks me to refer back to a note which applies to the first thing I mentioned—namely, that these are three drafting Amendments which could conveniently be taken together; their purpose is to provide that the same description is used throughout the Bill for the same register. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord, who seems to be doubtful on the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LOST PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).

TRADE DISPUTES BILL
5.15 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Certain acts not actionable in tort or as delicts]:
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, at the beginning of subsection (3) to leave out "Save as aforesaid" and insert "Where this Act applies,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make the meaning of the subsection clearer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("Save as aforesaid") and insert the said- new words.—(Lord Conesford.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. It is certainly acceptable to me. Ever since I was in chambers as a pupil—the same chambers as my noble and learned friend—I have admired his mastery of English. I am always willing to accept a correction in English at his hands.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, arises, as the noble and learned Viscount admitted, from an Amendment to the Bill proposed by the noble and learned Viscount which was carried by your Lordships during the Committee stage. Her Majesty's Government were strongly opposed to the original Amendment then, and we remain so opposed. It is our intention to seek a reversal of the Amendment in another place. However, I accept that the Amendment now before us is intended simply to improve the drafting of the Bill as it now stands. The incorporation of the Amendments consequential to the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment in the Bill as originally drafted has resulted in a rather cumbersome form of words at the beginning of line 19, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, his present Amendment improves the drafting of the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HIGHWAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

FIREARMS BILL
5.19 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Carrying firearms with intent to commit a serious offence
1.—(1) Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert instead:
1.—(1) Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent

(a) to commit an indictable offence, or

(b) to resist arrest, or

(c) to prevent the arrest of another;

shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to go through all the arguments that I used on Committee stage as to why I do not like the drafting of subsection (1) as it appears in the Bill. In brief, my feeling is that it is essential that the public should fully understand this Bill when they come to read it—because it is the sort of Bill that one expects to be in the hands of the public, as well as those of the lawyers. I object, in particular, to the words "in either case". In my view, they are not in the least clear. I am not quite certain that I understand myself to what these words, "in either case", refer, because in fact there are three offences named in the subsection, and "in either case" would appear to refer only to two.
I made an effort to put down an Amendment to alter the words of the clause as they now exist. The result, in each case, was rather clumsy—almost as clumsy as the clause as it now appears. I thought that it would be better to try to redraft the subsection. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman: I am what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, called "an amateur draftsman". It may be that there is some technical reason why my Amendment will not do, but, if there is
1058
no technical reason against it, I consider that it is far clearer than the wording of the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Dement.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that language used in Acts of Parliament should be clear and capable of being clearly understood. That is very important. More important still is the achievement of the objective of that legislation. While I agree with the noble Lord that his Amendment is almost beautiful in its clarity, unhappily my objection to it is the more than technical one that it does not achieve what he and I, and I am sure the whole House, seek to achieve.
The purpose of subsection (1) of the clause is to ensure that if a person goes out with intent to commit an indictable offence, and has with him a firearm, we shall be able to secure a conviction so as to render that person liable to the penalty mentioned in the subsection—that is, a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years. The noble Lord will remember that when we discussed the point on Committee stage I said that we must in any event insist on keeping the words "while he has it with him". The reason is that those words make it clear that the prosecution would not have to prove that the offender intended to use the firearm, but only that he intended to have it with him; whereas, under the wording of Lord Derwent's Amendment, before we could get a conviction we should have to prove that the man intended to use it in the commission of an offence; and that would be extremely difficult.
Although, for that reason, the Amendment is not acceptable, it is nevertheless incumbent upon the Government to show that their words are easily understood and to show the way in which they arise. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was first introduced in another place the subsection read:
"Any person who has with him a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence shall be liable …"

1059
and so on. There was discussion on that particular point during practically a whole sitting of the Committee in another place. As a result, an Amendment was put down to make it clear that the intention was to commit an indictable offence and to have the firearm with one whilst doing so. That was not good enough, and on Report stage in another place there was yet another Amendment to bring into the ambit of the clause "resisting arrest" or "preventing the arrest of another." So when the Bill came from another place to your Lordships' House this particular section read:
"Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit, while he has it with him, an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, shall be liable …"
That, clearly, was not satisfactory, because the reference to having a firearm with him qualified only "commit an indictable offence" and not "resisting or preventing arrest". So on the Committee stage in this House I moved an Amendment, which was agreed, designed to put this right. And the subsection now reads:
"Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him, shall be liable … "
As Lord Derwent has made clear, his objection to this form of words, which is the fourth attempt of the combined wisdom of both Houses of Parliament, was based on his belief that the word "either" implied reference to only two matters—that is, resisting arrest and preventing the arrest of another—and did not qualify "committing an indictable offence". We have very carefully considered this point with Parliamentary Counsel and we do not think that the present wording can be improved. "In any case" and "in each case" would both look a little odd. Nor do we consider that there is any real ambiguity. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that any possible ambiguity on the matter is taken care of by subsection (2), which clearly links the reference to having the firearm or imitation firearm with him both with "committing an offence" and with "resisting or preventing arrest".
1060
I submit that this matter has been subjected to exhausting, and exhaustive, consideration, and that we have achieved a form of words which we think is satisfactory. There is no difference of objective between the noble Lord and myself. We are satisfied that the present subsection achieves our joint objective and are satisfied that Lord Derwent's Amendments would not. In the light of that explanation I hope that he will be able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, much to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, perhaps, may I say that I think the criticism by the professional draftsman of the amateur draftsman's draft is valid? I am still not entirely satisfied that the amateur draftsman, who prefers the word "each" to "either", is not more accurate than the professional. Unfortunately, I do not think we can now go further on the matter. I would ask the noble Lord to have another think about "each". I know that he will not give way, but I will accept whatever he decides.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Carrying firearms in a public place]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), after "gun or" to insert "loaded". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of loaded shot guns or loaded airguns, or other firearms, whether loaded or not, in certain circumstances. That is clearly the intention of the Bill. At present, subsection (1) refers to
"any loaded shot gun or air weapon or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) …"
I am advised that, to clever people like Ministers and draftsmen, it is abundantly clear that the word "loaded" applies both to shot guns and to air weapons. But to the more stupid members of the public, such as myself, it is not in the least clear that the word "loaded" does in fact apply to air weapons. If my Amendment is accepted the subsection will read:
"any loaded shot gun or loaded air weapon or any other firearm (whether loaded or not)".
I do not think that could be misunderstood, even by people like myself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after first ("or") insert ("loaded")—(Lord Derwent.)
5.31 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when we discussed this particular question during Committee stage, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to wait until he saw the whole passage printed in the Bill, when I thought it would be clear to him that "loaded shot gun or air weapon" manifestly applied to both. I nevertheless promised to have another look at this point and I have done so. Having done so, I am still satisfied that the words "loaded shot gun or air weapon" do qualify both and leave no room for ambiguity. But it is the case that the insertion of the word "loaded" before "air weapon" would remove any possible shadow of doubt that exists. The noble Lord's proposal also has the advantage, in my view, of lending added emphasis to the fact that the firearm qualities, whether loaded or not. The subsection covers a loaded shot gun, a loaded air weapon and a firearm, whether loaded or not. Therefore, despite what the noble Lord said about the distinguished Parliamentary Counsel and clever Ministers, I now have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Conditions of registration of firearms dealers]:
5.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "cause that person's name to be removed from the register" and insert:
"remove from the register either that person's name or any place of business of his to which that condition relates".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will meet the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together, because they are on the same point. Amendment No. 3 enables a chief officer of police, in cases where a firearms dealer fails to comply with a condition of registration, to remove from the register a place of business of his to which that condition relates. But as subsection (3) of Clause 8 stands at present, a chief officer of police has power to remove from the register altogether the name of a firearms dealer who fails to
1062
comply with a condition of registration. That would, in many cases, perhaps, be unduly severe where a dealer has more than one place, or perhaps a large number of places, of business but has failed to comply with a condition in respect of only one of those places. My Amendment would put this right, by providing discretion for a chief officer of police either to remove a dealer's name from the register or only to remove one place of business. There is a precedent for this distinction in the 1937 Act, where Section 8(3) gives the chief officer of police power to remove a dealer's name from the register and Section 10(3) gives power to remove a place of business.
The second Amendment, Amendment No. 4, on the Marshalled List, is purely consequential on the first, and extends the existing right of appeal under the 1937 Act against removal of a place of business from the register to cases where this is done as a result of non-compliance with a condition. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a necessary Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out line 13 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I think that this Amendment is necessary and is an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("and section 10(4) of that Act (appeals against removal of place of business from register) shall apply to the removal of a place of business from the register to the said subsection (3) as it applies to such a removal under section 10(3) of that Act").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "but" to insert:
"(a) if it appears to the chief officer of police that a person required to be registered as a firearms dealer carries on a trade or business in the course of which he manufactures, tests or repairs component parts or accessories for shot guns, but does not manufacture, test or repair complete shot guns, and that it is impossible to assemble a shot gun from the parts likely to come into that person's possession in the course of that trade

1063
or business, the chief officer of police may, if he thinks fit, by notice in writing given to that person exempt his transactions in those parts and accessories, so long as the notice is in force, from all or any of the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 12 and of the said Schedule 2; and
(b)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give chief officers of police discretion to waive the requirement on persons who process component parts of shot guns (but not complete shot guns or sufficient parts from which shot guns can be assembled) to keep records of their transactions. It will be remembered that during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, moved on his own behalf, and that of his noble friend, Lord Mills, an Amendment which was designed to relieve from the obligation to keep records those craftsmen—we think there are about 150 of them—who do not make or assemble complete guns but who manufacture components of guns for the gun trade. They have to be registered as firearms dealers and there is no dispute between us about that.
I am sure I am right in saying that the aim of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, had the full support and sympathy of the Committee. The difficulty was that that aim was not achieved by the words of his Amendment, because it would have relieved of the responsibility for keeping records not only these craftsmen who only make components, but the manufacturers of complete firearms if they also make components. Having realised that, we both agreed to have another look to see whether we could find a form of words which we could include in the Bill to achieve the objective we had in mind. We have not completely succeeded in doing so, but I believe the present Amendment, which on this occasion I hope will be perfectly clear both in words and in intent, will in practice achieve all that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, wished to achieve by his Amendment.
The new Amendment, if it is accepted, will of course apply to these craftsmen all over the country, wherever they may be, but it is understood that they are overwhelmingly in the Birmingham area, where they have been known to the police for very many years—that is, in
1064
the best connotation of those words. The police there know exactly what they do in this trade, and it is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty at all in carrying out the purpose and spirit of the Amendment which I am now moving. It is, perhaps, only fair to point out that they will continue to have to be registered, and the power to require records will still be there as a reserve power, but we do not think, from our knowledge and from the knowledge of the police of these chaps, that it will be exercised. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a satisfactory way of getting over this difficulty, and that you will find the Amendment acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("but") insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, I raised this point during the Committee stage, and, as he has also said, I think your Lordships sympathised with it. I withdrew the Amendment which I had down at that time in the knowledge that it was perhaps not as effective as it might be—although that could be put right. But I withdrew it principally on the assurance of the noble Lord that he would look again at the matter, and, on his offer, to have consultations with me about it.
In fact, my Lords, I welcome this Amendment, and in doing so I should like to record my appreciation of the efforts made by the noble Lord and his advisers to implement that offer of consultation. We did in fact have useful consultation, resulting in this Amendment and, incidentally, the premature decease of two more Amendments which I myself had put down but which I have withdrawn in favour of his. I am delighted to find that the noble Lord and his advisers have achieved what we were given to understand was the impossible. I always think that that is a very good mark for any man or set of men. Consequently, what this boils down to is that this Amendment certainly meets that particular point. I welcome it, and I hope your Lordships will, also.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.41 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, standing in the name of

1065
my noble friend and myself, is a positive earthquake of an Amendment. It corrects, as I understand the Bill, a very small point of drafting related to grammar, which has been occasioned by the acceptance of the previous Amendment, No. 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am in a position of a little difficulty here. The noble Lord, when he described his Amendment as a bombshell, was very much nearer the truth than he anticipated. He has disclosed that, because of the Amendment which has just been accepted, he withdrew two of his Amendments, and, quite frankly, I thought that this one was merely a paving Amendment to make way for those other two. I assumed that the fact that it still continued on the Order Paper was an error which he would put right simply by—
LORD CHESFIAM: I wonder if I may, with the leave of the House, interrupt the noble Lord, because, in the circumstances, I ought perhaps to have added a further word of explanation in moving the Amendment. I did not do so because I thought it was such a very small point. The noble Lord will see, if he refers to page 5, line 2, that it says
"…but in its application"
and then goes on to mention one paragraph of the Act. By the Amendment just made, it will now be referring to more than one paragraph of the Act, and it should therefore read
"…but in their application…"—
not "its". It is purely grammar.
LORD STONHAM: I do not think it is purely grammar. If the noble Lord will just read with me subsection (2) of Clause 9, it goes on, after "Notwithstanding", and says,
"…and provisions with respect to the registration of such dealers, their places of business and their firearms transactions) shall have effect as if any reference therein and in the definition of firearms dealer in section 32 of that Act to firearms to which Part I of that Act applies included a reference to shot guns, but in its"—
and that is the word the noble Lord is talking about—
"application to shot guns so much of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2 as requires particulars of the areas in which the firearms certificates were issued…"
1066
The word "its" refers to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, and if we made it "their", so that it read
"…but in their application to shot guns so much of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2…
it would make it a nonsense.
I regret this, and it is probably my fault for not mentioning it to the noble Lord before the Report stage, but it was my feeling that the Amendment was left on the Marshalled List in error. I do not want to spring anything on him, but I think that, if he looks at it, he will realise that I am right and that the word "its" applies to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. I think he will see that it is correct as it is now, having regard to the fact that he has not moved his two Amendments and that we have not considered the Amendments to which he referred and for which, I thought, this Amendment was paving a way. I hope the noble Lord will accept that and will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, looking at it in that way with the noble Lord, I am quite happy to accept what he says. I am sorry that my precious bombshell should have met such a petty fate, but it appears to me, on second thoughts, as if he is right. Perhaps I got a little confused because the Amendment on this matter was originally intended to go in about five words later, in which case it would have been correct. But I am perfectly certain that, whichever way it is, the noble Lord will see that it is right before the Bill becomes an Act. I am quite content to leave it at that, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may be allowed to speak again, I am happy to give that assurance—and this rather applies to both of us—to have a look at it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH WATERWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before six o'clock.