Lords Sitting of 14 July 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester
The Lady Kinloss—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Ullswater—Took the Oath.

GIBRALTAR: NEGOTIATIONS WITH SPAIN
3.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 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 satisfied that the talks being held with the Spanish Government are not giving undue anxiety to the people of Gibraltar.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, we recognise that our fellow subjects in Gibraltar are naturally extremely anxious about this matter. But they are, I think, also well aware that the talks are being held pursuant to a United Nations resolution which drew attention to the need to bear in mind the interests of the population of Gibraltar. I can assure the noble Earl that we do indeed have these interests and our obligation to protect them very much in mind.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Can he strike a note of optimism by saying that we shall be able to remain on good relations with Spain and still retain the profound confidence which the people of Gibraltar have had in successive Governments of this country?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that is certainly the hope, though any optimism that I express in that direction must be a guarded optimism.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fears
198
of the people of Gibraltar and the intransigence of the Spanish Government were greatly encouraged last year by public statements made in London by members of the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism to the effect that it was the first objective of this Special Committee to see that Gibraltar was returned to Spain? Will Her Majesty's Government make it clear, both to the people of Gibraltar and to the Spanish Government, that in this matter no United Nations Committee has any authority or jurisdiction?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, while, as I said, these talks are being held pursuant to a United Nations resolution, I can assure the noble Earl that the matter under dispute is solely one between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the restrictions on the frontier have been getting worse and worse, and that this hardly shows any inclination on the part of Spain to meet us in this respect? Have any representations been made about this lately?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I should not entirely go along with the noble Baroness when she says that the restrictions are getting worse and worse. My information is that the restrictions are remaining exactly the same, but because of the increased tourist traffic, the inconvenience caused is considerably greater than it was. We have made representations to the Spanish Government on this, and they are fully aware of our attitude and our point of view.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not concede that the anxieties of the people of Gibraltar would be still further dispelled, and the dignity and prestige of this country better served, if the discussions, which I believe have been adjourned, were not resumed until such time as the Spanish Government were prepared to ease the frontier restrictions, rather than intensify them as they did last month in contravention of the request of the Foreign Secretary on May 18 last?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, in my opinion and in that of Her Majesty's

199
Government, the important thing is to resolve this dispute; it is most important, therefore, that there should be discussions between the Spanish Government and ourselves. It would be a great mistake to impose conditions if they were going to jeopardise the talks. But that does not mean to say that we retreat from the position which we have already made public concerning the actual talks themselves.

OVERSEAS AID: MINISTER'S STATEMENTS TO UNITED NATIONS
3.10 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 will restrain the statements of the United Kingdom representative to the United Nations emphasising the comparatively high volume of overseas allocations for subventions, loans and advances by the United Kingdom which must under present adverse pressure on sterling intensify banking disquiet as to the United Kingdom balance of payments.]
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords. I do not accept the implication of the Question. The speech of the Minister of State and Permanent Representative of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations to the 41st Session of the Economic and Social Council, to which I take it the noble Lord is referring, contained a factual account of the British effort in aiding the developing countries in the context of international aid as a whole. He referred not only to our record in sustaining and somewhat increasing our programme in a time of economic difficulty, but also to the restraints which those circumstances are necessarily imposing on the degree of expansion which is possible. Her Majesty's Government see no reason why this balanced account should cause any disquiet.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but it is disappointing, in that he gives the reasons which were put forward in the
200
United Nations. The point of the Question, of course, is to draw attention to the heavy burden on our balance of payments; and the fact that we have now moved the bank rate up to the penalising rate of 7 per cent. seems to be greater justification than at the moment when I put the Question down. The noble Lord will have had his attention drawn to The Times report on July 7 giving this. I am not unmindful of the fact that the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
LORD BARNBY: The question I ask the noble Lord is this. In spite of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have as recently as the debate on the Overseas Aid Bill stated that very large sums of our sorely taxed people's money are being so disposed of, can he now not give any encouragement to the hope that these widely dispersed and so munificently given grants, subventions, and aid in every direction throughout the world, can be reduced and so lessen the pressure on sterling?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, I cannot; and I am very glad that I cannot do so. I should like to be able to give some hope that we could increase these amounts, but unfortunately our present financial position makes that impossible. The actual discussions on the amount of aid were conducted in another place, and also, I think I am right in saying, in your Lordships' Chamber on another occasion; obviously this is not the right time to go into the pros and cons of that. I have done my best to answer the original Question and the noble Lord's supplementary, but of course if he wishes to raise the matter in a wider context there are opportunities for him to do so.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a terrible indictment on the Conservative Party that, after a period of colonial exploitation, and when these countries have now received independence, they want to stop all support to help them towards independence within the Commonwealth, in order to get us into the Common Market?
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, is the a Conservative Government there was a noble Lord not aware that, in fact, under

201
very rapid increase in aid to foreign countries; at a much more rapid rate, indeed, than under this Labour Government?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a further question? Has he forgotten what was stated with regard to the escalating rate at which this money is being granted? He has just said that he hoped that would be increased. It was stated in 1957 that the figure was £81 million, and now it is £225 million. At that rate of escalation there will be some astronomic figure which will put the bank rate up much higher, and do irreparable damage to our balance of payments.

POLICE SUPERINTENDENTS' PAY
3.15 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 whether Press reports are correct that many police chief inspectors lose income by being promoted to the rank of superintendent.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, it is possible, in particular circumstances, for a chief inspector on promotion to superintendent to receive less by way of total remuneration, although not by way of pensionable pay. This is because, in some forces where there is a serious shortage of manpower, chief inspectors work some or all of their additional rest days, for which they receive substantial overtime payments; these can bring their total remuneration above the minimum for superintendents, who do not share the rest-day arrangements of the federated ranks. Also, detective chief inspectors receive special allowances which may bring their remuneration above that of the superintendents' minimum. Two improvements which had the effect of increasing the total remuneration of chief inspectors, but not of superintendents—namely, the reduction of the working week from 44 to 42 hours in July, 1964, and the introduction of substantial supplementary
202
detective allowances in September, 1964—have accentuated this particular problem.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that full reply. I have two supplementary questions, and perhaps I should ask them one at a time. First, can the noble Lord give the House any idea, for example in the Metropolitan Police area, how much more a detective chief inspector may get than a superintendent, bearing in mind that in the Metropolitan Police area, I believe, they are all superintendents, Class 1? I am assuming, of course, that a detective chief inspector earns the maximum. Can the noble Lord give the figures?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, it entirely depends on the amount of overtime which a chief inspector works. The differential in pay between a chief inspector and a superintendent, Class 1, is £455 a year. A uniformed chief inspector, if he works all his 35 rest days and has all the possibilities of overtime, can earn £451 a year above his salary. If he is a detective chief inspector and exercises all possible allowance opportunities, he can earn an additional £393.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. My other supplementary question is this. Do Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the extreme urgency of this matter, in view of the current reorganisation in many police forces, and what do Her Majesty's Government intend to do to remedy this bit of nonsense?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is certainly a very important matter, particularly to the officers concerned. But as the noble Lord will be aware, this is essentially a matter for the negotiating body—the Police Council of Great Britain—which is about to initiate a pay review. The facts to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has drawn attention are bound to figure prominently in the minds of the members of the Police Council. For obvious reasons I cannot comment further, although I would add that the remedy must lie, at least in part, in improving recruitment, and thus reducing the excessive amount of overtime which some chief inspectors are called upon to work.

KNEESWORTH HALL APPROVED SCHOOL
3.19 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: 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 are the facts behind the report in the Sunday Express of July 10 in regard to the alleged behaviour of the pupils at Kneesworth Hall approved school, the composition of the school and the action by the police in regard to alleged offences.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, Knees-worth Hall is an approved school for boys between 13 and 15 on admission. It is managed by a local voluntary committee and specialises in the training of selected boys of high intelligence. Like all approved schools it is an open institution. My right honourable friend will consider carefully any representations that may be made to him about the boys' behaviour; meanwhile he is making immediate inquiries as to the facts.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, and I am quite sure that he started to inquire into the matter long before I was even half-way to putting down my Question. I would, if I may, ask him one or two supplementary questions. First, is it the case, as was stated in the article, that boys against whom no charge has been made and who come from broken homes are sent to this school and mix with boys who have committed offences and are probably contaminated by them?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it has always been the practice to send both offenders and children in need of care and protection to the same approved schools. As the noble Lord is probably aware, the Ingle by Committee considered the desirability of continuing this practice, and they concluded that the risk of offenders contaminating the non-offenders was more apparent than real. They recommended that no change should he made in the existing practice, and children committed to approved schools, for whatever reason, are sent to the school thought to be most suitable. At Knees-
204
worth Hall only one non-offender is there at present, out of a total of 44 boys.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether boys are sent to approved schools according to their intelligence quotient? Is that the normal practice?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is the practice to send boys to the approved schools which are regarded as being most suitable for them. As I said in my original Answer, Kneesworth Hall school specialises in boys with a higher level of intelligence.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I also ask one further question? In the article it was attributed, by implication, to the authorities of the school that successes in examinations outweighed any harm which the continued practice of successful dishonesty would entail on the pupils. Do Her Majesty's Government subscribe to that view? I would also ask whether boys in the school can go about as they will—indeed, I think the noble Lord has already said that such is the case.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have not said that the boys can go about at will. In fact, the village is entirely out of bounds. They are allowed to go out, with passes, on Saturday and Sunday afternoons from 2 till 5, or, exceptionally, till a later hour on the same days, or other days, if they are accompanied by adults; but otherwise the village is quite out of bounds.
With regard to the implication mentioned by the noble Lord, I question whether there is that implication in the article, but in any case I would make it quite clear that my Department condemns delinqency, whether it emanates from Kneesworth Hall, Eton or any other school.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there are just two further questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. When he has made more progress in his inquiry will he let me know, so that I may return to the subject again? Secondly, can he give us any information about the statement in the article that the police, having evidence against these boys, forbore to prosecute them; and if that is so, what was the reason?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we have already asked the Chief Constables of Hertfordshire and of Mid-Anglia, and also the school managers, for reports. When we have considered these, together with the views of local authorities and residents, we will consider what further steps should be taken and I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as there has been considerable disquiet about this particular school (I do not expect the noble Lord to be able to answer now), will he ask the Home Secretary, when he has made his inquiries, if he will see whether there is any possibility of making a public statement, because the disquiet has spread rather wide?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was not aware that there was very wide disquiet about this school. Certainly we do not take the matter lightly. We are inquiring into it urgently, and if it is necessary to make a statement, one will be issued.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.45 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the economic situation.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CAMBRIDGE, READING AND WALSALL) BILL
3.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the following Bill are to confirm Provisional Orders made under
206
Section 303 of the Public Health Act 1875. That provision enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government, at the request of local authorities or certain other statutory bodies and with the approval of Parliament, to repeal or amend Local Acts and Orders which relate to the same subject matters as the 1875 Act. In all these cases there have been local advertisement. The Cambridge Order was advertised, both locally and nationally, and a local inquiry was held: no objection was raised.
The Cambridge Order has two purposes. Firstly, it will allow the local authority to alter from time to time rents and charges to stall-holders at the Midsummer Fair. This procedure for altering charges (based on that laid down in the Food and Drugs Act 1955) will enable the corporation to make alterations from time to time, with the approval of the Minister, without going to the trouble and expense of promoting a Private Bill on each occasion. The Order will also change the days and hours on which the Fair may be held. The change in hours is of little significance: it will enable the fair to be opened at 2.30 p.m. on the first day instead of at noon. The change in days is mainly to ensure that the period during which the Fair is open will include a Friday evening and Saturday, when most people can attend. At present, and for the last 750 years, the Fair has had to be held, under a Charter of 1211, from June 22 to June 25. This includes a Friday night and Saturday morning only four years out of every seven.
The Reading Order also provides for the variation of market charges in the same way as the Cambridge Order. The Walsall Order removes restrictions on the use of land, formerly the site of a pig market. There has been no pig market on this site for over sixty years and the land is now needed in connection with the redevelopment of the central area. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill also be read a second time. It is to confirm a Provisional Order made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act 1875. Like the last Orders, it was advertised locally: one single objection was received, but this was later withdrawn. The Bill deals with the West Kent Main Sewerage District. The purpose of this Order is to bring part of the London Borough of Croydon within the Board's District and to make the Borough Council a constituent authority of the Board. Part of the borough already drains to the Board's sewers and a further part will be similarly drained later this year, on the completion of a main sewer extension. These arrangements are the result of agreement between the authorities concerned. The Order now puts them on a formal basis. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

FAMILY PROVISION BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a third time. I should like first to express my thanks to noble Lords who have taken a special interest in this Bill, including, in particular, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, my noble friends Lady Summerskill and Lord Mitchison, and the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. I venture to think that this Bill is a useful piece of law reform, clearing up many anomalies which in the course of years have arisen in this branch of our law. My forecast that it would not be long before the Committee on illegitimate children, of which Lord Justice Russell
208
was the Chairman, reported, has been proved to be right. The Government will have to see, after they have considered this Report, what view is taken by informed opinion, and will then, of course, make their own decisions as to which, if any, of those recommendations should be implemented. I am still not unhopeful that it may be possible for the Government to do this in time to implement such recommendations as they may think should be implemented on the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. I beg to move.
Mover, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think it would perhaps be a little graceless if I did not also say "Thank you" to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the very considerable part he also has played in getting this Bill right. There have been considerable discussions between him and his Office and those who have had points of view to put forward, and they have, as usual, been most helpful and friendly, and extremely rapid. I think we should be grateful to him and his staff for that. So far as the Russell Committee Report is concerned, I have no doubt that the proper course now would be to look at it and decide whether specific legislation is needed to deal with the different topics in it, which cover a wide field, or whether we ought to take advantage of this particular Bill in another place to deal with some only of those matters. I tend to think that it might be more satisfactory to have a specific Bill, because if we incorporate some of the recommendations in this Bill it may be that the others will not be implemented at all for a long time. This is something for discussion at a later stage. Meanwhile, we should like to thank the noble and learned Lord.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I add my thanks, on behalf of all those women who will ultimately benefit from the humane provisions embodied in this Bill? I have had many letters from women's organisations in which they have expressed their appreciation at the Lord Chancellor's concern with the position of the widow. The Report on illegitimacy has arrived, I feel, at an auspicious moment, and I am very

209
glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord is now giving consideration to it. I was particularly appreciative of his promise on Second Reading that if a decision could be made by the Government before the Bill reached another place it might be embodied in the Bill then.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I should say, for the Record, that if the recommendations of the Russell Committee cannot be implemented on the Committee stage of this Bill in another place I see no prospect whatever of legislative time being found for a separate Bill this Session or, possibly, next.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).

LESOTHO INDEPENDENCE BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Lesotho Independence Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, this Bill makes provision for the establishment of Basutoland, under the name of Lesotho, as an independent Kingdom within the Commonwealth. In general, it follows the form of previous Acts under which other dependent territories have received independence, and it implements the agreement reached at the Basutoland Independence Conference held in London in June of this year.
210
At that June Conference it was agreed, and the Bill makes provision accordingly, that October 4, 1966, should be the date on which the Colony of Basutoland should cease to form part of Her Majesty's Dominions. The Independence Constitution itself will be made separately by Order in Council.
There has been some controversy about the circumstances in which Basutoland independence will be achieved, and we discussed this matter in some detail in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Brockway. But I think it would be right if I again made reference to the doubts that have been expressed, and the House will probably agree that I should do it against the background of the history of that nation. Basutoland was annexed by the British in 1868. The action was then taken at the request of the Paramount Chief, Moshoeshoe the First, the founder of the Basuto nation, when his country was under extreme pressure from the Orange Free State. For four years, from 1871, the country was annexed to the Cape Colony, but, after representations from the Basuto people, this annexation was cancelled and the British Colony of Basutoland was established and administered under a High Commissioner directly responsible to London.
I think it is of some interest that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, can claim that his family's connection with this part of the world dates back from just about this time, about one hundred years ago.
The responsibility of the High Commissioner remained until August 1, 1964. Constitutional development in Basutoland was in fact slow, but in 1958, after some experience with limited elected representation, agreement was reached on a Constitution which embodied democratic features and which became effective in March, 1960. This1958 Constitution provided for an Executive Council and a Basutoland National Council with limited legislative powers. In 1962, at the invitation of the National Council, the Paramount Chief appointed a Constitutional Commission representative of all—and I repeat, all—the Basuto political Parties and of the Chiefs. That Commission, after exhaustive inquiry, reported in 1963, and its Report was adopted in February, 1964, by the

211
National Council as a basis for negotiation with the British Government for a new pre-Independence Constitution which could, with the minimum of change, become the final Independence Constitution.
The next step was a Constitutional Conference held in London in April and May, 1964, at which agreement was reached on a Constitution on the lines proposed by the Constitutional Commission, but with the reservation of certain powers to the British Government during the interim period before independence This new Constitution was brought into operation on April 30, 1965. At the Conference in 1964 the then Secretary of State gave an undertaking that
"if at any time, not earlier than one year after the new elections, the people of Basutoland by resolutions of both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament (or in the event of disagreement between them by a majority of those voting at a referendum) asked for independence, the British Government would seek to give effect to their wishes as soon as possible."
This undertaking, I should add, was given
"on the assumption that when the time came conditions in Basutoland would be such as to enable power to be transferred in peace and order".
It was in full understanding of all the implications of that undertaking that elections were held to the National Assembly in April, 1965. There was no difference at all, of opinion or policy, on the issue of independence between the three political Parties which contested that election. Each of the three Parties advocated independence, and all had accepted the Constitution under which independence would be achieved. As the Memorandum, recently published by the two present Opposition Parties, the Congress Party and the Freedom Party, puts it, their constitutional struggle has
"been characterised by a oneness of purpose even though there were three political Parties in the country vying for power."
This, it seems to me, is the basic fact which critics of this proposed step should consider. There was no difference at all between the political Parties about the desirability of independence. The difference was simply one as to which of the three Parties should, in the first place at any rate, achieve the right to form the first Government of an independent Basutoland. Subsequent differences as to the
212
form of independence have been erected on that base.
It is true that the victory of the present Government Party, the National Party, at the elections of 1965 was a narrow one. Their overall majority over the two Opposition Parties was only two. It is accepted that this is a clear majority, but the critics argue that the 31 members of the National Party were elected on a minority vote. This, again, is true, although as several speakers emphasised when we discussed this previously, a Government on a minority vote is not an unusual feature in a democracy. It happens to be the position in this country at the present time. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that, if further elections were held, if the Opposition Parties were given a second try as it were, the position of the Parties would be reversed. Indeed, as I made clear on the previous occasion, if there has been a movement of opinion at all, the evidence is that it has moved towards and not against the present Government. Two by-elections were won by the Government Party, and one member elected for the Freedom Party has since moved over to support the National Party Government, whose majority has therefore been increased from two to four.
So much, therefore, the demands for new elections before independence. Elections were held in 1965. They produced a clear majority. There is no evidence at all that the majority Party then elected to Government have lost support in the country, and there is no evidence that any useful purpose would be served by further elections prior to independence.
May I next deal with the position of the Paramount Chief as Head of State, an issue which created friction at the Conference in June of this year, and about which some play has been made, both by the Opposition Parties of Basutoland, by the critics who support them in this country and, unfortunately, by the Paramount Chief himself. I say, "unfortunately, by the Paramount Chief", since it is quite clear that, in his present position as constitutional Head of State, he is required to accept the advice of his Ministers and is clearly precluded from taking part in the kind of political propaganda in which he has recently been engaged.

213
In effect, the present demand of the Paramount Chief is that he should succeed to the reserved executive and legislative powers in the field of external affairs and internal security which the British Government had enjoyed under the pre-independence Constitution and which, under the Constitution now agreed, it is proposed should be vested in the Basuto Government of the day—or I should say, the Lesotho Government of the day. This provision, I should emphasise, is in accordance with the proposals drawn up by the all-Party 1962 Constitutional Commission, and I might perhaps quote from their Report. They say, in paragraph 65:
"No aspect of our work has given us more anxiety than that of devising the appropriate status for Motlotlehi."—
that is to say His Excellency the Paramount Chief—
"After much thought and lengthy deliberation we have come to the conclusion that if Cabinet Government is to work in Lesotho, Motlotlehi must be accorded carefully defined powers. In regard to such basic matters as the choice of a Prime Minister, the dissolution of Parliament and the desirability of Motlotlehi's acting on Ministerial advice, we are firmly of the view that the Order-in-Council embodying the new Constitution should contain, in written form, the unwritten conventions of the British Constitution—as was done, for example, in the existing Constitution of Nigeria."
Later in the same Report the Commission said:
"We gave much thought to the question whether additional exceptions to the British model could be wisely made in Lesotho. More particularly, we considered carefully whether Motlotlehi should be accorded discretionary executive functions in the field of external affairs and treaty-making, but we came to the conclusion that this would not be in the best interest either of Motlotlehi or of Lesotho."
It is these views of the Commission, the all-Party Commission, which have been embodied in the proposed new Constitution. The fact is, therefore, that, in proposing that under the Independence Constitution the Paramount Chief should have the powers of a constitutional monarch, Her Majesty's Government have the authority of the Basutoland Constitutional Commission to which I have referred. They are proposals which were confirmed after debate by both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament, and, inasmuch as the status of the Paramount Chief was decided at the 1964 Conference, the assent of the Paramount
214
Chief himself was given at that time, since he put his signature to the conclusions of that Conference.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the support now being given by the Opposition Parties to the Paramount Chief in his claim for additional powers is a matter of political Party expediency and not one of principle. It would surely be expected that, if principle came into this at all, it would not have been possible for the Opposition Parties to have given previous support to the conception of a constitutional monarchy; and Mr. Mokhehle would not have written to the then Prime Minister of this country emphasising that it would have been inconsistent with the expressed wishes of the majority of the people for the Head of State to be other than a constitutional monarch.
Probably I might go on to say, in all fairness to the Paramount Chief, whom all would say is a charming person and who without doubt seeks to serve the best interests of his people, that he now has two choices before him. On the one hand he could continue his opposition to the present Basutoland Government and to the present proposal to establish an independent Lesotho on the basis of the agreed Constitution. If he insists on that course he will be breaking his Oath of Affirmation which contains a promise that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and govern the people of Basutoland in accordance with the Constitution. On the other hand, the Paramount Chief can accept the role of a Constitutional Monarch, bearing in mind the opportunities for service that are so attractively set out in the same Report of the Constitutional Commission from which I have earlier quoted.
In paragraph 66 of that Report the Commission—this is an all-Party Commission composed entirely of Basuto people—say:
"The reign of Queen Victoria is a classic example of how a capable Sovereign, strong of will and devoted to duty, left a profound impression on the Government of the day. In the words of Mr. Gladstone 'the acts, the wishes, the example of the Sovereign in this country are a real power. An immense reverence and tender affection await upon the person of the one permanent and ever-faithful guardian of the fundamental conditions of the Constitution' ".

215
If the Paramount Chief accepts this role, which is his alternate course, he can render to his people the true service in the future that he has rendered in the past.
I think I can add no more to this than to say that all the doubts that are expressed by my noble friend Lord Brockway, and by others in Basutoland, have been submitted, since the London Conference to the United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four. Those who follow these matters will know that, to put it mildly, the Committee of Twenty-Four is not predisposed to support the old colonial power of the United Kingdom. But after hearing petitioners from the two Basuto Opposition parties the Committee ended by adopting a consensus, from which I quote the following:
"Concern has been expressed in the course of the debate on the recent devlopments in Basutoland. However, a universal desire has been expressed that independence should not be delayed. Many members have expressed the hope that all the political parties in the territory should unite in their efforts to achieve common objectives in the good of their country…"
I trust that, for once, your Lordships will find yourselves in general agreement with the Committee of Twenty-Four.
May I now run briefly through the clauses? Clause 1 provides that the Colony of Basutoland shall cease to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions and shall become an independent kingdom, under the name of Lesotho, on October 4, 1966. Clause 2, by subsections (1) and (3), makes provision on the lines that we included in the Zambia Independence Act 1964. It preserves the operation of existing law of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and certain other existing laws. Clause 2(2) and the Schedule relate to certain U.K. enactments which require amendment to take account of the establishment of Lesotho as an independent kingdom within the Commonwealth.
Clause 2(4) confirms that nothing in Clause 2 has the effect of continuing in force any law which would limit or restrict the legislative powers of Lesotho. Clauses 3 and 4 make provision on the usual lines regarding nationality matters consequent upon attainment of independence. Clause 5 provides for appeals from Lesotho Court of Appeal (which
216
will be established under the Constitution) to lie to the Judicial Committee. Clause 6 makes provision (on the lines of a similar section of the Zambia Independence Act) enabling Her Majesty to confer on the Judicial Committee jurisdiction for the purpose of disposing of Basutoland appeals to Her Majesty in Council that are pending immediately before October 4, 1966. Clause 7 permits Orders in Council or other instruments varying or revoking previous Orders in Council or instruments in consequence of the change of status of Basutoland. Clause 8 contains the Short Title and a necessary interpretative provision. It calls for no special comment. My Lords, these clauses are in line with the general form of previous Acts of Independence, and I trust that they will be acceptable to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining this Bill so clearly and for going into the rather unhappy political background of the affairs of Basutoland. He put the case very clearly. I want at once to state quite categorically that we on this side of the House support Her Majesty's Government in this Bill so that Lesotho will achieve its independence on October 4 this year. We support it for a variety of reasons, but not least because what is now happening is a direct result of the Constitutional Conference held in May, 1964, which was presided over by my right honourable friend the then Commonwealth Secretary. We believe that the conclusions which were reached at that Conference were right, and that the time has now come for Basutoland to assume its independence.
At the same time, we recognise that the political situation is uncertain, and that there are grave difficulties. It is my sincere wish that politicians of all Parties in Basutoland, the future Lesotho, will read and digest very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said. They are, to my mind, words of wisdom, and I hope that it will not be thought impertinent of me if I say that the Paramount Chief would do well to take the advice

217
so wisely offered to him. For it would be a disaster for this emergent country should there be a real break between the present Prime Minister and the constitutional Head. We give full support to Her Majesty's Government on this Bill and in what they say about the country's future.
I have only one suggestion to put to the noble Lord, and that is to make quite sure that there will be no delays at this end in achieving the purpose of this Bill. I know that the Parliamentary programme in another place is very crowded and that we are approaching the time of the Summer Recess. I should like an assurance that time will be found for this Bill to go through all its stages in both Houses before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess. If this were not to happen, it would mean that Lesotho would achieve independence before this Bill was on the Statute Book. It seems to me that that would be highly undesirable because, in a somewhat uncertain political situation, the fact that independence was not law would only add fuel to the possible flames of political uncertainty. If the noble Lord can give a categorical undertaking that the Bill will be law by October 4, we on this side of the House shall be very much happier.
I would say generally that I urge all those in Basutoland to realise the fact that independence brings in its wake its own particular problems. We as a nation have played a most honourable role in bringing independence to the developing and emergent countries. But we cannot do it all. We have played our part, and it is now up to them. We sincerely hope that they will sink their Party differences in order to make a success of independence. They have grown up, and it is up to them to behave in an adult fashion. When I had the good fortune to attend Kenya's independence ceremonies. I was much struck by the fact that President Kenyatta made great use of a Swahili word "Harambee", which, freely translated, I understand to mean "Let us all pull together". This is a fine motto for the emergent and developing countries of Africa and Asia, and if I have any influence—though I fear. I have not—I would say to the people of Basutoland, the future Lesotho, that that is a word they should think about. Independence is worth more than Party
218
factions. Let them all pull together so that they may play their full role in the world and in Africa. Certainly we on this side of the House wish them every success. May they surmount their difficulties, and be a prominent and responsible member of the community of nations!
4.0 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his very clear exposition of the whole underlying circumstances of this Bill, and, furthermore, for not trying to minimise in any way the difficulties. So often a new ship of State is pushed out from the Government Benches in what one knows to be rough and rocky waters, with no hint from the Government of what is likely to happen. But that was not the case to-day. I would support the very wise advice which was given by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. One only hopes they will carry it out. I sincerely trust the Government will make known to the people out there both the noble Duke's words and those of Lord Beswick, because they are both men of experience. Unless they follow this advice, they may find themselves in difficult circumstances indeed, as I hope to show in a moment.
There have been many debates on independence measures in which I have taken part. This first one in which I took part was the Burma independence legislation in 1947, and we had then a most interesting debate on that Bill. It was before India; I think Burma was the first. I have taken part in every debate since then, and I never remember a case in which the difficulties on the political front have been shown to us so clearly. Occasionally they have been there but they have not been shown to us.
I think it was in Sierra Leone, when I went there for the Independence celebrations, I found that the Government had put most of the Opposition in jail. We had not been told that that was likely to arise before the Independence measure was passed. To-day we have been given a warning. The fact is that the political Parties and the Paramount Chief (not all the Parties, the minority Parties) have changed their minds. I met the leaders all personally

219
in 1964, when they came over for the Conference, and they were then unanimous that they desired to have Independence. One gentleman I spoke to, the leader of a Party, made it quite clear to me that this was so. I asked him: "What is your Party's policy?" He said: "Do you mean our policy here or in Basutoland?" I was surprised to know that there was any difference. I replied, "Either", and he said: "Our policy over here is Independence to-day; our policy in Basutoland is Independence next year". So even two years ago one can see that there was a considerable desire for Independence all through.
The reason why they changed their minds—very largely, at any rate—was that they followed the British system, with the result that we, in minority Parties, usually find to be unhappy. In other words, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has quite fairly said, a minority Government there as yet. It usually happens. If you get, "One man, one vote", it is a natural consequence. As has been found in this country time after time with very few exceptions, if you have "One man, one vote", you get a minority Government. I believe that in this century there have been only two or three Governments where that has not been the case.
What the late Government did in Guyana, where something of the same situation arose, was that Mr. Sandys introduced proportional representation. I hope that if the Conservative Party come back with that in mind—if they ever do—we shall have the same thing here. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, there is a clear majority, but not an overall majority. I think that the Parties, having as it were, accepted a system on these lines, they must pay the consequences. If you agree to and acquiesce in a "One man, one vote" system, you cannot complain when it goes against you. You have just to put up with it for the time being, and you cannot change the rules. In other words, once the game is over you cannot claim a goal, if it is not in the rules.
As to the Paramount Chief, I think he is in the same position. He knew perfectly well—there is no question about it—that the position in Basutoland was
220
going to be as it is now. He would cease to be a Paramount Chief and would become, in our sense of the word, a democratic ruler. Whether any African Chief really understands what this means, I do not know. A democratic ruler is surely a British conception which has grown up in our history. It seems to me very doubtful whether in his heart of hearts, he really understood what it meant. He agreed to it, and I really do not think he can object.
What I consider is a matter to which we should also give some consideration, as it may affect us very much in the future is the position of Basutoland, or Lesotho, right in the middle of South Africa—an island in a sea of Dr. Verwoerd's South Africa. I spoke to the leaders of Parties when they were over here and asked them about this. I said: "Is this going to embarrass you in any way? You will be a black country right in the middle of Dr. Verwoed's South Africa? How do you feel about it." None of them seemed to worry. In fact, one said to me: "I think we shall do very much better than the British have done with Dr. Verwoerd and his Government, and we shall get on much better than you. We do not worry about it at all." Let us hope that that will come to pass.
These people are a rather difficult people. They are hill people, and they are horsemen to some extent. My own experience, as a member of the Board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, has been rather unhappy with them, in two respects. First of all, it is difficult to get a title to land from them. This is quite common in a tribal society, but they are very chary about giving titles to land. This affects economic development. You cannot get people to go and spend large amounts of money putting down factories and works if they cannot get any title to the land. It was one of the great objections to Lord Bute in the old days in South Wales—I mean the Lord Bute of many years ago—that he failed to develop Cardiff and South Wales as he should because he would not give freehold titles. The Basuto seem to have taken a lesson from the old Lord Bute; in fact they are much worse, because he would give short leases, and as a rule they will not give any at all. That is one lesson they have to learn, or unlearn.

221
The second experience I had is that it has been very difficult indeed to get development measures through the Legislative Council there. Our experience on C.D.C. was that years ago we offered a loan of £200,000 to increase the generating capacity of Maseru power station which would enable the country to start a programme of rural electrification. Year after year the Government was quite unable to get the necessary measures through Parliament out there, and the result has been that no £200,000 has been granted to them and the rural electrification scheme has not gone on. I hope that under the new system it will be easier to get legislation through on these lines. I take it that we are to give them a "golden hand-shake" as they leave, as we do most countries, and I hope it will not be spent on Cadillacs, Mercedes, and Odeon-type Embassies. I will not say any more about this, because the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, always makes a comment when I say it. I say it every time and hope they will read it. They never read the debates on anybody else's independence, so if you say it only on one occasion it probably does not get through.
I hope, too, that we shall not see flying into London Airport one rather wobbly aircraft of the Royal Lesotho Airlines. That is another status symbol in these days. Aid money is sometimes applied to having a State airline. Lesotho or whatever it may be, and they have one aircraft, or perhaps two, which fly at an enormous expense into London Airport so that the flag can be flown there—the Royal or Republican whatever it may be—and you get a few old, secondhand aircraft, which stagger around Africa. That is called an airline. Usually they are very wasteful, and as they usually spend aid money on it I think we have some stake in the matter.
The basic development of Lesotho, I suggest to your Lordships, must be, as in most of these cases, an agricultural development. In this regard, I hope that Lesotho will not follow the bad example of some other countries in Africa who are now cutting off from the expatriate companies, or expatriate technicians, the opportunity of returning and repatriating a fair proportion of their earnings. This is fatal, because they will not get technicians to go out there and they will not get people to invest in Africa. They will
222
not get the C.D.C. to invest in their countries if individuals or companies are not allowed to repatriate a fair proportion of their earnings to this country.
I would ask just one question of the noble Lord. He said nothing about defence, and so far as I am aware there are no defence forces in Basutoland. There is no Lesotho army or air force, and one hopes that it will not be found necessary to have one. But I was surprised to see in the Press this morning a statement that some of the noble Lord's Party are urging us to enter into a sort of blanket overall defence commitment, not only with Lesotho but with Swaziland, Basutoland, Zambia and one or two other places, guaranteeing them assistance in defence troubles, invasion or anything of that kind.
One must realise that what were the three High Commission Territories are surrounded by other countries—particularly this one, which is in the heart of South Africa—and it would be quite impossible for us to make good any defence agreement which we came to. If we made a defence agreement, we should only be misleading the unfortunate people with whom we made it. In the normal way 1 would not have raised this question, but, as I say, this statement appeared in the Press this morning. I have no doubt the noble Lord has seen this item, and I hope he will try to dissuade his colleagues from entering into anything like this. I have nothing else to say. I wish the Kingdom of Lesotho every success and happiness in the future. It has a lot of problems, as we all have—we no less than anyone else—but, as I say, I sincerely hope that the country will have a happy and successful future.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
4.11 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has just made in another place. His words were—and I am now quoting the Prime Minister:
"The House will be aware that sterling has recently been under some pressure as a result of several abnormal

223
factors predominant in which has been the seamen's strike. It was known that the seamen's strike would be costly to the country for as long as it lasted, and the publication of the reserve figures for June, during the whole of which period the strike was in force, has had an unsettling effect abroad and wrong deductions have been drawn about Britain's long-term economic position from the price we had to pay in the short term. The House will, however, be aware that this short-run price was something which we deliberately accepted from the outset, not least because of our determination to make the prices and incomes policy effective. The effects on sterling and on our long-run economic position had we taken any other course would undoubtedly have been serious and lasting.
"At the same time other short-run factors including a rise in import prices, particularly copper have aggravated the temporary speculative strain on sterling.
"I have repeatedly made it clear that the Government will not hesitate to take whatever measures we regard as necessary to ensure the balance of the economy, to strengthen our balance of payments and to maintain the strength of sterling. The House will be aware that bank rate has to-day been raised to 7 per cent. There were, of course, special and compelling reasons for this, quite apart from the factors I have mentioned, reasons deriving from the fact that, owing to the growing shortage of liquidity, interest rates and central bank rates are rising all over the world, particularly in Europe.
"In addition, the Bank of England has this morning announced a further call from the clearing banks for special deposits, which will reduce bank liquidity by a further figure of nearly £100 million. This is, of course, in addition to the announcement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer two days ago about the limit of credit.
"These short-run factors I have mentioned have, of course, been given their place in the Government's review of the state of the economy, particularly the prospects for the balance
224
of payments. We have reviewed the internal situation including the deployment of resources and the state of pressure in the economy, the recent increase in imports, the movement of incomes and prices, the trend of demand and also the rate of growth of overseas expenditure.
"As the House knows, the effect of the tax measures, including the Finance Bill, together with the tight grip still maintained, and now intensified, on monetary policy, will have substantial disinflationary effects later in the year. We believe, however, that further measures will be necessary both as regards the internal situation and overseas Government expenditure, and that these measures should be related to the broad economic strategy we have been following particularly with regard to the balance of payments. This review is now proceeding, and I intend to make a further Statement in the House in the near future about the measures we shall propose which will have the effect of providing the restraint that is necessary in internal demand, public and private, particularly the redeployment of resources according to national priorities, and also the steps needed to make a substantial reduction in overseas Government expenditure which is running at a rate excessive in relation to our resources and is a major impediment to the restoration of balance in our overseas payments.
"I cannot anticipate the Statement I intend to make, but it will be made in good time before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. I can assure the House that when it is made it will be regarded as real further proof of our resolve and determination to balance our payments and to strengthen the pound at home and abroad. The Statement I shall make will provide measures necessary for dealing with the longer-term problems we face, since it is important not to allow the short-run factors, such as the seamen's strike and its effect on monetary movement, and on the trade balance, to distort our position in its true perspective.
"In the first five months of this year, which included the early days of

225
the seamen's strike British exports were running at a rate 9 per cent. higher than in the same months of last year, and all the indications were, and are, that our exports would continue to rise at a substantial rate. It is on our export drive, and our determination to reinforce our export drive that the achievement of our long-run survival and economic aims, and, equally, the strength of sterling and Britain, depend."
My Lords, that completes the Prime Minister's Statement.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, in the Statement which he has repeated, and for which we are grateful, has revealed a very serious situation. I must say that I found it in many ways an astonishing Statement, and for that reason it is rather difficult to comment on it. The noble Earl seems to be telling us, and the Government seem to be telling us, that the situation is so serious that, in addition to the rise in the bank rate, further stringent measures will have to be taken, but they have not yet decided what they are or when they can tell us what they are.
Apart from the fact that this seems to be the fifth or the sixth time in the space of two years in which the Government have totally misjudged the economic situation—indeed, our memories are not so short that we do not recollect the pre-election Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and perhaps it will do us all good to read that again—it seems to me that this Statement will add greatly to the general uncertainty which prevails in the country at the present time. It seems hardly to smack of the firm government which we were promised and which I believe to be absolutely essential at the present time.
I think I speak for everybody on this side of the House, when I say that we are very gravely disquieted at this Statement. We shall have an opportunity of discussing the economic situation later this month, in about a fortnight's time, and perhaps I may ask the noble Earl if he can tell the House whether the further measures which are to be announced will be announced before the date of that debate.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself,
226
I should like to say that we, too, feel that this is an extremely serious Statement arising out of circumstances of great magnitude. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it is undesirable to leave the country in an indecisive state of mind with regard to what further steps are necessary. I think the country as a whole realises that the position is extremely serious and is prepared to take, and is prepared for the Government to take, very strong steps to meet those problems. But to hang over the people a position—for some weeks, possibly—in which they do not know what steps are going to be taken is undesirable.
As the noble Earl knows, the papers are full of steps which they think should be taken, or might be taken, such as the freezing of prices, incomes and wages, further restrictions on imports, and all that sort of thing. All these possibilities must be of considerable concern, particularly to those who are engaged in industry and in manufacturing. I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House to impress upon his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that delay in this matter is serious, and that they should come to a firm and, so far as possible, definite decision at the earliest possible moment—and I mean within the next seven days.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to convey to my colleagues in the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, the views of both the noble Lords who have spoken. I do not consider it altogether reasonable to say, or at any rate imply, that the Government ought to have come down to the House this afternoon with a complete set of measures. I doubt whether that would have been the statesmanlike thing. Let us agree that there are grave aspects of the situation. Clearly, the right course is to give ourselves time to come down with properly considered proposals. So I am not in any way apologising for the fact that I have not dashed forward to-day with some proposals which are not properly worked out. I think that would have been a rather unworthy procedure. It was arguable whether it would have been better to come down and say nothing—not to give any indication; but, on the whole, after a good deal of reflection, it seemed

227
to the Government, and it certainly seemed to me, that it was right to explain to noble Lords the gravity of the situation in certain respects and to indicate that, when measures have been properly considered, they will be brought before the House.
The noble Lord says that we do not seem to be quite sure when they will be brought before the House. I cannot give any precise date publicly, but I can tell him privately; and certainly, from the point of view of planning our Business, I can give him a perfectly good idea. But it is only a question of a few days one way or the other. I can assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that when this Statement is made we shall, of course, do everything in our power, as we ordinarily do, to make sure that a suitable day is found to debate it. Frankly, I do not believe one could possibly offer more.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl now seems to be saying that this was entirely unforeseen; that the economic situation has suddenly crept up on the Government, and that they have to decide, in the space of one day, the measures they are going to take. Anybody who has read the newspapers or goes into the City, or has talked with members of my Party, would have known there was going to be an economic crisis. Is the noble Earl really saying that they have only just foreseen this in the last two days?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid that, with all respect to noble Lords opposite, I do not need to speak to members of the Party opposite to discover the true state of the nation's economy. The noble Lord is not the only banker in this House. He is not the only Member of the House who has worked in a bank, or even presided over a bank. We really do not need instruction, if I may put it quite that way. We have all the information available to noble Lords, and a great deal more. I am sorry, but we do not need that particular sort of instruction. Having worked that off, I will try to meet the well-intentioned question raised by the noble Lord. Of course, the situation has shown increasing gravity in the last few weeks and few days, but the moment
228
has now come when the Government consider that new measures must be taken. There has been a seamen's strike; there has been movement in the exchanges, and so on; and the moment has now been reached when we think it right to give the House fair warning that we are preparing measures that will be brought before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, the noble Earl must surely be aware that only a week ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying that no new measures were required. Does it not therefore look as if the Government have been caught totally unprepared for this?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: No, my Lords, it does not look like that to those who look at it very closely, shall we say. Clearly, you cannot keep saying that new measures may be necessary or may not be necessary. You have to keep watching the situation, hoping that existing policies will work; and then, when you come to the conclusion that new steps are necessary, you come and tell the public so at the earliest possible moment.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, could the noble Earl say, in this "wait and see" policy, whether Mr. Micawber is going to be added to the Government?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I have been advised that I should leave that question, but I never leave a question from a noble Earl, for whom I have so much respect. The answer is that I do not think Mr. Micawber will help out.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is not a single word that he has said about the gravity of the situation that has not been perfectly well known to the Opposition for weeks? Is he further aware that, as regards the steps he has announced, the only parallel for the vagueness of his Statement is the South Sea Bubble?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, ought we not to pay a little regard to history in this matter, and to reflect that, just as the present Government have today raised the bank rate to 7 per cent., so did the Conservative Government a few years ago; that, just as this Government have to-day increased the special

229
deposits, so did the Conservative Government a few years ago; and that on that earlier occasion it was all done overnight, despite the fact that the situation had been deteriorating for weeks?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I feel that that was a most valuable and dispassionate contribution.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, does the noble Earl also remember that when we raised the bank rate to 7 per cent. it was pointed out by himself and his Party that the raising of the bank rate does very little to prevent inflationary expenditure, compared with its effect on stopping or postponing desirable investment, which is the thing we most want at the present time? Surely the noble Earl, if he has been able to foresee these things, as he has told us, must have said something to his colleagues about it. Why have they shown so little anticipation of what was going to happen? Can the noble Earl tell us now whether these new measures which he has promised are to be improvised on the spot, or can he assure us that somebody besides himself in the Government has foreseen what was going to happen and has something ready to apply?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, of course, a great many preparatory studies have been made; but, in reply to the noble Earl, who put his question with his usual charm, may I remind him that he has always warned us that prediction was not an exact science? When he was a Minister, if he said that once he said it a hundred times.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, when Her Majesty's Government are considering over the next few days what they are going to do, will they give some thought as to whether they themselves have a contribution to make with regard to their own policies, which in some quarters, foreign and at home, are felt to he having something to do with our present difficulties? May I also ask: has he read to-day's Daily Mirror at length? Perhaps he has not. I would not expect the noble Earl to pay much regard to what I have to say, but he might perhaps have some regard to pay to a paper which normally supports the Government.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I would always have a lot of regard to pay to what the noble Lord has to say, and also a lot of regard to pay to what Mr. Cecil King has to say. I have read Mr. Cecil King and I have listened to the noble Lord this afternoon, and the day has no further terrors.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I remind the noble Earl that during the period of office of this present Socialist Government and the last Socialist Government we have had the longest period of high bank rate in the history of this country? Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs when the Socialist Party are pledged to cheap money and to low interest rates?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I think we had better leave some of these points to the debate, when I shall have great pleasure in answering the noble Viscount.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, does the noble Earl not feel very encouraged to see the evident determination of the Members opposite to support the Government in any measures, however severe, to put right the economic situation?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I think that is putting too optimistic a gloss on the whole situation.

LESOTHO INDEPENDENCE BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I revert to the interrupted discussion on the Lesotho Independence Bill? During the earlier debate I pleaded that before independence came into operation in Lesotho there should be elections; and I think that when I urged that, I had very many precedents in other territories moving towards independence. But in that speech, as a result of an interruption, I failed to say something that I intended to say; and I did not emphasise, as I should like to emphasise this afternoon, something that I did say. In Lesotho, as it approaches independence, there is now considerable political division. The two Opposition Parties who together gained a majority in the last elections have now entered into alliance and are conducting

231
a campaign. I wanted to say on the last occasion something which I wish to stress to-day: that I hope that those Opposition Parties in conducting their campaign will refrain from speeches or actions which may suggest that in Lesotho there is a division in rather explosive circumstances which, unless it is controlled, might have unfortunate results. I would appeal to my friends there to refrain from action which may in the least way lead to violence in the months before independence is secured.
The second thing to which I want to refer is a remark which I made in that speech recognising that Chief Jonathan is opposed to the apartheid policy in South Africa. I want to emphasise that this afternoon, because what has been reported in South Africa may have given a wrong impression. I accept entirely that Chief Jonathan, the Prime Minister of Lesotho, is opposed to the policy of apartheid in South Africa; and I do not expect Lesotho, under his Premiership, to enter into any association with South Africa which is likely to lessen the opposition of the Lesotho people to the apartheid system within South Africa.
There is only one further thing I want to say—and this is really a plea to our Government: these three High Commission Territories in Southern Africa are now in a position of extraordinary difficulty. Basutoland is surrounded by South Africa; Bechuanaland is almost entirely surrounded by South Africa and South West Africa; and Swaziland, which will be moving towards its independence, is surrounded by South Africa and by Portuguese-occupied Mozambique. I would urge the Government—indeed, I would urge it upon all Parties in this House, because all have declared their opposition to the apartheid system in South Africa—in these difficulties to give the utmost aid to those peoples in attaining economic viability. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, I think that those three Territories have been rather the "Cinderellas" of our Colonial and Imperial system.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I made no comment on it at all. In fact, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord so far as Basutoland and Bechuanaland are concerned, but not so far as Swaziland is concerned.
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank the noble Lord. I was referring to the fact that he had served in a distinguished way in the Colonial Development Corporation and to his remarks about some aspects of the Corporation and what it was trying to do.
If one looks back on the economic aid which has been given to colonial territories, I think one sees that the three Protectorates, in their exposed position, have deserved much more economic help than we have been able to give them. I appreciate the financial difficulties of this Government, difficulties which have been emphasised by the Statement this afternoon, but I would make this plea: in reality, economic aid to territories like the High Commission Territories in South Africa is no longer a matter for ex-Colonial Powers; it is now moving towards a situation where it is a world matter and where the assistance that is given to these territories in exposed positions should be a United Nations' responsibility, a responsibility of its Special Aid Funds and of its Agencies, to supplement in a greater degree what aid this country can give.
My Lords, some of us have been associated with the struggle for independence of the peoples of these territories over many years. Perhaps, therefore, to-day one can say that one hopes that the new era of independence upon which they are entering, in their extraordinarily difficult positions, will be an era not only of political harmony in their Territories but one in which they may be able to solve both their economic problems and the grave problem of their relationship with South Africa which politically surrounds them.
4.37 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I express my sincere appreciation of the way in which this problem has been dealt with by the Colonial Office and in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? I thought he made a moderate and wise contribution to our knowledge in this matter. I am bound to say that I thought that the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, the speaker from the Liberal Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, exaggerated just a little the difficulties and the problems of Basutoland. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, struck

233
exactly the right note of hope and good judgment as to the position there. Of course, it is difficult for a small Territory of only one million Africans and only 2,000 Europeans, in a country a third of which is mountainous, much of which is eroded and where so far no minerals worth mining have been found. But it can hardly be compared in difficulty with the position in the United Kingdom, I would say. Many a man might be glad to be living there rather than here.
Given good will—and there is a measure of good will—I do not think we render a service by exaggerating the difficulties. These are men, these Basuto, of very good sense and very good reason, not given to the excesses which have been demonstrated in some other parts of Africa. I think there is a very good hope that they may prove to be one of the few countries, perhaps one of the only countries in Africa, where something like the Westminster system will be understood and worked. So far there is no other ex-Colonial country in Africa in which it has worked. Oppositions have been liquidated, hanged and suppressed, but not in Basutoland; and it is my hope that, having regard to the Government of Mr. Mokhele for five years and under the Government of the present Prime Minister and under the very able guidance of the Speaker, whom they have had for these seven years, they will have learnt how to work a Parliament and to recognise the responsibilities of Government and the responsibilities of Opposition.
It is a very difficult thing to understand about Opposition in a country where, whether under Colonial Office or under tribal systems, Opposition was not understood and where there was only one way to deal with them and that was by suppression. It is my hope, therefore, that if we do not exaggerate the difficulties of Basutoland, and if the Basutos do not exaggerate them for themselves, and under the Paramount Chief so soon to become King, almost the last King in Africa (let us remember that while Haile Selassie survives the Kabaka does not) it may well be that this country will be an example of which we shall all be proud.
My Lords, I should like, finally, to say that the Constitution agreed to by all Parties (admittedly it was sought to be
234
put off for a time, but nevertheless it was previously agreed to by all Parties), seems to me to be a sensible and a wise one, and that Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Office, particularly under previous Colonial Secretaries and the present one, have done well in this matter, with their very able civil servants. Perhaps we may all join unanimously in wishing the future King, the future Parliament, with its full sovereign powers, and the people of this rugged, mountainous and very attractive country, the best of good fortune in their new and strange life as the independent country of Lesotho.
THE EARL. OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies may I ask him one very technical question? I probably ought to know the answer to it. This Bill deals with the establishment of the Kingdom of Lesotho, the operation of law, nationality and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but it does not say anywhere how Lesotho is to be governed. Is this Bill not in any way connected with any Constitution at all? Or does the Constitution come under some entirely different Act of Parliament? I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could explain to me this very technical point: how the Government of Lesotho is to arise and on what basis the Constitution will exist.
4.43 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. May I also thank those who, as I believe, have contributed helpfully to the progress of this Bill? All that has been said has, I think, been helpful; and even the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to some extent changed the line he adopted in the previous discussion. I greatly appreciate the moderate advice he has tendered to his friends in Basutoland. I was asked one or two specific questions; for example, about the Constitution. I think that if the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, had been in his place—he probably was not—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I was.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry—but I did say in the course of my introduction that the Constitution would be a matter for an Order in Council. It is an agreed

235
Constitution and it will be made by an Order in Council.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Under this Bill?
LORD BESWICK: Not under this Bill. This Bill refers to the establishment of the State, but the Constitution under which that State will be established will be promulgated in an Order in Council.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Is not the Order in Council under this Bill?
LORD BESWICK: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then will there be another Bill?
LORD BESWICK: There will be an Order in Council which will set out the Constitution.
My Lords, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the position with regard to defence. We all know the difficulties, the practical difficulties, the logistic difficulties, of defending these countries in this part of Africa, surrounded, as the noble Lord rightly said, by another great country. At the Constitution Conference there was no question of our giving any assurance about military aid. None has been asked for, and no assurances have been given, so far as the provision of military aid is concerned. The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, asked about the passage of this Bill. Provided that it passes through this House expeditiously, it is our hope and our intention that it shall go to the Statute Book as quickly as possible. Arrangements are being made in another place to that end.
I think that I can only echo some other words used by the noble Duke, in which he referred to a slogan which has been adopted in Kenya and which, as he said, could be translated as "Let us all pull together". I think that what has been said in this House could be summed up in that slogan, as advice to
236
the new nation: "Pull together". Differences have been voiced; doubts have been expressed, but, having given expression to these differences of opinion, the new country will clearly progress better if there can be unity of purpose. It is my firm hope that this advice which has been tendered from both sides of your Lordships' House will be accepted by the people in this new, young country. My Lords, again I ask that you give a Second Reading to this Bill.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he can explain a little his answer to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, which I did not quite understand? Whence derives the power to issue the Order in Council?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can only repeat the words which I used to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Constitution will be issued by Order in Council on the Royal Prerogative.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, an Order in Council must be under an Act of Parliament or the Queen's Prerogative. I am only asking for information.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I used the term, the "Royal Prerogative"; probably I should have said the Queen's Prerogative.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS AID BILL
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).
BOTSWANA INDEPENDENCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
4.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. Before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moves the first Amendment, perhaps I may say a few words on two points which were left open when we considered this Bill in Committee last week. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, then moved an Amendment to Clause 3 on the scope of the Commission's welfare functions, because he doubted whether the Commission would be able to seek out, not only financial, but also welfare needs. I promised to consider the point, and I can now tell the noble Lord that there will be nothing to stop the Commission from doing what it has been envisaged all along they would do; namely, make personal contact with retirement pensioners to see whether or not they wish to claim a supplementary pension; and in the course of that contact, to see whether there are any health or welfare needs which may be referred to the appropriate authorities. The Commission can do this regardless of whether or not a pension proves to be payable.
I know the noble Lord feels that the fact that there is nothing to stop the Commission, does not mean that they will do it. But I think that during the discussion on Committee stage we brought out that to try to put into the Statute operational instructions to the Commission presents very real problems. The danger here would be that, in trying to define the instructions in the Statute, it would turn out in the end that we gave the Commission less than adequate powers. I think it is much better to preserve flexibility in this matter, and we must have confidence in the Commission and the Minister.
Then my noble friend Lord Sorensen promised to look again at the question of imposing a statutory requirement on the Commission to produce an annual report. A second look has served to confirm the Government in their view that such a requirement would be out of place in the context of a Ministry of Social Security, which over a large part of its
238
responsibility—the National Insurance and Family Allowances Schemes—is not under such a statutory obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that this was largely a matter of form. That is so. There is no doubt that the Commission, which is, after all, to be appointed by the Minister, will be prepared to provide all the necessary information on how it has discharged the duties laid on it by the Act, for inclusion in the annual report of the new Ministry. For these reasons we do not favour a statutory provision for the production of annual reports. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to make that statement.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
Social Research
". Without prejudice to any other powers of the Ministry and the Commission, or of any government department, local authority, university or voluntary organisation, it shall be the duty of the Minister and the Commission, with a view to promoting the welfare of those entitled to benefits under this Act or otherwise appearing to be in need of care or assistance, to initiate, arrange, conduct, coordinate and participate in social research, and in the performance of this duty the Minister, or the Commission with the approval of the Minister, as the case may be, may enter into arrangements with any government department, local authority, university or voluntary organisation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be in order for me to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for having fulfilled the undertakings given to look into these two points and for having informed the House accordingly.
I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. This Amendment is similar to one that was discussed in Committee, although it is not identical. It is put down because the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said he felt that, in view of our discussion, "the Government must look at the question again". The noble Lord suggested that the Amendment which my noble friend had moved might, if adopted, cast doubt on the powers of other departments; and the noble Lord, Lord Simey, suggested that it might cast

239
doubts on the powers of universities to do research, certainly with Government assistance. As I said at the time, I was not convinced that laying a duty on one department calls into question the powers of any other department. Several departments might be given powers to do something, but a duty to exercise those powers, as distinct from a discretion to exercise them, might surely be laid on some and not on others. However, to avoid any risk of the powers of other departments and universities, or indeed those of local authorities or voluntary organisations, being called in question, we have added the words at the beginning of the Amendment which I hope will serve.
The Amendment envisages that the Ministry or the Commission, as the case may be, will itself initiate some projects, and may partly conduct some projects, whether it has initiated them itself or not; that it may share in the projects of other departments or organisations outside the Government, and may itself co-ordinate one project, and merely participate in another. I think this is quite clear from the terms of the Amendment. I need not repeat the arguments put forward in Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, the Amendment is rather pushing at an open door. The new Ministry will undoubtedly want to carry out research. In our view, if a clear duty is laid upon it by Parliament, it will be in a stronger position to do it as and when it wants to do it. That is the justification for the Amendment. I think it is a good Amendment; it should be helpful to the Ministry, and not the reverse. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained during the course of his persuasive speech, the opening words of the clause which is now before the House were inserted in order to make it absolutely clear that any department which was commissioning research by the universities, even though it had no specific powers to do so, would not be prevented from continuing to do so by the inclusion of the clause in the Bill. The question has been considered further since we were last considering this matter,
240
and I can now inform you that the inclusion of a clause either enabling or requiring the Minister and the Commission to engage in social science research, even if the safeguarding words in the clause now before the House were absent, would not legally affect the activities of other Government Departments in connection with social research matters. This will, I am sure, comfort my noble friend, Lord Simey. But the fact remains that the removal of this particular difficulty does not get to the heart of the main objections to a clause on these lines, or to the issue of principle which lies behind it.
After full consideration of the issues involved, the Government feel, for a number of reasons, that they cannot accept the Amendment which is now before the House, any more than they felt able to accept the earlier Amendments on this subject. To lay a duty on the Minister and the Commission to undertake social research cannot in itself do anything to further the commendable aims of encouraging such research, or of ensuring that the desired work will in fact be carried out. If this rather vague "duty"(of which I shall say more in a moment) means no more than that the Minister should take an active interest in promoting research, then I can assure the noble Lord that the Amendment it not necessary and that the Minister's present powers are entirely sufficient. And it is surely not right to put into Statutes provisions which are not necessary and which have no practical effect.
If the Amendment is intended to do more than this—and I suspect that it does, from what has been said in our debates and from the way in which successive Amendments have been put forward at various stages—then the Government cannot accept that it would be appropriate or right to place the Minister under a wide obligation going beyond her present powers. Furthermore, it is not practicable or acceptable to have a double duty laid on both the Minister and the Commission. Within the single new Ministry being set up by the Bill there must obviously be one authority, and it is clear that this authority must belong to the Minister alone. This is not to say, of course, that the Minister will not be looking to the Commission as an extremely valuable source of information

241
and advice on a wide range of matters. I do not think that I can do better to reassure your Lordships on this than by quoting what the Minister herself said in her speech on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place. She said:
"…we intend that the members of the Commission shall cover a wide variety of interests, that they will be a source of advice to the Minister on many social problems, and that, in particular, they will assist the Minister's programme of research into those problems. I think everyone in the House and, I am sure most people in the country would agree that research into social problems until fairly recently has been largely neglected. The Commission can be a power house of ideas in this and other fields." [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 729 (No. 27), col. 339: 24/5/66.]
Turning to the detailed terms of the Amendment, it speaks of a duty being laid on the Minister and the Commission. But what does it mean, to be under a duty
"to initiate, arrange, conduct, co-ordinate and participate in social research"?
Does it mean that there is a minimum programme which must be cleared every year? Does it mean that at any given time there must be at least one project in the pipe-line? Or does it mean that at any given time the Minister and the Commission must be either initiating or arranging, or conducting, or co-ordinating or participating in social research? My Lords, the Government have come to the conclusion that in the context in which it is used in this clause, it is impossible to read anything meaningful into the term "duty". If I may here use a lawyer's phrase, the word is void for uncertainty.
It could be argued, of course, that in this event the proper course would be to strike out the words "it shall be the duty of the Minister and the Commission" and replace them by an enabling form of words such as "the Minister shall have power". But as my noble friend Lord Sorensen made perfectly clear during the consideration in Committee, additional specific statutory provision is not required. I should like to emphasise that this is indeed the position, and I do not think I can do better than cite the words my noble friend used on that occasion:
"The absence of a clause such as that now proposed does not in any way limit the Minister's powers to arrange for such research as may be desirable in relation to any of the responsibilities of the Ministry or the Commis-
242
sion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 31), col. 992, 5/5/66.]
My Lords, I have to advise you that the Government cannot accept this clause or the principle behind it. But may I (and here I repeat what has been said on a number of occasions from the Government Front Bench during the passage of this Bill) emphasise once again that the use of research as a tool for the framing of policy on matters within the sphere of the new Ministry which is to be set up by this Bill, will be regarded as a matter of very great importance. And here I wish to note, in passing, that it is not true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, suggested on the Committee stage, research is initiated only as a result of political pressures. To take but one example, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will recall the very large-scale inquiry, of which the results were published last year, into the incidence of sickness. These results have been and will continue to be of great value to all those interested in research.
The Bill itself is to a great extent the product of research, and I can give a firm assurance that we shall continue to make every use of research in the future, as we are doing at the moment with the research now being carried out into the circumstances of families with children, the field work for which has just been completed. The lengthy consideration of this matter which has taken place in this House and, earlier, in another place will certainly be regarded by the Government as spurs to further action, and with the firm assurances I have given I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the Amendment. I hope that he is not considering pressing the Amendment to a Division. This particular issue has involved discussion in both Houses of Parliament for about a quarter of the whole of the time taken in Committee on this Bill, consisting of 40 clauses and eight Schedules. The Government hope that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent before August 6. I understand that as soon as Royal Assent is given the Civil Service will be working overtime, so that the benefits under this Bill will start to be paid before Christmas. This new system of noncontributory benefits will give another £51 million a year to those now receiving National Assistance. If this Bill is now

243
given a speedy passage these benefits will come into operation before Christmas, as we all wish. I hope that my plea will be hearkened to by the noble Lords opposite, and that nothing will be done this afternoon to delay getting this Bill on to the Statute Book.
5.4 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the amount of time that has been spent in discussing this clause is an indication of the importance that is attached to it on this side of the House and by my honourable friends in another place. We were pleased to hear that the doubts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Simey, on the Committee stage, about whether the powers of other Departments might be affected by a clause of this sort, have been resolved, and the Government have told us to-day that they do not believe there would be any danger of that happening.
The basic arguments raised by the noble Lord to meet this Amendment are those which he set out near the beginning of his speech: that a clause on these lines would not do anything to further the initiation of research by the Minister, that it was not necessary and would have no practical effect. The Minister certainly places value on the necessity to conduct social research, but it seems to me the answer to the arguments we have just heard was contained in the intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, at the Committee stage. What the noble Viscount said was that if there is a statutory obligation in an Act for something to be done by a Department of Government, then it has to be done. There is no doubt about it; it is an obligation upon the Minister. If there is not, however good the intentions of the Minister—and, as I said, we accept that the Minister's intentions are good, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has quoted her again to-day—the case will have to be argued, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out, with the Treasury and perhaps also with officials. Therefore social research, unless there is an obligation to undertake it included in the Bill, has to take its place in a list of priorities. I think this was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, on the Committee stage, when he said that social research would have a:
244
"very high place in the priorities of both the Minister and the Commission."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 31) col. 992; 5/7/66]
We accept that. But nevertheless it falls short of what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, urged: that there should be an obligation, where something must be done. This would no longer be a matter of priority, but a specific obligation on the Minister.
May I refer to a public authority which has an obligation placed upon it by Parliament to conduct research, namely, the Independent Television Authority? In the 1954 Television Act there was no requirement to conduct audience research. In the 1963 Act, which was incorporated in a Consolidation Act in 1964, an obligation was put on the Independent Television Authority to review the impact of programmes on the audience. This is worth mentioning because the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, has discussed some of the difficulties in wording an obligation to conduct research. It may be that our Amendment this afternoon is not particularly well worded. We are not pressing for the acceptance of these precise words. In Section 24 of the Television Act 1964 these words were used:
"The functions of the Authority shall include the making of arrangements for bringing the programmes…under constant and effective review…"
Therefore in this instance a form of words was found and an obligation was placed on a public authority to conduct research—an obligation which did not exist before. The effect of that clause has been to increase considerably the volume of research activity carried out by the Independent Television Authority. A permanent research unit was set up within the Authority. Certain studies have been conducted within that unit and others commissioned from outside. I think this analogy is particularly relevant because in each case it is the utilisation of a service by the public for which it is intended that is in question.
The existence of a research unit within a Department of Government—this was another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Simey—need not affect the commissioning of studies from outside bodies. Indeed, one would hope that these would increase. But it would mean that they could be integrated into a wider and more systematically planned scheme of

245
research. It is interesting that in to-day's Guardian there is a long and important article on old people living alone, which some noble Lords may have seen. The final paragraph of that article emphasised once again the need for more research in this field. We feel that the social research conducted by the new Ministry is a matter of fundamental importance, and that a clause on the lines of this Amendment would help the Minister to do what we accept she intends to do and wishes to do. But on the argument used by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, it might be greatly to her advantage to have an obligation, as the Independent Television Authority has an obligation, to conduct research included in the Bill.
5.10 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I suppose it is too late to persuade noble Lords opposite that they are really shadow-boxing in this matter. The difference between the I.T.A. and the Ministry is that a Ministry is responsible to Parliament; I.T.A. is not responsible except to the extent that a positive duty is placed on it. What it is sought to do here is this, as I understand it. It is suggested that that which has already been done by the Ministry for years past should now be placed specifically as a duty on the Ministry because in some way or another that will give it a priority which it would not otherwise have. I find this very difficult to follow. What we are talking about is social research. What is the sort of priority between the kind of research which is going on already and the other duties of the Ministry which are primarily, I should have thought, in this case, to give relief in certain cases as quickly as possible?
Is it the contention of noble Lords opposite that in order to put this clause into the Bill it is right to have a clash—I agree, a small clash—with the other place, where this matter was fully discussed, and it is also right to hinder or postpone the giving out of the benefits which it is intended to give by this Bill? I say hinder or postpone for this reason. I have very little doubt they will get the work done in time, but what it means is that if the preparations are postponed the work of the civil servants and others who have got to do this will be made just that much more difficult.
246
What is it all about? What is going to happen at the end of it? I listened eagerly to hear what difference this was going to make. We were told by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that it was a good thing to put a statutory duty into an Act of Parliament. That seems to me to depend on whether it is a duty to do some new thing or to do something you have already been doing. What is attempted by this Amendment is just the latter, and I cannot see what difference it will make. We were then told it would help integration. "Integrate" is a word I am very suspicious of. I do not think it has anything to do with integrating things; I should have thought it was merely confusing them, and it is far better to leave what is the obvious intention of the Ministry to the Ministry itself without seeking to make some change—I do not know what—by putting it specifically into the Bill.
Surely, what we are getting here is what one very often gets, the Opposition trying to tell the Government not to do a new thing but how to do the job it is already doing. I see noble Lords opposite shaking their heads, but I listened to their speeches and I could not discover what difference it is going to make. Is it that they will now be able to ask questions? They could ask questions before. It will not help them in the least. If that is what they had in mind, it makes no difference. It is said it is not sufficient that the Minister should promise she is going to do it, because I suppose it would be said there will be another Minister. But the duty is exactly the same. It is in the Bill already.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, can he tell me where it is in the Bill?
LORD MITCHISON: It is in the duty to carry out the Minister's general duties under the Bill. That has always been thought necessary. Common sense would indicate it is obviously necessary. What is the point of putting it into the Bill? The Minister is there to administer the scheme which is now called social security. It is obvious that in doing it she has to do this kind of thing. She does so. Her Ministry does so. The Minister says, "I have done it before and I am going to go on doing it."

247
What is new in that? If this is simply distrust of the Government of the day, let them be careful. You never know what the electorate might do; they might some day return a Tory Government.
I do not think the clause makes any difference in any event, but if that is a method of hitting in some way at the Minister, one in which noble Lords opposite have some confidence, it will turn against them if they think it will turn against the present Government. This seems to me to be a foolish case of pure shadow-boxing. There is no addition being made; there is no difference being made, and it is shown most clearly by the fact that this has already been done continuously for years, I understand, under the Ministry of the noble Lord who spoke for the Amendment to-day. If you want to have a clash with the other place, which has discussed this matter fully, I would, with great respect, suggest that the House for its own safe continuance might be wise to choose a more solid ground.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I suppose I should declare some kind of impersonal interest because I am the Treasurer of the new University of Essex, which is a University very active indeed in sociological research and in which we have as the head of a Department Professor Townsend, whose studies into problems of old people will be familiar to every noble Lord in this House.
I must confess that when I saw this Amendment on the Paper I was slightly in favour of it. I saw in it something which might encourage the Ministry, and associated Ministries probably, to ask universities and similar institutions to take on more projects of research into these sociological questions. But after I heard my noble friend on the Front Bench this afternoon give the undertaking that such projects have been entrusted to universities and similar institutions in the past and that they would continue to be entrusted to them in the future, and that research would go on inside the Ministry and through other channels, I felt quite content. I am content that the Minister and her Department are genuinely desirous of finding out all they can about the problems of
248
the kind of people whom this Bill is intended to help. Therefore, although I was rather attracted to the Amendment when first I saw it, I am quite content now to feel that it is not necessary at all.
As for the need for putting a mandatory clause in a Bill of this kind on the strength of a similar clause having been inserted into legislation covering the I.T.A., there really is no comparison between the conduct of a body like the I.T.A. and the far more responsible conduct of a body like a Ministry of Social Security and its Commission.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, that was not the point at all. My point was that the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, had said there was some difficulty in finding wording which would allow an Amendment of this sort to be included within the Bill. The reason why I referred to the wording of Clause 24 of the 1964 Television Act was that on that occasion Parliament had found it possible to agree on words to place a duty on a body, in that case a public authority, and not a Ministry, to conduct research.
LORD LEATHERLAND: This difficulty of finding words is a problem which is our perpetual curse in public life. Sometimes, I feel we try to find too many words. We are engaged in something of that sort this afternoon. I am content to say that we have an earnest of the Government's good intentions here in their determination to bring forward such a beneficent Bill as this. I am content to put my faith on the strength of this. While originally I was inclined to support the Amendment, I am no longer, and I accept the assurance of my noble friend.
5.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I do not want to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from having a chance to reply afterwards, but as we are on the Report stage we can speak only once. I feel that I should say something about this matter, because I was largely responsible for taking it back and for giving a promise that it would be looked at most carefully again. I said in the course of my speech on that occasion that noble Lords opposite were pushing at an open door. I am sorry if they understood that the door was open to an Amendment.

249
The door which is open is, of course, that the Minister accepts, absolutely and entirely, that it will be part of her function under this Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, to ensure that adequate research is carried out to enable her to perform the functions of her Ministry.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned the article in the Guardian this morning, and its closing words. With these we absolutely agree: there must be more social research, not only into the matters which are definitely the duty of the Minister (as she will be when this Bill has set up the Ministry of Social Security), but also into the problems which we were discussing in this House yesterday. Social work and social research is essential if we are to carry out what both sides of the House really want.
I do not think that the comparison with the I.T.A. is a good one, for the reasons which my noble friends have given. The I.T.A. under the 1964 Television Act, was set up as what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, admitted was an independent public authority. It had placed upon it certain duties, one of which was, quite clearly, that of engaging in the sort of research that he mentioned. I think that was right on that occasion. Because of the points that have been made by my noble friend Lord Bowles on this particular issue we do not think that it would be wise to add this unnecessary clause to this Bill, even though the point I made on the Committee stage that this is no longer valid might cast grave doubts upon the powers of Ministers who are working Acts of Parliament in which there is no such specific clause.
One of the reasons why I gave the House the undertaking that we would again look at this carefully, was the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, had intervened to talk about his experiences as a Minister; and to some extent this has been again repeated, using the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the Committee stage; namely, that a clause which lays a duty on the Minister to carry out research does, even if it is legally insignificant, strengthen the hand of the Minister in his fight with the Treasury, and to some extent with his Cabinet colleagues. That was the point he made. That was the point that caused me to think that surely we must ask the Minister: does she want these powers to
250
enable her to engage in a discussion and an argument when she needs money for this specific purpose?
The Minister looked at this again most carefully, looking at it in the light of all the circumstances surrounding all the Acts of Parliament that govern Ministers, and I have to tell the House to-day that we feel that this clause would be adding something quite unnecessary to the Bill. She will do what the clause intends her to do. This, of course, is a solemn pledge, given to this House as it was given to another place.
The other point that I want to make is one that has already been made: that this clause, and the idea behind it, have been debated at considerable length in both Houses, and if we in this House put this clause into the Bill it would probably cause considerable debate again to arise in the other place. I am not in a position, because there is a Government Amendment later on, to say that we hope this Bill will not have to go back. But the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows perfectly well that if a non-controversial Amendment is inserted, when the Bill gets back to another place it passes formally and no Parliamentary time is wasted upon it. But if such an Amendment as the present one were inserted, knowing full well that the Government, having looked at it through every stage of the proceedings, have said, "We think this is unnecessary, and that it really puts an unnecessary clause into the Bill", the Government would definitely have to move in the other place that the Commons "doth not agree with the Lords' Amendment."
Having regard to the tight schedule—I apologise for this; it is a matter of Parliamentary time—and the fact that we want this Bill by August 6, as I am sure noble Lords opposite do; and realising that we have got to have this Bill as an Act of Parliament in order to get on with all the things that have to be done in order to secure that the vast number of people who will benefit under this Bill will benefit at the earliest possible moment, I am making a plea to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, not to press this Amendment and so cause us to face a delay in another place in the passage of what we all agree is a first-class piece of legislation.
5.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must say that I am a little sorry that so much of the argument has been based upon, as it were, Parliamentary tactics and Parliamentary necessities here. This was not at all a matter which was foremost in my mind. I venture to doubt whether a Bill, which went back to another place in any case and had an Amendment which was non-contentious and one which was rather more contentious, would really do more than take up an hour or two of time at a late hour of the night; and I should not have thought it could possibly disrupt the programme in any way. But, in any case, I would prefer to rest on the merits of the argument in this case.
The noble Lord again quoted what he said about "pushing at an open door". I did not misunderstand him on that: I hope he did not think I did. I quite realised that what he was saying was that the Minister accepted this duty without its having been placed on her, in terms, in the Bill. I am glad to hear that. I can tell the Minister that I have no intention of asking noble Lords to support me in a Division on this matter. I should, however, like to say just one or two things which I think have some importance.
For example, reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, to the inquiry into sickness which was carried out, or at any rate started, while I was at the Ministry. If I remember aright, this was wholly, or almost wholly, an internal inquiry; it was an analysis. What I have been much more concerned with—and, as I drafted the Amendment myself, I can perhaps say this—is outside inquiries. Perhaps I might say that because I think it is relevant. I have always taken the view that inquiries and research of this kind must be seen to be entirely impartial. I consider that research of this kind, when directed or co-ordinated (to use the word in my Amendment) by the Minister, will be entirely impartial. I do not think one can always be sure of that with outside research. One knows that in many cases outside research may not have at its disposal sufficient resources to do the full job. For example, during the Committee stage I quoted the experience in preparing a report which has been laid before the House, The
252
Financial Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners, where it was felt necessary that people with experience of interviewing from the National Assistance point of view should be involved in the inquiries which were made. I feel that there is a great need for co-ordination of inquiries of this kind, and that is why I deliberately included in the Amendment the word "co-ordination".
I would express the hope that universities and other organisations which are to carry out research of this kind involving practical inquiries would co-ordinate with the Ministry to make certain that when they are dealing with these matters their efforts are not wasted. I am sure that if this were to happen there would not be so much doubt cast upon some of the inquiries as to their inadequacy in terms both of the numbers involved and of the ability of those conducting the inquiries to extract the answers to questions asked. It is one thing to put the questions—and in carrying out an inquiry the questions are of the utmost importance—but it is another thing to make certain that the questions are answered in full knowledge of what the questioner is after. I drafted this Amendment in this form in the hope that it would enable the Minister not only to carry out internal inquiries when they are required, but also to undertake outside inquiries and to have the necessary resources to do so. At the same time, there would be a much greater tendency for all inquiries to be properly co-ordinated so that effort would not be wasted.
This was my purpose in putting down the Amendment. I am sorry if I did not quite get the purpose over to the Party opposite in the course of debate. I think that it would have been worth while to put something in the Bill which would promote this idea of the integration of research and social matters in this field. The Amendment may well he, as is sometimes said in official briefs, ill-conceived, and at any rate I do not propose to press it; but if the Government were to feel that there was anything in what I have said which might warrant some addition to the Bill, I should he very happy to support it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 17 [Administration of benefit]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() Where the whole or any part of the benefit payable to the claimant for any week is in respect of the rent payable by the claimant and the claimant has been paid such benefit for the previous week the Commission shall, before paying such benefit or such part thereof as the case may be, require the claimant to satisfy them that the rent payable for such previous week has been paid."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my purpose in putting down this Amendment was to prevent a malpractice taking place. I should like through my Amendment to bring this malpractice to the notice of the Government. It has come to my attention that in certain cases a claimant has received money from the National Assistance Board for his rent, but has omitted to use the funds so provided to pay his rent. No doubt the local betting shop has been too great an attraction. By the Amendment I aim to ensure that monies paid by the Minister of Social Security to an individual for payment of his rent are in fact used for the purpose for which they are intended.
So far as I am aware, every weekly tenant has to have a rent book, and therefore it should not be difficult for the Commission, from a scrutiny of the claimant's rent book, to ascertain whether monies provided for rent have in fact been so used. One also has the case—although this is not included in the Amendment—where monies are provided in relation to services such as gas and electricity, and it sometimes happens that those monies are not passed on for the provision of those services.
I understand that at present there are about two million people claiming various forms of National Assistance. When this Bill becomes law this number is sure to increase. With such a great number of people involved, a few people are bound to try to cheat and exploit this new "Fairy godmother". They will be in a very small minority, but they will still exist. I agree that under Clause 26 the Minister has protection against misrepresentation and nondisclosure. Clause 14 provides that:
"Where it appears to the Commission that by reason of exceptional circumstances the
254
requirements of any person can best be met by the provision of goods or services instead of the whole or part of any payment to which he would otherwise be entitled under this Act they may determine that goods or services shall be so provided under arrangements made by them on behalf of the Minister."
So there is that provision, instead of their being paid the benefit completely in cash. However, the Bill does not appear to cover the malpractice which my Amendment seeks to eradicate. I feel that if the word "exceptional" in Clause 14 could be left out and if the Minister could pay the services direct, it would be far more satisfactory; but, of course, that is not in my Amendment.
I agree that, in theory, if the owner of a house or a landlord or the person to whom the rent is due cannot get the rent from the individual who is receiving money for his rent from the Ministry of Social Security he can, of course, claim in law. But it is a very barren procedure to sue somebody on National Assistance, and I cannot imagine anyone doing such a thing. I drafted this Amendment, and it is probably drafted wrongly, but all I am asking is whether the Government can do something in this Bill to ensure that, if the State takes the tax-payers' money to give to an individual to pay his rent, the Bill is so framed as to ensure, so far as possible, that that public money is used for the purpose for which it is given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in view of the penultimate statement of the noble Viscount, I hope that on reflection he will feel that he ought to withdraw this Amendment, principally because, if he will read diligently the Bill itself, he will find that any punitive mood in which he finds himself is amply dealt with in Clause 30(1)(a), which provides for means of dealing with malpractices of this kind.
May I interpolate a comment on this whole field which seems to me to lie behind the intention of this Amendment? If I am wrong in this, I apologise to the noble Viscount. It seems to me to be an academic, legalistic, attempt to deal with something in an abstract form, which can only really be seen in the light of human nature. If I may adduce an

255
illustration which is relevant to the conversation in which we have just been taking part over the previous Amendment, I can think of families where the non-payment of rent is due to the compulsive drinking of the breadwinner. I know of such families, and I have some knowledge of the treatment of such people. Are we to say that if, under such compulsive alcoholism, a breadwinner in the family does not provide the money by which the rest of his family are to live, we will thereupon withdraw the meagre amount that we are offering and, indeed, expose that family, quite apart from the iniquity or failure of the breadwinner, to the kind of desolation for which it would seem to me this Social Security Bill has in principle been called in existence to deal with and to obviate?
It is a personal and humane quarrel that I have with all attempts so to provide a legalistic system as to deal with malpractices, and to ignore the people who lie behind those malpractices, who are perhaps themselves the victims of them. I also think that this is in itself mischievous, in that there is an attempt to deal, as I think, in the proper way with such malpractices in Clause 30(1)(a). Rather than to attempt by means of withdrawal of the means of existence to punish a man who has failed to meet his obligations, there should be other methods which at least ensure a full stomach for himself and his family, whatever may be the imposition of sentence, even of imprisonment. This seems to me to be the right way, because it preserves the ultimate principle of the inalienable right of human beings to the means of food, clothing and shelter, and at the same time deals quite explicitly with the malpractices to which the noble Viscount has made reference.
I am entirely in agreement with him that it is wrong that the law should be traduced, and that those who benefit should themselves use that benefit for wrong purposes. However, what I am concerned about is that, if this Amendment is passed, it will strike at one of the ultimate principles of the Bill, which to me raises it to a higher standard than any other Bills of which I have had any knowledge, in that here is a right to which human beings are entitled, and the proper way to deal with those who, by
256
various practices abuse that right, is not to deny them the very purposes for which that right has been instituted, but to find other ways of bringing them to their senses. This aspect is dealt with in Clause 13 as well as Clause 14 and under the provisions which by now have been widely ventilated. One such provision provides opportunities to set up resident centres and recuperative centres for such people. This is the right way to go about it, and I believe that if the noble Viscount feels that he desires that this matter should be ventilated, he ought to realise also that further acquaintance with the Bill preserves the principle for which he is concerned, without the necessity of the Amendment which I think is wholly unnecessary.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I find a little difficulty in following the noble Lord, Lord Soper, because it does not seem to me that my noble friend's Amendment denies anybody anything. It merely provides for a different way of that person paying his due. The Amendment brings out, it seems to me, quite an inevitable dilemma between, on the one hand, the need to ensure that the independence of those receiving supplements is not interfered with so long as they are capable of exercising that independence, and, on the other hand, the right of the landlord to receive what is due to him.
Some of your Lordships may feel that this is a harsh Amendment. If any noble Lords do feel that, it is right for me to point out that I believe it is at present the practice of the employment exchanges where a person's unemployment benefit is being supplemented by payment from the National Assistance Board in respect of rent, to make it a condition of paying the supplement that the unemployed person presents his rent book. Of course, it is easy enough where the benefit is paid weekly, but it is not so easy in the case where books of supplementary payments are issued up to six months in advance. All the same, the landlord is clearly entitled to his rent. The obligation of the tenant seems to me to be all the stronger because, as the Amendment says, he receives from public funds an amount specifically to enable him to pay it. If the tenant cannot so manage his affairs as to meet his obligations, clearly other steps have to be taken; and the other

257
steps seem quite clearly to be that the Commission should meet his obligations on his behalf.
I understand that the National Assistance Board at present pays rent under Section 8(2) of the National Assistance Act 1948 on behalf of the tenant. It says:
"Where it appears to the Board that it is necessary for protecting the interests of an applicant for an assistance grant or of his dependants that the whole or any part of the grant should be issued to some person other than the applicant, the Board may issue the grant accordingly."
That is reproduced, I believe, by Clause 17(3) with an addition which seems to me entirely proper and valuable; that is, that where the claimant so requests that a payment should be made on his behalf to somebody else—and one can easily envisage that the Commission may represent to the claimant that it would be very much in his interest to make a request—then the Commission can make the payment on his behalf.
All the same, since it seems to be a choice between my noble friend's Amendment and this provision in Clause 17, I would ask whether the Government are entirely satisfied that the words of the clause are quite apt in present circumstances. May I say again that what the clause now provides is:
"Where it appears to the Commission that it is necessary for protecting the interests of a claimant…",
and so on. What I am not absolutely certain of is that it is necessary, in all circumstances, for the protection of the interests of the claimant, that he should not get into arrears of rent—and I want to say why. If the claimant has no other assets at all, then, of course, there is no point in the landlord applying to the court for payment of arrears of rent; and as the landlord cannot get payment for arrears of rent, as I understand it, from the National Assistance Board or the Commission, all he can do is to ask that, in future, payments should be made direct to him. But is this in the interests of the claimant?
Until the passing of the Protection from Eviction Act there was the risk that a landlord might put a tenant out into the street for non-payment of rent. I do not believe that in these days any court would put into the street, for non-payment of rent, an old person or a person with
258
a large family. All a court would do, probably, would be to order the Commission to make the payment direct to the landlord. Therefore, what I am saying is that the tenant really has (let us face it) no interest in paying his rent, in the old sense. He has nothing to lose. I think that the Government ought just to look at the wording of this provision to make certain that it is still apt. I have no reason to suppose that a great many of those in receipt of supplements do default on their rent, but I suppose it cannot be denied that some do, and I would suggest that we in Parliament are under an obligation to ensure that landlords—and, for that matter, the Exchequer—are not defrauded in this way by wilful or negligent default.
My Lords, I am not sure that adequate provision is made in the Bill to cover excusable default, or that such provision has ever existed. Perhaps I may explain what I mean by that. If I remember my constituency experience, in these cases it sometimes happened that a person would apply what he received for the rent to another purpose: some real emergency might arise, and he might pay what he was receiving currently for rent to another urgent purpose, instead of going to the Board to claim for it. Furthermore, if I am correct, I think it is not possible for the Board to make retrospective payments to meet requirements; they can make them only to meet requirements that are present or in the future. So it does seem to me that, where there is this kind of excusable default of which I am talking, it should be possible for the Board to make a retrospective payment in respect of the emergency, simply in order to enable the tenant to pay the arrears of rent which he certainly did not voluntarily incur and probably greatly disliked incurring. I wonder if the Government would consider this, even at this late stage.
What I think is important is that, as soon as the landlord informs the Commission that a retired or an unemployed or sick person has fallen into arrears with rent, the Commission should look into it. It may be that the person is not getting supplements for rent when he ought to be; or it may be that he is getting supplements for rent and is not applying them to the right purpose. But, in any case, the Commission should look

259
into this and, where appropriate, relieve that person of the obligation to pay rent by itself paying the rent direct to the landlord.
There is the fact to be taken into account that it appears that the Minister is proposing in future, as an administrative step, to make payments of pensions, including the supplementary payment, for a much longer period than at present—twelve months instead of six months. This also has a bearing on the consideration of this issue, although I understand that there is no practical difficulty in calling in payments books and adjusting them where necessary. I cannot support my noble friend's Amendment, because I do not think it would be appropriate in all circumstances. At the same time, I think we should be grateful to him for moving it, and so giving the Government an opportunity to consider whether the present wording is still apt in the new circumstances created by the administrative action which the Government are proposing to take with regard to the payment of supplementary pensions and by the Protection from Eviction Act 1964.
5.55 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating this debate, and also to my noble friend Lord Soper and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for their interesting comments. I shall certainly look at the wording of Clause 17, subsection (3), and also into the noble Lord's question about excusable defaults; but he is at fault when he thinks that non-payment of rent has ceased to be a ground for eviction. I hope the noble Lord has noticed that the recent Rent Act has made no difference at all in the liability to eviction of a tenant who has not paid his rent. Therefore a tenant clearly has an interest in keeping his house by paying his rent.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I follow that point. What I am saying, however, is that, although that may be so legally, from the practical point of view, while the liability of being evicted is still there, the practical chances of there being evicted, as I said, an old person or a person who is unemployed or sick, seems to be very remote.
LORD BOWLES: I am just saying that for the sake of the record, and the noble Lord will hear later on how the Commission will deal with this matter.
In moving this Amendment the noble Viscount mentioned that he had once or twice heard of cases of this kind, so he obviously does not think it is a big issue. Nevertheless, the Amendment would require any person whose benefit included provision for rent to satisfy the Commission that he had actually paid his rent for the previous week for which he had received benefit, before he could get benefit for the current week. The noble Viscount opposite has made it clear that his real concern in moving this Amendment is with the bad payer—the person who is persistently in arrears with his rent, or who just does not put the money aside for this commitment. But the Amendment is a comprehensive one. It would, in effect, require the Commission to have a weekly check as to whether rent had been paid in every single case where a claimant was a householder, and where, as a result, provision for rent had been made in determining the amount of benefit due.
My Lords, in December, 1965, there were 1,620,000 householders receiving National Assistance: there will, from the very outset of the new scheme, be an even larger number of householders receiving non-contributory benefit. The vast majority of them will be paid their pensions or allowances by a book of orders which they cash at the local post office, week by week. It will be seen that the noble Viscount's Amendment, requiring a weekly check that all these people have actually paid their rent, is therefore absolutely out of the question, simply on grounds of practicability. And no doubt that was one of the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, thought he could not possibly support his noble friend. But in any event the Government could not accept that a weekly check on the payment of rent is desirable in all these cases. The vast majority of people receiving non-contributory benefit will be responsible citizens, and it would, I suggest, be insulting to them to be checked upon on how they were spending their income. This is not to say that there will not be a few black sheep, but I can assure the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment that the Commission will have

261
ample power to deal with the occasional instance of misspending. First, under subsection (3) of Clause 17, to which the noble Lord referred, the Commission will be able to make a payment of benefit to a third party where this is in the interests of the claimant or his dependants. In the really bad case, where rent arrears accumulate, the Commission will, therefore, be able, as the Board has been in the past, to pay the rent direct to the landlord to ensure that the money is not misspent. Where, in what is sometimes termed a "problem family" case, there is a social worker who is overseeing the family budget, the Commission could pay it to that person. Alternatively, it will be open to the Commission to adopt the same administrative procedures as the Board sometimes does in the case of bad payers—namely, to pay part of the week's benefit only in the first place and to pay the balance when the individual produces his receipted rent book or other evidence that he has paid the week's rent.
My Lords, we must keep this matter in perspective and I hope that, in view of the assurances I have been able to give the noble Lord, he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation and for the way in which he received my Amendment; but before I withdraw it I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that one of the objects of my Amendment was to protect the family from the drunken father; it was to see that in fact the rent was paid. I got the impression the noble Lord thought I was being rather hard, but I can assure him that my intention was completely the opposite. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Legal proceedings]:
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved, in subsection (5), after "knowledge" where that word first occurs, to insert:
", or within the period of twelve months from the commission of the offence, whichever period last expires".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to bring the time limits on the commencement of proceedings in Scotland under subsection (5) of Clause 33 into line with the English
262
time limits specified in subsection (3)(b) of that clause. I should explain that this Amendment arises as a result of a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, at the Committee stage. The noble Lord asked the reason for the difference between the provisions of Clause 33 dealing with time limits for the commencement of proceedings in England and Wales and the corresponding provisions for Scotland. My noble friend Lord Champion has subsequently been in correspondence with the noble Lord about this clause and has given him notice of our intention to move this Amendment.
The point, quite simply, is that on close examination we have come to the conclusion, based on legal advice about the effect of Scottish law, that subsection (5) of Clause 33 is defective as it stands and that the position is not cured by the general provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954. Accordingly, the Amendment brings the time limit on the commencement proceedings in Scotland under subsection (5) of Clause 33 into line with the English time limit specified in subsection (3)(b) of the clause. In moving this Amendment I should like to say that the Government are graceful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for raising the question of the difference between the Scottish and the English time limits in Clause 33. It is clearly proper, while allowing for the different procedures in the two countries, that time limits for prosecutions should be in line. The Amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 34, after ("knowledge") insert the said words.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for writing to me about it. Perhaps I am a little more apt to look at the Scottish interpretation than are most noble Lords. It seemed to me that the two did not hang together. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions for determining right to and amount of benefit]:
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this Amendment, it will be seen, is identical to that tabled by my noble friend

263
Lord Drumalbyn and myself at the Committee stage. The only reason we have put it down again is to allow noble Lords opposite the opportunity to reply to the points raised on Committee stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 22, at end insert—
("(b) Additional requirements of person eligible for supplementary pension, being a person aged 75 s. d. or more … … … … 14 0").
—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, this Amendment is in the same terms as the one moved at Committee stage but withdrawn. It would increase the long-term addition to be made, under paragraph 11 of the Schedule, to the requirements of those eligible for supplementary pensions from 9s. to 14s. a week where the claimant was aged 75 or over. The noble Lord opposite marshalled a number of facts in his earlier speech which he said pointed to the desirability of increasing the long-term addition for the older pensioner. I do not, of course, dispute the facts, but despite the arguments which he deployed I must say that these facts do not really substantiate the case for increasing the rate of the long-term addition for people aged 75 or over.
Quite a lot was made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, during the Committee proceedings, of the information contained in the Report The Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners, which has been quoted as showing that among pensioners total income is lower in the higher age groups. That is so. The Tables on Pages 10 and13 of the Report bring this out quite clearly. But it does not follow that because the incomes of the older pensioners, as a group, are lower than those of the younger pensioners their special needs are higher. The two cannot be related in this way. There is really no evidence that special needs are higher in older pensioners, and I must remind your Lordships again that it is to cover the general run of special needs, for which the Board now make discretionary allowances, that the long-term addition is being introduced; this is its purpose, and not to provide a preferential rate for any particular groups.
The new scheme itself already looks after the situation revealed in the Report,
264
because if the older pensioner has smaller resources he will, as a general rule, get a higher supplementary pension. It must surely be clear that a means-related scheme automatically compensates for diminished resources. The only occasion when this does not happen is if the income which ceases or diminishes has been disregarded. But this could hardly be a justification for a higher long-term addition for the older pensioners. We cannot accept that the information in the Report supports the noble Lord's argument that the long-term addition ought to be higher for older pensioners.
One must therefore look back to the basic question: Do older pensioners, as a group, have higher special needs than younger pensioners? The evidence that the National Assistance Board have, and which I gave your Lordships at Committee stage, is that they do not. That being so, what has been said about the fact that with increasing age pensioners are, of course, more frail and more liable to be in ill-health is not relevant to the issue of the level at which the long-term addition itself should stand. For the long-term addition of 9s. does not, in any way, limit what the Commission can do in those cases where something more substantial is required. It only avoids the necessity of making detailed inquiries in those cases, and they will be the majority, where something on top of the 9s. is clearly not required. I must, therefore, ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we shall not press this Amendment. We merely wanted to draw attention at this stage to the situation in which people over the age of 75 find themselves. Before withdrawing the Amendment I should like to make a final point. I think it is in a way dangerous to stick to this very tight definition of "special needs". I accept that this is the only hard and fast criterion that the Board has to work on—that is, assessable requirements under the rules of the Board and of the Commission in future, and therefore it is clearly only within its limitations that the Commission will be able to consider the financial requirements of people over 75, or indeed under 75. It is necessary—I think this is the only point we should like to leave with noble Lords opposite—to have flexibility of language and to look at cases in as open-minded a way

265
as possible, and avoid jargon and hard and fast definitions which can sometimes leave people rather on the wrong side. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INDIA: FOOD SHORTAGE AND DROUGHT
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, in concert with other countries, to help alleviate the drought and food shortage in India, especially in view of a possible aggravation of the situation if the monsoon again fails. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, to speak for a relatively few minutes on the drought and what some describe as the near-famine threatening India.
Earlier this week, only I think two or three days ago, we read that the Government of Maharashtra had asked those who could to get ready to leave Bombay because of the fear that the unprecedented shortage of water might lead to epidemics. The Government were reported to have said that they would close industries, schools and colleges to enable women and children to leave; and that the plan would come into operation next week. It was also reported that there was such a congestion at the port that the arrival of food grains were delayed, and ships calling only to fill their tanks with cheap water would be refused supplies; that water pressure in hydrants was so low as to make fire-fighting ineffective, and that a big blaze was raging in the industrial area. This morning, however, I read on the Reuter tape a moving account of how there was heavy rainfall yesterday in the Bombay catchment area; and all I can say is, pray God that it may continue!
It is true, I think, that the monsoon started on time, but of course it will be impossible to tell until later whether it is satisfactory or not. Often, I understand, the monsoon may come in Bombay, as indeed happened last year and is happening now, but it may not spread across the Ganges Plain. We may know better towards the end of the month whether
266
it is likely to be a good monsoon, but it may not be before September that we can judge the full effect. Sometimes the monsoon may be too severe and wash away arable soil. According to the Statesman weekly of July 2 there was reason for some satisfaction, at least, in the early rains, although more recent reports from Bombay have given cause for some alarm, even if to-day's news is a little better.
My Lords, in our debate on technical assistance at the end of January I referred to the four-point programme proposed on January 3 by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place, when he was still in India. It was a programme to help India overcome her present food shortage. Mr. Heath then stated that Britain could contribute to the foreign exchange cost of additional shipping needed to rush food supplies to India. Secondly, it could expand the capacity of Indian ports by providing additional floating elevators; and, thirdly, it could make arrangements to supply pesticides and fertilisers. Fourthly, Mr. Heath said that we could supply vitamin tablets to the famine-hit areas. A fortnight later, on January 18, the Government themselves stated that they had assured the Government of India that they would respond as speedily and fully as possible, and offered an interest-free loan of £7·5 million as an interim contribution to help with famine relief. This figure of £7·5 million included the £6·5 million from the British aid pledge of £30 million for the half-year 1965–66.
The Government of India immediately began considering our suggestion, which was greatly welcomed and for which they were most grateful, that this money should be used towards the foreign exchange cost of the shipment of wheat and other supplies made available by several Commonwealth countries. This did, in fact, meet the first point made by my right honourable friend a fortnight earlier, and I understand that the Government of India is using these funds towards such foreign exchange costs.
Secondly, the Government, still in January, suggested that the money should be used also to provide grain-handling equipment for Indian ports, and I understand that some of this equipment has

267
already been received, although I gather that not all of that originally offered was suitable. However, that which was suitable has evidently now arrived and has assisted in disembarking the grain. The reports of rising congestion at the Port of Bombay are disturbing, but my Indian friends assure me that grain is now being distributed by rail and that transport facilities from the ports, which I have been told were the main problem, are now reasonably satisfactory.
Thirdly, Her Majesty's Government, again in January, suggested that these new funds should be used to finance the purchase of commodities of immediate value in time of food shortage and also to purchase industrial supplies needed to maintain India's industrial production. We must remember that since India stopped virtually all her imports, even, as I understand it, medical supplies, as well as spare parts and other essentials, the situation has been extremely serious.
After his talks with Mrs. Gandhi at London Airport on April 2 the Prime Minister said that it would be one of the first tasks of the new Government in this country to examine urgently what immediate steps Britain could take to help India further in resolving her economic problems which had been aggravated, as he said, by the worst drought of this generation—ifnot, I might add, of the century. Then, on April 22, twenty days later the Government, while welcoming the aid which was being given by the United States, Canada and Australia, offered to make immediately available funds totalling £17 million sterling directed to India's pressing economic problems. This offer was additional to the £7½ million which I have already mentioned. The whole of the £17 million, I understand, is an advance instalment of our normal aid pledge for 1966–67, and £10 million out of the £17 million would be in the form of general purpose aid of particular value to India at this time, for the purchase of goods from Britain without delay. Of the remaining £7 million, £4 million would be for a new Kipping loan to assist engineering industries which were in need, and which looked to Britain as their source of supply, to purchase badly needed spares and components, particularly for the Bhopal heavy electrical factory. We have been glad to see that these loans, as with other loans to
268
India, would be interest-free, repayable, I understand, over 25 years, with repayments starting after seven years.
One thing I should particularly like to emphasise, having visited India earlier this year and seen their vast and varied efforts in reconstruction, both social and industrial, is that, despite all the difficulties, the Indians really are making tremendous efforts themselves. We sometimes hear in this country the criticism that the aid which is going out is not being efficiently distributed or used when it gets there. However, having been there, I think that something really is being done, and that it may be true that, as a result of all our joint efforts, famine itself, as opposed to drought, may just have been averted. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether he agrees with me about this.
Visiting India for the first time one is, of course, deeply impressed, especially in Calcutta, by the emaciated bodies lying on the pavements in the streets. But Calcutta has in this respect always been a distressing sight to Western eyes, and it may be that these casualties are not necessarily due to food deficiency, but to other diseases, such as tuberculosis and cholera.
One is a little inhibited in discussing the economic problems of India, because the new Five-Year Plan did not come out last year, and I think it is due to be published only at the end of this month. It will then have to be considered by an unbiased World Bank and the consortium of donors. My Indian friends tell me, however, that we are giving less aid per head to India than we are to Yugoslavia. I do not know what the noble Lord feels about that. In so far as comparisons with Malawi and, indeed, Aden are concerned—for example, we are spending sixty times as much aid per head in Malawi as we are in India—I accept very largely the noble Lord's explanation which he gave on Second Reading of the Overseas Aid Bill. India is getting very substantial aid from other countries besides ourselves, whereas Malawi depends mainly on us and is only now becoming independent, and there is a tendency to grant more aid on such an occasion.
There is one point which we did not go into fully on the Second Reading

269
of the Overseas Aid Bill, and that is the percentage of the gross national product which we are using on overseas aid. Again, my Indian friends tell me they calculate that we are spending only 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product on aid, whereas it is generally recognised that the developed countries should be spending 1 per cent. However, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in his statement in Geneva on July 6, considers that we shall be giving this year our full 1 per cent. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me how this calculation was made.
Above all, I should like to know from the Government whether they consider that the aid we are giving is really sufficient. I recognise that if immediate need were the only criterion, then perhaps we should give all our aid to India. This is a view that I have heard expressed. But I recognise that we in Britain are not a food-surplus country, and we must also think ahead of India's long-term industrial needs. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he agrees with the interesting leader in The Times of yesterday and with what I think is the view of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, that food supplies should now take priority over everything else.
It is clear that on some of the points mentioned by my right honourable friend Mr. Heath and by the Prime Minister earlier this year action is being taken. But I should particularly like to know from the noble Lord—although I realise that some of these points are really largely a matter for the Indian Government itself—whether he thinks that we are doing all we can in regard to the supply of pesticides and fertilisers. And, what is perhaps even more important, are we helping the country to start manufacturing these commodities themselves? Are we also supplying the vitamin tablets mentioned by my right honourable friend? Moreover, are we doing everything possible to assist in their obtaining boring equipment for tube wells? We know that Christian Aid has been appealing for funds on this score. Above all, are we doing everything possible to help India avert what may be a disaster?
According to information published in this country, we have been led to believe that the most severely hit areas were
270
Kerala in the South and Orissa, South-East of Bengal, but I understand from reading a recent issue of India News that scarcity conditions in Gujarat have been as acute as anywhere in the country. I happen to have seen something of conditions in Gujarat when I visited the University at Ahmedabad, and I was greatly impressed, as I see is the correspondent of India News, by how little public outcry there has been there: no sign of mass panic, nor of that desperation which has been the parent of popular demonstrations elsewhere.
I certainly feel that India, with her very long association with this country, deserves the fullest support that we can give. I hope that with the devaluation of the rupee and the liberalising of her imports, as well as aid from overseas and (may I say?) family planning, about which I hope other noble Lords may have something to say, Her Majesty's Government feel that everything is being done to help and, above all, to understand her problems.
My Lords, the reasons why we are giving aid must be clear to all. First, there is the obvious humanitarian motive. But we also have a great interest in seeing that India manages to cope with her vast problems. India is a democracy of some 480 millions, and one of the few democracies in that part of the world. The question which is asked by millions of people in South-East Asia is: which is the better system, communism or democracy? They see the drama enacted before their very eyes as the Chinese face their problems under the communist system and the Indians theirs under democracy. Were the Indian Government to succumb, and if large-scale drought and famine were to become a reality, any Government must totter. And then, my Lords, the answer would be plain for all to see.
6.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that we have all been much moved by India's distress and anxieties over the last few days. This threat of famine or near-famine has followed the partial failure of the monsoon last year, and I am sure that we all rejoice at this morning's news of the heavy rain in Bombay, a city in which I spent many busy years. I have known the long days of heavy

271
leaden skies, and smelt (I can almost smell and hear it now) the welcome, teeming rain when the monsoon breaks. Let us hope, as my noble friend said, that the monsoon current is strong and will drive across Gujarat and into Central India.
Though we talk of famine, it is many years since there was real famine. But near-famine, yes: last year, and it might well be this year. And we must remember that in India there is a very narrow margin between sufficiency and under-nourishment, which is almost endemic in many parts. As for the figures of rainfall in Bombay to which my noble friend referred, the rain is heaviest in September when the North-East monsoon returns. I experienced 28 inches in 24 hours in September, 1949.
However, it is not my intention to follow my noble friend as to the short-term problems. In the concise speech that he has made he seems to have covered all the ground which we have previously gone over in this House. But it is not unreasonable that a donor should mention, as it were in passing, the remedies for the future which, visible in the near view, stand out even more clearly when seen from far off. Indeed, to mention them in an affectionate way may give heart to some in India whose voices are not so clearly heard as they might be.
My first point is the one to which the noble Earl referred, namely, family planning and the world population crisis. I need hardly mention the mushroom cloud, to which we have already turned our thoughts in this House. We need only remember that the population of India is growing at the rate of 12 million per annum. It will soon be 500 million and will double itself in less than 30 years. In this regard the Government of India are striving mightily, and I appeal to this Government to continue and reinforce their efforts to help by encouraging the International Family Planning Campaign with all their might. Here it is aid—aid in the form of trained help, aid in the form of help in training, which is required and which should be given.
What interests me is that in this matter of population control it is the young and adolescent Indian people who seem to be particularly receptive to a message of this
272
sort. One has only to glance at the report made to the Government of India, and published this year by the United Nations Advisory Mission, led by Sir Colville Deverell, to appreciate how seriously the Government of India have taken this. In fact, in a note to me he has described their efforts as "an attempt on an heroic scale" to tackle this problem. I would quote further from this note:
"The situation in India can only be cured by greatly increasing local food products (and this means primarily yield per acre)—
and then he says—
"and a significant reduction in the birth rate".
I say this because in view of this increase of yield per acre in India as related to the question of aid in the form of grain, Sir Colville Deverell would obviously differ from the leader writer in The Times, who seems to indicate that a country like India might be left to rely on supplies from elsewhere. I do not agree with him, nor would Sir Colville Deverell. And, of course, the problem, the need for the consolidation of holdings, and so on, is so complex that I will not go into it, because it does not bear directly on the question which the noble Earl has asked.
Sir Colville Deverell went on to say:
"The problem is not only, or perhaps mainly, one of education"—
he is referring to family planning—
"and motivation but of administration and logistics—the problem of bringing effective, acceptable and simple methods to the 82 per cent. of the population living in some 530,000 villages."
This brings me to my next point, which is that of getting aid in motivation as well as in kind to rural communities. This means improved rural communications. All the lifeblood in the world can fail to reach the ultimate point of need by the absence or failure of the capillaries. Is enough being done to improve the village communications?
The noble Earl referred to the great advances which have been made in terms of rail, main roads, docks and other channels of supply. I feel the Government might press this point that the ultimate distribution will be a terrific problem, because famine strikes at man and draught animal alike, and we must remember that it was the railway lines, many of the branches of which were constructed as famine relief, which struck

273
the stoutest blows at the famines of the 1890s and saved millions of lives thereafter. To-day the motor truck can go almost wherever a bullock cart could go. Are supplies of trucks sufficient? Should aid in the form of road vehicles, parts and tyres be given? If not, then should not vehicle taxation in India be eased? The tax burden on road transport in India is very heavy, and as in this country, too little of it has been for years ploughed back into the roads from which it springs. However, there is another aspect, because I think I am right in saying that the war with Pakistan resulted in the freezing and immobilisation of reserves of large stocks of new road vehicles. Can we help here without treading on any military toes?
Lastly, my Lords, when I was discussing the noble Earl's Question with a very experienced person the other day he begged me to make a point which is interesting, if oblique. It is this: how grievously all-India movements suffer from the absence of a lingua-franca. Indeed this may appear to have but little to do with the problem of aid to India, but I think the noble Earl agrees with me that it is a factor in dealing with the rapid distribution of aid throughout India, although it is not a matter with which this Government dare tangle, so perhaps I ought not to have mentioned it.
My Lords, if I have taken too much of your time I beg forgiveness, if only because I speak from the heart, and the noble Earl's Question, like my intervention and, I have no doubt, like the intervention of the noble Lord opposite, stems from affection and compassion. I look forward to the Minister's reply with the deepest interest.
6.38 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, first of all I should like to associate myself very strongly with the views which have been expressed by the two noble Lords opposite. I am bound to say that I find myself much more in agreement with them than I did with the expressions uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, earlier this afternoon. If I may say so, my noble friend Lord Walston seemed somewhat badgered by no doubt sincere points of view, but the line which has been taken by the two noble Lords who have just spoken is much nearer what we
274
should face up to than the negative attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby.
I intervene briefly in this discussion because, as some of your Lordships know, I was the last Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma between July, 1945, and June, 1947, and in 1946 there was a very serious famine in, I think (drawing on my memory), Madras, which caused a great deal of anxiety to our Government and to our Parliament at that time. One came to realise the enormity of the problem that faces a country like India. The population of India at that time was approximately 300 million people. We have been told to-day that it is now 480 million, and the Minister of Health in the Central Government of India stated some little while ago that ten years from now the population of India will be 625 million people. That is a simply fantastic population with which to concern ourselves, when we come to realise the dangers and the threat of famine which is existing all the time in a country like India. The droughts they have experienced are experienced in other parts of the world. There is nothing particularly applicable only to India in that regard.
During the last fifteen years the Government of India have made wonderful strides. The noble Earl, Lord Besborough, paid tribute to the great efforts that they had sought to carry through in dealing with this grave potential problem of population. Birth control was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the Government of India have made and are making valiant efforts to control the growth in population. But when we realise that there are 580,000 villages in that sub-continent we realise the practical difficulties facing the Government of India with regard to that problem. I am bound to say, though, that however much we sympathise with the Government of India, however important it is, however vital it is to give them aid, there will have to be some degree of self-help.
I do not know what the solution is. As to this population explosion, it is suggested that by the end of this century the population of the world will be 6,000 million instead of 3,000 million as at present. How are we going to cope with that and resolve it? I sometimes wish that

275
more effort, more of our scientific ability, more of our material resources were put into seeking a solution of this problem than seeking to project people one day in the distant future on to the moon. But, of course, the scientist would say that what I am saying is heresy and that we have to give a loose rein to the scientists no matter how much of our material resources they spend and however much effort is put into this work by the most brilliant minds that we have, instead of into solving some of these other social and economic problems.
I should like to endorse very strongly the questions that were addressed by the noble Earl to my noble friend Lord Beswick. I am particularly anxious to be told what is being done through the Special Agencies of the United Nations. I am quite sure that these problems cannot be resolved nationally. Famine and hunger know no national boundaries anyway. As was once said by the late Mr. Litvinov, "Peace is indivisible". So, too, the solution of the problem of world famine is indivisible, and it is a problem which has to be tackled by the combined efforts and resources of the entire world. I would ask my noble friend in turn whether the Government are looking at it from this particular angle.
I welcome the four points that the Leader of the Opposition put forward in January. I strongly welcome what Her Majesty's Government have done in the succeeding months. It has not made a great impact, but, on the other hand, it has made some contribution. Other countries in the Commonwealth, Australia and Canada, have made their contribution—and, of course, the much-abused United States, always abused when it is not a question of their making some contribution to this or that state of affairs. I would ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government are planning some appeal to the United Nations to approach this world problem of famine on an international basis. Anything he can say would, I think, be a consolation not only to those of us in this debate who are concerned with this problem, but also to the Government of India itself. I conclude by again saying how grateful I am, and I believe the House itself is, for the fact that the noble Earl has raised this vital matter before us tonight.
6.44 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief indeed. I just want to make one point which appears to me to be important. I should like to say, like noble Lords who have already spoken, that one is inspired to take part in this debate out of very great affection for India and tremendous admiration for the way in which she is tackling really superhuman problems. What rather worries me is this. One knows that distribution has been hampered in India both at the ports and on the railways, and one knows that they also have had, I believe, to repeal a regional boundary law which has been most troublesome whereby one region could not help the other because the boundary could not be crossed. They might perhaps come and study mutual aid between constituencies in our General Elections and learn something from that. I believe this boundary law has now been mitigated, but it certainly impeded a good deal of food distribution.
What I should like to ask the Minister with regard to the aid we give, and which we give so very gladly, is whether we follow through to see that it does really reach those people who need our aid. I have been to India; I have seen generous aid from many countries. One is not always quite sure that this aid reaches the people for whom it is destined. I think our aid in this respect has been very wisely given, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that we shall follow through to see that what we take from our own taxpayers is properly accepted and spent in the receiving countries.
Obviously India's final solution for her famine, which is near permanent, is on the land. It is not for us to advise her how to get over this very great problem, but the parcelling of land, mentioned by the noble Lord, is one of the great problems. I am glad to hear that we are helping with pesticides. I am advised by a noble Lord—I hope this is not true—that half of all Indian agricultural produce during the year is consumed by rats. Up to a point that would be an avoidable disaster. That is all I wish to accentuate. Will the Minister give us an assurance that our aid will be canalised right through to where it is needed, and used there?
6.48 p.m.
LORD M1TCHISON: My Lords, I rise because I think that famine and drought in this world now raise questions of a magnitude and importance that are not always fully realised. It is not the moment now, obviously, in the short term, to expect an increase of aid from this country. We have our own difficulties, but I am sure all of us are really grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for raising this subject to-day, for being generous, humane, balanced and utterly reasonable in what he had to say about it. I do not propose to add to that. I am glad he gave the Government credit for what they have done, and I would reply that this is a matter over which one might give credit, too, to the Leader of the Opposition for the points he put forward.
In the short term there is little to be done; but in the long term I hope your Lordships will remember that of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse the Horseman of War made the bravest show but the Horseman of Famine did the most damage on the small horse in the foreground of Durer's print. Famine and drought in the world, with a rising population, are becoming an increasing problem, and one that calls for recognition by all developed countries—at least, by all countries that have any claim to be civilised. I agree with what my noble friend said, that this is in a sense an international problem. But its character in that respect must not be used as an excuse for pushing off our human responsibility as citizens of a comparatively wealthy country, as citizens of a country which can help.
I am not concerned—I am sure that none of us is—with exactly how this kind of effort can always be made. We may have proper questions to ask in any individual case, but, as I see it, the broad point is that famine and drought are an increasing problem in the world at large with its rising population. Not all scientists are as difficult as my noble friend thinks. A relative of mine, a scientist, spent a good deal of time in India engaged principally—and I say this to the noble Lord opposite, Lord Rowley, particularly—in research into increasing crops and the yield of the land. Another, closer relative spent some time in trying
278
to cope with tuberculosis in India. These things all need doing.
The problem is colossal. It is one that concerns all of us as human beings. It is not to be looked at too nicely, as a question of responsibility depending on interest or the past. It is a call to us to justify the civilisation that we have struggled to produce, and we hope that we have produced, in this country. It is a call on us as human beings to justify our sight, to show that we can look beyond our frontiers, that we can look at people living in quite different conditions and remember that, like them, we are human beings and we have a common burden against the hardships of the world.
6.52 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I cannot possibly hope to follow the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Mitchison, and I do not think that I should have sought to intervene in this debate at all if it had not been for some of the earlier remarks of my noble friend Lord Rowley. While he was talking my mind went back to the circumstances of, I think, 1946, when he held the office he did, and my memory tells me that then the situation was so bad in parts of India that the Minister of Food in Britain, along with Mr. Ernest Bevin, diverted shipments of grain which were coming from Canada to our country, to meet the difficulties of India at that time. I am quite certain that history will show that that brought about a rationing of bread in this country. It was a sacrifice that our country was called upon to make at a most difficult time. We were desperately short of food at that time, but the people of Britain rose to the sacrifice, and no objections were voiced throughout the country, if I remember rightly, because of bread rationing, when it was known that it was largely due to what we were able to do for India.
Following my noble friend Lord Mitchison, I feel that the people of this country can again rise to sacrifices of that kind, if it means sacrifice notwithstanding that we are infinitely better off than we were in those days and we can afford this kind of aid. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to tell us what steps the Government have in mind with regard to this great problem.

279
I finish, with other noble Lords, in expressing my sincere thanks to the noble Earl for having raised this matter this evening. It is so important and it is something that reaches all our hearts.
6.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord who has just spoken, and with other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for the way in which he has introduced his Question this evening. He has spoken about matters of which he has personal knowledge, and the questions which he has posed he has put forward in a constructive way. As I see it, he has put to us something of a challenge presented by this problem of a nation of some 480 million or 490 million people of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, millions have lived on the borderline of subsistence for many years and will this year, because of the wayward harshness of nature, face the prospect of being forced down below the level of subsistence.
The noble Earl asked what has been done by this country, and I propose to tell him. I did say, and my noble friend Lord Rowley said, that this was a challenge, not simply to this country but to the whole world, and I want first to say something of how the world responded to that challenge. If I do so, it is not, as my noble friend Lord Mitchison may think, because I want to diminish the sense of responsibility which we should feel, but because I have a certain amount of pride in thinking that the world as a whole did rise to the appeal which was put out by India earlier this year. It is, in fact, a response from the world which in its scope will probably surprise, and I think ought to inspire, us all.
I have a list here of the countries who have offered help. It reads like a roll call of the United Nations. According to the answer, given by the Minister of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation, to a question in the Indian Parliament, offers of aid have been received from Australia, Austria, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Malta, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Sweden, Surinam, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, the
280
Vatican, the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R., West Germany, Yugoslavia, and others to which I shall refer later.
Some of the contributions made were only modest: Cambodia, for example, shipped a gift of 100 tons of rice; Morocco offered a gift of 10,000 tons of phosphates; New Zealand decided to make a gift of 1,000 tons of milk powder; San Marino contributed about 50 tons of wheat. The Government of Yugoslavia, which had itself so recently suffered a natural catastrophe, and was the recipient of help from so many other countries, diverted a shipment of 30,000 tons of wheat and offered a gift of one million dollars for the purchase and shipment of 1,700 tons of beans and 700 tons of milk powder.
Other contributions, of course, were greater—for instance, our own, to which I am going to refer later. Australia offered aid of 8 million Australian dollars which was spent predominantly in providing wheat. Canada announced aid of 50 million Canadian dollars, which will provide 125,600 tons of wheat, 2,850,000 tons of dried peas, and quantities of milk powder and wheat flour. Though not on this list, at that time, the United States, to which my noble friend Lord Rowley referred, has agreed to supply 6½ million tons of grain in the year July, 1965, to June, 1966; and subsequently President Johnson agreed to supply a further 3½, million tons—a massive contribution, indeed.
In addition to the national contributions, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which of course we support both financially and in other ways, and the World Food Programme have offered aid of 7,300 metric tons of milk powder and about 54,400 metric tons of wheat. Besides this official national and United Nations aid there has been considerable assistance from non-official agencies, to which I think some reference should be made, Indian nationals in Thailand, for example, sent approximately 2 million tons of rice. Autonomous semi-Government organisations in Italy collected a sum of nearly 8 million dollars as a result of a nation-wide appeal through which they have been able to send 30,000 tons of wheat, 10,000 tons of wheat flour, quantities of rice and milk powder, as well as trucks and vehicles.

281
The list of Good Samaritans of the world is too long for me to read out in full but, with so much discouragement and cynicism about this international cooperation, this list makes instructive and encouraging reading. Lest it be thought that I am trying to suggest that the problem is now solved, and the difficulties over, let us remind ourselves that we are, in fact, dealing with an immense country with a population which is rapidly approaching 500 million people. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked about the possibilities of family planning, and he himself indicated something of what is being done. I would only add to that, and say if any further advice is needed from us, we shall be glad to give such technical assistance as is asked for.
The estimated food shortage which followed the failure of the 1965 monsoon has varied considerably, but it was clear at the beginning of this year that India would need at least 11 million to 12 million tons of imported grain if troubles and crises in the population were to be avoided. The latest estimate, which I have just received, suggests a provisional short-fall of probably more than 15 million tons of food grains. This is an increase on the previous figures and compares with grain imports of 6 million tons in 1965. But if we are to get the matter in proper proportion, and appreciate the great effort that is being made by the Indian people to feed themselves, we have to compare it also with an average annual production in the years 1961–65 of 82·3 million metric tons of food grains.
When the problem became apparent the Government of India applied for help to us and to other countries. We have no surplus food stocks available, but we did, as the noble Earl said, immediately make available in February a loan of £7½ million. It was not tied to specific projects. In agreement with the Government of India it was decided that it should be used towards the foreign exchange costs of shipping emergency supplies of wheat and other food supplies from Commonwealth countries, the provision of grain handling equipment for Indian ports, and the purchase of commodities of immediate value in helping to deal with the emergency, including, I would say to the noble Baroness, pesticides and fertilisers.
282
In addition to that, the British Government made available on May 10 this year, as an advance installment of British aid pledged for 1966–67, loans of £17 million. I would say to the noble Earl, although I do not think he meant it, that it is wrong to refer to this pledge as being a normal matter in the sense that it does not count. This is fresh money which we find each year. There is nothing normal about it; it has to be decided each year.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks at the statement made by the Government he will find that the word "normal" was used. It may not have been correctly used. I took it from an official Government statement. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
LORD BESWICK: I also stand corrected. I thought that there was an indication in the noble Earl's statement that this was something normal which did not really hit our pockets. At any rate, this loan of £17 million directed to India's present economic problems was made available, earlier than otherwise would have been the case. Once again, this money is for a wide range of essential imports.
In answer to the noble Baroness, I would say that we do our best in cooperation with the Indian Government to see that the money is well spent, but primarily, once the loan is made available, it is the responsibility of the Indian Government. But if she is interested in the kinds of things on which money is being spent, I have a list here which may be of interest to her. There was a sum of £1·5 million spent on the payment of non-Indian rupee costs towards the shipment of wheat; £300,000 on port handling equipment; £850,000 on fertilisers; £275,000 on pesticides, and £375,000 on components for agricultural tractors. I think that this gives an indication that the financial aid which we have made available is being used for purposes of which the noble Earl, the noble Baroness, and apparently the right honourable gentleman Mr. Heath, would approve.
Probably one can do no better, if one is assessing the value of this aid, than to quote Mr. Bhoothalingam who, when

283
signing the emergency loan, made this statement:
"I think the quickness with which we concluded these discussions is remarkable and represents truly the right way to react to a situation which has to be handled quickly. It is your appreciation of our needs and the urgency of our needs which, I am sure, has made you in fact agree to the use of this loan in a fashion which enables us to use it very quickly, and that is just what is needed."
I am sure that those remarks will be appreciated by an in this House.
There is one small point which I would mention in regard to the figures used by the noble Earl. He said that £4 million of the £17 million would be used for a new Kipping Loan to assist new industries in need, and in particular for the Bhopal electrical equipment factory. In fact, the £4 million Kipping Loan is a separate sum from the £3 million allocation to the Bhopal project.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Is it £3 million out of the £4 million?
LORD BESWICK: It is £4 million for the Kipping loan, and £3 million separately for the Bhopal project.
I was asked if I agreed with the leader in The Times as to the necessity for treating agriculture as of prime importance. As I read the leader, it was to the exclusion of industrial development. I must confess we would not take that view. One cannot get a modern agricultural industry unless one has a reasonable industrial base. It is by assisting the Indian Government with the development of their own industry that, in the medium term as well as in the long term, we shall enable them to develop their agriculture. In that respect the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, were relevant. One cannot have proper agricultural development unless one has tractors and rural transport, and is able to service them. To do this one needs some industrial development.
The noble Baroness asked me about fertilisers. Again, one does not just make fertilisers with a pestle and mortar. To-day, it is an industrial undertaking. An I.C.I. fertiliser plant is now being erected in India, at Kanpur. It is a £30 million project of which the parent company is held 51 per cent. by I.C.I., and the remainder by the Government of India and by public holdings. It is
284
hoped to complete this project within three years, and it will, incidentally, be nearly one-third bigger than the I.C.I. plant at Billingham. This is a matter of industrial development which should make a real contribution to the agricultural programme. Incidentally, there will be about 50 to 60 technicians from Britain helping with the plant; and I.C.I. are training some 70 to 80 Indian technicians as well. This is one way in which British industry is complementing the technical assistance provided directly by the Ministry of Overseas Development. I might say that among the many experts (which include the relatives of my noble friend Lord Mitchison) who have recently gone to India to help in one way or another with agricultural problems there is included a pesticides adviser, an expert on potato viruses and an agricultural economist attached to a university, and another research agricultural economist working in the field.
The noble Earl asked me about the most recent information concerning the progress of all this aid, especially about the most vital item of grain foods. I am advised that the total arrivals of grain were at a record of 1·4 million metric tons in May, and the arrivals in June were expected to approach this figure. This means that in these months the ports have been handling far more than they have ever handled before, and if there were some initial difficulties I think it was only to be expected. My information is that these difficulties are now being overcome.
Mention was made about the report in The Times this week concerning the recent situation in India. In a telegram which I have received this morning, The Times report is largely confirmed. The telegram itself mentions that:
"lack of rainfall has affected irrigation sources and is delaying the planting of main crops. Nevertheless, the situation may still be saved if ample rains occur in the immediate future in the rice growing areas of Central and Southern India. Portents for increasing rainfall in Kerala and Kaharashtra are not discouraging."
The telegram goes on to say that currently there are tough pockets of real scarcity, but the situation remains in hand.
The noble Earl asked for my views as to whether I thought the famine had been averted. I think I can do no better than

285
quote the words of this telegram. Much, of course, depends upon the monsoons which are now breaking, but the situation appears to be in hand; and, apart from the world response to India's appeal for aid, much credit must, I think, go to the Indian Government for the way they have used and distributed the aid which has been, and is being, made available. Their Administration, especially in the deficient areas, has acted most creditably, and undoubtedly they have acted with determination and resource.
I was asked by the noble Earl whether India gets her proper share of our overseas aid, and comparisons were made by him with the amount going to Yugoslavia. Frankly, I do not think there is much useful purpose to be served by these comparisons. Figures can be used to prove almost anything. If selected periods are taken, and approximate or appropriate population figures are used, it is quite possible that one can get a calculation showing that more per head is going to the one country—to Yugoslavia, for example—than to another. One percentage figure given to me (and I may say that I have been given several, all authoritative, but all different) shows that slightly less than 20 per cent. of all our bilateral aid goes to India. But that is the smallest and most conservative percentage I could get. If we deal with disbursements of this year, the percentage is much higher; and I could put it in other ways and make a much better case. If I am asked whether that is enough, the answer is, No. The truth is—I think the noble Earl was getting at this—that the entire aid we shall give next year of £225 million could go to India, but still that would not solve all the problems which she has.
The noble Earl quoted the complaint made to him in India that only 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product is devoted to aid, as compared to the figure of 1 per cent. given by Lord Caradon in Geneva. Again it depends upon definitions. Using the definition of aid laid down by UNCTAD and the definitions used by others, which include long-term commercial credits and private investments, the exact figure, I am told, is
286
1·13 per cent. of our gross national product. It has been said—it was said in particular in the recent debate we had on overseas aid—that this 1·13 per cent. is still too small. To that I can only say again this afternoon, as I said before, that I should be more impressed by the critics who say it is too small if they came along with specific proposals about an increase in income tax, or with proposals equally specific for cutting down our overseas expenditure, including military expenditure. The truth is that we ought not to feel ourselves that we can give more to people abroad, no matter how deserving, unless we are prepared to give up something else.
I know that the noble Earl, when he raised this Question, was not trying to score any Party points. He raised the matter in an entirely helpful spirit. I thank him for the way he has done this, and I also thank other noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the contributions which they have made. I hope that I have been able to give a balanced report on what is an enormous problem.