Lords Sitting of 25 January 1966

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

CAMPAIGN AGAINST CIGARETTE SMOKING
2.36 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: 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, since the Commissioners of H.M. Customs and Excise report their inability to detect the expected significant fall in cigarette smoking during 1964–65, they remain satisfied with their poster campaign aimed at discouraging this practice.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it was never expected that a campaign to educate the public about the dangers of smoking could bring quick results. We have evidence from our social surveys of increasing understanding by the public of these dangers, and there has been a small drop since 1961 in the proportion of the adult population who are cigarette smokers.
The campaign does not consist only of displaying posters. For example, there are
2
talks in schools, the showing of films, and advertisements in young people's magazines; and these are important features. The campaign is conducted locally by local health and education authorities, helped and encouraged by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for her Answer, particularly as I understand that this is the first occasion on which a noble Baroness has answered a Question from the Government Dispatch Box. Having said that, may I ask the noble Lady this question? Would she be happy to address any public gathering and say, "Hands up all those who have yet to see one of the Government's anti-cigarette posters."?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would merely say to the noble Lord, as I am sure he realises, that the campaign has been directed at the young people. Were the gathering that he envisages a gathering of school children or young people, I should think that a substantial number of hands would be raised.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness if she knows whether the local education authorities are fully co-operating with the local health authorities in agreeing to the posters' being put up in the schools?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I do not have figures on this point, but I will certainly get them for him. So far as I know from my own local connections, the co-operation is good.

GUARANTEES AND THE LAW COMMISSION
2.38 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 are in a position to make a statement concerning the reference of the matter of guarantees to the Departmental Committee set up by the Law Commission.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I assume that my noble friend has in mind the inquiry recommended by the Law Commission into the desirability of prohibiting or restricting clauses in contracts which limit or exclude liability for negligence. The Government are examining the scope of this problem, which affects a number of Departments. In relation to consumer sales, the Molony Committee has already recommended that it should not be possible to contract out of most of the conditions and warranties implied by the Sale of Goods Act. The Government will give detailed consideration to this recommendation when work on the new Merchandise Marks legislation is completed, in accordance with the order of priority recommended by the Molony Committee.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking my noble and learned friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I drew great courage from the actual words he used in Hansard of December 9 in column 473–4, to which my attention was directed? Is he further aware that I do not have equal confidence in what the Molony Report said about guarantees, and could he assure the House that it will be his attitude towards guarantees that will be the crux of this matter and not that of the Molony Committee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should hesitate to give any such guarantee. My noble friend will bear in mind, I am sure, that the sphere in which the Law Commission is interested —that of the exclusion of clauses exempting from liability for negligence
4
—is a good deal wider than the field of consumer protection in the sale of goods, because these clauses are also to be found, for example, in contracts for warehousing and contracts for the carriage of goods. So far as the Molony Committee's Report is concerned, my noble friend will also bear in mind that they themselves set down an order of priority, taking, first, trade descriptions, and only secondly amendments of the Sale of Goods Act. There may be news for the noble Lady later this afternoon about trade descriptions. So far as the Sale of Goods Act is concerned, I am not yet able to say when my right honorable friend the President of the Board of Trade will be ready with legislation in that field.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I lastly just ask my noble and learned friend whether he personally will keep his eye on this question of guarantees, because it is a matter of considerable concern to all consumers?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I will; and indeed I am very interested in it myself.

LOSSES FROM CRIME
2.41 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 is the estimated cost per annum of losses due to crime in the United Kingdom.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I regret that no such estimate is available. The Criminal Statistics for England and Wales give the number of thefts known to the police in certain categories according to value of the property stolen, although the total amount cannot be calculated from these figures.
The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis provides estimates of the value of property stolen in cases of theft and fraud, with the exception of certain aggravated larcenies: the total for 1964 was estimated

5
To be £14,433,655, of which £1,858,899 was recovered. There are no figures for losses caused by malicious damage or arson.
The losses resulting from offences against the person could not be estimated without very extensive research. The ex gratia payments made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board during 1965 amounted to £295,967, but this should not, of course, be taken as an estimate of the total loss caused by offences of violence against the person.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply, though, of course, through no fault of his own, it is somewhat inadequate. I should like to ask him at least two supplementary questions. First of all, would he agree that if we were to multiply the £14 million which he gave as the figure for the metropolitan area, and which applies to only a limited number of cases, by 10 or 15, it would give us a not unreasonable figure for the total loss due to crime for the whole country? That is the first question I should like him to answer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is a question which, as the noble Lord is aware, cannot possibly be answered with any accuracy. But if we remember that the rate of crime committed in the metropolitan area is greater than in the country as a whole, I should have thought that possibly a factor of 3 or 3½ times would bring us much nearer the truth.
LORD DERWENT: But the figures the noble Lord gave me were for the loss from crime of only a limited type. Might I ask him this question? Will the Government consider whether it might not show a considerable economy if they were to be generous both over police pay, thereby getting more recruits, and also over police equipment? Because I really cannot accept that the total loss due to crime is only three or four times the £14 million.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the figures to which I referred, and which are, of course, given in the Criminal Statistics, cover crimes of sacrilege, burglary, housebreaking, shopbreaking and larceny and analyze the value of property involved in three-quarters of a million crimes. In the majority of them
6
the property lost was of under £10 in value. So this does not encourage any doubts about the figures I have already quoted.
With regard to the question of pay, I would remind the noble Lord that the annual cost of the police services in England and Wales is in the region of £180 million. The cost of the police services in the Metropolitan Police area alone exceeds £50 million annually, which is more than four times the estimated value of property stolen and not recovered. Questions of pay will be considered through the appropriate negotiating machinery. Meanwhile, I would point out that since the beginning of 1960 the pay of police constables has increased, according to the date of entry and age, by between 37 per cent. and 59 per cent. in the provinces, and between 47 per cent. and 70 per cent. in London. To-day, a 22-year-old constable in the Metropolitan Force may receive, including rent and other allowances, a total of £28 a week for a 48-hour week, and an experienced constable £34 a week. These rates compare not unfavorably with other occupations.

HOLIDAYS ABROAD
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that he is very much against taking holidays abroad because they cost too much foreign exchange represents official Government policy; and, if so, whether they will influence the state-owned aircraft corporations to stop their advertising campaign urging people in this country to go abroad.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is the Government's aim to correct the deficit on the country's balance of payments as soon as possible. Therefore, any voluntary action by residents of this country to limit expenditure of foreign exchange on travel helps to this end. But so far as people wish to travel, the Government would wish the British air

7
corporations to have a proper share of that traffic.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this question: would he, in the light of the Chancellor's statement, tell us, "Yes" or "No", whether it is against the national interest to take holidays abroad this year; and will Her Majesty's Government realize that upon the answer depends the summer plans of the many patriotic persons who, if asked to stay at home, will do so, as happened in 1931 when Britain went off the gold standard? Can we have these doubts resolved?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked me to answer "Yes" or "No", but the noble Earl must know that the question that he has put cannot be answered in quite such clear terms.
LORD CARRINGTON: Why not?
LORD SHEPHERD: As I said in my original Answer, we wish to deal with the balance of payments, and any saving on overseas travel will help to that end; but it is recognized that holidays are a two-way traffic, in the sense that we receive very many welcome visitors here, and it would be quite contrary to a number of exchange control Acts for us to take any administrative action in this case. But, as was made quite clear in the Chancellor's statement at the Boat Show, there are a number of opportunities that many of us have not yet explored which we should enjoy if we did stay at home—and the noble Earl would find that particularly so if he were to go to the Norfolk Broads.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord whether he considers that when the Home Secretary opened the new headquarters of a travel agency specializing in overseas travel he was voluntarily acting to restrict travel overseas?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I should need notice of that question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could answer this one, which is simpler. For which of these contradictory policies is the First Secretary responsible?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as one who earns his living in the tourist industry, may I ask the noble Lord this question: if he wishes to drive me into the bankruptcy court, why do the Government so repeatedly tell me how important I am to the national economy?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would be the last to drive the noble Lord into the bankruptcy court, and I am quite sure it will not be the case.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is it not the case that more foreign currency comes into this country by overseas visitors than goes from this country by British nationals going abroad?
LORD SHEPHERD: That is quite right.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to implement in a personal way the suggestion he has made to others—that is to say, by acquiring a motor cruiser with a view to sailing round the coast of this country? Secondly, may I ask him whether the Government have taken any action to encourage the people of this country to spend their holidays in certain countries within the sterling area?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not aware yet of where my right honorable friend will be spending his holidays; but I believe in the past it has always been at home. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that before the right honorable gentleman made this statement, I myself had made plans to have a boat on the Norfolk Broads. From past experience I can say it is first-class and something that I would recommend to all Members of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how much the State-owned aircraft corporations are spending on an advertising campaign to induce people to disregard the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no details before me of the expenditure of the British air companies on travel advertisements; but the noble Viscount will recognize that, if this travel is taking place, there is an advantage to our balance of payments if British passengers

9
fly in British aircraft and not in those of overseas air companies.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are about 50 million people in this country who have no desire whatsoever for Government guidance on this or any other subject?
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether the Isle of Man is counted as "abroad"?
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Lord can give us his advice on another occasion.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, would it be out of order to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have more leisure for his holidays this summer than he had last?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I ask this question seriously? Can it ever be right for a Government, any Government, to speak with two voices, one directly contradicting the other?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not see any contradiction in this at all. My right honorable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking at the Boat Show. He no doubt took into account the great attractions of a boating holiday and the consequent saving on foreign exchange. I can see no contradiction in this at all.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as the noble Lord's right honorable friend was at the Boat Show, was he feeling a bit rocky at the time?

GAS SUPPLIES IN THE WEST MIDLANDS
2.53 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the gas supply position in the West Midlands.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindgren will be answering this Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. There will also
10
be three Statements. The first will be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House, on Rhodesia. The second will be made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, on the Industrial Reorganization Corporation. The third will be made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, on the Stokes Report on arms sales abroad.

PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS (TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to replace the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887 to 1953 by fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade; to prohibit false or misleading indications as to the price of goods; to confer power to require information or instructions relating to goods to be marked on or to accompany the goods or to be included in advertisements; to prohibit the unauthorised use of devices or emblems signifying royal awards; to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws relating to merchandise marks; and for purposes connected with these matters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1.—(Lord Rhodes.)
On Question, Bill read 1, and to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Commonwealth Secretariat the capacity of a corporate body and to confer upon it, and on its staff, the privileges and immunities necessary to enable them effectively to carry out the tasks appointed to them by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, at

11
their meeting in June, 1965, and described in the White Paper presented to Parliament in July, 1965 (Cmnd. 2713).
The House will appreciate how agreeable it is for me, at this point of time especially, to direct the attention of noble Lords to something which is positive, constructive and hopeful in Commonwealth affairs. The idea of a permanent organization to serve the Commonwealth as a whole is not new. Some noble Lords (I see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, here) may well think back to the schemes and dreams put forward years before the modern Commonwealth evolved. These ideas, when floated, have usually foundered on hard suspicions that such a permanent central body would diminish or encroach upon the sovereignty already enjoyed or still to be achieved by individual member nations.
Proposals for a central Commonwealth Secretariat were made on several occasions in the 1940s. The possibility of developing Commonwealth consultation was discussed at the Prime Ministers' Meeting in 1946. The statement issued after that meeting said, and I quote:
" While all are willing to consider and adopt practical proposals for developing the existing system, it is agreed that the methods now practiced are preferable to any rigid centralized machinery. In their view such centralized machinery would not facilitate, and might even hamper, the combination of autonomy and unity which is characteristic of the British Commonwealth and which is one of our great achievements."
In 1946 there were six member countries of the Commonwealth. It was then possible to exchange information and ideas and to keep in touch informally, and, indeed, on an ad hoc basis. During the 1950s, the picture changed and at an increasing speed. By 1960, there were 11 Commonwealth countries; and five years later that number had exactly doubled. It was in this House on July 6, 1960, that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has always been so keenly and constructively interested in Commonwealth affairs, raised this question of the necessity for developing some machinery in the context of this widening Commonwealth body. The noble Lord said in that debate that machinery would have to be created for the collection and supply of information, and in the course of the debate other noble Lords went on to discuss procedures devised to assist with the
12
financial, educational and technical development of new member countries.
As I have already suggested this conception had never previously found favor among all the Commonwealth Governments. I suppose it was inevitable that when the Mother Country, as we were sometimes called, took the initiative with any proposal for new machinery, the younger members of the family would ponder as to whether this was not a matter of seeking to establish new forms of authority in place of the old. There was usually a feeling felt at different times, more strongly in one part of the Commonwealth than another, that such a body, or such a central organization, would somehow be used as an instrument of British control over the policies of other Commonwealth Governments. It is good to think that those days of suspicion have largely gone. Certainly, no one to-day would question the concept that each and every member country—the United Kingdom no less and no more than the others—is in free and sovereign control of its own policies, and no part of the machinery of co-operation should, or indeed could, get in the way of that concept.
This evolution of ideas and change of attitudes within the Commonwealth was reflected in the final communiqué issued by the Heads of Government after the 1964 meeting. That communiqué stated:
" Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire which had been evident through their deliberations for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments on the many issues which engaged their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies both official and unofficial in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields and to help co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparation of future meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and. where appropriate, the meetings of other Commonwealth Ministers."
The communiqué went on:
"This Secretariat, being recruited from member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth."

13
The meeting of officials envisaged in 1964 was held in January, 1965, and the plan for a Secretariat was produced. This was subsequently considered by Commonwealth Governments and all confirmed their agreement in principle. Officials met again in June to identify matters requiring specific decisions by Heads of Government, and at their meeting later in the same month reports of officials were considered and approved by the Heads of Government and unanimously agreed in the Memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat attached to their final communiqué. It was this agreed Memorandum, the White Paper, to which I referred earlier.
Commonwealth Heads of Government also agreed unanimously that the great honor of playing host to the Secretariat should fall upon Britain. The British Government responded by offering to house the Secretariat in Marlborough House which, in 1959, Her Majesty the Queen had graciously put at the disposal of her Government in Britain as a Commonwealth Centre. The use to which Marlborough House is put, in whole or in part, is, in the terms of the Queen's Entrustment, a matter for decision by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It has come to be accepted that its main use should be as a centre for Commonwealth meetings in London, particularly meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. My right honorable friend felt that not only would it be within the terms and the spirit of the Queen's Entrustment, but it was particularly appropriate that the body which is in future to service meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government should be established in part of this beautiful and historic building in the centre of London. The other member countries of the Commonwealth gratefully accepted our offer, and the Secretariat, now in Marlborough House, is for all practical purposes a guest of Britain.
During their deliberations on the establishment of the Secretariat the Commonwealth Heads of Government laid great emphasis on the need to attract to the service of the Secretariat the highest possible quality of Commonwealth servant. The Commonwealth now has at its service the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, Mr. Arnold Smith, one of the most senior
14
and experienced members of the Canadian Diplomatic Service. His appointment was unanimously approved by the Heads of Government
in July. Mr. Smith has been joined by two distinguished deputies, Mr. A. L. Adu, from Ghana, and Mr. T. E. Gooneratne, from Ceylon. Mr. Smith has appointed other staff from other member countries and it is expected that within the next few months the initial establishment will be completed. It was not long before Mr. Smith had energetically embarked on the tasks laid down in the Agreed Memorandum, but it could scarely have been expected that within the first few months of its existence, before all the office accommodation and staff recruitment arrangements had been completed and with no collective experience behind it, the Secretariat would have achieved so much.
The Secretary-General attended the Commonwealth Finance Meeting in Jamaica in September, 1965, and the Commonwealth Medical Conference in Edinburgh in October. His activities have included consultation with Commonwealth Governments and their representatives on a wide range of subjects, including helping with the processing of Singapore's application for membership of the Commonwealth which was sponsored by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. There have been many meetings between Mr. Smith and Ministers, and officials of Commonwealth Governments and representatives of Commonwealth organizations. Mr. Smith has already visited Commonwealth countries in East and Central Africa to meet with Heads of Government, Ministers and officials. The Secretariat serviced the meeting in London of Commonwealth trade officials last November. Naturally, when requested, the help of experienced officials in our own Commonwealth Relations Office, the host country, has been willingly extended and made available.
As we all know, last month, at very short notice, the Secretariat undertook one of its most important functions, the immense task of servicing the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government. The unique character of that Conference in Lagos has been much commented on. It was the first to be held outside the United Kingdom; the first concerned with a single and special subject; the

15
first at which the chair was not taken by the Head of Government of the United Kingdom, and also, of course, the first which the Commonwealth Secretariat had the responsibility of servicing. Mr. Arnold Smith and his colleagues have acknowledged the assistance given by officials in the host country and, again, by the experienced civil servants from this country. But all those who have any knowledge of that quite historic Lagos Conference would wish to pay tribute to the successful way in which the new Commonwealth Secretariat discharged its responsibilities.
This afternoon at Marlborough House there is to be a meeting, arranged by the Secretary-General, at which Commonwealth representatives will be setting up the two Commonwealth Committees concerned with Rhodesian affairs, in accordance with the recommendations of the Heads of Governments at Lagos. Incidentally, also for discussion later this week is the setting up of a Committee to review intra-Commonwealth organizations, such as the Commonwealth Economic Committee and the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee, and to consider the future relationship of these organizations with the Secretariat. Noble Lords will see that the position of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat and members of his staff is one of great trust and responsibility. They will have in their care much confidential information about Commonwealth affairs. They must clearly be in a position properly to perform the duties allotted to them. This Bill sets out to facilitate the discharge of those duties.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill gives the Secretariat the legal capacity of a body corporate. The Secretariat has to be given this capacity so that it may undertake legal obligations and enter into agreements, and, should this ever unfortunately prove necessary, to sue and to be sued in its corporate name. Subsection (2) of the clause, read with the Schedule, confers on the Secretariat and its members and staff similar immunities and privileges—with two exceptions to which I shall refer later—to those accorded to Commonwealth High Commissioners in London and in other Commonwealth capitals, and to members of their staffs. These privileges and immunities are
16
those agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting June, 1965, and specified in Annex A of the Agreed Memorandum.
During the several discussions on the establishment of the Secretariat lengthy consideration was given to the question of whether, in respect of immunities and privileges, the Secretariat and its staff should be given comparable treatment to that accorded to a Commonwealth High Commission and its staff. It is appreciated that such treatment could not be as of right, as the Secretariat is not the representative of any sovereign independent State. But our Commonwealth as a whole is a unique organization, and the Commonwealth leaders saw the Secretariat as a unique body within that organization. It is a servant and is answerable directly not to one Commonwealth Government, but to 22 sovereign independent States. It was therefore considered to be of the greatest importance that this body should be treated in a special way.
I have already mentioned the great stress that was laid upon the need to attract to the service the very best grade of Commonwealth civil servant. The Agreed Memorandum lays it down that, whilst efficiency must be the first consideration, the staff of the Secretariat should be recruited as widely as possible throughout the geographical area of the Commonwealth. It was realized that in most cases individuals of the required calibre and experience would come from the diplomatic services of the Commonwealth, or would certainly be qualified—
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I be allowed to put a question to the noble Lord? Can he tell us whether the Service has been thrown widely open to women and, if so, have any come forward, and have any been appointed?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, no women were appointed among the senior officers, but certainly there was no bar upon the appointment of any female officer. I should think it is hardly likely that the appointments were thrown open in terms.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to look into this point? If no

17
women have been appointed, I hope that they will be encouraged to come forward. After all, the Commonwealth is half composed of women.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, not only is it half composed of women, but within the Commonwealth we also have had two women Prime Ministers, a remarkable fact which is a source of considerable satisfaction. Certainly, I will give consideration to the point made by the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he said just now that "he thought it hardly likely" that recruitment had been thrown open to women?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that my noble friend misunderstood what I said. I think that what I actually said would appeal to my noble friend. I said that it was not thrown open "in terms". I always understood that my noble friend wanted women to be treated equally with men, and it would not be in accordance with her views to say specifically that there was no bar to the appointment of women. But certainly no bar has been placed on their being considered equally with any male candidates.
THE EARL. OF SWINTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, would he deal with two matters? One is: how is the cost of the Secretariat borne? The other is: by whom are made these appointments of officers to the Secretariat under the Secretary-General—by the Governments of the countries concerned or by the Secretary-General?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl will excuse me, because I had not finished my speech, but I can deal with the points which he made. The cost is expected to be of the order of £175,000 and the contribution of Her Majesty's Government will be about 30 per cent. of that figure. The senior staff—the Secretary-General and two Deputies—are within the appointment of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. The other staff will be within the appointment of the Secretary-General himself, within the terms laid down by the Heads of Government.
In the hope that my noble friend has acquitted me of any prejudice against women, perhaps I may go on with what
18
I was saying. I was emphasizing the need to get for the Secretariat officers of the highest calibre, and that in the main they would tend to come from the diplomatic services of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it was felt right that the status of the senior officers of the Secretariat should be equated with that of the diplomatic staff of the Commonwealth High Commission. The other Commonwealth Governments say that they would be prepared to accord to the senior officers of the Secretariat treatment comparable with that accorded to the diplomatic staff of the High Commission, and the British Government, too, felt that this was right.
The senior officers of the Secretariat must also be permitted to carry out the duties expected of them by Commonwealth Governments without fear or favor, let or hindrance. They will, as I have indicated, be entrusted with an increasing quantity of confidential information. To maintain the trust and responsibility imposed upon it and to perform the confidential duties entrusted to it, the Secretariat must clearly be free from all other compulsion. To this end, the senior officers have been accorded immunity from suit and legal process and other officers have been accorded immunity in respect of their official acts. The Secretary-General has power to waive this immunity.
There are, however, to be two exceptions to this provision for immunity. I he first is income tax liability. The staff of the Commonwealth High Commission in London who are nationals of the sending countries are exempt from United Kingdom income tax, but of course they are taxed by their own countries. The same effect on senior officers of the Secretariat who are not United Kingdom citizens could be obtained by not levying tax at all and paying them net tax-free salaries appropriate for their ranks and duties. But this would create a class of income tax-free people, which Her Majesty's Government as well as most other Governments are anxious to avoid. It is proposed. There fore, that the Secretariat staff should be paid gross salaries according to their ranks and duties and that they should be liable to British income tax on those salaries in the normal way. But so that these extra amounts payable by the Secretariat in paying salaries gross instead of net would not come back to

19
the British Government as a tax, the British Government will refund the tax collected on the salaries to the budget of the Secretariat. I emphasize that the repayment will be to the budget and not to the officers of the Secretariat. This refund will be made in addition to the British agreed contribution to the expenses of the Secretariat.
This procedure may seem elaborate, but it is undesirable that a new tax-free class of persons should be created, and the alternative of an internal tax levied by the Secretariat itself would, it is thought, be an unnecessary burden on the admistrative power of this small organization. The procedure also has the merit of applying one consistent tax system to all the staff of the Secretariat, including United Kingdom citizens recruited for junior posts.
The second respect in which the Secretariat, as distinct from the senior officers, will differ from a High Commission is that it will not have immunity from suit and legal process in respect of civil action for damages alleged to have been caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of the Secretariat, or of a motor traffic offence involving such a vehicle, and in respect of arbitration proceedings relating to any written contract entered into by or on behalf of the Secretariat. I do not think that I need explain to the House the thought behind these limitations on immunities and privileges and I am glad to say that they are acceptable to all other Commonwealth Governments.
Clause 2(2) brings the Act into effect from July 1, 1965, the date from which it was agreed at the June meeting the Secretariat would formally come into being. The purpose of giving the Act retrospective effect is to give legal validity to anything already done in the name of the Secretariat, and to give legal cover to exemption from such matters as Customs duties already granted to it, and to its officers. However, your Lordships will see that it is not intended that retrospection shall prevent the enforcement of any liability that has been incurred by the Secretariat or its staff for the period between the establishment of the Secretariat and the enacting of this Bill.
20
My Lords, I have put before the House the main features of the Bill which is desired by other Commonwealth Governments. It is a short Bill, but I am sure that we all trust that it will have a long and developing contribution to make towards the strengthening of our Commonwealth association. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2. —(Lord Beswick.)
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we should all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us a little of the historical background to this organization, and we on this side of the House are happy to welcome the Bill. Sometimes, perhaps, your Lordships are a little reluctant to extend diplomatic immunity to new international organizations, but in this case I am sure it is the wish of the whole House that certain privileges and immunities should be granted ungrudgingly to members of the Commonwealth Secretariat. I shall say a further word about this at the end of my remarks. Meanwhile, I feel that this is perhaps not an occasion on which we can very well discuss in detail the functions of the Secretariat, as drawn up in the Agreed Memorandum which the noble Lord mentioned, and which was published after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1965.
The proposals regarding the establishment of such a Secretariat go back, as we know, some twenty years. The noble Lord has already mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as having taken a great interest in this subject. I do not think that any of those who have in the past had reservations about the establishment of a Commonwealth Secretariat would now want to do anything other than wish the organization God-speed. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington, who made some pertinent remarks in our debate on the Commonwealth last May, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Casey, would agree about this. I know that the Secretary-General of the Secretariat is in full accord with my noble friend, that it would be unfortunate if the Commonwealth became over-organized, perhaps on the lines of an international body like the United Nations. As my noble friend suggested in May, this might well be a sentence of

21
death on a society of nations such as the Commonwealth, which is loosely knit and has quite different objects from those of other international bodies. I know from my own conversations with the Secretary-General that he is fully conscious of the desirability of retaining a certain informality in the meetings. Indeed, I am sure that he will not want to formalize too much.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth is most fortunate in the choice of its first Secretary-General, Mr. Arnold Smith, and again in his Deputy Secretaries-General, Mr. Adu, from Ghana, whom the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and I got to know quite well as the first African District Commissioner from Ghana, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, Mr. Gooneratne, from Ceylon. I know, from having met them at Marlborough House—that magnificent House—how effectively the work of the Secretariat has begun. I know that Mr. Smith, who is an old Canadian friend. is one of the first to recognize that the Secretariat should not turn itself into a kind of European Economic Commission with executive powers. But Mr. Smith does believe—and I think your Lordships will agree with him—that the Secretariat has an important role to play as a go-between, and in order to assist in organizing meetings and generally helping in the dissemination of information, as well as smoothing out some perhaps unnecessary difficulties, avoiding misunderstandings, and perhaps even foreseeing some problems before they arise.
Like my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, who was hoping to be here this afternoon, I have, subject to the reservations made by my noble friend Lord Carrington, for some time been in favor of the establishment of such a Secretariat, which would be available to arrange Commonwealth meetings, not only in London but also elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Indeed, I remember thinking already in the early thirties (this is going back a bit), when my father was Governor General of Canada, that the creation of such an organization would ultimately be desirable. At the age of eighteen I was already involved in the first Commonwealth Conference, of which I was on the fringe—namely the Imperial Economic Conference of 1931: indeed, it was after that Conference that these first
22
wicked thoughts entered my head about the possibilities of such a Secretariat. In this sense, I would say that my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir and I were quite as advanced in our thinking as those who first made such a proposal officially in 1946.
Then, in the years before the war, as a League of Nations official, I always thought it curious that, whereas the League had a neutral Secretariat at Geneva, with, of course, different functions, the Commonwealth never benefited from the existence of a neutral body available to service their meetings. Moreover, it is clear—and this is important—that the Secretary-General can be somebody to whom heads of Government can talk. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would probably agree with me on this, although he did not actually say so; that the Secretary-General can be somebody to whom Heads of Government can talk without committing themselves in any way.
From my own reports of the Lagos Conference, from some who were present, I should judge that, because of its neutral status, the Secretariat played a very useful part indeed. If meetings are proposed and organized by the Secretary-General, there can be no ground for suspicion by any member country that Britain is trying to enforce her own policies on the rest of the Commonwealth by being responsible, as she has been in the past, for organizing such meetings. I have no doubt that my friend Mr. Arnold Smith will have an important part to play in helping to solve many difficult Commonwealth problems. It was interesting to learn to-day about the setting up of the two Rhodesian Committees. I believe, also, that Mr. Smith's recent African tour was a most useful one.
Therefore, within the limits laid down in the Agreed Memorandum, I am sure that the Secretariat will become an essential organ of the Commonwealth as to its functions and any possible extension of them in the future. As I have said, this would hardly seem to be the time to debate them, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and I may have some suggestions to make when we come to discuss overseas technical and scientific aid in our debate on Thursday. As is stated in the Agreed Memorandum, already in 1964 the Commonwealth Prime Ministers made certain proposals for the

23
Initiation of joint Commonwealth development projects. I will not go into them to-day, but there is no doubt that several noble Lords may have something to say on that aspect of technical and scientific aid within the Commonwealth when we come to the debate on Thursday. At the same time, I know that all concerned are agreed that nothing should be done which might disturb the existing channels of such aid to member countries or to duplicate the present bilateral and multilateral links. We shall await with great interest the comprehensive review of existing Commonwealth organizations concerned with economic and related affairs which is to be undertaken by the Small Committee which is mentioned in the White Paper and which is to have an independent chairman. It is probably right that the Secretary-General should not himself be a member of the Committee but that he should have the right to he present, or to be represented, at the discussions.
Finally, this Bill should, in my view, receive a smooth and rapid passage. I think your Lordships will be glad to know that, as the noble Lord said, according to the Schedule the privileges do not include immunity in respect of damage alleged to have been caused by motor vehicles belonging to or driven on behalf of the Secretariat, or in respect of motor traffic offences involving such vehicles. That seems to me to be eminently sensible. Whether we shall all feel as happy in regard to exemption from income tax, which includes surtax and capital gains tax, I do not know. No doubt this point will be discussed in Committee. I think that at least one noble Lord is rather concerned about it. But I am certain that otherwise your Lordships would wish members of the Secretariat to enjoy all the immunities and privileges normally granted to bona fide diplomats, whether from the Commonwealth or elsewhere in this country. I personally believe that the Commonwealth, with Her Majesty the Queen at its head, can still exert considerable influence for good in the world, that the Secretariat will help it to do so and, at the same time, act as an additional unifying force.
3.32 p.m.
LORD OGMOREMy Lords, my noble friends and I are grateful to the noble
24
Lord, Lord Beswick, for his careful exposition of this Bill. I am glad that he went in some detail, not so much into the terms of the Bill but into the conditions of the Secretariat, because this is a very important step in Commonwealth development which in my view is long overdue. But still, these things cannot be rushed. The Commonwealth acts by consensus, and until everybody is agreed one cannot make any move at all. But I do not think that any noble Lord who has studied this position carefully can have failed to realize what a revolution this is. It has a much longer history than any noble Lord has mentioned to-day.
The first time a subject of this kind was discussed was in the 1902 meeting of Colonial Prime Ministers, as they were then, when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain put up his tripartite scheme, first of all, for a Federation of the Empire, as it was then; secondly, for a military defense organization; and, thirdly, for a reciprocal tariff. The first two suggestions of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain were not accepted by the other members of the Empire. In fact, they were turned down flat, so Mr. Chamberlain was thrust back on to the tariff reciprocal arrangements. If they did not agree to this, at least they did not turn it down, and as a result of that he then forced it on the Conservative Party, splitting it in two for the time being, and undoubtedly to some extent laying the foundation for the tremendous Liberal gain in the 1906 General Election and the return of those eminent Liberal administrations, headed first by Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman and then by Mr. Asquith. Then in 1907, at the first of the Imperial Conferences, Australia made this same proposition of a permanent Secretariat. This was turned down mainly on the resistance of Canada. In fact, the Prime Minister of Australia went even further. He suggested that in future all the Prime Ministers' Conferences should be held in public. That has not been agreed to even yet, and I think it is very unlikely that it will be. We have come at any rate as far as Australia was prepared to go in 1907, so that is something. And no doubt in time we may even go a little further.
Your Lordships will see that we are discussing a great revolution in Commonwealth affairs. It has taken very many

25
Year's to come about, and I think we ought to signify in no uncertain way to-day that this is a revolution. I think it is a very important step, because the Commonwealth cannot be only an idea; it must have some flesh and blood about it. It is no use letting it float in the air, as it were. To the ordinary man in the street, something which seems to have no sort of organization at all is a little too artificial to he grasped. Therefore, I was very pleased indeed that Mr. Arnold Smith was appointed; and his staff were afterwards engaged, either by the Heads of Government or by Mr. Arnold Smith himself.
They meet, as has been stated, in Marlborough House. I attended two Conferences there in an official capacity. I have only one suggestion to make—I do not think it is a criticism—for Marlborough House. It is a very handsome edifice, which, as your Lordships know, was originally built for or by the great Duke of Marlborough, and the latest Royal personage to live there was Queen Mary. It was all very well in the Duke of Marlborough's day, but it seems to me rather curious that the centre of a great Commonwealth should have on the walls enormous paintings—the most gory paintings you can imagine—of early 18th century wars in which Britons and Germans are killing large numbers of Frenchmen. Whether this is Mr. Harold Wilson's comment on the Common Market or not, I do not know; but it does not seem to me particularly applicable to a modern Commonwealth. I should have thought that, having regard to the very large number of fine artists we have in the Commonwealth, it would be much more appropriate if Mr. Arnold Smith looked to the Commonwealth Institute—as a Governor, I can offer him the services of the Institute—to give him the names of first-class Commonwealth artists who could provide far more suitable pictures for Marlborough House.
I also agree that the Lagos meeting was a very difficult one for this new Secretariat to manage, and that they did extraordinarily well. The only question I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is with regard to the White Paper (Cmnd. 2713), where it says that the staff will be appointed for not more than five and not less than three years. Does the Secretariat propose to have a
26
Secondment of people from the various Commonwealth countries? This, of course, would be valuable, because it would permit officials from the Commonwealth to have an opportunity of experience at the centre of the Commonwealth, as it were. Or does it propose to appoint people who will take up the work as a career? I should like to know that. I can see that there would be advantages either way, but it would be interesting to know whether it proposes to do one or the other, or perhaps a little of both.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his reference to me. I am only sorry it has not always been the view of his colleagues, but still I have great respect for the noble Lord, and I appreciate very much what he has said about me to-day. I and my friends on these Benches wish the Secretariat every possible success in the future, and I should like to say here and now (though this is not the place to do so) that we have every confidence in the Commonwealth; that, in our opinion, any difficulties it may be going through are teething pains; and that the Commonwealth is going to play a great part in the future, and an even greater part than the Empire played in the past.
3.39 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to say a word of welcome to this Bill. I can recollect discussions on this topic almost forty years ago. I remember that during the time I was Prime Minister we discussed this question. At that time, the general idea was that it was wise to keep all Commonwealth matters as informal as possible, to avoid complicating the machinery. I think we were right. But I also think that now is the right time for the Secretariat, now that we have overcome suspicions in some quarters. It is a great move forward and I wish it every possible success. I believe in keeping the Commonwealth together as a means of ensuring peace in the world, and I am happy the Government are bringing this Bill forward.
3.41 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for intervening in the debate, but it occurred to me that it would be a pity if a Bill of this kind were before your Lordships' House this afternoon and no expression of welcome were

27
to come from the Back-Benches on the Government side. The fact that I follow my noble friend Lord Attlee reminds me that I once asked him a supplementary question in another place relevant to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, this afternoon, about the meetings of the Prime Ministers' Conferences. I did not go so far as the suggestion that they should be held in public, but I remember asking my noble friend when he was Prime Minister whether it would not be possible for Members of Parliament to be observers for short times during the sittings of those conferences. Obviously I did not get a very encouraging reply to my supplementary question, but the fact remains that it has been felt in many quarters that Parliamentarians as a whole have never been as closely associated with those conferences as they might be.
I know that the Bill before us this afternoon in the main deals with diplomatic immunities, and the Special Orders Committee in your Lordships' House has had recent opportunities of discussing these matters. Therefore I am not going to deal with them at all. What I want to do in the form of welcome is to make some suggestions with regard to the relationship between Members of Parliament and the new organization which is now being set up. I wonder whether, in the light of a new Commonwealth Secretariat, it is not possible that there should be a closer liaison between the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and this Secretariat. In my twenty years' experience it has always seemed to me that Members of Parliament of both Houses have suffered from a sense of frustration because we were not as near to the heart of things as we might have been. Prime Ministers' Conferences ended with, if I may say so, platitudinous communiqués. There was a hush-hush atmosphere about it all and the things that did leak out never seemed to be in accord with the final communiqué. It occurs to me that we might now have an opportunity in this way of bringing Parliamentarians, rather than representatives of Governments, closer into the thoughts and negotiations of this organization.
We have some kind of precedent. I think back to the Council of Europe, and the Committee of Ministers was always closely related to the General
28
Assembly so that the Parliamentarian, as distinct from the Government representative, always seemed to have a voice. Now we could carry this much farther, into a relationship between the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations Organization. But we are discussing the Commonwealth this afternoon and the position is that there is a complete change in the Commonwealth to-day. Every individual part of the Commonwealth has a greater sovereignty than it had a few years ago. Therefore it must follow that there is a looser relationship than there was in the days when it consisted of half a dozen countries. This sovereignty creates a looseness and we shall never have that close affinity that we had in the past. Therefore I feel it necessary that there should be something to take its place, in which Members of the House of Commons and Back-Bench Members of your Lordships' House could be brought much closer to these things and if a request were made to Mr. Arnold Smith that he should, from time to time, liaise with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I feel a great deal of good could be done and the Commonwealth would benefit considerably. These are just the words I wanted to utter without delaying the progress of the Bill in the slightest degree, and to express, as a humble Back-Bench Member of your Lordships' House, a very keen sense of welcome for the Bill.

RHODESIA: THE GOVERNMENT'S TERMS
3.46 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, may I be allowed, with the consent of the House, to make a Statement about Rhodesia? I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honorable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. These are the words of the Prime Minister, which I quote:
"The first aim of the British Government is to bring the Rhodesian rebellion to an end as quickly as possible, without lasting damage to the country. To this end, they will maintain and, if necessary, intensify economic measures with a view to a

29
Speedy settlement. But it is equally the purpose of the British Government to help the people of Rhodesia, without rancour or recrimination, in making a fresh start towards establishing (in the words of the Lagos communiqué)
' a just society based on equality of opportunity to which all sections of the community could contribute their full potential and from which all could enjoy the benefits due to them without discrimination or unjust impediment '.
"This fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule. It must also engage from the outset the capacities of all Rhodesians of good will in the work of overcoming the fears and antagonisms of the past and of setting Rhodesia on the road to independence in a spirit of inter-racial trust and collaboration.
"The illegal declaration of independence and the subsequent actions of the rebel regime have created a new situation. Rhodesia's future course cannot be negotiated with the régime which illegally claims to govern the country. There is no confidence inside or outside Rhodesia that they could be relied on to lead the country forward to independence in which racial harmony would be ensured. The Governor is authorized to receive from the regime any proposals about the means by which the rebellion is to be brought to an end. But discussion of Rhodesia's constitutional future must be with responsible persons representing all the people.
"Rhodesia obviously cannot proceed at one step from rebellion to independence. For all the reasons given by Her Majesty's Government repeatedly, inside and outside Rhodesia, and as I said at the United Nations on December 16, 1965,
'a return to constitutional rule would not and could not mean an immediate advance to majority rule '.
That process must be renewed without delay or impediment: but it can come only with time—and time measured by African advancement and achievement.
"Once there has been a return to the rule of law and the Constitution, the British Government will immediately act to reverse the economic measures taken during the rebellion, in order to
30
permit the resumption of Rhodesia's external trade, the reopening of markets for her exports, the inward flow of essential supplies such as oil and petrol, and the renewal of investment and the planned development of the country. The necessary statutory instruments are ready and could be made effective immediately.
"This will be the first step in a period of economic and political rehabilitation during which passions may cool, the economic and social strength of the country may be restored, and the energies of all Rhodesians may be enlisted in the tasks of reconstruction.
"Assuming that there is a speedy and peaceful return to constitutional rule, the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him, comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction. During this period, the police and military forces will come under the direct responsibility of the Governor.
"The first responsibility of this interim Government, as of any Government, will be the maintenance of law and order. This will require not only the normal precautions against domestic disturbance and illegality but also, in the special circumstances of Rhodesia, guarantees to prevent a repetition of the rebellion and to protect human rights. The British Parliament will need to be assured about the adequacy and effectiveness of these guarantees.
"Urgent action will be needed to restore the Rhodesian economy. The British Government will be ready to contribute to the economic needs of the country and in particular to assist, in co-operation with other Commonwealth Governments, with schemes for the advancement, education and training of Africans so that they may as soon as possible play their full part in the development of the country's economic and political institutions.
"Problems of political rehabilitation will also have to be tackled. Persons restricted or detained for

31
Purely political reasons will have to be released provided that they give guarantees that their political activities will be conducted constitutionally. The aim is to create conditions in which, while law and order is maintained, political activities may be conducted in security and freedom from intimidation from any quarter.
"How long this period of interim government may last cannot immediately be foreseen; neither can the date at which Parliamentary institutions can be restored. Clearly the period of interim government will last until conditions can be stabilized and the social and political wounds inflicted on the country can be healed. The views of the people of Rhodesia will have to be sought on the amendments and changes necessary in the 1961 Constitution to secure a resumption of full constitutional government on the basis of the five principles which have been proclaimed by successive British Governments. To these must now be added a sixth principle, namely, the need to ensure that, regardless of race, there is no oppression of majority by minority or of minority by majority.
" The course of constitutional development in Rhodesia after this towards independence must be based on the implementation of these principles and it will be necessary in due course to consider the means of ensuring this, for example by a Royal Commission in preparation for a Constitutional Conference, which will in any case need to be held before independence can be achieved.
"The British Government have maintained throughout that, while Rhodesia is a matter of world concern, it remains a British responsibility and they continue to accept their full responsibility. They intend to discharge their task in the interests of all the people of Rhodesia. The British Government are convinced that there cannot be lasting peace, freedom or prosperity in Rhodesia until constitutional rule is resumed and the country is fairly set on paths leading to a just and democratic society in which full equality of opportunity is assured, racial discrimination is removed and
32
the rights of Europeans and Africans alike are safeguarded.
"Every week that passes while the rebellion continues increases the economic and political strains within Rhodesia and makes the eventual task of reconstruction more difficult. It now rests with all responsible Rhodesians who have the true welfare of their country at heart to bring the rebellion to an end before it is too late and to support the representative of The Queen in upholding constitutional law in Rhodesia."
That concludes the Statement being made by the Prime Minister.
Following are the five principles which were expounded by the Prime Minister in another place on November 1, 1965:

1. The principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed.

2. There would also have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.

3. There would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population.

4. There would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination.

5. The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

3.55 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for having repeated the Prime Minister's Statement. It is a very long and detailed one and all your Lordships will, I know, want to study it with great care. But I must say there does not seem at first blush to be anything very new in it; it seem to me in some respects not at all clear, and I should like, if I may, to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. First of all, when the Statement says in paragraph 2 that a
" fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule ",
what exactly does that mean? To what Constitution does that refer, if it refers to a Constitution at all, or does it perhaps mean merely a retraction of the unilateral declaration of independence? This is very important and I think we should know exactly what that phrase means.

33
Secondly, does the statement that
"Rhodesia's future course cannot be negotiated with the régime which illegally claims to govern the country "
mean that the Government will, or will not in any circumstances, negotiate with Mr. Smith or any of his Ministers? Here, again, I think we must have a categorical answer from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Thirdly, in paragraph 7 of the Statement we are told:
" Assuming that there is a speedy and peaceful return to constitutional rule, the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him ".
What exactly does this mean? Does it mean direct rule under the Governor? If so, it may well be regarded as an instrument of the British Government. Or does it not mean direct rule? This is very important, as any suggestion of direct rule would, I should have thought, be totally unacceptable to all shades of Rhodesian opinion.
Lastly, I imagine that the Statement is meant to be helpful and restrained and encouraging to moderate opinion in Rhodesia, but I must say that I think some of the language used is not exactly likely to achieve that end, nor, indeed, is what seems to be a demand for unconditional surrender either sensible or very wise.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am, I confess, a little disappointed that the noble Lord, who has shown so much statesmanship in these very difficult matters, should have taken a rather pessimistic view of this Statement. I hope that when he has more time to consider it he may come to revise that opinion. However, my task is to try to answer his questions. The House will realize by now that I cannot add to the Statement, but the House is entitled to ask me to clarify anything which is not sufficiently clear already. When the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asks about the meaning of "constitutional rule", subject to the views of the Lord Chancellor I would say that what is meant is an end of illegality. We are all agreed—I know the noble Lord and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and I think the House as a whole, are agreed—that the régime are behaving in a totally illegal way. They have put
34
themselves for the time being out of court in the legal sense, and what one is asking for there, insisting on, is a return to legal paths. One is not there referring to the precise Constitution or any particular adaptation of the 1961 Constitution, which is referred to later on.
Then the noble Lord asked me what is admittedly a very delicate question, the question of whether any negotiations are conceivable with Mr. Smith and his colleagues. There I must repeat the actual language used in the Statement, which has obviously been drafted with extreme care. For the benefit of Members of the House, most of whom have not seen this Statement—the noble Lord has seen it only for a few moments—may I repeat what is actually said on the point?
"The Governor is authorized to receive from the régime any proposals about the means by which the rebellion is to be brought to an end."
So some discussions are clearly envisaged as possible between the Governor and Mr. Smith and his colleagues as to how this rebellion is to come to an end. The Statement goes on to say:
"The discussion of Rhodesia's constitutional future must be with responsible persons representing all the people."
Perhaps I may go a little further and repeat what conies in paragraph 7, because I think this bears on the problem. It is suggested that the best provision for the first stage after the return to constitutional law, or legal methods, would appear to be for the Governor—here I am quoting—
" to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him, comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction."
So when the noble Lord asks me whether one could negotiate with the régime, the answer is No, in the sense that he has in mind, but, equally, no one is excluded from the plan suggested in paragraph 7. In paragraph 7 it is suggested that the Governor will form a council of representatives of all sections of opinion, and no one would be excluded, although anyone who was included in the Governor's Council would clearly have to accept constitutional methods and, incidentally, accept the five, or as they are now, six propositions.
The noble Lord asks me, in regard to the same paragraph, whether this is direct

35
rule. The phrase "direct rule", I am told again, subject to the Lord Chancellor's opinion, has not any clear legal meaning, and it seems to have given rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding. There has been an implication in some minds that a number of people would come out from England and rule the country. It is clear here that the Governor would form an interim Government of Rhodesians.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, under the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the Commonwealth Relations Office, or under the Governor without any direction from here?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the Governor of course is a servant of Her Majesty's Government in these matters; but at any rate it would be a Government of Rhodesians. It may well be that the phrase "direct rule", which may have been employed on some earlier occasion, is not the most happy one to describe what is intended and is set out clearly here.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for that long and interesting Statement? I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and say that I am indeed pessimistic and disappointed. It has been a month since we have discussed this matter, and what the noble Earl has told us to-day I am sure has our full agreement and our support, but it seems to me that we have not got a single step further forward. One of the last speeches made when we last met was by myself when I said, "What are we doing to get across to the ordinary, normal, loyal Rhodesian what he can do to help to put things as they should be?" We know there are millions of them. I do not mean only the blacks. There are a great many whites, not millions, but a tremendous majority, who are not satisfied in regard to this extremely uncomfortable and cruel position. No indication whatever has been given by Her Majesty's Government in the whole of this month of what any single man is to do. If any of your Lordships were a private citizen in Rhodesia, what action could you take?
The noble Lord tells us that the Governor is authorized to receive proposals. If that is news, it means that a
36
month ago he was not authorized to receive proposals. Is there really any advance? I am sure he was authorized even in December. Nothing really has been done—not enough to let the people of Rhodesia know what they can do. We are quite sure that Sir Humphrey knows what he can do. He is doing his best. But what
about the ordinary people? Has there been no bridgehead made, either from a Government Department or through some other Commonwealth country, or, if necessary, through foreign countries, to let good people in Rhodesia know that we admire them, we like them and we sympathize with them, and we want to see their house in order as much as they do?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can only say that I am just as disappointed at the observations of the noble Lord as I was at those of the Leader of the official Opposition. I realize that the noble Lord has not had long to study this Statement, which is a long one, but I think it would be a mistake to say that there is nothing new in this. I must not keep reading through the same paragraphs, but in paragraph 7 we have this plan for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible, and
" comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction ".
If there is nothing else new, that idea is set out a great deal more clearly than it was set out on a previous occasion.
LORD REA: How is he to do it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should have thought it was quite obvious how he would do it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Earl in his first answer to my noble friend, made mention of my name on the question of the return to constitutional rule. I am not at all clear, from what the noble Earl has said, what this Statement means, and I daresay that those who are intended to understand it will be in much the same difficulty. The noble Earl said that he would endeavour to clarify it. As I understand it, the first step to be taken, before any progress can be made, under this Statement, is that
" A fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule."

37
I would ask the noble Earl to say what that means. Does it mean, as I think, on the language, it must do, a retraction of U.D.I.—namely, unconditional surrender? If it does not mean that, it is most important, I should have thought, that that should be made clear to the people of Rhodesia.
I listened to the noble Earl's answer to the second question put by my noble friend, and. I would put this question to him—because I assume that this Statement is meant to lead to a possible solution of this problem and it is vital to know whether or not the Government are prepared to talk with Mr. Smith. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. The answer which the noble Earl gave on that point does not add any clarity to the Statement. I should like to put one further question to the noble Earl, which again I regard as most important. Is this statement of Government policy one which has the support of the Governor of Rhodesia and the Chief Justice?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not think it would be natural or normal to answer the last question. I do not think that would be at all in accordance with practice, and I cannot say anything about the Governor. As noble Lords well know, Sir Hugh Beadle has been in this country and has made valuable suggestions. I think it would be wrong to commit him to these proposals in any way, but I should be much surprised if he was highly critical of them. But I think it would be quite wrong to tie up or associate any great public servant like Sir Hugh Beadle or the Governor with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.
It seemed to me that the noble and learned Viscount was not showing himself to be quite so acute as usual. Surely it was fairly obvious what was meant by "return to constitutional rule". He asked whether it would mean a calling off of U.D.I. That at least, certainly. I am sure that is what the noble Viscount would wish, because he has been as firm as any of us in regard to bringing about that result. If he wants to call that unconditional surrender I cannot stop him. But it seems to me that, in this situation, if you are trying to persuade someone to undo the very foolish thing he has done, to call it unconditional surrender is
38
not a service. I do not myself think that it is the best way to persuade Mr. Smith to see the error of his ways. I personally should be anxious to avoid what is only a phrase, and I think a dangerous one. The noble Viscount is keeping up a rumbling commentary—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If the noble Earl is going to make that comment, I would point (I meant to draw attention to it) to the frequent use in this Statement of the word "rebellion", and the use, more than once, of the words "rebel régime". I should not have thought that that was helpful to a solution.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I thought that the noble Viscount had already made his full contribution on this subject. I have been proved wrong. I should like to try to answer the points he was making. I would not think it useful to drag in here the reference to "unconditional surrender". I cannot stop him from using those words, but a return to constitutional rule must mean the complete cancellation of U.D.I. It also follows that we cannot talk to Mr. Smith, except about ending the rebellion, in any negotiating sense while he purports to be the Prime Minister. He is setting himself up as the Prime Minister of a régime without any legal authority at all, and it would be impossible to negotiate with him, or with the régime, in that situation. I hope that I have answered the noble Viscount's points. If I have failed to deal with any of them, I am open to answer a further one.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that this is very important in relation to Mr. Smith. I am sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House would agree that if one is trying to make somebody undo something that was unwise, one must make clear to him one's point of view as to what one is prepared to accept. I think that the Statement does not make clear what is the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith. Is it—and I put this to see whether I have correctly understood what the noble Earl is saying that the Government will not be prepared to negotiate with Smith until such time as he has retracted the U.D.I., but that, after U.D.I. has been retracted, there is nothing to stop Mr. Smith from taking part in the government of the country, under the Governor or anyone else?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the last statement as to the Government's position would, I think, be correct, with this qualification. As I explained, it is the intention that the Governor should call together representative Rhodesians, and no individual, whether Mr. Smith or anybody else, would be excluded automatically. So that in that sense the noble Lord has formulated correctly what is in the Government's mind. But, as I said in reply to one of his earlier questions, it must be assumed that anybody who is asked to share in the Governor's Council at that point is himself prepared to accept constitutional rule and the five principles. Therefore, it would not be right to say, in an unqualified sense, that Mr. Smith could serve; but with that qualification he would not be ruled out.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House appreciates the difficulty of some of us in understanding exactly what is proposed. The questions put by my noble Leader cover very well what I am eager to find out. May I give this example of the difficulty? The noble Earl talked about the Governor collecting what the noble Earl the Leader of the House called a responsible Government. What we are anxious to know is: responsible to whom? If they are a responsible Government, what can they do? Are they responsible for government but not under any Constitution, or are they under the control of Parliament here? What is meant by saying that the Governor would consider them responsible citizens? Does the noble Earl appreciate that the difficulty we feel is that, whatever else one thinks about Mr. Smith, he is an elected person—somebody in Rhodesia has elected him. But this proposed responsible Government of Rhodesians will have been elected by nobody at all, but will merely be chosen by the Governor. Can the noble Earl indicate what he means by responsible Government? To whom are they responsible, and what can they do?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the trouble about these Statements is that I have a copy which I have studied for some time, as have one or two others, but most noble Lords, such as the noble Lord who has just spoken,
40
have to try to take it in as it comes. The noble Lord's question is based on faulty articulation, or on his mishearing, or on the conditions under which we work. But here is an important point in the Statement:
"…the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him…".
I did not say "a responsible Government". "A responsible Government" suggests a Government responsible to the Parliament of a country: in the interim period this is precisely the opposite. I am glad the noble Lord has asked the question again, because I was anxious to read out yet again, and more articulately, what I had said before.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I understand it, the interim Government which is envisaged by Her Majesty's Government here would be responsible only to the Governor, but would this Government which was responsible to the Governor have also to repudiate the U.D.I. before they could be negotiated with? I do not believe that the Governor will find anybody who will satisfy that condition.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The answer would be, yes. It is for the Governor to choose these individuals and I am assuming that he would not choose anybody to serve on his Council who had not repudiated U.D.I. It would be inconceivable that he could choose somebody who still stood up for U.D.I.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question which may have arisen from my having misheard him? The question is: to whom is the Governor responsible? My hearing of the noble Earl's answer was that he would be responsible to Her Majesty's Government. Is that right?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to answer that from a purely constitutional point of view; but in one sense, in practice, he is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is right under the Constitution of 1961, as Parliament has altered it.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I understood the Leader of the House to say

41
that the views of the people of Rhodesia will have to be sought on the amendments and changes necessary in the 1961 Constitution to secure a resumption of full constitutional Government. I think it is not unfair to say that there are those in Rhodesia, and certainly many Africans in Rhodesia, who do not regard the Parliament elected under the present franchise as sufficiently representative of the views of all the people in Rhodesia. It would be helpful to know how the views of the Rhodesian people as a whole will be ascertained in order to find out what amendments should be made to, and what changes are necessary in, the 1961 Constitution.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that is a most relevant question. It is not one I should imagine anybody would try to answer in a black and white fashion to-day. I hope that the noble Lord and other noble Lords will contribute ideas as we proceed. This is not something which is going to happen immediately.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as I understood him—and it is important that we should get this right—the Lord Chancellor said that the Governor of Rhodesia is responsible to Her Majesty's Government here under the 1961 Constitution. I would ask the Lord Chancellor this. Is it not clearly laid down in the 1961 Constitution that any theoretical right of interference or direction, which there was in theory when my noble friend and I in turn were responsible but which was never exercised by the 1961 Constitution, was deliberately abandoned by law under the Constitution for all time? In place of that, with the assent of all the Africans who took part in the negotiations 'in London, there was substituted for that theoretical right an absolute provision that the Government here could not interfere. There was set up, in place of any such right, that the Secretary of State might have a constitutional council, and if the Government of Rhodesia did not accept any proposal there was a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Therefore, if we go back to the 1961 Constitution, which is the sensible thing to do, there would be no power under that Constitution for the Government here to give the Governor of Rhodesia any instructions at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with great respect to him, the
42
noble Earl is entirely wrong. We—that is to say, the Crown—never gave up our right in law to alter the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. But we did consider ourselves bound by a convention, that so long as they acted constitutionally we would not, in fact, interfere with their powers under the 1961 Constitution as it was then. Of course, Parliament since then, and after the illegal action which the regime took, has in fact made certain alterations in the 1961 Constitution and has suspended other parts of that Constitution; and the legal Constitution of Rhodesia to-day is the 1961 Constitution as altered or suspended recently by Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask one important question which I think is relevant? It is about the conversations with Sir Hugh Beadle, and it is this. Are we to have a White Paper giving what was said on both sides? I ask this question. because it seems to me that it is very difficult for us to come to sensible conclusions unless we know what Sir Hugh Beadle—who, presumably, speaks also for the Governor—really said during his visit to London. Sometimes I have a feeling that we are told just what the Government think it is good for us to know. We were told all about the telephone conversation with Mr. Smith, because the Government thought it good for us to know that. We are not being told anything about these conversations, and I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give consideration, or to ask his colleagues to give consideration. to whether Parliament does not have a right to know what were the views expressed by Sir Hugh Beadle.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, any request for the consideration of an idea coming from the noble Marquess in this House, most of all, would always be given very careful attention, and I will of course convey what he said to the Prime Minister and my colleagues. But I should be surprised if with all his experience, the noble Marques would seriously argue that, when a great public servant like Sir Hugh Beadle comes and talks in confidence to the Government, he would expect to see the conversations published. In this case, I gather, Sir Hugh Beadle also talked in equal confidence to leaders of the Opposition, so this is not a question of only the

43
Government knowing the ideas of Sir Hugh Beadle.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are, of course, in danger of getting into a debate on this subject. The noble Earl has been very patient and courteous in answering questions, but may I ask him one more question to clear up a doubt in my mind? It is on this interim Government of which we have been talking, and the question of direct rule. Would Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom be able to give directions to those responsible Rhodesian citizens through the Governor of Rhodesia?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, on any constitutional point I would naturally turn to the Lord Chancellor. When we talk of giving directions, I take it, subject to the views of the Lord Chancellor, that the Governor would be subject to our instructions, but these others would, of course, be free to join or leave his Government as required. They would not be under Government orders as citizens.

GAS SUPPLIES IN THE WEST MIDLANDS
4.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, may I now answer a Private Notice Question which has been put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood? Because of a series of breakdowns at the West Midlands Gas Board's plants at Tipton and Coleshill, the Board was forced to impose severe restrictions on the use of gas by industry on Thursday, January 20. Practically the whole of industry in the area, except where supplies were needed to avoid damage to plant, was without gas until Monday, January 24, when supplies were restored to some 270 firms in the Birmingham and Stoke areas including the Potteries.
These difficulties have been due to technical failures and not to miscalculation of demand. The Board had planned to provide sufficient capacity to meet a daily peak demand this winter of 490 million cubic feet, well above the demand actually experienced. However, last Thursday, January 20, both streams at the
44
Coleshill plant were out of commission because of the failure of boiler feed pumps, causing a loss of 50 million cubic feet of gas a day. One stream was brought back into operation the following day but the other had suffered damage during the emergency shut-down. The first stream at Tipton was already under repair and on January 21 the second stream developed boiler trouble and had to be shut down. The Board was thus deprived of a large proportion of the gas which feeds the Board's high-pressure grid.
With one stream at Coleshill working and the fall in demand due to the recent warmer weather a partial resumption of supplies became possible yesterday. But supplies of high-pressure gas into the grid are still inadequate and resumption in those areas relying exclusively on the grid, in particular the motor car centre of Coventry and Longbridge, is still not possible. The Board's and the contractors' engineers are working round the clock to repair the damaged plants. It is too early yet to say precisely when supplies can be fully restored, but it is hoped that this may be possible in the next few days.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for this statement. It certainly is very depressing that so often when the climate in this country behaves in its perfectly normal manner—that is, it is very cold here in December and January—we are continually faced with cuts, breakdowns and so on, of industries which on the whole should by now, one feels, be able to meet the ordinary rigors of our climate. It is not nearly so cold this year as it was in 1962–63, for instance.
I note that in the reply that the Minister has given to me he talks of technical failures and not of miscalculation. This is not what I read in a speech made by the Prime Minister at the weekend, when he said that there was grave miscalculation of the demands by industry in regard to gas; and, I believe, in regard to electricity, too. So I am glad to know that miscalculation is really not the reason for what has happened. Nevertheless, I feel depressed that we should again have a serious breakdown for technical reasons.
I listened, as I have no doubt many people have done, to the broadcast on

45
this subject. What is happening is terribly serious, and I hope that every possible assistance will be given to the contractors to get things going again. I say that, because it is a disaster when one thinks of the great motor car industry being unable to work and unable to meet its obligations, when it is essential—as I am sure the Government would agree—to our export trade.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, but it is a fact, of course, when there is severe Weather combined with mechanical failure, that there is real trouble. Had there been a mechanical failure during a time when the highest pressure was not required, then of course, although depleted in its capacity, the plant may have been able to meet the demand, as it is able to do to a degree at the present time. After all, until January 24 no demands could be met, except the domestic demand. Now, of course, because of the warmer weather and the slightly increased supply, we have been able to meet some of the other demands. It is the combination of severe weather and, of course, the failures at the worst time they could possibly have happened, that has brought about the present position.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does my noble friend not consider, in the light of events, that it is now necessary that we should have a national gas grid right throughout the country, so that gas can be supplied from one area where there is a surplus to another, to help in cases like this?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords; and of course the Act that was passed by your Lordships in special circumstances in July last does, for the first time, give the Gas Council the opportunity to create a grid. Also—which is of equal importance—there is the opportunity to have underground storage of gas which can be drawn on in the case of failures of plant.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his statement that this has nothing to do with miscalculation is a complete repudiation of what was said by the Prime Minister in a public speech blaming the previous Administration? I have another question to put, but I should like that one answered first.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, it is getting the plant repaired and people back to work that matters, rather than making political points.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD LINDGREN: If noble Lords opposite had had to work at the bench and had lost their wages when they were out of work, they might feel as I should —glad to get back to work and so be able to pay the rent and buy the bread and butter. But, after all, the Prime Minister was only replying to other politicians who had been accusing this Government of not providing adequate plant in fifteen months, although it is known that an electricity works takes five years to build and a gas plant from two to two and a half years.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord realize that I admire him very much for his attempts to defend the Prime Minister? But the question is whether it is now quite clearly stated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there was no error of calculation, and no shortage at all due to any miscalculation or inaction on the part of the previous Administration. Can the noble Lord make that absolutely clear?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I would agree. I would ask your Lordships to be a little patient so far as I am concerned. I thought I knew something about transport, whereas I have been in my present job only seven days, and therefore my knowledge of it is strictly limited. In so far as the question is concerned, undoubtedly there was an insufficient margin of reserve, but there was sufficient capacity within the 490 million cubic feet to meet the expected demand. But, in fact, first the new plant at Tipton failed to come into supply when it was expected to; and secondly the existing plant at Coleshill, which is a new plant, went out of production because of a failure of plant.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what action, if any, the Winter Emergency Committee has taken since its appointment in relation to gas? Secondly, while I appreciate the noble Lord's concern—and it is our concern, too—that these motor factories

47
should be back at work as soon as possible, can he give any indication of how long he thinks it will take before they get a flow of gas? I do not think he said anything about that in his statement. He may not be able to give any very positive estimate, but it would be useful to know how long he think this shortage is likely to continue. There are two questions there, I am afraid; hut I hope that, despite his having been in that office for only seven days, he will be able to say whether or not the Winter Emergency Committee has accomplished anything in relation to gas.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Viscount is an ex-Cabinet Minister. I have never been a Member of the Cabinet, but I have always understood that it was not for Ministers to divulge what has happened either in the Cabinet or in Cabinet committees. All I can tell the noble Viscount, so far as the Winter Emergency Committee is concerned, is that to my own knowledge it has been meeting at least once a week, and involving, first, the Ministry of Transport and now, so far as I am concerned, the Ministry of Power.
So far as the resumption of supplies is concerned, the difficulty is this. We have hopes, and though one would not like to make statements in the House which are really for the Board to make, in conjunction with the industries concerned, I can tell the noble Viscount that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry are in consultation with the West Midlands Gas Board to-day in regard to the resumption of supplies of gas, and about priorities, if they are necessary. Although it is strictly for the Board to say, it is our hope that, after consultation with them, there will be a resumption of supplies by Thursday.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in fact the plant ought to have been ordered far earlier, because it had only a very short period in which to overcome its teething troubles before the winter was on us?
LORD LINDGRENYes, my Lords; and I thank the noble Viscount for that interjection. But, equally, there have been certain delays in the delivery of certain plant.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, are the Government proposing to have a look at the liability of Gas Boards for damages for breach of contract? Of course, one of the things which compel ordinary people to keep their contracts is the thought that if they break them they will be responsible for the losses of the other people with whom they are in contract. But if, in the case of a Gas Board whose gas supply breaks down, the only result is that the Board does not get paid for, the gas it has not supplied, and nothing more, that is not a very strong force compelling the Board to keep up its supplies; to industry.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, those are legal questions. But, if they are involved, some people who have had a motor car which has not been up to standard when delivered might even have a claim against the motor-car industry.

THE INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION
4.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are two further Statements to be made and the Bill to be concluded, so perhaps the House may think it right that we should move on to the Statement that has just been made by my right honor. able friend the First Secretary of State on the Industrial Reorganization Corporation. My Lords, these are his words:
"Last week the Government announced a new system of incentives to stimulate investment in the sectors of industry and parts of the country where it is most needed. To complement these measures, we propose to set up an Industrial Reorganization Corporation to help British industry to adapt its structure and organization so that it can meet international competition more effectively.
" The structure of many industries has undergone substantial changes in recent years. But in some sectors British industry still cannot match the scale of operations of highly integrated groups abroad. The Corporation's task will be to search for opportunities to promote rationalization schemes which can yield substantial benefits to the national economy, especially in

49
Terms of increased exports and more rapid technological advance.
"The Corporation will work in close co-operation with industry and existing financial institutions and will make full use of the facilities offered by the market. It will not act as a general holding company, but it will be able to provide finance from its own resources to promote sound rationalization schemes —by making loans or taking an equity interest in new groupings. It will also be able to provide capital for new projects or expansions of special importance to the national economy.
" The Government propose that the Corporation should be given the right in the first instance to draw as needed up to £150 million from the Exchequer.
"These proposals are set out in a White Paper"
—which is now available in the Printed Paper Office—
" and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
" I am pleased to inform the House that Sir Frank Kearton has accepted the Government's invitation to become Chairman of the Corporation."
LORD DR UMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the Statement that he has just made, and while, naturally, very much in favor of encouraging British industry
" to adapt its structure and organization so that it can meet international competition more effectively "
—to quote the words the noble Lord has just used—I am sure that he will not expect us to pronounce on the particular methods that the Government have chosen to pursue this objective, without our looking very carefully at the White Paper and the arguments in it to justify those methods and at the circumstances and ways in which the services of the Corporation are expected to be used.
May I just ask the noble Lord whether I am right in supposing that the legislation which he envisages will be in the form of a separate Bill, and will not be included in the same Bill as the provisions for investment incentives in the new Development Areas? If that is so, will the necessary provisions providing for these investment grants be included in the Bill? If it is not so, can he tell us
50
whether the exact status which the Corporation is to have is set out in the White Paper?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it, there will be two separate Bills, one dealing with the investment incentives and one with the creation of this new organization. The White Paper makes the case broadly for the proposals that the Government have in mind. It does not go into the special structure of the Corporation; that will naturally arise in the Bill. But if there is any matter in which I can help the noble Lord, I am willing to talk to him.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as the Monopolies and Mergers Bill would appear to act as something of a stumbling block to the new Corporation, would Her Majesty's Government provide for the repeal of that Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly not, my Lords. The object of the Monopolies Commission, as the noble Lord knows, is to stimulate competition. In the case of this Corporation, the noble Lord, with his connections in industry, must be aware that there are many companies and organisations which, if brought together although not coming within the Monopoly Commission criteria, would be more efficient. Improved design and other techniques would make them more useful within the home industry and particularly so in dealing with exports and overseas competition.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I mention one other point on which I think industry will want particularly to be satisfied? The Statement just made said that the Corporation will work in close co-operation with industry and existing financial institutions. I am sure that industry will want to be assured in advance that the Corporation will act only after prior consultation with industry and the financial institutions referred to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will see, when he reads the White Paper, that the Government have in mind that the Corporation will be seeking rationalization. If it is essential for Government money to be invested through the Corporation in that rationalization, then the money will be available. But if private investment, particularly that of the City of London and

51
the banks, is willing and able to enter into the rationalization, perhaps to the full extent, the Government would welcome it. We will certainly be seeking the utmost co-operation, as we have throughout, from various sections of industry, with the Government participating.

SALE OF DEFNCE EQUIPMENT ABROAD
4.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat yet another Statement, one that is being made by my right honorable friend the Secretary of State for Defense in another place, on our policy and organization for selling defense equipment abroad. The Statement is as follows:
" In July this year, my right honorable friend the Minister of Aviation and I invited Sir Donald Stokes, the Managing Director and Deputy Chairman of Leyland-Triumph, to look into our policy and organization for selling defense equipment abroad, and to suggest in what ways they could be improved. Increased sales of British equipment will help significantly to reduce the burden of our military commitments by enabling us to win hack some of the foreign currency which we have to spend on keeping our forces overseas and equipping them for their tasks. While the Government attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market.
" Sir Donald has now let us have his recommendations, and I think the House would like to know what the Government have decided already about the more important points in his proposals.
" First, we agree with Sir Donald on the importance of having a closely-knit organization within the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Aviation to handle arms sales and to help
52
British firms to secure overseas defense orders, under the centralized control of a Head of Defense Sales. He will be a man of high calibre with direct access to Ministers and a suitable supporting staff both at home and overseas. He will be responsible jointly to my right honorable friend and myself for all the arms sales work in our Departments.
" At the same time we are taking steps to ensure that when our own equipment requirements are formulated, the present and future requirements of the overseas market are taken fully into account.
" In setting up the arms sales organization we will have regard to the recommendations of the Plowden Report and of the Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee dealing with electrical and electronic equipment in the Services, to the extent that they cover the field of export sales. The more detailed proposals made by Sir Donald as to how the organization might operate most efficiently are still under examination.
" I should like on behalf of the Government to thank Sir Donald Stokes for undertaking this important task."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement and to echo the tribute in it which has been paid to the energy and public spiritedness shown by Sir Donald Stokes in this matter. I would also agree on the importance of fostering the export of defence equipment, not least if the noble Lord and his colleagues continue to order a wide range of defense equipment off the foreign peg. Could I ask the noble Lord three questions? First, is it proposed to publish Sir Donald Stokes's Report? Secondly, is it proposed that the new Head of Defense Sales should be recruited from within, or outside, the ranks of the Civil Service? Thirdly, what about Ministerial responsibility? I think the Statement said that the Head of Defense Sales would be responsible to the Secretary of State for Defense and to the Minister of Aviation. But will any particular Minister—for example, one of the Ministers of Defence—be directly responsible, under the Secretary

53
of State or the Minister of Aviation as the case may be, in this matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in answer to the first question, I may say that it is not the intention to publish the Report. I wish it were possible to do so, for it is a very good Report; but there are a number of confidential observations in it. Secondly, it is likely that the Head of Defence Sales—and this was part of Sir Donald's particular recommendations—will be drawn from industry. Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether there will be a Minister particularly concerned to whom the Head of Defence Sales especially will have access. This is the intention; and it is likely to be, apart from the Secretary of State and the Minister of Aviation, that Minister who holds responsibility across the board in this field and who happens, my Lords, to be myself.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friends and I on these Benches do not join in congratulating the Government on this Statement. We feel it is a very dangerous Statement, and the proposals made in it are, in our opinion, not such that a British Government should make. I am surprised that we have not heard from the Church on this matter.
We note that the Statement says that this arrangement is to enable these gentlemen to look into our policy—that is, British Government policy—and organization for selling defence equipment abroad, and to suggest ways in which they can he improved. The Statement goes on to say:
" While the Government attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market."
In our view these two aims cannot work in harness. They are not compatible. The Government must decide whether or not to be genuine in their support of disarmament. They have appointed a Minister of Disarmament—an appointment which we, on these Benches, welcomed. We do not think that this "super-salesmanship of death" can properly be joined with the appointment of a Minister of Disarmament.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord had the Statement when he said "these gentlemen" are to look into it. Is he referring to Sir Donald Stokes's specific purpose?—which was to inquire whether any improvement in co-ordination was necessary. The noble Lord used the expression, "these gentlemen". I was not sure whether he was referring to the new organization. I personally attach the highest importance to our—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I clear up the point? I meant the Minister of Aviation and the Secretary of State for Defence and Sir Donald Stokes. I meant all three who are all concerned in this project.
LORD SHACKLETON: It might be helpful if the noble Lord would read the advance copy more closely before giving a false impression. Even now he has not interpreted it correctly.
I assure your Lordships that there is no conflict with the fundamental aim of Her Majesty's Government, which is in fact to strive by every possible means to achieve disarmament. That is not incompatible with this. Unless those noble Lords on the Liberal Benches do not wish us to sell abroad any defence equipment at all, and wish to retire to a purely autarchical relationship in which we neither buy nor sell defence equipment, it is clearly necessary, and it seems to me only common sense, especially within an alliance in which interdependence is of the highest importance —and I stress that this is not intended to lead to great competition; we still look towards interdependence—that if you have equipment to sell you should sell it. I really do not understand what the noble Lord wishes, because it seems to me that here is a market in which we can sell some of our goods abroad, and we propose that this organization should be answerable to Government policy. There can be no question of this organization's going ahead, under this Government any more than any other Government, and getting into the arms business where, for national or international reasons, it is undesirable to sell arms.

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [H.L.]
4.52 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and other noble Lords who spoke, for what they have said and the welcome which they gave to the Commonwealth Secretariat Bill. I am sure that the encouragement which they expressed and the interest they have shown will be appreciated very keenly by those upon whom executive responsibility for the Secretariat will now fall. I noted that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, proposes to raise the matter concerning income tax on the Committee stage, and I shall look forward to seeing whether his point is directed towards restricting or enlarging the immunity to which I referred.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I did not say that I was definitely going to raise the matter myself. I certainly thought that it would be raised by other noble Lords.
LORD BESWICK: We shall have to wait then until we see exactly what is said on the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the position of the staff and whether they were to be seconded, or whether it would be possible for members of the staff to look forward to a position in the Secretariat as a life career. As I understand it, there will be a combination of both seconded personnel and those who will be able to make the Secretariat a career. In the first instance, at any rate, the Secretary-General and his two Deputies are seconded. They are appointed collectively by the Commonwealth Heads of Government and, not unnaturally, they were appointed from one or other of the diplomatic services of the Governments concerned.
The question was raised, and I endeavored to give some satisfactory answer, as to why there are no female members on the staff. In fact, so far as the senior staff are concerned, they
56
are appointed by the Secretary-General from names submitted to him by the different Commonwealth Governments, and I assume that it is possible that no woman has been on the list submitted for the senior positions which have been filled so far. I know, however, that there are some women members, in the middle grades, and it seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate if in this Commonwealth of ours, in which, as I mentioned earlier, there have been two women Prime Ministers, there were women members of the staff. I am sure that mention of this earlier in the debate will be noted by those who have responsibility in the field of appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked about the suitability of the paintings on the walls at Marlborough House. I have no doubt, again, that what he said will be read with interest; but I have reason to believe that higher on the list of priorities of the Secretary-General will be the need, not for new paintings on the walls, but for the possibility of putting in some windows in the annex in which some of his staff will have to work. It is now the case—no doubt there were historic reasons for this—that in the particular annex which will be used there are no windows opening out on to what is one of the most beautiful pieces of countryside in London and, in my view, in the world. I suppose at one time servants were quartered there and were not permitted to look out on the lawns where the ladies and gentlemen might stroll. When times are better, and the Minister of Works has more funds at his disposal, I hope that it will be possible, before we get round to changing the pictures, to put in some windows instead of the blank walls which are now there.
My Lords, I think that I have replied to the various questions which were raised. I simply say again that I am sure that the members of the Secretariat will appreciate the encouragement which has been given to them and the confidence which has been displayed in the future of this organization.
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.56 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 2 of Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939
" . At the end of section 2(1) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 there shall be inserted the following proviso:
Provided that in an application where neither of the parties has his usual residence in Scotland or has previously been domiciled in Scotland and where it appears to the Sheriff that the aforesaid application to contract a marriage in Scotland is based primarily on the desire to circumvent the marriage laws of the country of one or other of the parties so applying, the Sheriff may decline to grant a license for such marriage."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment which was meant to put a check on unwise runaway marriages by couples who, too often, are very young and include a large number of Germans, Dutch and others, as well as English, and who misuse certain provisions in the Scottish marriage law, and use Scotland, as it were, as a "flag of convenience". I explained at some length the change in the law as it affects people other than Scotsmen, and I shall not take up time to-day repeating myself. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, agreed with my motives saying that they would commend themselves to all. He explained how my Amendment presented difficulties, and at the conclusion of the discussion, I asked leave to withdraw it.
During the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, further said that the Government were willing and anxious that the problem should be considered by the authorities concerned and that Her Majesty's Government would do what they could to expedite such considerations. I hope that the noble Lord will not say that I am over-soon in raising this question again, and that it is early to ask for a progress report. I know that it is not many weeks since the Committee stage and that Christmas has intervened, as well as additional Scottish holidays. None the less, there have been a number of working days, and in effect this is the
58
last chance we have, because discussion on this point is out of order in another place. We cannot follow the convention of raising a question in one House and receiving the Government's considered views at a later stage in another.
So, my Lords, I have virtually no alternative except to raise this point again to-day. I am greatly encouraged to do this by the notice taken of this point by the Press, both national and local. In particular, your Lordships will be interested by the strength of the leading article in the Dumfries and Galloway Standard, which, after our last debate, referred to what goes on in a number of Scottish villages as "making a mockery of marriage" and added,
"Let no one be fooled by the veneer of romance."
So it is not just the English who are directing attention at this time to this point.
The Amendment I have put down today seems to me to meet all the objections raised against the proposal which I asked your Lordships to consider at the last occasion. It might well be, in the end, the best way to approach a solution to this difficulty. So I am offering it to your Lordships, not just as an excuse for giving the Minister an opportunity of telling us more about how his mind and the mind of the Government are working, and about what progress he has been able to make in the last few weeks, but also on the strength of its own merits. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Inglewood.)
5.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I would not for one moment quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in returning to the attack on this problem to-day. At the last stage of the Bill I undertook to look further into this question, and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I acquaint your Lordships with some of the difficulties we encountered when we gave further consideration to the noble Lord's previous proposal to extend (I am not referring to any particular number of days) the residential qualifications.

59
The first of these was the necessity to get the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to bring the Church's rules into line with this new law—because without that we should not just have brushed the problem under the carpet; we should have shoved it on to the Church's carpet instead. Secondly, all persons coming from outside Scotland would have been affected, and not merely those persons intending marriage who are under age and come from countries where parental consent was required. Thirdly, a party in England with a parent, of whatever nationality, residing in Scotland would still be able, under the terms of Section 1 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1956, to proceed by publication of notice without coming to Scotland at all except for the ceremony.
Fourthly, there are special procedures for the preliminaries to a marriage between a British subject resident in Scotland and a British subject resident in any Dominion or other country of the British Commonwealth to which the Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts, 1915 and 1916, have been applied by Order in Council. In such cases a document showing that the preliminaries in the countries concerned have been observed is acceptable in Scotland. Fifthly, under the Naval Marriages Act 1908, where one of the parties is an officer, seaman or marine on the books of one of Her Majesty's ships at sea the proclamation of banns or publication of notice of marriage may be made on board the ship. Therefore the suggestion for an increase in the residential period would not in all cases have had the effect desired. I have deliberately confined myself to the words suggested by the civil servants, which do not by any means overstate the position.
May I now come to the noble Lord's second attempt? At first glance, it looked as if this might be a better runner than the first one, but in fact, on examination, it is much less so. I will take Gretna as an example, because I think that Gretna was very much in the mind of the noble Lord when he spoke of these runaway marriages. And, for the sake of making it clear that we are all talking about the same thing, I would define a runaway marriage, as I think would the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as a
60
marriage where one or both of the parties is under the age of 21 and comes from a country where parental consent is necessary before the marriage can take place. In 1962 (and I have chosen this year not from any evil motive, but because it is the most recent year for which complete statistics are available), there were 500 marriages performed at Gretna, and of that number some 400 would probably come into the category of runaway marriages. But, in order to get the problem in perspective, I would point out that, of the total of 40,000 marriages which took place in Scotland, including the 400 runaway marriages at Gretna, the total number of runaway marriages was only 600. This is an infinitesimal part of the total number of marriages performed. I wish to clear up any misconception that Scotland is running a profitable marriage racket. We are not. The number of runaway marriages is a small part of the total. It is only in regard to the figures of marriages at Gretna, where some 400 out of 500 come into the runaway category, that this category becomes significant.
To what extent would the proposed new clause reduce this figure? Of the 500 marriages at Gretna, only 13 followed the issue of a sheriff's license; and of that 13 only 8 were part of the 400 runaway marriages. So that we arrive at the remarkable result that the noble Lord's proposed new clause would have stopped only eight of the 400 runaway marriages which took place at Gretna. So, as a means of dealing with the problem, it would really be useless. It would not serve the purpose for which the noble Lord hoped in bringing it forward. I know full well that the noble Lord had no opportunity of finding out how many runaway marriages took place following the issue of a sheriff's licence. I presume that he expected it to be a much higher proportion. I must confess that if the noble Lord had asked me at the last stage how many marriages took place under a sheriff's licence, I should probably have been as widely out in my guess as the noble Lord might have been. But the result is that the noble Lord's proposal is no help in diminishing the number of these marriages.
Even if there had been a higher proportion of marriages following the issue of a sheriff's license, I should still not

61
have been able to accept the noble Lord's proposal because of the difficulties inherent in the proposal itself. The proposed Amendment would exclude cases where either of the parties has previously been domiciled in Scotland. Where the country of origin was Scotland, this would present no difficulty, but where a patty claimed that he had acquired Scottish domicile by choice, the sheriff's task would have been made more difficult, as he would be largely dependent on the statements made by the parties themselves.
Then I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the clause says where it appears to the sheriff that an
" application to contract a marriage in Scotland is based primarily on the desire to circumvent the marriage laws of the country of one or other of the parties so applying…"
It would be difficult for the sheriff to determine whether an application was based primarily on the desire to circumvent the marriage laws of the country of one or other of the parties. This would presuppose that the sheriff had full knowledge of the marriage laws of all countries. This is a pretty compliment to Scottish sheriffs, but I do not know one of them who would dare make the claim on his own behalf that he had an extensive knowledge of the marriage laws of other countries, Therefore, if we were to adopt the clause we should be placing the sheriffs in a completely impossible position. It might have been worth taking the risk if the numbers affected by the clause had been large, and it perhaps would rest on the ingenuity of the sheriffs to extract themselves from these difficulties. But when it is going to have an effect only on 8 out of 400, then. I must say that in my view we should not be improving the position by accepting the proposed new clause.
I would also remind your Lordships that the Scottish Law Commission is now in existence. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate are at present discussing with the Scottish Law Commission the form that a review of the marriage law could most usefully take. I think that the steps which have already been taken by the Scottish Law Commission, in its short existence, are the best guarantee that the Commissioners will look fully, and I hope speedily, at this particular problem.
62
However, there is yet another aspect to be borne in mind. After all, this problem arises not from the operation of a law which the Scots have found perfectly satisfactory, but from the operation of laws which certainly the English, the Germans, the Dutch and the Belgians have found unsatisfactory. I would remind your Lordships that, while there is no immediate proposal to alter the law in England so as to alter the age under which parental consent is required, nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor has appointed a Committee, at present sitting under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Latey, to consider whether any changes are desirable in the law of England relating to contracts made by persons under 21, and in the law relating to marriage by such persons.
I would suggest to your Lordships that one of three things might come from that Committee. They might suggest that the law should remain exactly as it is, in which case the problem vis-à-vis the runaway marriages of the English will remain as it is. They might suggest that the need for parental consent should be abolished, in which case those who would otherwise come to Scotland could have the marriage performed South of the Border. Or they might suggest that the age at which consent is necessary should be reduced below the age of 21. But if any such change is suggested, that will undoubtedly have the effect of bringing the law of England nearer to the present law of Scotland.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is there not a fourth alternative: that they might suggest that marriages contracted under 21 without consent outside England should be voidable, as I believe they are in certain other countries?
LORD HUGHES: Yes; I think that is a fourth alternative. But if we were to rely on the extent to which voidable marriages in other countries are rendered void, it would be rather a broken reed, because I understand that in a recent year only two such actions to render a marriage void in Germany, where such a course is possible, have occurred. One can think of a number of reasons why parents, after the marriage has taken place, might be reluctant to embark on such a course.
At all events, the position is that there is some consideration going on at the

63
Present time of the English position, and the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have had, and are having, discussions to consider a review of the Scottish marriage law. I have no doubt whatever that when that review takes place—and I personally hope that it will be soon—the aspect of runaway marriages will be one of the matters to which the Commission will direct its attention. In that, I hope, not unhelpful, although not, so far as the Amendment is concerned, welcome attitude, I trust that the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment, and that the House will agree with me.
5.16 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here when we had the debate before Christmas on the Committee stage, because I wanted to support my noble friend Lord Inglewood in his views. I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, and I am glad to hear that these matters are under consideration, both in England and in Scotland: that the Commission in Scotland is reviewing marriage laws in regard to runaway marriages, and that this problem is also being considered in England. I do not take quite such a complacent view as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He feels that 400 runaway marriages represents a small number. I think it is a large number. I think the noble Lord said 500, of which 400 were runaway marriages.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Baroness will permit me, I said that for the whole of Scotland 600 runaway marriages, out of a total of 40,000 marriages, was a very small proportion. I agreed that 400 at Gretna out of 500 was a large proportion.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I was thinking in terms of runaway marriages at Gretna, which, as we know, make the headlines in the newspapers, and which we all dislike. I think that 400 is a lot and it is too many. I do not think we should take a complacent view about that, and say merely that, because there were 40,000 marriages in the Kirk, in the register office or in any other reputable manner, that puts the balance on the right side. Of course
64
it puts the balance on the right side; nevertheless, I still think that 400 runaway marriages at Gretna Green is far too many. I believe that it makes a good case for taking stronger line on this matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he is discussing this matter with the Law Commission, as no doubt he will do, will feel that this is something which should not happen. In the year 1966 it just is not "on" that these things should happen, and that there should be this foolish loophole (if one can have a foolish loophole) concerning marriage ceremonies which is provided in Gretna.
It may be that the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Inglewood has put down does not achieve what he wants, and that what the noble Lord said about the sheriff, and about the small number of marriages in which the sheriff is concerned, puts this out of court. This is a substantial point which I do not dispute. But I feel that the noble Lord should take into account that a great many people in Scotland—I am not by any means the only one—think that this old-fashioned and somewhat "phoney" way of getting married at Gretna should be ended. I hope that he will urge on the Law Commission to take some fairly stringent action as soon as possible, because I think the present situation is altogether unsuitable for our country.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must correct a statement which the noble Baroness has made. There is nothing "phoney" about the ceremonies which take place at Gretna; it is exactly the same type of marriage ceremony as is performed by a registrar anywhere else in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, unfortunately many people go up to Scotland thinking that they can be married instantly; they think there is instant marriage in Scotland. There is not; they have to wait the fifteen days. The noble Lord's objections were to the difficulties which this caused. In many cases people come up quite unprepared for the wait, which in fact proves to be 22 days when all is taken into account. But I am quite sure I should be rescuing the noble Baroness from some local difficulty if she had to go back and suggest that some sort of illegal marriage was taking place in Gretna.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, if I have used the wrong word, I withdraw it. I am glad to be corrected by the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, had in mind, was that 400 is an awful lot of marriages in one small place—400 out of 500 being runaway marriages. That is something which I, as an ex-Member for Dumfries-shire, have reason to know a great deal about. Ii is something which is very much deplored, and which one would willingly do something about. But it is, as the noble Lord has just said, something which is essentially based upon a false belief, and it is difficult to alter the law of Scotland because of a false belief elsewhere. I hope it may be possible to do something to deal with this problem, but I think it is unreasonable to ask that the law of Scotland should be altered in a way which would be detrimental to the Scots, in order to deal with what is essentially an extremely small problem.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for having tried, in his Amendment to-day, to avoid doing any harm to the Scots. I am conscious that that was the purpose of his Amendment. I am sorry that he has not been able to achieve his purpose, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that this is a problem which is being examined both in Scotland and in England, and I hope your Lordships will leave the matter there.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, this; discussion has gone much as I thought it would, because even if my words had, surprisingly, satisfied the noble Lord's advisers as being something which could be accepted as part of a Statute, he would have had to argue against them on this occasion because the inclusion of them in the Statute would have opened this Bill to all sorts of comments in another place, which clearly the Government would not wish. None the less, with the noble Baroness, I think the noble Lord was a little too smug. This problem is not one which can really be assessed solely by numbers; it is a much bigger problem than a few hundreds. Furthermore, it is something which brings discredit—I will not say on Scotland, but on Britain, and that is something about which we are all concerned.
66
I am glad the noble Lord has appreciated that my amateur drafting (which I admit I thought was rather ingenious, and I accept the compliment) made it abundantly clear that this was in no way an Englishman trying to alter Scots law so far as it affected Scotsmen. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I am again left with no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I assure him that I will find other ways to ask for progress reports from time to time; and unless the progress he is able to report is satisfactory, not just to me but to a great many people who are interested—and I commend to him a double-page article in a recent edition of the Sunday Mirror, which talked of the base side of this business as "the love trade"; he seemed to think there was little commercial in it—I will not be satisfied, because there is something here which is a big problem. It is something which we ought not to leave just where the noble Lord suggests we should. We do not want to press him, but we do not want to abandon it altogether. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, it is over thirty years since I sat on a Committee on this subject. We made little progress at that time because at that moment one of the members of the Committee brought her son along to the Smithy; he was duly married and given a beautiful marriage certificate drawn up by the blacksmith. I hope that, during the next year or two, we may set this matter right. It is a disgraceful racket on the part of certain individuals, and a very profitable racket.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8:
Variation and recall by the sheriff of certain orders made by the Court of Session in respect of maintenance, custody, etc., and amendment of s. 2 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1938
8.—
(2) Where any person who has been a party to a consistorial action has a right to make application for the variation or recall of any order made in that action to which the provisions of this section apply, he may make an application in that behalf to the sheriff, and, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the sheriff shall have the like powers in relation to the application as the Court of Session.
The application shall forthwith be intimated by the sheriff clerk to the Principal Clerk of Session, who shall transmit the process in the said action to the sheriff clerk.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "who has been a party to a consistorial action". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 together; they accomplish one purpose. Clause 8, as presently drafted, places what the Government regard as an undesired and unintended limitation on the operation of the clause. The clause is drafted with particular reference to the case where there are really only two parties, the husband and wife, or former husband and wife. There can, however, be cases where a third party might have an interest in the order, for example where the custody of a child has been entrusted to a relative other than one of the spouses, and it seems clear that the provisions for sheriff court procedure should apply to such parties in the same way as to spouses.
The Amendments, therefore, have the effect of allowing an application to the sheriff court by any person who has a right to apply for variation or recall of the particular order. Similarly, any such person would be entitled to secure, if he or she so desired, that an application to the sheriff court was remitted to the Court of Session. I am quite certain that when the House agreed to the clause as it stands, it did so in the expectation that all parties to an action would be treated similarly, and this series of Amendments is necessary to bring the clause fully into line with what was originally intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out from ("person") to ("has") in line 7.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that this Bill is in a very much better state than when it arrived in this House and was presented by my noble friend Lord Hughes. As a result of the discussion on Second Reading, the Government proposed several Amendments to Clause 8 which were accepted by this House at Committee stage, and they now come forward with further Amendments to this clause. I
68
Think that these Amendments, both those put forward to-day and those put forward on Committee stage, prevent the anomalies which were suggested on Second Reading. I think this has shown that even the simplest law reform is not quite so simple as it might appear, having regard to the Amendments which have had to be made. I think it shows, too, the necessity of preparing the ground for law reform by consultations with the interested parties. At the Second Reading, I indicated to your Lordships that no proper consultations had taken place with the interested parties, and it is only as a result of these representations that the clause has been so far improved. Having said that, I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Hughes for accepting the suggestions which have been made in this House, and which have also been made since the Bill was here on Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "that"and insert:
"a consistorial".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. In doing so, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, for what he has said, although I cannot go all the way with him when he said that there was no consultation. It may be that there was not sufficient consultation with certain of the parties, but certainly a fair degree of consultation took place. What I am prepared to admit quite frankly is that the Government have accepted a number of suggestions for the improvement of this clause. That, my Lords, is as it ought to be, because this is a Bill to reform the law; and if it is drawn to the attention of any Government that reform can be better accomplished in a different way, then obviously Her Majesty's Government would not be accomplishing their objective if they intended instead merely to adhere to their own first ideas on the matter. What we now have is the result of a great deal of additional consultation in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, have played a very large part; and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I am grateful to them for the help they

69
have given in improving Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("a consistorial").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the second paragraph. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would ask that I may speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 together. These Amendments follow a discussion between the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Advocate about the provision which it is necessary to make to secure that the sheriff court shall have available the Court of Session record of the case. The clause as it stands provides simply for the sheriff clerk to intimate the application to the Principal Clerk of Session, who shall then transmit the process to the sheriff clerk. The first of the Amendments, No. 4, deletes this provision, and Amendment No. 6 substitutes a new subsection dealing with the matter more comprehensively.
The effect is to specify the transmission of the process to and from the sheriff court as among the matters on which the Court of Session may regulate its procedure and that of the sheriff court under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. This would enable the Court of Session to make by Act of Sederunt such detailed provision on this matter as they think expedient. Also, it is made clear that the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937, which provides for the transmission of court records to and from the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, does not preclude transmission of records to the sheriff court under the clause. Finally, it is provided that, for the purpose of the Act of 1937 and of this Act, the record of an application under the clause shall be deemed to be a record of the Court of Session. This is to ensure that after an application under this clause has been made, it shall be dealt with in the same way as the associated Court of Session record—for example, in the event of a further application for variation being made. The general effect of the Amendments is thus to eliminate any doubt which the present wording might leave about the competence of transmission
70
of the records, and to provide explicitly for regulation of the machinery of transmission by the Court of Session itself.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 13 to 15.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the question of transmission. As I understand it, the Bill provides for the transmission of the process from the Court of Session to the sheriff court. What would be the position supposing that the two parties had agreed that the process should be transmitted to the sheriff court and then, under a change of circumstances, one of the parties wished to go back to the Court of Session to have the matter considered and was not content that the sheriff who had previously dealt with the matter should, in the new circumstances, deal with it? Is my noble friend satisfied that this clause would enable the process in the sheriff court then to be retransmitted to the Court of Session in order that the judge who previously dealt with the consistorial matter could take it up again? It seems to me a possibility that this might not be covered, but I should like to be assured that it is, otherwise it would not be possible for the party interested in raising this question to bring it before the Court of Session.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, would speak sufficiently long for the answer to reach me, and perhaps he will give me a few seconds so that I may read the advice that I now have. It is not very helpful. In the first instance, it is difficult to read and if I am reading it correctly I am asked to say that I hope it would be covered by Act of Sederunt, but I should like to examine it.
Speaking seriously, my Lords, I think the answer is that the procedure which the Court would lay down would be satisfactory. As the making of the rules is in the hands of the Court of Session itself, one would expect that they would be sufficiently far-seeing to make their rules cover all the circumstances which might arise; and if they have possibly overlooked that aspect, the very fact that the noble and learned Lord has got it

71
Written into the debate here will make it certain that they will not overlook it in future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("the other party") and insert ("any other party to the action"). —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 (Transmission of court records to and from the Keeper of the Records of Scotland etc.), the powers of the Court of Session, conferred by sections 16 and 34 respectively of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 to regulate its own procedure and that of the sheriff court, shall include power to provide for the transmission to and from the sheriff court of any process in the action to which an application under this section relates; and for the purposes of the said Act of 1937 and of this section any record of such an application shall be deemed to be a record of the Court of Session.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("and") and at end insert ("' party' means any person having a right to make application for the variation or recall of the order in question, and").— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PROHIBITED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS) ORDER 1966
Order made under Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 by Her Majesty in Council.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) under Standing Order No. 62 on Thursday last for Affirmative Resolution; and referred to the Special Orders Committee.