Lords Sitting of 18 July 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD AMULREE on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

"S.O.E. IN FRANCE" AND G.C. AWARDS
2.36 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: 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, as publishers of the book S.O.E. in France, in which doubt was cast on the worthiness of the George Crosses awarded to Mrs. Odette Hallowes and the late Mrs. Violette Szabo, whether they will take immediate steps to withdraw all unsold copies of the first edition of this book and state when a corrected reprint will be available.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Mr. Foot and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs have made it clear that there was no intention of casting doubts on the worthiness of these awards. A reprint, incorporating Mr. Foot's proposed revisions to make this clear, will be published as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I do not think it necessary to withdraw the few remaining unsold copies.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him one or two questions? I do not know whether he has read this book. If he has, he will realise that there were also unjustifiable criticisms of books written by two authors, one by Mr. Jerrard Tickell, and the other by Mr. R. J. Minney. Mr. Tickell wrote the book about Odette Sansom and Mr. Minney about Violette Szabo.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: I am asking a question. I will start to do it now. Will the noble Lord take steps to see that corrections are made, or that something is done to withdraw these unjustifiable criticisms? May I also ask the noble Lord whether the corrections can be printed in such a form that they can be inserted in the copies of this book which have not been withdrawn—that is, in the first edition? May I also ask him whether he would take steps to see that offensive passages of this kind are withdrawn—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: May I ask the noble Lord to see that offensive passages of this kind are withdrawn? Is that a question?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, since the noble Lord asked a question of the House, I suppose I must say something. I think he is straining the very elastic Rules of Order of this House.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: If the noble Earl thinks that, it is not much use my going on, is it?

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: 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, in view of the resistance of consumer spending at home to present restrictive measures and the failure to bring our international payments into balance this year, whether they are contemplating further measures to strengthen the pound's standing as a national currency in order to bring it into line with the confidence it has been given as a reserve currency abroad by the international central bankers support; and, if so, whether these further measures will be introduced before the Summer Recess.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have nothing further to add to the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another

289
place, and repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House last Thursday.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, while I appreciate what my noble friend has said, and that since putting down this Question a great deal has happened and a great deal been said, may I ask him whether a clear-cut corrective measure will be available for the annual meeting of the I.M.F. in September of this year?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister undertook to make will certainly be made before September.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can confirm the reports in the newspapers that there will be a statement on Wednesday?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that I expect an announcement to be made in another place later this afternoon on the date of that Statement; but at this moment I should not wish to disclose it to the House.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, in view of the congestion of Business at this time of year, may I ask whether there will be an opportunity in your Lordships' House for a debate upon the economic and financial situation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has just said that this House is extremely flexible in arranging its Business. The noble Lord will be aware that a Finance Bill has to be passed by this House before the Summer Recess, and in the past it has been made the opportunity for a debate on the general economic situation.

THE PRICE OF GOLD
2.42 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister will take the opportunity, when visiting the President of the United States, to consult him about the principle involved in raising the price of gold.]
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords.

RESERVE FORCES BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.

THE PRICE OF GOLD
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I raise a point of order? Was my Question answered?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I gave an Answer, and if the noble Lord did not hear me, then I apologise. The Answer was: "No, my Lords".
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? While wishing the Prime Minister good luck on his diplomatic mission, may I ask the Front Bench whether they will represent to the Cabinet that Britain's diplomatic powers depend entirely upon her financial strength, and that to raise the price of gold is the easiest way of putting our affairs right, and may even appeal to the United States, in view of their currency difficulties?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said, but as the House will know, and I have repeated on many occasions, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that to raise the price of gold would not improve world liquidity in a way beneficial to the major trading nations of the world.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third 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 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) 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.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I beg to move, That this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUILDING CONTROL BILL
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Control of building and constructional work Prohibition of work except under licence.
1.—
(11) Where a person contracts to carry out any work to which this Act applies, that person shall not be precluded from recovering payment for the work under the contract by reason only that it was carried out in contravention of this section or of the terms of a licence issued under this Act if he proves that he would have a defence under subsection (6) of this section if he were charged with an offence under this section in respect of that work.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (11), to leave out all words after "under this Act". The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the case of a
292
person who has carried out work on behalf of the licensee: that is to say, the person to whom a licence has been issued and at whose expense the work is to be done. This other person will have had expenditure in carrying out his contract, and this subsection lays down that if by any chance, or mischance, there should be an offence committed in that the expenditure has been exceeded or the work has not been carried out as it should have been, with the authority of a licence, then the person contracting to do the work should be able to recover his expenses from the person who has employed him, but only if he can prove that he did not know an infraction of the law had taken place.
Subsection (6) of this clause says that such a person will have to prove
"that at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the work was being carried out in contravention of this section or of the terms of a licence issued under this Act."
Subsection (7) lays down that a person guilty of an offence such as I have outlined shall, on conviction on indictment, be subject to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both. It may be that the contractor will have been guilty, but I still cannot see any reason why he should be refused payment for the work he has carried out. I am not holding any brief for a man who has carried out work knowing that it should not have been carried out, but the fact is that work has been done, the contract has been complied with, and he should be paid. If he is guilty of an offence he is in any case going to be subject to a fine and a term of two years' imprisonment. Why should he be punished in addition by not receiving payment from the man to whom the licence has been issued and who is responsible for the expenses of the contract? Why should he not receive that payment irrespective of his innocence or guilt?
Apart from this, it seems that there is a mixture here between the criminal law, on the one hand, and the civil law, on the other. The criminal law is written into this Bill, but how can it affect the civil contractual law? It seems to me quite irrelevant in this particular case whether or not the man has contravened the Bill. If the work has been carried

293
out, he should be paid for it, and I hope the noble Lord will give us an assurance in this regard and will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 23.—(Lord Hastings.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: On the point made by my noble friend, I wonder whether I might just expand on the apparent confusion in subsection (11) between the civil and the criminal law, and if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will explain how this is going to work I shall be very much obliged. In looking at subsection (11), the first thing that occurs to me is that, when the contractor sues for the payment for the work he has carried out and is met by the defence that it was carried out in contravention of Clause 1, he then claims that he would have a defence under subsection (6). Does that mean it is no use for him to claim that he has had a defence under subsection (6); in other words, that he has already been tried and convicted? The wording of subsection (11) does not seem to cover that.
Also, how does the noble Lord suppose the civil courts will deal with the assertion that somebody will have a defence against a criminal offence with which he has not yet been charged? It is already difficult enough to get the results of a criminal trial before the civil courts; for instance, in the case of a negligence claim where there has already been a charge under the Road Traffic Acts, the civil court does not take kindly to those who wish to bring in, in evidence or as part of the pleadings, the fact that a conviction has been obtained or that an acquittal has occurred. This seems to me to have the worst of both worlds, and if the noble Lord could say how he supposes the courts are going to deal with this matter, and could tell us whether there has been any discussion with the Lord Chancellor's Department, I think the Committee would be greatly obliged.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The effect of this Amendment would be to enable a guilty contractor—and that is the word I hope your Lordships will remember—to bring an action in the courts to recover payment for work done under an illegal contract. I stress the
294
words "illegal contract" and we must not overlook their importance. What is suggested would be contrary to public policy. Subsection (11) enables an innocent contractor to recover payment for work done in contravention of the Act, or of the terms of a licence, provided that, in the terms of subsection (6):
"at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known"
that the work was unlawful. If the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out were omitted, a contractor who deliberately or recklessly broke the law would be able to sue for his price.
The provision in subsection (11)is necessary because, under the general law, a contract to do something that is prohibited by Statute is illegal and cannot be enforced by any party to it. This is so whatever the respective degrees of good faith of the different parties. The rule can operate unduly harshly, and undoubtedly did so during building control under the Defence Regulations. Without the provision in subsection (11) a contractor with a good defence under subsection (6) in criminal proceedings could not sue for his money under the building contract unless the developer had a valid defence under subsection (5). This would be unjust, and subsection (11) provides relief for the innocent contractor, who often will be the small or minor contractor. But it would be going too far to provide relief to the guilty contractor from the operation of the general law and thus provide him with an incentive to contravene the Act. I hope that, with this explanation noble Lords will agree there is really not much purpose in pressing this Amendment further.
LORD HASTINGS: It seems to me the Government cases rests on one point. At the beginning of his remarks the noble Lord said it was not the purpose of the act to exempt a guilty contractor. But my reasoning was based on the fact that the whole Act puts the final responsibility on the man who has to meet the expense and to whom the licence will be issued; he is responsible for everything, and therefore it seemed to me that he should be responsible for meeting all the bills, whether the work had been carried out legally or illegally.
But the one point the noble Lord made which may explain the whole of this is

295
that he seems to assume that it would be possible for a contractor illegally to carry out certain works on a construction, possibly without the licensee knowing about it. If that is so, I can see some point; because if there were a really disreputable contractor he could, to please himself, to put up his bills, do work which the unfortunate man to whom the licence had been issued would not know about until it had been done. If that is the case I can see the point. My whole case is based on the fact that the licensee would be responsible and would know what is done, and therefore the other man should be paid. That is the only point I have. I do not know whether my noble friend has another point. Perhaps the noble Lord would deal with that first.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: There is a very brief reply to that question and the answer is, Yes; this is the point I am trying to make. I am glad the noble Lord has seen it and is satisfied.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: But the noble Lord has not even attempted to answer the question I asked—it may be because he did not foresee it, and the piece of paper in his hand contains no answer to it. If that is so, I entirely understand: this is a legal matter with which he is not familiar. If, as I think, I am right in saying that there is difficulty about this mixture of civil and criminal law, would it not be better, instead of referring back under subsection (11)to the type of matter in issue in criminal cases under subsection (6), to write out the defence again in subsection (11) in civil terms; in other words, set out what is a defence under subsection (6), set it out separately so that it is valid in civil proceedings and does not have this difficulty of cross-reference between the two? If that were done, it would go some way to meet the difficulty I envisage.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly my noble friend and I will see that this matter is drawn to the attention of the Department. But I think the noble Lord will agree that under Clause 1, subsections (4) and (5), we lay down quite clearly upon whom the responsibility rests for the carrying out of the principles of this Act. In the first instance, it is the person who is responsible for the building; that is, the purchaser. As the noble Lord,
296
Lord Hastings, and my noble friend agreed together, there is the possibility that a contractor may not always be honest in his relations with the purchaser of the building, and therefore it is necessary to have the responsibility laid upon the two different parties to a construction, although in the end it is the main responsibility of the purchaser.
What we are trying to do under subsection (11) is to ensure that the contractor, particularly the minor contractor who enters into a contract, either with the major contractor for the building or with the ultimate owner, is protected if the minor contractor has undertaken work which he thought was all right and was not in a position to know all the implications in that construction. I understand that under the previous Defence Regulations a number of minor contractors were "hard done by," and my understanding is that where there is something illegal it is not possible for anyone to take action in the civil courts to obtain his rights. For this reason a subsection was so devised which would mean that a sub-contractor—or even the main contractor if he had been misled by the overall purchaser of the building—would be able to recover the monies if he could prove under subsection (6)—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is the bringing in of subsection (6) that causes the difficulty.
LORD SHEPHERD: Subsection (6) lays down the limitation of the position of the contractor. It says that he
"shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he proves that at the time when the work was carried out he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the work was being carried out in contravention of this section …"
As I understand it, under subsection (11) (and if I am wrong I will certainly come to the noble Viscount, after consultation with the Ministry) if there has been a contravention of this section either by the major contractor or by the owner of the building the minor contractor will be able to go to court and sue for the monies that are outstanding to him under that contract. I presume that one of the heads of his case in that civil action will be, that under Clause 1(6) he did not know and could not reasonably have known, that something illegal, was being performed. I should not have thought that would have been too onerous upon the

297
claimant in the civil court—though I have never yet been in court, and hope that I never have to do so. My understanding is that there is no undue difficulty here; but if I am wrong, and if that undue difficulty could be avoided without watering down the provision of the clause, I will certainly see what can be done.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that answer. I am not asking that the clause should be watered down: all I am saying is that, when the matter is being dealt with in the civil court, it is entirely inapposite that the plaintiff should have to say, "If I had been charged with a criminal offence under subsection (6) I would have had, or I think I would have had, a defence in the terms of that subsection to the criminal charge". But he is not dealing with a criminal matter; he is dealing with a civil case. It is not the question of the wording, or what he has got to prove, to which I am objecting; it is the implications of subsection (11), that he has got to deal with the matter as if it were a criminal case under subsection (6). Perhaps the noble Lord could look at that again. There is no need to water it down, and I have made a suggestion which I hope will be helpful, in regard to how to deal with the difficulty.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will certainly look at the point but, as I say, I do not think there will be any great difficulty, because my understanding of subsection (11) is that the claimant will need to prove only that he did not know, or that he could not reasonably have known. If he establishes that, then he will be able to pursue his claim with the court. However, I will certainly see that the comments of the noble Viscount and of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, are studied most carefully tomorrow, and if action is necessary I will get in touch with them and see what can be done. The noble Viscount will appreciate that Parliamentary drafting is one thing, and wishes are another. We may be able to move, but may yet have difficulty in finding the proper drafting. However, I will undertake to look at the matter and will be in touch with the noble Viscount if the noble Lord, Lord Hastings will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: In view of the noble Lord's undertaking, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment, and would ask him kindly to get in touch with my noble friend on this legal point before the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: There is a point on Clause 1 about which I should like to ask the noble Lord. Subsection (5) refers to the limit of the amount of the licence being exceeded. I should like to know whether the rises in costs which might occur during the contract and which could last for a long time, one, two or three years maybe, will be taken into account, and to what extent. Of course, contracts can be for a fixed amount. Even then, they will probably be subject to unforeseeable rises in costs and wages during the period of the contract. Equally, it could be a contract on a cost-plus percentage basis. In either case, particularly the latter, the increase would be quite considerable and might take the contract well over the limit which had been granted, or, if a licence was not even necessary in the first place and the contract was made for £90,000, it could come to well over £100,000 before it was finished. Will this subsection take into account this situation?
LORD SHEPHERD: The position under this Bill can perhaps be best explained by an example: that if it were a building of £95,000 standing by itself, then that building would be exempt from this Bill. Assuming that the construction proceeded over two or three years and the final cost came out at £107,000 or £110,000, clearly it is beyond the limit in the Bill. It is perfectly true that costs rise. If the building is obviously going to cost over £100,000 because of rising costs, it will then be up to the developer to go to the Ministry to explain the circumstances and apply for a licence. I think I can say that if there is a genuine rise in costs, then, taking other things into consideration, a licence will most likely be granted. But if it is clearly a case where the original contract price has been put at £95,000, and it is well known that that will not be the final price, that would have to be taken into account because it could be evasion of the section. So it

299
would be up to the contractor or the developer to approach the Ministry when he sees that his costs are going beyond the limit. But if at the end of the construction, when all the final bills are in, the figure is slightly over £100,000 it will come within the defence of subsections (5) and (6), that the contractor did not reasonably know.
It is clear that Clause 1 leaves a responsibility upon the developer and contractor to do all possible to see that they keep within the terms of the clause. If, as I say, the building goes beyond the limit because of increasing costs, it is for those concerned to approach the Ministry for a licence. If, however, it is only marginally above, due to circumstances quite beyond their control, and they did not know until the end that the rise was taking place, then I believe they are covered by subsections (5) and (6).
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Work below cost limit]:
3.8 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (6)(b), to leave out all words after "of this Act". The noble Lord said: This is in the nature of a probing Amendment, of which I gave notice to the noble Lords, Lords Shepherd and Lord Hilton of Upton, and they wrote an explanation to me. But I think it is worth while briefly to explain to the Committee the purpose of this phrase which I am moving to exclude. It is:
"or would be so exempt if this Act had come into force on that date".
We are dealing with exemptions in the totalling of the cost, in computing the total cost of the construction or altering the building. One does not include in the total aggregate of costs items exempt from control by virtue of the various clauses of the Bill, to which I need not refer, work carried out before July 28, 1965, or a contract for work made before that date. I understand from the letter that this third part of subsection (b), saying that all would be so exempt if the Bill had come into force on July 28, 1965, refers to work which has been done after that date but before enactment.
I still do not fully comprehend that it is necessary to put this into the Bill in order that such work should not be aggre-
300
gated towards the total cost. I do not quite understand why this should be, and I am told that the total effect is to exclude from aggregation any work on a project begun before the Government Statement. If that is the case, I do not see how it can be exempted if begun after July 28, 1965, which seems to be the purpose of putting in this phrase. Perhaps the noble Lord could clear up this matter for the benefit of the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 10.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SHEPHERD: As the noble Lord has mentioned, subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2 require that, where buildings are being constructed and are "contiguous or adjacent to" each other regard should be had to their joint cost. Subsection (6) excludes from this aggregation the cost of any work which is exempt from control under Clauses 3, 4, 5 or 6, or work carried out or started or contracted before July 28, 1965. The control therefore completely ignores this work. There are three limbs in regard to aggregation: work which is completed before July 28, 1965, work which is exempt from control under Clause 7(1) of the Bill, and work which would be exempt under Clause 7(1) of the Bill if the Bill had been enacted on July 28, 1965. It is felt that any work which was subject to aggregation but which had been started before July 28 should be excluded when one takes into account a new construction which is adjacent or contiguous to it. Therefore, the subsection would exempt that type of work.
The noble Lord wanted to know why the third limb had been put in. May I give as an example the case of a building costing £110,000, a building within the limit of Clause 1, to be constructed over three or four years? As I understand it, work started before the Statement will be exempt. Work which will be completed after the enactment of this Bill will now be exempt because of Clause 7(1). Therefore, in relation to continuous work on the building one has a gap between the Statement and the enactment of the Bill. This work is not unlawful and therefore we cannot exempt it. We need to use this third limb, which would mean that that work would not be aggregable, when the Bill comes into

301
force it will be treated in the same way as the work which will be carried out and completed after the Bill has become law. In other words, these three limbs will exempt from aggregation all the work on a building which was contracted before the Chancellor's Statement on July 28. What we are trying to exempt is the whole construction of this one building. We have had to put in this third limb in order to cover that gap between the period of construction before July 28 and the period to completion of the building after enactment. This period between the Statement and the Bill's becoming an Act will be covered by the third limb. I know that this all sounds very involved, but it is quite clear that what we are seeking to do is to cover the whole history, the whole progress of that building which, under subsection (6), will be exempt from aggregation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Had that been in the Bill, it may be that we should not have had to put down this Amendment. But I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, if he would have one further look at a single word in paragraph (b) of subsection (6)—the word "so":
"or would be so exempt if this Act had come into force on that date".
The way I read this third limb is that the word "so" refers back to Section 7(1) and not to anything else. If I am right, it seems to me that it is possible that this does not make sense at all. If "so" were intended to refer back to Sections 3, 4, 5 or 6, then I could understand it; but the way this is drafted makes it perfectly clear that it does not. And if "so" refers only to Section 7(1), I do not see what the third limb is doing at all. Had the Act come into force on July 28, 1965, subsection (1) of Clause 7 would not have been necessary at all, because it deals only with what happened before that particular day. There is an interim period which has to be covered, but I do not think it would be covered by importing Clause 7(1) alone.
LORD HASTINGS: In spite of the noble Lord's explanation (I do not know whether we shall have to accept it; but I am glad to realise that the Government are here trying to help, rather than hinder, people in the building industry)
302
I should have thought that Clause 7(1) would apply to these cases. The contract would have been made before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise the work would not have been going on before his statement. Builders do not start work without a contract. I do not see why this is necessary.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say to the noble Viscount that I will look into the matter to see whether the little word "so" should be there. However, I have great respect for our Parliamentary draftsmen; they do not usually put in words that are unnecessary. I think the noble Viscount has accepted the reasons for the subsections, or at least for what we are trying to do here, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, appreciates that we are trying to be fair. I am glad that he agrees with us, because some of his friends outside, looking at the Amendments which the noble Lord has put down, might well think that he was "agin" them and that we are for them—but I will take that no further. Clause 7(1) does not cover the interim point. It may well be that the major contract for a building would have been completed before the Chancellor's statement, but my experience of big projects is that there is a continuing run of contracts. In fact, it may well be that minor contracts are being made all along the line as the building is being constructed. But I would make it clear that this third limb is necessary. The one doubt I have—and this is only because the noble Viscount has raised it—concernsthe little word "so". As I have said, I will certainly look into the point, and will be in touch with the noble Viscount.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the same subsection. Although certain costs will be excluded from aggregation, we now read that "other such work as is mentioned" in other subsections of the Bill is to be aggregated, whether or not it has been authorised by licence, and whether or not it has been exempted from

303
control under this Bill. It is very difficult to understand the purpose of this. Again, the noble Lord was good enough to write me a letter about this point, and I understand that it has some connection with the possibility of evasion of the law and the splitting up of projects. But I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could just explain this part of the clause to the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out from the beginning to end of line 15.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD SHEPHERD: This is basically the declaratory part of this subsection. Subsection (6) covers the various exemptions which I have just been talking about, but it is quite clear that we have in mind that major work and contracts started after the Chancellor's statement will be aggregated, whether authorised by the Minister or not. This involves the element of retrospection which was announced by the Chancellor. It is important, in our view, that the developers should know what they have to take into account when reckoning the cost of a project. If these words were taken out, it would not in any way relieve the responsibility under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2, but it would certainly raise doubts in the minds of some of the contractors and developers. Therefore, we believe that this declaratory part of the subsection should be included.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will agree—in fact, I believe he did agree during the Second Reading—that where work has been started after the statement made by the Chancellor, then the individuals concerned should not gain by it. This is what the Government have in mind, and if the noble Lord appreciates what I am getting at, I hope that he will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is becoming a bit of a pattern, I am afraid, but again I should be grateful for a little further thought on this. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, no doubt realises that the speeches he is making on these clauses are going to be the only guidance for the contractors whom he is hoping to help, until the courts have decided various questions under this Bill. At first sight, and it may be only at first
304
sight, the way that subsection (6) reads is that, first of all, for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)—that is, aggregation—you disregard, among other things, work which is exempt from control under Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6; that is, if it is in respect of another building or other works, or any other work in respect of the same building. Then secondly, you have regard to all other such work as is mentioned in subsections (2) and (3), whether or not it is licensed and whether or not it is exempt. Therefore, it seems to me that, first of all you disregard it, and secondly you regard it. This cannot make any sense at all, and there must be something a little wrong with the drafting, or alternatively—and probably this is much more likely—with the way I have read the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: At this happy stage of the Bill, I should not like to agree with the last remarks of the noble Viscount. It may well be that I have not fully explained the Bill. Subsection (6) provides the exemptions, where an adjacent or contiguous building has been built before the Statement made by the Chancellor. This last paragraph is to make the position perfectly clear. We are now talking about aggregation. Let us suppose that we have two buildings, one of £50,000 and another of £60,000. They are both exempt because of their value. Under Clause 2(2), if they are adjacent or contiguous, the values of both have to be taken into account. Let us suppose that the first building was started after the Statement made by the Chancellor, and the second building was started after the enactment of the Bill. The builders of them went ahead, well knowing that the "adjacent" or "contiguous" provisions would apply, so it is right that both buildings should be taken into account, because together they are beyond the limit of £100,000.
We feel—and this is the advice that I have received—that without these words there might be an element of doubt as to what would be the position of the building started after the Statement of the Chancellor. Therefore, we have put in these words to make it absolutely clear both to the developer and to the contractor that the cost of both buildings must be taken into account. We will not argue about whether this is the right place for these words. I think that the

305
noble Viscount agrees that this should be the position, and that this should be clear. If it can be shown that we can make the position clearer then I will look at the matter again, but at the present moment, on the advice I have received, this is the best place in which to put these words. However, I will certainly look at the point which the noble Viscount has raised.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think I understood exactly what the noble Lord was saying, and I would have been perfectly clear if it had not been for paragraph (a) of subsection (6). Everything that the noble Lord was saying just now was based upon the date of July 28, which was the date of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement. But, of course, subsection (6) does not concern itself only with that—it is a continuing subsection—because it deals, for instance, with disregards, as the project next door may be exempted because it is housing, industrial, or has an office development permit. This is going to go on all the time, so it has nothing to do with the fixing of the time by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement.
I should like to take another example, because this is probably the only way of dealing with this. Let us suppose that there are two housing projects, but let us leave out the question of when they are started because that is not the only point in this subsection. Together they would amount to more than £100,000, as one costs £50,000 and the other costs £60,000. But it is quite clear that you disregard the one when you are looking at the other, and vice versa, because of subsection (6)(a). It is exempt under subsection (3)—
LORD SHEPHERD: May I correct the noble Viscount? I do not think the Bill means "subsection", but "section". Clause 3 relates to housing and industrial and research premises, and Clause 4 relates to development districts, and the exemptions under these clauses will be continuous. As I understand the position, they have nothing to do with the paragraph which we are talking about. This really relates to paragraph (b).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If that is so, then it is paragraph (a) which ought to be left out, and I think
306
this is what the noble Lord was really saying. Either you disregard it because it is exempt under Clause 3 (and I take the noble Lord's point that to-day we mean Clause 3)—in other words, you disregard it because it is a housing or industrial or research project—or you have to take out paragraph (a) of subsection (6). You must have a continuing disregard if it is exempt under, for instance, Clause 3 of this Bill. If that is so—and that is the way I read it at the moment—you then go on to that part of the subsection with which the Amendment deals. But there you will see that
"regard shall be had to all other such work …"—
and that, presumably, is the same project about which I was just speaking, the £50,000 one or the £60,000 one, depending on which you are talking about—and that you have regard to it whether or not it is
"exempt from control under this Act …"
Therefore, you have regard to it although it is exempt under Clause 3 of this Bill. This is precisely contrary to what the first part of this subsection says, and at the present moment I cannot see that the noble Lord has cleared this matter up.
LORD HASTINGS: It seems to me that we are making confusion worse confounded.
LORD SHEPHERD: I agree with you.
LORD HASTINGS: I very much doubt whether the noble Lord opposite will be able to satisfy us now on this point, but if he will kindly talk it over again with his advisers and get it sorted out, I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that he will make the explanation in writing before the Report stage, or at the Report stage if he wishes.
LORD SHEPHERD: Most certainly. If I can satisfy the noble Viscount, then I shall be most happy to do so. I will certainly undertake to carry out an inquiry into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: During the course of the discussion on the interesting points that have been raised, I have been reading the clause, and there is one other

307
point which, it seems to me, requires a little explanation—and I apologise for not having noticed it before and for not having given notice to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The wording in subsection (2), paragraph (a) is "any work has been done", whereas, when we turn to subsection (6), paragraph (b), we find that it refers to work "carried out". What is the significance of the change in phraseology between work "done" and work "carried out"?
I raise this point because it really leads to a further point. It seems to me that in the system of aggregation one may well be faced quite often with a part aggregation. One may find that what might be called auxiliary work has been started, and that some of it has been carried out outside two years and some within two years of the main work. Now it is going to be extraordinarily difficult, surely, to discover exactly the value of the work falling between those two dates. You can, of course, put a value on the concrete, the bricks, et cetera, that have actually been laid, but what about the various sub-contractors and their preparations? It may be that the flooring sub-contractor has done no work at alt to the building, but that all his "ammunition" has been moved on to the site; therefore, presumably, that amount of work has been done.
That is why I find this phrase, "work has been done" such a mystifying one. If the word were "completed", or something like that, it would be very simple. I know it would then be a totally different meaning. But I cannot see how this extremely wavy and wobbly line, induced by the phrase "has been done", is going to work in the case of part aggregation. I am sorry not to have raised this point with the noble Lord before and not to have given him a chance to prepare his reply.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can be brief. I am advised that the words "done" and "carried out" mean the same in this Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In that case, will the noble Lord change them, so that they are the same? Because on the construction of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, the first point
308
that is going to arise as a practical difficulty is that there are two phrases in the same section which, we are now told, are meant to mean the same thing, but where a, different wording is used. As I understood it, in subsection (6) (a) the words "carried out" meant "completed". That was what I inferred from what the noble Lord said a little while ago. But, whatever this means, I am certain that, for the proper construction of this Bill, if these two expressions are meant to mean the same thing we must have the same words used in both places.
LORD SHEPHERD: Here, once again, I shall look at it, but I think I should make it quite clear that the words "carried out" do not mean completed. My understanding is that the words "work done" and the words "work carried out" mean the same thing, and that it is not always necessary (when, perhaps, for easy drafting and easy writing it is better otherwise) that you should have the same words right through the Bill to mean the the same thing. I will again look at this point, but I do not think there is anything in it.
LORD HAWKE: I have been sitting very regularly in your Lordships' House for twenty years, and I have heard numerous Lord Chancellors and many other learned legal people pointing out precisely the opposite to what the noble Lord has just said—in other words, that there is some great legal significance in a change' of phrase in the middle of a Statute. I exhort the noble Lord to set this in order; and I think that, before the next stage, he ought to consider this question about part aggregation, because it is going to give rise to the most appallingly difficult calculations and legal disputes.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Development districts
4.—
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be taken as conferring any exemption on work in respect of a building or any works by reason only that the construction of any ancillary works for the building or works in question was begun, or that a contract for work in the construction of such ancillary works was

309
made, before the date mentioned in that subsection; but where work done in the construction or alteration of a building or of any works is exempt from control by virtue of that subsection there shall also be exempt from control by virtue of that subsection any work done in the construction of any ancillary works required for that building or those works.
3.37 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: It seems to me that we are making some progress, in that perhaps the extreme confidence of the Government and of the Parliamentary draftsmen has been somewhat shaken—and that perhaps causes one to believe that some of the things we are moving have some right and certainly a good deal of sense behind them. That is particularly so in respect of the Amendment I am going to move now, which is to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 4, and we hope, therefore, that the Government will give particular attention to it. We are here dealing with development districts from the point of view of the possibility that the locality in one such development district would cease to be specified as a development district, whereupon immediately, of course, all building would come under the umbrella control of this Bill, whether it was to be exempted or not—and there would clearly be a great number of buildings which would come under that control.
It is laid down in subsection (2) of this clause that a person putting up any form of construction or altering a building at the time when the locality ceases to be a development district shall not suffer by virtue of that fact if the building or alteration has already been begun, or if a contract has already been signed—and this is very much in line with what we have been discussing on recent Amendments in the last half hour or so. But what is so extraordinary is that, having said that nobody should suffer on account of this if they have begun or made a contract for the work, subsection (4) says that, if they shall have started any ancillary works, or even made a contract for any ancillary works, in connection with the main building, then they are going to suffer, and that they will perhaps be refused a licence. But these ancillary works can add up to a very considerable sum of money, and I cannot
310
see rhyme or reason in excluding them in this particular case, especially if the noble Lord will refer back to Clause 2(4) which quite clearly lays down:
"In computing … the cost of constructing or altering a building or any works, there shall be taken into account"
not only
"the cost of preparing the site of the building"
but also
"the cost of constructing on that site … any ancillary works".
And these have been included in the total cost under Clause 2. But when we get to Clause 4, oh dear, no! It is not allowed to count towards the building at all, if these unfortunate people happen to be in a district which is suddenly taken out of general exemption. It seems to me to be completely senseless and grossly unfair. I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Hastings.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble Lord rises, I wonder whether I might draw his attention to one other small difficulty. It is that there is a conflict, or a possible conflict, between Clause 4(2)(b) and Clause 4(4). I think it arises like this. There is an exemption in this case where the locality ceased to be a development district—and the same thing applies in different circumstances under another clause later on—for any contract which was made before the date when the locality ceased to be a development district; that is to say, a contract for the work in question or for other works in the construction or alteration. Contracts of this kind are exempt. Then wecome to subsection (4) and there we find that a contract for the construction of ancillary works is not exempted. I wonder whether the Government have thought out the practical distinction between a contract which might be described as being for ancillary works, which is not exempt, and a contract for other work in the constructional alteration which is exempt—because if they have a ready-made distinction or an example they can give to point to this extraordinary dichotomy, I think the Committee, and the contractors, will be glad to hear it. I can see the greatest difficulty

311
in practice in deciding whether the contract is exempt under Clause 4(2)(b) or not exempt under Clause 4(4).
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: Since this is similar to Amendment No. 7, I wonder whether it might be convenient to discuss them together and thus save time. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, about giving attention to these Amendments. I can assure him that we on this side have already given attention to the Amendments that have gone before and will do so to those that are to come. We agree that they are important.
The main effect of accepting the Amendment we are now discussing would be to remove an exemption. It would bring under control the construction of ancillary works required for a building exempted under subsection (2). Subsection (2) makes provision for a locality ceasing to be specified as a development district. After that has happened work done on a building or works begun or contracted for before the change remains exempt. But the building itself must have been started or contracted for. Subsection (4) does two things. First, it makes it clear that subsection (2) does not exempt a building if all that has been done or contracted for before the reclassification of the locality was ancillary works. This is the meaning of subsection (2) and the first part of subsection (4) makes it quite clear.
It would not be right to allow a developer to proceed with the construction of buildings simply because ancillary works relating to them had been constructed. For example, if this were to be allowed, it would mean that a developer, by laying one sewer, with a view to serving a dozen buildings on a site in a development district, would later be able to construct all the buildings without a licence, notwithstanding that the locality had ceased to be a development district by the time work started. In these circumstances it is right that the Minister should have the opportunity to consider the priority of the building. In considering the application for a licence he would have regard to what had been done. Secondly, the subsection exempts from control the construction of ancillary works required for a building which is exempt under subsection (2) because it was started or contracted for before the
312
locality was reclassified. It is sensible to extend the exemption in this way, so as to avoid the necessity to apply for a licence for the contruction of services or means of access which may be required to make a building viable. The Amendment would remove this exemption and might raise doubts regarding the interpretation of subsection (2). I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I thank the noble Lord for his very clear explanation; but the fact is that the two parts of subsection (4) are contradictory. I should have said that in my opening remarks, but I forgot to do so. The subsection says, to begin with, that ancillary works are not exempt; but it ends by saying that if they form part of the main contract they are exempt. It seems to me that ancillary works will always form part of the main contract, whether or not they are contracted for separately. They are part of the general construction. The noble Lord gave an example of one sewer being laid for a whole building development project. I see the Minister's point here; but suppose that the contractor had laid all the sewers, and most of the roads. Surely there must be some certainty in the Bill that in such a case the work is part of the main contract, and the contractor must be allowed to go on, get his licence and finish the job. The noble Lord said that the Minister will consider what work has been done. To that extent, I hope that we may take it as a ministerial statement. Perhaps the noble Lord can say if this is a ministerial statement which gives an undertaking as to the Minister's intentions. If that is so, we shall find it easier to accept the noble Lord's explanation. If not, we feel that the clause should be revised in some respect.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, understands the reasons why subsection (4) has been placed in the Bill. If I may, I rather disagree with the noble Viscount's suggestion that subsection (2) (b) in any way conflicts with subsection (4). But in regard to the undertaking for which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has asked, may I answer in this way? If the circumstances are such as he postulated, it

313
is clearly unreasonable for the Minister to say that, because an area has suddenly been removed from a development status, all those who have started the ancillary work towards a major scheme should be placed in jeopardy. I believe that in such a case a Minister, or a Department, would look at each of the applications that would arise with the greatest sympathy; and, unless there were very special reasons, such as an acute shortage of materials or labour, I am sure that a licence would be made available. I think that is as far as any Minister at this stage would wish to go, but I think it would be acceptable to the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Will the noble Lord kindly write and tell me why he disagrees with my reasoning?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly.
LORD HASTINGS: I have great faith in the noble Lord himself. I am not sure, however, whether my faith in his right honourable friend is quite so extensive, and I should be pleased if the noble Lord could obtain from his right honourable friend an undertaking, which he could give us, either in writing or verbally, that it is not the intention to act under this subsection (4) when it would, as he says, be unreasonable to do so by virtue of the amount of ancillary work carried out. I quite see that there is a point of dissent, when one sewer or one road has been made in a very large development, because then there is reason; but I think we should like an undertaking in writing from the noble Lord, if we could have one. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Other exemptions]:
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSmoved, in subsection (1)(a), after "consists of" to insert "or includes". The noble Viscount said: Again my noble friend and myself have the advantage of a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in anticipation of his answer to
314
some of these Amendments, but I think that here again in Clause 6(1)(b) there is some verbiage which is extremely far from clear when one tries to interpret it. Clause 6(1) deals with exemptions which arise where a building has been the subject of an office development permit under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act of last year. As I understand it, the two paragraphs deal with the matter in this way. Paragraph (a) deals with the case where the whole building has been the subject of an O.D.P., and paragraph (b) deals with the case where part of the building has been the subject of an O.D.P.; or where two buildings have been put up together so that they aggregate to more than 3,000 square feet minimum, or whatever it may be reduced to, so that they have been the subject of an O.D.P. But in all the cases covered by paragraph (b) there may be other development which is not of an office nature, but, notwithstanding that, if there has been an O.D.P. granted on any part of that building, or of the two buildings (or however many it is) together no licence will be required under this Bill. This seems to me entirely sensible because the Board of Trade will have dealt with the matter, at any rate for the most part, on much the same lines as I believe that this Bill is to be exercised. Therefore, it seems silly to have two kinds of control.
The Amendment which I have put down—in fact, there are two of them and they go together—triesto avoid a great deal of confusion. As I understand it—and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has been nodding his head—you will not need any licence under this Bill whether a building is entirely covered or only partly covered by the O.D.P. If that is so, surely the only words needed are those which I have suggested in my first Amendment, and the tremendous rigmarole in paragraph (b) only adds to the confusion. Frankly, I do not understand what it means and how it is any improvement—although it may be presumptuous to say so—on the little Amendment which I have put down. I should therefore be glad if the noble Lord would explain this in yet another of his most lucid speeches on this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 21, after ("of") insert ("or includes").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I was nodding to the noble Viscount because his understanding of Clause 6(1) is quite right. If I may, I will explain it to the Committee again by an example. In respect of Clause 6(1)(a)—the noble Viscount is quite right—the building that is authorised under the Act of 1965 is an office building of more than 3,000 square feet which will be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. Paragraph (b) deals with what one might call a complex of buildings. Shall we consider a complex of three buildings at a total cost (shall we say?) of £800,000. First, we have a block containing 15,000 square feet of office building costing, say, £200,000; a social centre which includes 5,000 square feet of office building costing, £400,000; and a block including shops and associated storage with only 2,500 square feet of office—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord—
LORD SHEPHERD: Let me finish—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE of CULROSS: But could the noble Lord just say again whether all these are associated in one complex, or are they separate?
LORD SHEPHERD: I always thought that a complex was a group of associated buildings—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: They are associated.
LORD SHEPHERD: That was always my understanding of the word "complex". Here we have a third group within the complex consisting of shops and associated storage with only 2,500 square feet. The first two cases, because the office accommodation is in excess of 3,000 square feet and therefore comes within the Act I have just mentioned, are exempt from the provisions of this Bill. But the third building, because there is less than 3,000 square feet and therefore it is not governed or controlled by the Act, would be covered and would require a licence because it was in excess of £100,000. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but it will. It will need a licence because it is in excess of £100,000. The noble Viscount shakes his head. Perhaps he will explain the Bill to me.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The point is this. If the third building with its 2,500 square feet is part of a complex, as I understand Section 2 of the 1965 Act, that 2,500 square feet will be aggregated with the office square footage of the other two buildings; and all three will require the office development permit. So therefore the third building also, as I read the Act, will not require a licence under this particular Bill, because it will be exempt by Clause 6(1).
LORD SHEPHERD: No, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is wrong. My understanding is that the buildings that require authority under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act are buildings of more than 3,000 square feet.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is an aggregation.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am always subject to correction, but that is my understanding of it. The example that I have given—and this is what I have been advised—is that a licence would not be required for the two buildings in that complex, because one has 15,000 square feet of offices and one 5,000 square feet of offices. But in regard to the third building within that complex, a licence would be required. That is the advice which I have been given and my understanding of the Bill before the Committee.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I think there is a point on what is technically known as the relevant development under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, because if these are in a complex I believe that I am right. It may well transpire on the facts that there are exceptions, but I think that if these three buildings are in a complex they will all three be excepted. I am sure that we shall not carry this further this afternoon. But would the noble Lord agree with me that what in fact is being done by paragraph (b) is to ensure that where an O.D.P. is given for part of a building—that is, in all the cases where the O.D.P. is given to part of buildings—a licence under this Bill is not required?
LORD SHEPHERD: For the whole building.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: For the whole building. Then we have achieved what we want. Where there is a case which might fall within the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act such as the example given by the noble Lord but, for some reason—because it is not relevant to development—does not, we must catch this and require it to need a licence under this Bill. If those are the objects of the exercise, perhaps the noble Lord and I separately, and later together, could have a look at the Control of Offices Act and see whether this is right. Would the noble Lord reconsider this matter?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord whether before Clause 6 comes back to us he could have a few commas and things sprinkled over subsection (1)(b)? I draw the line at nine lines of gibberish with no punctuation at all.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Work begun or contracted for before commencement of Act]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given notice to move to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I only wish to say that this subject was discussed with Amendment No. 4. It refers to the generality of the Bill, and not merely to development districts. No doubt the noble Lord when he writes will include this Amendment in the statement he may receive from the Minister. I do not propose to move the Amendment.
4.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work which the Minister has indicated in writing, before the commencement of this Act, that he would have authorised if this Act has been in force at the time when he gave such indication."
The noble Viscount said: I put this Amendment down not out of any pedantry, but because I believe there is a Parliamentary propriety which ought to be observed in this connection. Subsection (4) of Clause 7 at present reads—and of course I agree with its intention:
"There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work which has been authorised in writing by the Minister before the commencement of this Act."
The Committee will recall what in fact occurred. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement on July 28, 1965, and a Bill called the Building Control Bill, which had very much the same provisions as this one, was introduced into the last Parliament. Right at the end of the last Parliament, just before the General Election, the right honourable gentleman the then Minister of Public Buildings and Works came down to another place, rather too late as it turned out, and made a statement about the continuation of the policy he had already adopted of giving informal licence based on the Chancellor's statement, but for which he had no legal authority whatever. Then the next day another Minister came and bailed him out from the difficulty into which he had got himself.
One thing is quite clear, and that is that the indications in writing (because that was the word used in another place) that have been issued to would-be builders ever since about the middle of November last year (I think it was) have not had any authority whatever; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, went so far as to agree with this in something he said earlier this afternoon. Therefore the word "authorised" in subsection (4) is, I suggest, wrong, because the Minister cannot say that he has authorised any work under any powers when it is quite clear that he had no powers to do so.
This is not simply a matter that concerns this Bill, but is one of general application. I have the feeling that this Government are getting into the habit of governing by edict, and, for all I know, next Wednesday we may find that another announcement will be made that, notwithstanding that this Bill is not yet law and the Minister has now power to do anything about it, he is going to change the threshold for the sort of works that require a licence under this Bill. For all

319
I know, he may say that it will be £50,000, although he has no power to do this. This is the way, apparently, that these matters are conducted under this Administration.
I do not wish to do away with the exemptions that subsection (4) provides, because this is the way it has been done. Members in another place, who control these matters, do not seem to have objected, and I do not think that we should object either. But, simply as a matter of Parliamentary propriety, I suggest that the word "authorized" in this subsection is quite wrong, and we should make it clear in the wording of the Bill itself what it is that the Minister has done; that is, to appropriate to himself some sort of pseudo-authority for which he had no Parliamentary sanction and which he has been using in this way ever since. I do not believe there will be any difference to the practical result if my Amendment is adopted, but I think we may have got the wording correct and may have pinpointed the exact position under which the Minister has been acting all this time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD ST. HELENS: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in his protest against the present wording of the Bill. As I see it, this is not legislation by Parliament; it is the most arrogant manifestation of Ministerial power. This I see as the modern version of: "We are the masters now". Personally, I strongly resent it. I think this is a degree of contempt of Parliament; and, furthermore, it is a danger to Parliament, because there are profound reactions if this type of wording in a Bill is allowed to go forward. It is the initiation of legislation long before that legislation comes before and is approved by Parliament—namely, the initiation of legislation on the publication of a Bill. Indeed, as I see it, it could even be a short step to such legislation initiating from the time a proposal appears in the Party's Election Manifesto. This is a matter of supreme importance to Parliament, because it is a two-way weapon: the Party in office at
320
the moment will not always be sitting on that side of the House, and this weapon might be used strongly against them. Therefore I hope that in the interests of Parliament the Minister will accept the wording which has been proposed by my noble friend.
LORD SILKIN: Towards the end of this Committee stage we are becoming political. Up to now, we have not introduced politics into this Bill. The question whether the wording of the Amendment or the wording in the Bill should be inserted is really one of fact. In fact, the Minister has already given authorisations. I am aware of a number of cases where a developer has been given an authority or a licence to go ahead. Whether that licence was legal or not does not arise. All that is said in this Bill is that where such an authority has been given it should be regarded as valid. Any authority which was given was not given, as the Amendment says, on the basis that if the Minister had been authorised he would have given it. The Minister has in fact given a straightforward licence to go ahead. Therefore the Amendment would not really be accurate, and I hope that the wording in the Bill will be retained as being an accurate statement of what the position is.
4.9 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I agree with my noble friend Lord Silkin that it is rather strange that at the very end of what has been an enjoyable and constructive Committee stage a political element should have arisen. I should have thought that the speech of the noble Lord opposite could well have been made on Second Reading, and we could then have had a bit of cut-and-thrust. If my memory is right, this was not a serious aspect of our Second Reading debate. However, in view of the fact that it has been raised, I think I should deal with it quite briefly.
At the time there was gross overheating of the construction industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, knows, on Second Reading I went into considerable detail of the consequences and causes of that overheating. If we had not made the statement when we did, and if we had not made it clear that we were going to take legislative action which would be retrospective, the noble Lord

321
well knows what would have happened—in fact what may well be happening at this moment in another field: firms and individuals, knowing that action was to be taken, would have rushed in and made the overheating infinitely worse than it was. So it was quite clear that action had to be taken; and action was taken. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, agreed with me that it was right that firms who were responsible and accepted the view of the Chancellor, and then went to the Minister of Public Building and Works and sought advice and authorisation for the various building projects after the statement had been made, should have, as we have put into the Bill, that degree of authority and exemption from the provisions of the Bill.
Whether the words in the Bill or the words of the noble Viscount are right, is surely a matter of opinion. I think we must repeat—and I repeat it—that any firm which acted after the Chancellor had made his statement did nothing illegal—and let us be quite clear about that. They will be acting illegally only if their building is clearly one that comes within Clause 1, and if they continue on the construction of that building after the Bill has become an Act. I think that is right. I have taken advice, and I see nothing to be gained by using the words of the noble Viscount's Amendment. The Minister has, in fact, been giving permission, or acquiescence, to the developers who have applied to him for authority to proceed with their buildings. That permission, or acquiescence, has been given, and we have used in subsection (4) the word "authorized". I think that word is more a Parliamentary and drafting word than the words I have just been using, "permission" or "acquiescence". In view of the fact that the noble Viscount and his friends have been able to let off steam, and that the purpose of their Amendment has been explained, I hope he will now think it right to withdraw it.
LORD CONESFORD: I come with quite a fresh mind to this point, but, as I understood it, my noble freind was questioning the accuracy of the expression, "authorized". "Authorised" normally is used, I should have thought, in a case where the Minister had some power to give authority, and where some other consequence would have resulted
322
had he refused his authority. I should have thought there was substance in my noble friend's complaint that the word "authorised" was not happy or accurate. I looked very briefly to see whether I could find a parallel for the use of "authorised" in this sort of circumstance. I did not have time to examine it exhaustively. I think that in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary the only examples which might have been relevant were from Australian cases, to which I did not have the opportunity of referring. But I should have thought this deserved further examination to get the right words.
I am not without sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the proposed alternative is a little elaborate for the simple thing we wish to achieve. It occurs to me as a possibility—but I should have thought a possibility for the consideration of the learned draftsman—that instead of "authorised", the word "approved" might be less offensive and, possibly, equally effective from the Government's point of view. I do not wish to say any more. I do not wish to disturb the amicable relations that have existed between the two sides on this Committee stage, but I think my noble friend who set down this Amendment had a point of substance. We ought to be careful not to use a word like "authorised" if we do not in fact mean "authorized", unless the Parliamentary draftsman can point to some precedent which gives respectability to the practice.
LORD SILKIN: May I ask the noble Lord this question? Supposing the Minister has authorised; supposing he has written to people and said, "I hereby authorise you to carry out this development". Would not these words in the Bill then be correct?
LORD CONESFORD: I think not, because, if the Minister uses an inaccurate expression, I do not think that that inaccurate expression has to be adopted by Parliament.
LORD HASTINGS: May I say one word, very briefly? I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when they accuse my noble friend of being political in this matter. I think it is of real Parliamentary interest, and Parliamentary interest is important: it affects all Parties

323
and no Parties. Therefore, I would support very strongly what my noble friend Lord Cones ford has just said. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will take this matter seriously and try to find some word (if he does not like the phrase which has been thought of by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, which seems to me to express the position perfectly accurately), such as "approved" or "acquiesced", which puts the legalities of the matter in the right context.
LORD ILFORD: I was going to suggest that the word which should be employed is "assented" The advantage of that expression is that it describes fully and completely exactly what the Minister does. He has no power to authorise. All he has power to do is to say, "Later on, if powers are given to me by Parliament to prevent the erection of this building, I shall exercise them". As I understand it that is what he does. If that were described as assenting, it would describe with complete accuracy what the Minister seeks to do. I am not detracting from the Amendment which my noble friend has moved. I think it is much to be preferred to the language in the Bill. But if that is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, then I would suggest that the word used should be "assented" and not "authorised".
LORD SHEPHERD: Right through this Committee stage I kept a wary eye upon the noble Lord, Lord Cones ford. I was expecting him to rise in wrath about various parts of the Bill—the English and phraseology. Ministers of both Parties have known this as a fearsome thing. I thought my worst fears were realised when the noble Lord rose from his seat, and I said to myself, "We are in for it now". However, the noble Lord made a suggestion which I shall look at. I shall also look at the other suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, to see whether we can find another word. But I hope the Committee will understand that it is quite easy for us to pick up words and say, "That should be in", or, "That should be out". In the end, one depends upon the Parliamentary draftsman who have to take into account all the material, past and future, that is involved before finalising a particular word. As the noble
324
Viscount knows, certain words are well recognised in law. If you change the word it is possible that some lawyer may say, "What is the special significance of the fact that the word in this Act of Parliament is different from that used in another?" However, I will look at it, and will see what can be done between now and the next stage of the Bill. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think the noble Lord has been more than generous in this matter, and I wish to say two things. First of all, I did not wish to query the exemption, and I hope I made that perfectly clear at the beginning. Secondly, what I did in drafting this Amendment was to follow the speech of the then Lord President of the Council, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Bowden, on March 9 of this year, as reported in col. 2105 of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT. I think that in the circumstances that was a speech in which every word had been weighed up and drafted with care—
LORD SHEPHERD: They always are!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Then shall I say that this one was a paragon among paragons. He said that the Minister had, since November 1, 1965, been indicating cases in which building would be permitted; and it was upon what he said then that I drafted my Amendment. Therefore I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will at least allow that I have done some research in this matter and have authority on my side.
LORD SILKIN: But so have I. I have seen some of these approvals, and they are not in the form of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Well, if they are not, they ought to be; and I think that is no reason whatever why we should be slap-happy in our drafting of this Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Viscount should not say of our Parliamentary draftsmen, in this Government in particular, that we are "slap-happy".
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Well, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this again,

325
and I now beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Power to extend or restrict control]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HASTINGS: There is one thing I wanted to ask the noble Lord in regard to this clause, which refers to the powers of the Minister to extend or restrict control. Subsection (1)(c), refers to the Minister's power to
"direct that there shall not be exemption from control …all work, or work of any description, which would otherwise be exempt…by virtue of Section 3(1)(b) or (c), 4 or 5(1)(d) to (i) of this Act".
These sections refer to work which is carried out under the powers of a Minister—industrial development certificates, the building of schools and hospitals and laboratories, and so on. So the work by the Minister is, at it were, to be supervised, or possibly duplicated, or even interfered with, by the Minister of Public Building and Works. The other Ministers are those of Health, Education and Technology, and the Board of Trade. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain this anomaly.
LORD SHEPHERD: Under this Bill the Minister takes power to control or exempt only buildings which are excluded from the general provisions and controls exercised by other Departments. We have just been debating the question of offices and the office development certificate. The others are, in fact, exempted under Clause 5. Subsection (1) says:
"There shall be exempt from control under this Act any work carried out at the expense of—"
certain people. Paragraph (a) refers to a local authority; (d) refers to a harbour authority, and in (e) we have the bodies mentioned in the Schedule. Then in paragraph (f) there are the various statutory water undertakers and in (g) universities or schools or other establishments.
326
Hospitals could also be included under paragraph (i)—
"any body not mentioned above in this subsection whose income consists wholly or mainly of moneys provided by Parliament."
Subsection (2) perhaps covers most of the Minister's responsibilities, exempting work that is undertaken on behalf of the Crown. There will be a consultation between the various Ministers in the circumstances which no doubt will arise and, as is usual in Government, there is a joint responsibility and therefore joint consultation. As I understand it, there is already agreement on the way in which matters could be raised between the more important Departments which are likely to be involved with the construction industry. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord. We have in fact fully covered it, particularly in Clause 5.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord means, I take it, that the Minister of Public Building and Works is responsible for drawing to the attention of the other Ministries the danger of overheating the industry in general, as a result of which they might have to cut their spending on public works under their surveillance.
LORD SHEPHERD: Just as occurred last year. If my memory is right, when the statement was made in regard to the private sector there were certain curbs in the public sector. We have to carry out a joint policy.
LORD HASTINGS: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House Resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (CITY OF OXFORD) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

SINGAPORE BILL [H.L.]
4.29 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This short and, I trust, non-controversial Bill is made necessary by the establishment of Singapore as an independent sovereign State within the Commonwealth. Since World War II, Singapore has experienced a number of constitutional changes. In 1946, after over a century's existence as one of the Straits Settlements, it was constituted a separate British Colony. Twelve years later, by the passing of the State of Singapore Act by the United Kingdom Parliament, Singapore achieved full internal self-government, with the responsibility for defence and external affairs remaining with the United Kingdom Government. In September, 1963, with the establishment of the new Federation of Malaysia, those responsibilities for defence and external affairs were transferred to the new Federal Government. Noble Lords will recall that a referendum held earlier in Singapore had shown a majority of voters in favour of their State joining the Malaysia Federation.
Within two years however, following certain differences between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, the latter seceded from the Federation and in August, 1965, became for the first time a fully independent State. Although it has adopted a Republican Constitution, Singapore applied to remain in the Commonwealth and was admitted by the other members in October, 1965. Thus in the past two decades Singapore's constitutional status has moved from that of a Colony to a partially independent State, thence to a part of an independent Commonwealth Monarchy, and now to a separate independent Republic, but still within the Commonwealth.
United Kingdom legislation, including authorisation of the changes themselves, was needed for each change up to the last, but the 1965 secession, of course, did not require our approval since United
328
Kingdom sovereignty over Singapore had ended in 1963. However, there are a number of consequential detailed changes required in those parts of British law which relate to Singapore and the Commonwealth, and it is those consequential changes with which this Bill is concerned. When Singapore ceased to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions, on becoming part of the Malaysia Federation in 1963, there was no need to add its name to the list in the relevant naming laws. Malaysia was the State and its inclusion in the list was all that was necessary. On the other hand, it was, of course, necessary to continue the application of those laws which had applied to Singapore before it became part of Malaysia, and this continued application was effected by the Malaysia Act 1963. Now that Singapore has become independent within the Commonwealth, it is necessary to add its name to the list in the naming Acts. This is effected by Clause 1, subsection (2) whilst the Acts themselves are set out in the Schedule. The consequence of Clause 1, subsection (1), taken together with the relevant section of the Malaysia Act, 1963, is to provide that where the law of the United Kingdom had effect in relation to Singapore before Singapore became part of the Federation—that is to say, when it was a self-governing Colony—it will continue so to apply.
Clause 2, subsection (1), ends the jurisdiction of the courts under the Divorce Jurisdiction Acts. This applies only to the Acts forming part of the law of England, and the effect of the subsection is that the decrees will not be registrable in the United Kingdom unless the proceedings were commenced before the passing of this Bill. Subsection (2) merely states that for the saved cases the courts in Singapore shall be deemed to have the same jurisdiction as before. Jurisdiction under the Acts in the saved cases is required to be exercised in accordance with certain rules made by the Secretary of State and by judges approved by the Lord Chancellor. Subsection (3) provides that as an alternative to following the Secretary of State's rules, the local authority may provide alternative rules and, in any event, provision relating to the approval of judges by the Lord Chancellor shall no longer have effect. Subsection (4) is a definition to the effect

329
that proceedings for a decree of presumption of death, with an accompanying decree of dissolution of marriage, is included in the jurisdiction referred to in subsections (1) and (2).
In Clause 3, the law of Singapore is dealt with. -The law of Singapore says that appeals lie from the High Court of Singapore to the Malaysia Federal Court. The law of Singapore, however, has made certain amendments to the Malaysian law regulating the Federal Court so that it can be argued that the Federal Court to which the Singapore law refers is not the same body as the Federal Court as established by the law of Malaysia. In practice this does not seem to give rise to any difficulty, but theoretically there may be snags which could possibly be exploited when an appeal was being heard before the Judicial Committee. For this reason, and also because Singapore may change its appeal structure entirely, Clause 3, subsection (1), enables provision to be made for appeals both from the Malaysia Court and from any other court having jurisdiction under the law of Singapore. The remaining provisions in this clause are consequential upon the power to confer jurisdiction on the Judicial Committee in relation to Singapore appeals. The provisions of Clause 4 were a common feature in this kind of legislation, although recently they have been omitted. However, in this case a similar provision was contained in the Malaysia Act, and it is considered appropriate, therefore, that it should be inserted in this Bill.
Clause 5 is an interpretative clause, and contains a short title and needs no comment.
We have so far as has been possible treated Singapore as an independent Commonwealth country since the date of secession from the Federation. But it is clearly unsatisfactory that this situation should continue, and I trust that the House will agree that it is right and essential for the legal position to be clearly defined and enacted. I trust, therefore, that this Bill will receive a speedy passage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Bill, which I gather
330
from him is really a sort of tidying-up operation to regularise various legal aspects as a consequence of Singapore's seceding from Malaysia. I certainly do not think that, generally speaking, we can have any objection to the Bill, but I would first of all ask the noble Lord this question: how is it that it has taken so long to appear? As we saw, secession took place on September 9 last; that is to say, ten months ago. I would ask the noble Lord what has been the position in regard to this territory between September, 1965, and July 1966? What has been the position of British troops in Singapore during this period? Have they been covered by the Visiting Forces Act 1962? Then again—and this is referred to in the Schedule—what about diplomatic immunity? Whit has been the position there? I quite appreciate that the Government could not have been expected to produce this legislation immediately on secession, because clearly they did not foresee it. Whether they should have foreseen it or not I do not know, but I gather they were taken by surprise. At all events, the delay of ten months in bringing out this Bill seems to me rather extraordinary.
Generally speaking, I think we on both sides of the House were sad that Singapore broke away from the Federation, which we were hoping would remain intact. However, we all understand the reasons and have no intention of criticising anybody for what happened. It was entirely a matter for the Governments of Malaysia and of Singapore itself. We were sorry that friction developed between Malaysia and Singapore after secession, but I was glad to note when I was there earlier this year that this friction was beginning to disappear and relations between the two countries appeared to be reasonably amicable. There were one or two problems concerning the stationing of troops, but those were, I think, being resolved in a friendly manner as between ourselves, Malaysia and Singapore. However, there are certainly some tangled problems which have to be unravelled in regard to defence arrangements in that part of the world, if I may briefly make an observation on this point.
I gather that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's visit to London in April was primarily concerned with the renegotiation of the Defence agreement. I hope some progress was made during the talks between the

331
two Prime Ministers. Already in August of last year it was reported that the Singapore Defence Treaty would have to be renegotiated. If the noble Lord is able to tell us something about this, I feel sure it would be of interest to the House on this occasion. When Mr. Lee Kuan Yew came to this country in April no details of the discussions were given, although in another place Mr. George Brown said, at the end of October, that there were going to be detailed discussions with Singapore and our other allies about the future of the British base. Can the noble Lord say what the position is now? This is most important. Is there to be a further Defence agreement or not? Can we use our troops in Singapore, if they are required to fulfil our obligations to the South East Asia Treaty Organisation; and is this accepted by the Singapore Government? If the noble Lord is able to say something on these matters, I shall be most grateful.
But, above all, this afternoon we must be concerned to know more about the reduction of British troops there which was announced by the Minister of Defence at London Airport on Saturday night. Can the noble Lord say what agreement has been reached between Britain, Malaysia and Singapore about this? I feel that the House is entitled to be given an authoritative statement, confirming or otherwise reports which appeared in the Sunday newspapers and quite extensively on the radio and television. I understand that in the interview Mr. Healey was asked whether there would be a reduction of some 15,000. His answer was to the effect that it would be something of that order, or 5,000 either side of that figure. It seems to me to be rather extraordinary to give these figures in that offhand manner at London Airport. Can the noble Lord clarify the position to the House? I gather that some sort of phased reduction is being worked out, but this uncertainty is most embarrassing and unsatisfactory. What is likely to be the reaction of Australia and New Zealand in this situation? Are we going to leave them out on a limb? I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he can give us further information on a subject which really is of widespread interest.
4.43 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to say that, in a way, I think this is a sad occasion. In my opinion Singapore belongs to Malaya and it is quite impossible to separate them from a practical point of view. Singapore is the size of the Isle of Wight, and the old Federation of Malaya is the size of England. I put it no higher than that it seems to me impracticable to think of two States operating quite separately in the world at large when that is the situation, particularly as in this case, to make it a true analogy, the Isle of Wight would have to have a much larger population and also the whole of Southampton Docks and part of Southampton in it. We can see how ridiculous it would be if that were the situation here. But that is the situation in regard to Singapore and Malaysia; and they really belong together.
For a great deal of their history they were together. In the old days, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, when Singapore formed part of the Straits Settlements with Penang and Malacca, there was one High Commissioner in the Federated Malay States, who was also the Governor of the Straits Settlements. So one had the connection there. From a practical point of view the Civil Service was one, although it called itself by a different title up country; and also Penang and Singapore were free ports. That situation existed for well over a hundred years. Now Singapore has been lopped off, and, as I say, I cannot regard this as other than a most sad occasion, although I appreciate the necessity for this Bill.
I think it is sad also because the Malays and the Chinese have been living together for many years and, on the whole, have managed to do so quite amicably. The Government of Malaysia is one which represents all the races, or at any rate the three main races, in Malaysia, and there is no reason at all why they cannot settle down quite happily in Singapore and Malaya. In fact, to a large extent their qualities are complementary: the Chinese with his great business acumen, with his tremendous energy and with his experience in industry; and the Malay, the rural dweller, the farmer and the policeman—

333
he is the backbone of the police. There is not really any competition between them, if things are worked out in the way in which I hope they will be.
I appreciate that it is difficult for Singapore in some ways, because Singapore not only is an important port for Malaya, but it also has a great entrepÔt trade which we hope at the end of confrontation will become just as large as it used to be in the old days before there were all these wars and strife in South-East Asia. There was always something of a difficulty there when the Federation of Malaya itself wanted to impose tariff barriers and to have some sort of tariff operating with regard to goods coming into the country, while wishing to keep Singapore, with its free trade and its entrepÔt industry for the rest of South-East Asia.
So much for the basic situation with regard to Malaya and Singapore. Now I should like to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said about the defence situation. At the moment confrontation appears to be coming to an end, and undoubtedly there will be a demand for the removal of numbers of British troops from that area, and possibly for a considerable reduction in the great base of Singapore. I think it was most unfortunate that at London Airport, on I think Saturday night, Mr. Healey should have announced any figures about a reduction in the number of troops. Surely, if an immensely important matter like that, which affects the whole of that part of the world, was going to he announced, it should be announced in Parliament.
I think it is a most undesirable practice for Ministers to make these statements at London Airport. They come off an aircraft; they have had a long and tiring journey, and they are pushed into a room with bright lights, where some interviewer asks them the most leading questions. I think they are apt to give most embarrassing answers. I do not know why Ministers cannot refuse now and then to answer questions when they arrive at London Airport. They are not bound to answer questions. Their image might suffer a little at the moment if they did not do so, but in the long term I am sure that it would grow a great deal, and so would that of Britain and the Government itself. I say this because I was
334
astounded when I heard that statement of Mr. Healey, and I wondered what would be the result in that delicate situation in South-East Asia.
As to the Defence Treaty itself, your Lordships will remember that both the Finance Minister for Malaya, who is a most experienced man, Mr. Tan Siew Sin, and also the Minister for Information, have said that Britain was bringing extreme pressure on them—in other words blackmail—to enter into a Defence Treaty with Singapore and Britain, in consideration of aid which Britain was proposing to give to them. If it can be avoided I think it is highly undesirable to have strings to aid at all. Certainly to have defence strings to aid is most undesirable. The immediate result was that the Malaysian Ministers just blurted out to the world that this was happening, and were saying how undesirable it was. It was most unfortunate to give that impression to the Malaysian Ministers—namely that unless they signed the Defence Treaty they would not get any more aid. I think that that was clumsy, to say the least of it. I do not know why Mr. Healey has added to the clumsiness to the Malaysian Ministers by his statement at London Airport. Somebody is at fault over this and should get a rap over the knuckles.
What is going to happen in the circumstances in regard to our SEATO allies, the United States and Australia, and to other allies in that area? Mr. Holt said only within the last week, on reaching Washington from Europe:
"Britain and Western Europe were almost oblivious to the existence of Asia. It was almost as if they had turned their backs on a large part of the life, history and experience of these modern times."
He went on to say:
"It would be no exaggeration to say that a new power relationship is beginning to span the Pacific. It may be unequal, but it is clearly welcomed in Canberra and a great deal more importance is attached to it here than to a British presence East of Suez."
In other words, what he is saying there is that in future Australia, in conjunction with New Zealand, is going to rely on the United States and is going to cut off the traditional ties with this country. They do not care whether we are East of Suez or not.
I would remind your Lordships that half the world's tin and half the world's

335
rubber come from Malaya. We have tremendous interests there. Not only do we get immense sterling contributions from Malaya, but we also get immense dollar earnings, too. I think that this whole issue of Singapore and the future of the Singapore base, the Defence Treaty with Malaya and Singapore, must be treated with the utmost delicacy and not in the blundering way in which, unhappily, it seems that it has been treated lately by Ministers in Her Majesty's Government. As have others of your Lordships, certainly the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I have had a long experience of Malaya and of the Malays and Chinese going back some forty years. From that experience I know—and I know Lord Milverton will agree with me—that one thing about which they are most particular is that they shall be treated with the utmost courtesy; that there shall not be these brusque statements made at airports. I could give instances in the past where great events have turned upon rudeness or imagined rudeness to a distinguished Malay, but I will not do so.
Finally, I would say that the position in Singapore, which, as I have said, is the size of the Isle of Wight, brings into the limelight once more the situation of these little island states in the world to-day. Here is Singapore being pushed off into the world as an independent sovereign State with a vote in the United Nations which, in theory, is as great as that of the Soviet Union, the United States, or Great Britain. It seems to me that sooner or later the United Nations will have to get down to the problem of what really is the practical status of these little island States which have no power of their own, which are dependent upon neighbours or well-wishers to come to their aid in times of difficulty, and which can at times be a source of considerable weakness, because where there is a vacuum of power it may in time lead to strife. There are a number of others coming up for independence soon. We have seen several already—Malta; Cyprus; now Singapore. Barbados is in the pipe-line, and no doubt there are others like them.
What is the future for these little States? Quite frankly, I do not know. When I was in the Colonial Office we never envisaged that such places would
336
in the foreseeable future have independent sovereign status. I think that it is largely illusory today. With those words, it may seem rather absurd for me to say that I wish Singapore a happy and successful future, but nevertheless, so far as they can have a happy future in the modern world, I wish them well.
4.55 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, perhaps it might be said—and I rather expected it to be said—that since we all welcome Singapore as a member of the Commonwealth, there is no excuse for anyone to make a speech on this Bill. None the less, there are one or two things which I should like to say very briefly, beginning where the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, ended. It is an interesting reflection that, with Singapore electing to become a separate sovereign State, Malaysia, by losing a section of its territory, will have two representatives at the United Nations and will thereby have the equivalent voting power, presumably, of the United States and the Soviet Union united. I merely note that in passing.
In rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill, it is perhaps not inappropriate to make a brief and regretful comment, with the Lord Ogmore, on the turn of events which has led to Singapore's seeking independent status. I know, of course, that it is the free choice of her people under the leadership of their very able Prime Minister, and as such it has every right to be accepted and respected. One can, however, express a hope that in the future friendly co-operation with the Malaysian States may ripen into the closer partnership which geography and economics seem to indicate as beneficial to all sections. Unity, as we are often told, is strength, especially in the modern world, if it represents a common purpose. My excuse for speaking like this is that what is now Malaysia and Singapore became to me a second home, since I spent 25 years of my life in service comprising all the Malay States, and including five years in Singapore and three in Borneo.
Singapore, this little island, 27 miles long and 14 miles wide, was virtually uninhabited when, in 1819, it was ceded by the Sultan of Johore to the East India Company at the instance of Stamford Raffles. In the next hundred years it became one of the major ports of the world, the halting place on the great trade

337
route to the Far East and the resort of sailing craft from all parts of the Malay Archipelago, the entrepÔt for much of the trade of Indonesia, the main seaport for the growing wealth of the mainland Malay States which are rich in agriculture, minerals, and timber, and which also include a number of industries. Until the Second World War, Singapore was the focal point of the administration of the Straits Settlements of Penang, Province Wellesley, The Dindings, Malacca and Singapore itself. The Governor of the Straits Settlements was also High Commissioner for the four Federated Malay States and for the five Unfed rated Malay States, with each of which the British Government had a separate treaty. In addition to that, the Governor was a combination of High Commissioner and British Agent, and controlled the external relations of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak, and also had a colonial status in the litle island of Labuan off that coast of Borneo. I mention this to show what a bundle of separate States that country had in its early days, and how it slowly grew.
The whole tendency of history was of a growing cohesion. In those early days we dreamed of a future in which all those countries would constitute a close and independent partnership. We worked for that, with the idea that they would then maintain intimate, friendly relations with Indonesia and the Philippines. We pictured that as a very powerful partnership of allied States, which could bring nothing but benefit and peace to that area. Some of us who have known and loved the Malaysian countries must wish them well, and hope that their ultimate destiny may still be the closer unity to which friendship points and which economics demand.
Superficially, the position which we are considering to-day looks like a recession from the historic progress of over a century. Until recent times Malaysia, including Singapore, has always had central overall guidance from the main Government in Singapore, and for 120 years its story has been one of increasing cohesion, prosperity and power. I can only hope that in reality the present division represents merely a pause to be used for laying a stronger foundation for closer union. So I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think we have all listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who has very long experience in this part of the world. I hesitate to speak, except that I have been there a little more recently though for a very much shorter period. To look at this Bill one might think it a most curious Bill. I would only ask the noble Lord whether it has been agreed with the Government of Singapore. If it has been agreed with the Government of Singapore, I really have no comment to make, though there are passages in it which seem to read rather curiously.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that in a way it is a sad story which lies behind the present position, but I certainly would not be despondent, because I have great confidence that the people of that area will be able to solve, in their own way, many of the problems, which in some ways look much more difficult than they do when seen from that country. I am quite certain that we were not wrong to encourage the closer federation of the peoples of Malaysia. It would be foolish, indeed, to say that there has been a backward step; to say that this was wrong. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that these two territories are really indissoluble, in that both geographically and for defence they cannot be separated. Nor, indeed, can they be separated for trade. They are bound to work in close co-operation, or they will be at daggers drawn.
But what I rose to say was this. I think that we must recognise our responsibility, particularly in regard to Singapore. There is practically no part of the world which has been more artificially created by the stimulus of British enterprise, in co-operation with Chinese, Indian and Malayan enterprise in that area. That has, of course, created a racial problem which we all know about, but it is our responsibility that it is there. Nevertheless, my experience of Singapore was that it was truly a multiracial society, in which there was no sense of inferiority at all as between one race and another. Certainly I have attended services in which Hindu, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist and Christian ministers or priests took part, and I believe that that

339
sort of joint activity will continue. I am glad that both the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, emphasised the extraordinary changes that have taken place in this community. I think it is true to say that up to about 40 years ago Singapore was a sort of workshop, to which people of all races—European, Chinese, Indian—came to make their money and to work, and then went home. It is only in comparatively recent times that it has become a residential centre, with a life and sense of unity all its own.
May I for one moment ask your Lordships to think of the experience of a young man of, say, 30 or 35 in Singapore? His father may have come over as a labourer, perhaps as a coolie, to Singapore. He started learning English at school. Then came the fall of Singapore, with all its horrors, many of which we can never know of. Certainly I knew hardly a family which had not had one member disappear in circumstances which they were never able to explain. The people then had to learn Japanese, and after that the British returned and they had to learn English again. Then they started a democratic Constitution; and remember, my Lords, that democracy is a European invention. It is not very well known in that part of the world, and it was entirely new to them. After that, they had full self-government, and they voted to join Malaysia. They joined Malaysia and they were then faced with the confrontation, with a substantial cutting-off of trade with their nearest neighbour. Finally, they had the dissolution of Malaysia.
My Lords, in these circumstances are we not trying to take political stability a little too much for granted? People brought up in these surroundings would not find it easy to settle down very easily. We have had years of experience, and we have had a pretty bloody history in this country: there is practically nothing that has not happened here. But it has taken us a very long time to set up our political institutions. May I remind your Lordships that we had a Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland for 100 years before we had one Government. So I am not despondent at what will happen, and I believe that these coun-
340
tries will learn to work together in close proximity.
I should like to pay a compliment to the way in which the Singapore Government have carried out their work. Their house-building programme stands out as a monument—certainly in Asia, and probably in any other part of the world. Their education is an astonishing development, and although they have no compulsory education, no child would for any reason be a truant. I believe that one of their punishments is to send the children away from school for a couple of days—though perhaps that is a punishment which would not be very successful in this country. Their industrial development is also striking. They have no natural resources, and their only assets on which they can live are their unskilled manpower and their geographical position. Theirs is a remarkable achievement and is one of which, in so far as we have been associated with it, we may well be very proud.
I would only add this. I hope that the Government will not turn their backs on helping this community in its development, first because we have a very real responsibility here, and, secondly, because the people of Singapore can in very large measure act as a bridge between Europe and China. That is important. Although they have a strong feeling of kinship with their fellow racial brothers in China, they are, nevertheless, a community on their own. That is something they feel deeply. It would be very sad indeed, I believe, if our responsibility were to lapse. I regret, I may say, that any statement the Minister of Defence had to make was not made in conjunction with Ministers in Malaysia and Singapore. That is where that statement should have been made; but, even though it was not made in that way, I hope it was agreed with them, because statements made from here for (if I may put it in this way) our own reasons do give an extremely bad impression in parts of the world where they may have a far-reaching effect. So far as I know, we are still wanted by the pepole there to continue to maintain stability in this area, and I think we should be failing in our duty if we were to give up this charge.
5.11 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on previous Bills dealing with new member States of the Commonwealth I have been

341
able to express unqualified gratitude for the way in which noble Lords welcomed them. I am not sure whether to-day I can go so far as to say that, without some kind of qualification. Noble Lords have traversed a very wide field, and I am not certain I can follow them there this afternoon. I shall endeavour to follow them, but with particular trepidation, because I know that the combined experience of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, constitutes a very formidable body of experience. Indeed, so far as this part of the world is concerned I think that in many ways they are much more qualified to talk about it than I. However, I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been put to me.
First of all, may I say that I appreciate what has been said about the sadness with which we regard this secession of Singapore from the Federation? I think that was put very well by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. When we consider the physical facts of life, the technological facts and the facts of production and communication, all of which lead to closer unions, it must surely be a matter of some regret when, in that part of the world, they appear to be, instead of uniting—I will not use the word "disintegrating", hut at any rate separating for a period. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, am not despondent about this—I think that was the actual word used by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I believe that, given time, given patience and given these facts of life, we can see the relationship ripen again. It may well be that there will be other unions, if not exactly on the same basis as that Federation, at any rate an association on one basis or another.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, why there had been this delay. May I first of all say how pleased I was to hear him report that there was this feeling of friendliness to be found in Singapore, and that after recent changes he sensed that things were settling down again? But he asked me why we had not been able to produce this Bill before. Of course, as he recognises—indeed, I think he himself referred to it in his speech—this is not a case in which we are dealing with a newly-independent country. In the case of the other territories with which we have been dealing, there have
342
been long discussions beforehand, there have been careful negotiations and there have been preparations for a Bill; but in this case—and it was an action taken quite rightly so far as Singapore was concerned; they were entirely right to take the step if they so wished—there was no previous period of discussion and negotiation, and so, therefore, there was no Bill on the stocks.
Subsequent to the actual decision, it was necessary to make certain investigations. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked whether this Bill had been produced in consultation with the Singapore Government. It would be wrong to say that they were consulted at all stages. They were informed of what we were doing, and to certain of the provisions it was necessary to get their agreement. For example, I think that on Clause 3, dealing with certain judicial matters, it was necessary to dovetail their law in with ours; and there has been agreement as between the Singapore Government and ourselves as to the form of this clause of the Bill. The noble Earl said that the Bill struck him as being slightly curious. Of course, it is largely the work of art of lawyers, and it is not without precedent that laymen have found the product of lawyers' work to be somewhat curious.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question, as he says this has not been agreed upon by Singapore? Clause 2(2) seems to confer power on the courts of Singapore, and this seems to me very odd indeed. It says this:
"Except as provided by the foregoing subsection"—
and that is a reference to the Colonial and Other Territories (Divorce Jurisdiction) Acts—
"all courts having jurisdiction . . shall …be treated …as having the same jurisdiction under the said Acts as they would have had if this Act had not been passed".
That looks to me as if we are conferring some power on the Singapore courts. I do not understand it. If the noble Lord cares to let me know afterwards, well and good.
LORD BESWICK: I think the answer there is that this is a retrospective provision, and we are in effect dealing with a position which has existed as between the secession of August 9 and the present

343
time. There have been cases before the Singapore courts, and in so far as they have passed through those courts, the courts are deemed, as the wording goes, to have had jurisdiction as if this section had been in force. I think that is the position. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Earl know.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, about the general position—apart from the specific, particular and rather peculiar case of the courts, which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has asked about—which has existed subsequent to secession, and will exist until this Bill reaches the Statute Book. The fact is that, consistent with our powers, we have in this interim period treated Singapore as an indepedent Commonwealth country. Administratively, this has been possible over a certain field for a limited time. However, it is clearly unsatisfactory, even within that limited field, that the situation should continue; and, as in the case of the courts, to which I have already referred, it is essential for the legal position to be clearly defined as quickly as possible.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the position of British troops in Singapore. The position there has not been changed by the secession from the Federation of Malaysia. The Government of Singapore has agreed to regard the arrangements previously in force as continuing to be valid. The Republic of Singapore Independence Act (which was, of course, the Singapore measure) continued the validity of the Visiting Forces Act 1960. That, I think, deals with the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
So far as diplomatic facilities are concerned, we have accorded the representatives of the Singapore Government in this country the normal diplomatic facilities and privileges. As a matter of fact, the High Commissioner of Singapore has not yet taken up residence here, but had he done so we should have accorded him those facilities, and in the case of his deputy we have been pleased to treat him as if the legal position had already been settled by this Bill. I trust this is in accordance with the general wishes of the House.
344
I have been asked several questions about the Defence agreement. I really do not think that this is the occasion for me to go into a discussion about our defence position there. It is not quite true to say, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, that when Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, came to this country he discussed a new Defence agreement. There was, in fact, only a general discussion. The matter was referred to in general terms. At the moment, the arrangements, so I am advised, are satisfactory to us, and until there is a new Defence agreement—which may or may not be the case—the position remains exactly as it was before secession. In other words (and I am now replying to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough) our troops in Singapore are in the same position as they were previous to secession; and the definition in the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 lays down that they are there for the purpose of (and I quote):
"assisting in the defence of Malaysia and Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia".
That, I think, is fair enough. I cannot go further than that, and I think it answers the question put to me by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think that what is in the minds of most of us on this side is whether the statement made by Mr. Healey at London Airport on Saturday night is in fact Government policy and is correct.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have stated what the position is as far as our defence facilities are concerned, as far as the troops are concerned, what their legal position is and the purpose for which they are there. I am now asked whether the position has been changed by the statement made under the bright lights of the interview room at London Airport. I am not aware of what my right honourable friend said at London Airport. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gives us the benefit of many wise words in these discussions, but none wiser than those about the inadvisability of having these television interviews. By that I do not mean to say that what my right honourable friend said was unwise. I simply say that I am not aware of what he said. I cannot, therefore—
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I find that a little hard to accept. Here is the headline in the Observer: "Far East Forces to be Slashed". It is quite easy to get a recording of what Mr Healey said at London Airport. Many of my friends heard him talk about the figures in this rather curious manner, saying it will be about 15,000 or it may be 5,000 more or less. This is really not satisfactory. I do not think that we on this side of the House can let it go by as easily as that, as a joke under the neon lights.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, certainly I am not disposed to discuss it frivolously at all. Certainly it is not a matter about which we should joke. But neither do I think it right—if the noble Earl really wants to have an authoritative statement about the forces in that part of the world—to expect it to arise from a discussion on this Bill. I have heard what has been said. I have no doubt statements will be made on this subject in the near future. I would suggest that it would be better for us to await a further statement. As for newspaper headlines and newspaper articles, we have all had experience of those. I have also given interviews in this notorious chamber at London Airport. What has eventually appeared in the Press, if anything at all, has very often only slight resemblance to what I have actually said. I have not had the opportunity of getting a transcript of Mr. Healey's remarks; but I will certainly read with care the questions that have been put to me. If it is possible to give any further information I shall be delighted so to do.
I was asked noble I think, one other question by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but I believe I dealt with it earlier. It was about the position of the courts in Singapore. In conclusion, having dealt in this possibly unsatisfactory reply with the question of defence forces in Singapore I should just like to add, together with other noble Lords, my good wishes to Singapore. They are coming a little late, almost a year after the event; but, nevertheless, we trust she will prosper as a commercial country comprising many races. In this latter respect, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said what was in all our thoughts: we hope that there will be no question of racial dispute; that they will build on the commercial success
346
that characterised that part of the world in the past; and that Singapore will have no reason to regret this change. I hope it may be possible in the future to unite with other countries in that part of the world.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LESOTHO INDEPENDENCE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

MEDICAL SOCIAL WORKERS' PAY
5.27 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the shortage of medical social workers in the hospital service has not been increased by the disparity between the rates of pay offered by the Ministry of Health and by local authorities, and also by the recently announced revised gradings. The noble Lord said: In rising to put to Her Majesty's Government this Question which, I am afraid, is of a very technical character I should just like to say a word or two on the facts which have led to my putting it down. I would remind your Lordships that the people I am dealing with, the medical social workers, go back quite a long time. The first almoner was appointed by the Royal Free Hospital in 1895. By the time the National Health Service came in, they were common in most of the voluntary hospitals. Their prime duties at that time could be divided into two. The first was to take care of patients' interests, to look after them when they were in hospital, apart from their medical complaints, to look after their families, their pensions and the money which was coming to them and, at the same time—and this is equally important—to assist them to find what sum they could contribute to the cost of their stay in hospital.
The National Health Service came in in 1948, and that took away the second function which I have mentioned. At

347
the same time, a great deal of work that they were doing which was routine went across to clerks (first the almoner's clerks and then the administrative clerks), so that really meant that their work had completely changed. They were now doing what was called case work, and they took a great deal of care and a great deal of interest in the patients under the care of the doctors in the hospital. The next move—and I have only two more briefly to refer to—was when the Institute of Almoners at the time joined up with eight other bodies to form the Standing Conference of Organisations of Social Service. Then, in September, 1965, the almoners changed their name to medical social workers. In 1959, the Young husband Committee, reporting on the need for social workers in England and Wales, said that to make a complete coverage of all the hospitals—that is, the old voluntary hospitals, together with a large number of local authority hospitals which had been greatly improved since the National Health Service came into operation in 1948—would require between 2,500 and 3,000 workers. I do not think that that number has ever been reached, and that is the situation at the present time.
My Lords, the difficulty to which I now refer arose in part from the negotiations with the Whitley Council for new salaries and gradings. Those negotiations gave the medical social workers a 3 per cent. increase in January, 1965, which is set forth in one of the circulars issued by the Ministry. One sees in the covering circular that it was the intention that more medical social workers should be employed by the local authorities than at the present time, that the hospitals should have complete access to medical social workers employed by local authorities, and, at the same time that those from the local authorities should be able to go into the hospitals.
But something went wrong with that rather pleasant thought, because the local authorities were given a far more flexible, as one might call it, interpretation of the salary scale than were the hospitals. In the National Health Service scales laid down by the Treasury the control is a great deal more rigid than in the local authority service. What occurred was that, because the total number of medical
348
social workers was not as great as was required for a complete coverage, and because the local authorities could pay more than the hospitals, and did so, the medical social workers, being human beings, felt that they should go where there was more money. At the same time, we found there were certain rather curious differences made in the gradings upon which their salaries depended.
In the first place, there appears to be no particular standard laid down for gradings, so that some hospital management committees adopted one standard and others adopted a quite different standard. The salary grading of head medical social workers depended on the number of staff working under them. That is not a very fair way of deciding a grading and salary, because it can lead to two injustices, if I may use that word. First, my Lords, supposing there are more people available than are required, it will tend to overstaffing, so that by employing more people a head worker can be paid a little more himself. I do not think that this applies to medical social workers, because their numbers are not sufficient to encourage hospitals to overstaff. But it does mean—and it is rather sad—that a large number of senior social workers who, because of a shortage of staff in the past, and a shortage of money to pay the staff that was available, had to work under great difficulty, with staffs far smaller than their establishments are now, as it were, demoted in their grade simply because the numbers they employ are not large enough to justify their retention in the grade in which they were before.
There is another purely technical point which I do not understand. There are medical workers known as senior medical social workers who, apparently, are not counted in the establishment of the head social worker. So if a head social worker has a certain number of senior social workers under him they do not count as part of his establishment. I think it a rather sad thing. The effect of this has been to cause, together with a certain amount of internal trouble in the service (a matter that I do not propose to go into now), an unsatisfactory state among these people. It means that there has been discontent among the medical social workers who have felt insecure and puzzled about their future.
In the same way, there has been some sign that there may be more people leaving the service than the service can stand. I have made a number of inquiries, limited to that part of the world around London, where heads of departments have gone and have not been replaced. I do not wish to quote all the examples which I have: I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply knows to what I refer, and I can give him the examples later, if he wishes. There have been cases where head social workers have gone, and other workers have gone, and they have been replaced by part-time workers; and there are cases where a complete department appears to have faded away. I myself had a very good social worker and she is proposing to leave in September to go to a teaching job, which is much better paid. She will be replaced by someone from another department, which means that, although my department will have a social worker, some other department will be denuded, because there are not enough of these people applying for jobs in hospitals.
I thing I am right in saying that in July of this year there is to be some agreement about salaries in local authorities and I wish to know (this is one of the questions which I wish to put to the noble Lord): will it be possible to tie the salaries of medical social workers in the hospitals to those of the local authorities, so that there may be complete parity and no question of a rush from one side to the other? I was going to read to your Lordships a long quotation from the recent report of the Institute of Medical and Social Workers, but I do not think that I shall. It merely emphasises what I have already said. If there are not enough people to go round, the authority which can pay most will get the services of those people who are available. I know that that is rather a sad thing to say; but medical social workers, like doctors, lawyers, clergymen and everyone else, are human beings, and if we can make a little more money by doing the same kind of work for someone else, we tend to do so.
My Lords, before I sit down I should like to say (although I am sure that it does not need me to say it) what an enormous value the work of medical social workers has to the work of doctors in hospital. If we were robbed of our
350
social workers, I do not think that we could do half the amount of work which we do at the present time. That applies particularly to the work which I have been doing: taking care of the elderly, the chronic sick and the long-term sick, who pose enormous problems for their families when they are discharged. The work could not be done without the help of really first-class medical social workers.
It may be said—and there is a certain amount to be said for it—that this work could be done by social workers employed by the local authority. So it can be, up to a point. It is not a very satisfactory way of doing it, and it can be done, I think, only when you have one hospital department dealing with one local authority. Then you have one social worker, and they can come together and work as a team. But in a large number of departments they deal with more than one local authority. There is one that I have in mind at the present time where the doctor in charge deals with the affairs of seven local authorities from which patients come. It is difficult to deal with seven local authorities, and seven social workers coming in, who also have things to do outside and deal with other departments. It makes the work far more efficient and easier if you have one social worker working in one medical department, whether he comes from the local authority (which I do not like very much) or from the hospital service.
So the second question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this: Is it intended to encourage the employment and training of medical social workers in the hospital service? I think it is fairly generally accepted opinion that their training is much better if they start in the hospital field and move into the local authority field. That is the opinion of the Institute of Medical Social Workers, who should know what they are talking about. It is certainly my opinion, and although I may in some respects be prejudiced, in this particular case I do not think I am. Can the Minister say whether it is policy to discourage the training work in hospitals? If it is not policy, can he give any indication of what can be done to even out this disparity between the salaries of the two authorities? If the Minister can give

351
some satisfactory reply to this, it will do a great deal of good to a fine professional body which at the present time is feeling worried and agitated.
5.42 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I hope that I may intervene for a minute or two. I am sure that when the Minister comes to reply he will promise, as usual, that the arguments which have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the facts he has offered to provide will be carefully looked into. I would ask him (and I hope I am not out of order in doing so) if he would look into it as though the noble Lord's Question had referred to the shortage of medical social workers and psychiatric social workers. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, would agree that the case he has made with respect to medical social workers is almost exactly paralleled by the position of the psychiatric social worker.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said. I ought to explain that when I referred to medical social workers I meant to include psychiatric social workers.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am obliged to the noble Lord. In that case, I need not detain the House for more than a minute more. I should like to give an illustration which came to my notice quite recently. In one of the training hospitals the senior psychiatric social worker—in fact, the supervisor of all the training—had the experience of one of her students, on finishing her training, leaving the hospital to go to a local authority post at a higher salary than that being received by the very senior experienced psychiatric social worker who had been responsible for her training.
That is one aspect of the matter, and there is one more that I should like to quote. If the salary scale in the hospital had been such as to attract that newly-qualified social worker to stay there for a few years and get more experience, instead of leaving, it would have been of benefit to the community. The training in the local authority field is limited, and must of necessity be so. It is training by doing, in a sense, whereas in the hospital it is training by association with and under the guidance of the psychiatrists, the clinical psychologists and so on. If
352
when these workers have completed their training they could be tempted by the salary scale to continue in hospital work for a few years, they would then go out to the local authorities more experienced and, in my opinion, more valuable workers.
I am not suggesting for a moment that they should all be tempted to stay in the hospital field. We all want to see the community care side developed. That means, of course, more workers, however they be allocated between the hospitals and the local authorities. I am not, therefore, decrying the local authority field, but I am suggesting that as the numbers increase, if they do, the hospital salary scale should be such as to attract them to stay in the hospital service until they have acquired that extra training and experience which will make them more valuable in the local authority community field.
5.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have raised this matter, because this is a question that we think ought to be aired: and, strangely though my noble friend Lord Archibald might think it, I propose to say that what has been said will be carefully studied in the Department. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said that this was a technical question, and he then steered us through the history and the technicalities in such a way that I now understand it. I agree with the tribute that he paid to those social workers, both in the local authority field and in the hospital field, for the excellent work they do. The difficulty we are facing in this whole question is the fact that both the hospitals and the local authorities need more social workers. This is the position at the moment.
The number of hospital medical social workers in hospitals in England and Wales in terms equivalent to whole-time staff had reached 846 in 1963, but fell to 824 in 1965. In the local authority service, the number of medical social workers and social workers with comparable training was 215 in 1963 and 347 in 1965. These figures, I think, well illustrate the point the noble Lord was making. There has been in these two

353
fields I have mentioned an overall increase of 110 social workers in the period 1963 to 1965, but in this period the hospitals have lost 22 and the local authorities have gained 132. So this is, as I said, a perfect illustration from the figures of the point the noble Lord was putting to me.
The Health Ministers are responsible for both the hospital and local authority health and welfare services. Salaries and grading in the hospital service are a matter, in the first instance, for the Professional and Technical Whitley Council "A", and in the local authority service for the local authorities' National Joint Council for Administrative, Professional and Technical Staffs. Here perhaps some of the difficulty to which the noble Lord referred arises. The position was that the salaries of hospital social workers had generally been lower than in the local authority service until the Whitley Council, in February of this year, negotiated a pay increase which brought hospital salaries and grading into line with those in the local authority agreements. The recent settlement was reached by agreement of the two sides of the Whitley Council, which on the management side included representatives of hospital authorities, including the boards of governors of teaching hospitals, and on the staff side the Institute of Medical Social Workers and the Association of Psychiatric Social Workers, as well as the National and Local Government Officers Association. The negotiators on both sides were well informed of the organisation of hospital social work departments. The next staffing return for each service will relate to September 30, 1966, but whatever these returns show it will be hard to judge the effect of relative pay levels, because movement of staff may also be affected by factors such as personal preference, availability of suitable appointments and other working conditions.
Medical social workers have a very important part to play in hospitals, and their number needs to be increased, but the hospital services should be developed in co-operation with the local authority social work services because the needs of the patient are not confined to his stay in hospital. I am bound to say that I admit here the difficulties to which
354
the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has pointed. In some cases it is comparatively easy for the hospital to keep in touch with the local authority social worker, but I can see, with him, that the difficulty increases if you get up to, say, seven local authorities to be dealt with by the hospital itself. So certainly this is something which will have to be studied and, if possible, something must be done about it.
Both noble Lords have made it quite clear that the question that is often heard in this matter is: how can we secure an increased number of social workers? This is really the heart of the matter. The training and supply of medical social workers has to be considered together with the training and supply of social workers generally, and this requires the co-operation of the universities, the colleges of further education and other agencies for the provision of courses to meet the needs of the various services in a balanced way. The Minister without Portfolio—and I refer to my right honourable friend and to myself—has under review this matter of co-ordinating the training, recruitment and allocation of social workers and the needs of all the public services, including those of the hospital and local health and welfare services. In the meantime, within the hospital service the Minister of Health has urged hospitals to provide more facilities for practical training for students from university and other courses, and, with the same purpose in view, the recent Whitley agreement has made supervisors of training eligible for the higher salary scales.
The aim of the Whitley Council was to bring hospital salaries and grading into line with those in the local authority agreements in order to achieve balanced recruitment and to facilitate co-operation between the hospital and community welfare services by means of joint and shared appointments. The settlement covered not only qualified medical social workers but also qualified psychiatric social workers and staff without professional qualifications. I think my noble friend can be reasonably satisfied with this assurance about the psychiatric social workers. The task of the negotiators was to translate fifteen different hospital grades into four grades corresponding with the local

355
authority grades which had been based on the recommendations of the Young-husband Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, referred.
In reducing the number of separate salary scales the settlement was unavoidably unequal in its application to individuals and gave rise to complex problems of assimilation on which it was necessary for the two sides in the normal process of collective bargaining to reach a broad agreement, taking account of all relevant factors, including the fact that the regrading itself produced very large increases for some staff but small immediate increases for others. Under the agreement reached by the two sides no social worker suffered any reduction in salary, many received substantial increases, and the majority will proceed to higher maxima and will have better prospects of movement to higher grades in respect of supervision of staff, teaching or work of special responsibility.
My following paragraph to some extent, I think, answers the point which was made very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. The agreement provides for supervisory staff to be graded as senior or head social worker according to the number of basic grade staff in the department. This is simply a method of reflecting the size of the department. It assumes that in large departments there will also be a proportion of higher grade staff; but by excluding these from the count it enables those hospitals trying for the first time to establish a social work department to offer a senior post to a fully qualified social worker, even though there might initially be no more than two unqualified staff in post. The agreement thus gives a wide measure of flexibility according to the circumstances of each hospital group and the form of organisation preferred, whether by a single combined department or a number of separate departments.
The fact that the count is related to the number of basic grade staff, and not total staff, does not mean that higher grade staff need be excluded by the hospital authority from the administrative control of a staff supervisor made responsible for the whole of their social work services. The Whitley Council took note of the possibility that some hospital
356
groups might require an exceptionally large proportion of higher grade to basic grade social workers, and accordingly provided for such cases to be considered individually by the joint secretaries of the Council as regards the effect upon the grading and salary of the head social worker. The extra week's leave allowed for social workers with teaching duties follows the precedent of earlier agreements and accords with the conditions of service of other teaching grades in the hospital service.
While the Whitley agreement is applicable throughout the hospital service, the agreement of the local authorities' National Joint Council is not binding on local authorities in quite the same way. Local authorities have discretion in the starting pay and conditions of individual social workers. If not used with care this discretion could lead to inconsistencies between different authorities and between local authorities and hospitals. This seems to me to be the gravamen of the charge or the complaint which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has made. I hope that what I am now going to say will, to some extent, at least, satisfy both noble Lords who have spoken. The local authorities' National Joint Council agreement has been under review as regards the salaries, grading and qualifications of social workers, and the details of a new agreement were announced last week. The management side of the Whitley Council has given no undertaking to follow changes in the local authorities' agreement automatically in all circumstances, but it has agreed that it would consider a review of the hospital settlement if the National Joint Council reviewed the local authorities' agreement.
The Whitley Council will no doubt take note of what has been said in this discussion. That was why to some extent, although I had to reply to it, I welcomed the noble Lord's Question. It is good that councils and various bodies should have not only the assistance of those who appear before them to argue their case and negotiate an agreement, but also the experience of noble Lords who are themselves engaged in this work. I can give the undertaking that what has been said will certainly be studied in the Ministry, and I should expect that

357
the bodies helping to do this work will also consider what has been said in this House to-day.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to thank him very much indeed for the extremely full statement he has made. I shall study it carefully.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in formed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on July 11 last discharged; and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at six o'clock.