Lords Sitting of 28 June 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester
The Lord O'Neill—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Viscount Downe (L. Dawnay)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRITISH HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA
2.35 p.m.
Loan MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, before I put my Question, I should like to advise your Lordships that I have commercial interests in British Honduras. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will lay before the House the details of any agreement they have entered into with Guatemala, affecting the future of British Honduras when full independence is granted to the latter country in 1968; and whether they will give an assurance that no such agreement will be entered into on this subject with Guatemala without the full assent of the Government of British Honduras.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not entered into any agreement with Guatemala affecting the future of British Honduras; nor will they do so without the agreement of the Government of British Honduras.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply and for his assurance that the British Government have not entered into any agreement. I do not know whether the noble Lord could advise us how the stories have got about in the Press on this matter. I read in to-day's Times that there were riots in Belize yesterday because of rumours of such an agreement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the rumours have got about following the speech made by a Member of the Parliament there, but the fact is, as I have already said, that Her Majesty's Government have not entered into any agreement, and the stories which were circulating are not based upon the facts of the situation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Joint Committee of British Honduras, Guatemala and ourselves, which was agreed on after the Puerto Rico Conference in 1962, have ever met and whether the Guatemalans have ever consented to have a meeting?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the position is that this Government, jointly with the Guatemalan Government, and in agreement with the Government of British Honduras, invited a mediator to consider the situation, the mediator to be appointed by the President of the United States. This mediator has been at work. It is upon him that the present hopes for progress are based. And the rumours, to which my noble friend Lord Macpherson of Drumochter has referred, relate apparently to proposals which the mediator may or may not have been considering.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord said "mediator". Is he definitely a mediator, and not an arbitrator?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, he is a mediator, certainly. If the mediator makes any recommendations eventually, these recommendations will need to be agreed by the parties concerned.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY ANNIVERSARY SERVICE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The House may wish to know the arrangements for to-morrow. The House will meet at 11 a.m. and, after Prayers, the House will adjourn for the purpose of attending the service in Westminster Abbey. Peers are asked then to proceed to the places which have been reserved for them in the South Transept of the Abbey, and to be in their places by 11.40 a.m. After the service, the House will be resumed at 2 p.m. for the normal Business on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the House do meet tomorrow at 11 o'clock, and do then adjourn for the purpose of attending a Service for Parliament in Westminster Abbey, in commemoration of the Nine Hundredth Anniversary of the Abbey; and thereafter do meet again at Two o'clock in the afternoon.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS AID BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Strictly speaking, this is a machinery Bill. It provides authority for the Minister of Overseas Development to use funds for certain specified immediate purposes, and since a Bill was needed at an early date for these purposes, the opportunity has been taken to rationalise and regularise the authority previously vested in the Minister of Overseas Development by Statutory Instruments. Up to now monies have been provided on various departmental Votes and subject to the annual authority of Appropriation Acts. From the point of view of Parliament, I hope that the House will agree that it is appropriate that money-raising powers to support these various aid and technical assistance projects should be placed in orderly, open and legal fashion
548
with my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development.
During the Committee stage, I hope that the House will agree to an Amendment which will make quite clear the authority of my right honourable friend to make aid available to the Protectorate of Aden and certain outlying islands and which will also, I hope, meet the point raised in another place about naming specifically the Federal Government of South Arabia. But, although I am seeking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill which only establishes machinery, it is, I think we shall all agree, machinery for the purpose of disbursing very large sums of our sorely pressed taxpayers' money.
We had a useful and interesting debate on technical assistance to developing countries, introduced so well by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, in January of this year, during which we discussed some of the fascinating projects on which aid is being spent, or could be spent; and, of course, it would be possible again to-day to speak at length about individual projects. I hope, however, that it will be generally acceptable to the House if I use this occasion to set this Bill against the background of Government policy and Government thinking in relation to overseas aid.
Government aid to developing countries is now a big and expensive operation. Some say that it should be bigger; others argue that it is already too big and too expensive. Much experience has already been amassed, but many criticisms are made. I hope to put this present Bill into something of an historical perspective and to consider against the background of our experience some of the general criticisms which have been made inside and outside of Parliament.
My Lords, before the Second World War, most of the backward areas of the world were dependent upon, and were controlled by, European Powers. They were administered for the most part by European officials, and the infrastructure of economic development, to the extent that is was undertaken, was supervised by European specialists. For the rest, economic development was left mainly to private enterprise, and the typical Colony depended upon the export of one or

549
more primary products to the industrialised nations of the West. The pre-war period saw only the very beginnings of the idea that the economic, as against the political, development of a dependent territory was the responsibility of the Imperial Power. After the war, which, as noble Lords will still remember, we fought for principles of democracy and freedom, the movement towards colonial independence coincided with a growing conception of the need for, and indeed the inescapability of, greater interdependence and economic co-operation though out the world. These ideas assumed concrete form in the foundation of the Special Agencies of the United Nations and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
At the same time as the poorer countries more and more insistently demanded to share in this right of political freedom for which we had fought, their material poverty, especially as compared with the peoples of the industrialised West, became strikingly obvious and, I believe, more intolerable to the consciences of many who belonged to the so-called affluent societies. It is relevant to note, I think, in the context of what I am saying, that during this period there was a wider acknowledgement in Western society of the role of Government in economic affairs; and it was in line with that acknowledgement that the amount of governmental aid to the dependencies of the leading Imperial Power, which was Britain, greatly increased. After their effort under the Marshall Plan to revive war-stricken Europe, the United States, too, turned their attention to the dangers which were presented to world stability by the extreme poverty in various areas of the world. Then, after their own recovery in Europe had been completed, the European nations also began to contribute to this development of other countries, as yet backward or underdeveloped, or, as we now say, developing.
The administration of United Kingdom aid grew up rather haphazardly, and before 1964 responsibilities were divided among about half a dozen different Government Departments. The first step towards a Ministry of Overseas Development was taken in 1961, with the foundation of the Department of Technical Co-operation; and then the Labour Government of 1964, believing that a unified
550
administration, with one specialist Department responsible for the aid programme as a whole, was called for, set up the present Ministry of Overseas Development. This Bill now provides in proper and more permanent form the powers which that one Department needs.
I should like to say a word or two about the alleged conflict, which some claim exists, between Government and private enterprise investment. Her Majesty's present Government believe that Government aid and private investment both have important roles to play in these developing countries. They are different but complementary roles, and neither can wholly succeed without the other. British official aid is heavily concentrated on the public sector, and we believe that private investment on any considerable scale in the developing countries is directly dependent upon the creation of an infrastructure of the basic public utilities. It is impossible, I think, to imagine that private capital, which, as opposed to Government aid, legitimately seeks a considerable and probably early return on its investment, could possibly meet either the nature or the full extent of the needs of the developing world.
As between aid and trade, Her Majesty's Government believe that export promotion should not be a main or immediate objective of official aid giving; but on a long-term view it is clearly in the interests of a great trading nation that world prosperity should increase, and if Western aid brings this about, then we may expect, with others, to benefit in the long term. Our own policy, therefore, is to regard aid-financed exports as provided primarily to supply the goods and services required by the developing countries for their development programmes; while commercial credit, we hold, is for the supply of goods which our own exporters wish to sell. These objectives, both of them desirable, are quite separate, and it is our policy to maintain the distinction between the two.
Since we believe that there is not only a moral obligation but a political and economic necessity for these official aid programmes, we view with concern the fact that the world growth of aid during the present decade has shown some signs of abating, and that the progress of the1950s in increasing incomes per head in

551
the developing countries has slowed down since 1960. One reason, we believe, is the fact that official aid represents only one possible use of national resources and competes with other forms of public expenditure, all of which everywhere, including this country, are on the increase and are never sufficient to meet the demands of the electors in the donor countries.
Over the past year or two one has discerned—and it is impossible to take part in the discussions or listen to Question and Answer in this House without realising it—that there is a certain disenchantment with the results so far of the official aid programmes. Perhaps people expect a progress in development much more rapid than has been proved to be possible or realistic. There is also in sections of this country the feeling—indeed, it was expressed in another place when they were considering this Bill—that our own programme imposes too great a strain on our economy at the present time. Since we are all, or should be, concerned with getting our own national balance of payments in order, I thought it worth considering for a moment the actual impact of aid on our balance of payments problem.
It is commonly supposed that the whole of our overseas aid disbursements constitute a 100 per cent. charge on our foreign exchange reserves. But this is not the case. The Ministry of Overseas Development last year undertook, in consultation with other interested Departments, a study of this question and the conclusions suggest that as much as two-thirds of additional British aid took the form of British goods shipped abroad. This represents, therefore, mainly costs in resources rather than costs in foreign exchange. Admittedly, in present circumstances, the foreign exchange cost of aid is enhanced by the probability that exports generated by aid may be partly provided at the expense of satisfying other demands, and may even lead to increased imports or reduced exports to other countries. When all such factors are taken into account, however, the marginal burden on the balance of payments of increased aid was estimated, on the least favourable assumption, not to exceed 50 per cent.
There is another school of criticism which quotes, and has quoted in this
552
House, from the National Plan and from the Election addresses, to prove that we are not doing enough. The fact is that our total aid has been steadily increasing, from £ 81 million in 1957–58 to £151 million in 1960–61, and to £191 million in 1964–65. We expect the final out-turn for 1965–66 to exceed £200 million, and our target for the current financial year is £225 million. What can be done in subsequent years will depend directly upon the recovery of our own economy. In the meantime, we are concentrating on a number of main lines of policy.
One vitally important objective is to increase what has been called the cost-effectiveness of our aid. This is sought not only by the greater co-ordination achieved by a single responsible Ministry, but by a careful scrutiny of individual country's development programmes. This scrutiny is aided by the Ministry's economic planning staff, and by an increase in the number of posts in our overseas missions in those countries which are relevant to this development programme. More effective use should also follow from the policy of devoting a larger proportionate increase to technical aid. Disbursements on technical assistance. rose from £25 million in 1964, to £32 million in 1965, and further increases can be expected in future years. An injection of skills and knowledge is without question the first requirement of most of these developing countries, and a number of important new initiatives to this end were announced in last year's White Paper.
Another feature of aid policy has been an increase of contributions to multilateral agencies. These showed a marked increase in 1965, and the intention is to increase further our contributions, in company with other donors, as the needs of these international organisations grow and as our own resources permit. The funds of the International Development Association will need to be replenished from 1968. I should also add, in this context, that anew and potentially extremely important channel of multilateral aid may, if all donor countries can reach agreement, come into being towards the end of the decade. As a result of a British initiative at the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in 1964, the International Bank has been studying the possibilities of a scheme whereby these countries whose

553
development plans are threatened with destruction by reasons of unexpected falls in export earnings may receive a special form of assistance. The details of the scheme and the responsibility of its administration have yet to be decided, but the British Government will participate fully in the international discussions which will, we hope, lead to the adoption of an acceptable and constructive new development in international co-operation.
Nevertheless, although there is this trend towards an increase in multilateral aid, bilateral aid will undoubtedly remain the largest part of our programme, and our policy in this connection is to give preference so far as possible to those countries and territories where our contribution will have the greatest effect on development in the long term, and will also take into account the relative poverty of the countries with which we deal. As I have already stated on another occasion in this House, we also recognise that countries which are members of the Commonwealth, or with which we have had important and historical links and common ties, have a special claim upon our resources. As our own resources permit, we hope to be in a position to increase our aid to foreign countries.
I ought to say something, I think, about the terms of aid. The terms of British aid have been progressively liberalised in recognition of the problem of the increasing debt burden facing these developing countries. Nearly half our total aid is in grant form, and over the years we have progressively softened the terms of our loans by giving grace periods on the repayment of capital and waivers of interest for the first years of the life of the loan. Last year the Government announced their decision to make development loans free of interest in appropriate cases. This, together with suitable arrangements for capital repayment, has enabled us to lighten the burden of debt service. Decisions on which countries are eligible for interest-free loans are based upon the economic position of the recipient country, particularly its income per head and its present and prospective balance-of-payments position, as well as its capacity to achieve a balanced and sustained development.
554
I have not been through the Bill clause by clause. It has already been dealt with in that way before it reached this House. Of course, if there are any particular questions on the precise provisions of the Bill, I should be very ready to try to answer them later this afternoon or during the course of our Committee stage. Meanwhile, I hope that the general provisions and the central purpose of the Bill will be acceptable, and that noble Lords will feel able to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord for having described the purpose of the Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading to-day. The noble Lord's colleague in another place, the Minister of Overseas Development, in opening the Second Reading debate there, said that it constituted a modest, if far from negligible, contribution to the discharging of our responsibilities in achieving a just distribution of the world's wealth, in banishing hunger and disease and conquering illiteracy. I would emphasise, however, that he used the word "modest", and as your Lordships know from the debate which we had on the Motions of my noble friend, Lord Todd, and myself in January of this year, many of us are concerned that perhaps this aid is too modest.
We discussed this at some length during that debate and I will not repeat what was said at that time, except that many of us, of varying political hues, are disappointed that the hopeful statements in the Labour Party Manifesto, and indeed in the White Paper of August last year, were not echoed in the National Plan, which stated that aid was to be restrained. Your Lordships may remember that even the Fabian Society bulletin, Venture, went so far as to mention that on the developing countries the tone of the National Plan was utterly negative. On the other hand, as my right honourable friend Mr. Richard Wood said in another place, the total aid given during the so-called "thirteen wasted years" of Conservative rule amounted to nearly £1,500 million, and it rose from £53 million to £190 million in the last year. I know, of course, that

555
there has been a rise this year to some £225 million, as the noble Lord has told us, but the increase is nothing like so considerable as we had been led to hope from previous Labour statements.
Apart from this general observation I would say that we on this side of the House look upon this Bill very favourably. We certainly support the offer of interest-free loans to developing countries with special needs, and I am sure that the Government are well aware of the policy of our international competitors, especially the United States of America and Germany, of subsidising economic planning and feasibility studies by private firms, with a view to securing valuable export orders. To these developing countries the flow of private capital must be actively encouraged, as the United States and Germany are doing by investment guarantees, by additional tax concessions, by technical assistance facilities, and so on. Indeed, I observed during a recent extensive tour of Southern Asia what these countries were in fact doing.
At the same time, I was glad to read the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place about the co-ordination of our efforts with other donor countries, particularly through the Development Assistance Committee in Paris. I also have read with interest the clause concerning the Asian Development Bank, and I note from statements—again I refer to those made in another place, but I think the noble Lords will confirm them—that this Bank and the Colombo Plan, which has somewhat similar membership, will in fact be complementary in their activities.
I also welcome the clause concerning the Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement, which has been described as perhaps the one bright spot in Indo-Pakistani relations since Independence, and I am glad to see that expenditure on this project in 1966–67 will be about £3 million. I think we all also welcome the introduction of the Overseas Service Pensions Scheme. However, we on this side of the House shall certainly watch the operation of this Bill, when it becomes law, with great care and interest; and although, as I have implied, the Government have perhaps shown little willingness to implement their earlier pledges, and have been doing a certain amount
556
of back-pedalling, we hope that the Government's financial policies will enable them to use the Bill as we think it should be used.
Having said that, may I make one or two personal observations arising out of my recent journey? I know full well how much our aid is appreciated in these countries. For example, when I was visiting Dacca, in East Pakistan, the Ministry of Overseas Development announced the grant of some £20,000 worth of scientific instrumentation for their laboratories there. Curiously enough I was myself asked to announce this in the course of what I assure noble Lords opposite was a wholly non-Party lecture on Scientific Britain which I gave at the university there. At all events the aid was greatly welcomed, and it is greatly welcomed elsewhere. On the other hand, in one great Indian city which I visited I was told that while such equipment might be of great value, it often took so long to get it out there that by the time it came—perhaps as much as a year or more after the application had been made—it was sometimes considered to be no longer exactly what was most urgently needed. Several of those most intimately concerned with these matters (and I told the noble Lord about this before our debate), British as well as nationals of the various developing countries, told me how extremely important it was that when such equipment was given it should be despatched with all speed.
This leads me to mention something else which disturbed me during this tour. It concerns the brain-drain—not so much from this country across the Atlantic as from the developing countries themselves. They are suffering from a serious exodus of qualified men—and some women, too—to Britain, to Canada, to the United States and even to Australia. If they have had a good training in this country or in their own country they are able only too easily to take jobs in the Western World. Yet in fact they are needed much more in their own countries.
In one of the new universities in Southern Asia, a beautifully planned university with a magnificent campus and an agreeable climate, the head of the large engineering faculty told me how depressed he was by the fact that the seven best

557
men on his teaching staff of about twenty had all been offered jobs in the West and were proposing to take them up. The firms wishing to employ them were perfectly willing to pay the premiums required by their home Government if these men did not remain to work in their own country. This sort of thing is going on all over that part of the world, and with our own brain drain of doctors to America it is ironical how much we need those Pakistani doctors here.
Again, in regard to industry—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, touched upon this in the previous debate but I have observed it myself—the university which I have already mentioned, unlike the modern American universities or universities here, was out in the country and there was no industry around the campus or even in the capital some sixty miles away, so there are few jobs for them to go to in their own land. Then if a British firm trains qualified technicians here they so often want to continue to work in a country such as ours, in which they consider it to be more agreeable to live. Or if they do return to their own country there is a tendency for them no longer to want to soil their hands as technicians but to take clerical jobs, thus wasting their hard-won technical qualifications which have come through the aid we are discussing to-day.
I do not pretend to know what are the solutions to this intractable problem, nor how this brain-drain can be reversed. One small way in which we can help is to encourage more retired people with suitable qualifications in this country to go out and help the developing nations. A man is often very fit when he reaches retiring age here, and I saw what a tremendous job for example, Sir James Cameron was doing as professor of postgraduate medicine at the Dacca Medical College. I sincerely hope there are more like him. They are certainly needed in those countries. The unfortunate fact, therefore, is that, despite all our aid, some of the under-developed countries are actually slipping backwards and there is a terrifying lack of progress, particularly in regard to agriculture. In this way the gap between the developed and developing parts of the world may become considerably wider during the latter part of this century.
558
All of us in the West must do all in our power to help these countries to cope with their problems, and in this I include, as I have said in this House before, assistance in family planning to control their population explosions. Their plight is disturbing—in some cases often tragic. I felt that much of our aid to these countries was negatived when their best-trained people emigrated to the West, even if it could be said that the world as a whole was the beneficiary. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any thoughts on these matters, but I think they get to the root of this problem. What is the use of our going on giving aid if they lose all the best people to apply it?
Many of the countries I visited seemed rather more interested in setting up large-scale capital equipment projects than going in for the development of smaller-scale industries and the application of what is now generally described as intermediate technology, a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made some very interesting observations in our last debate. I am glad to see he is to speak again this afternoon from this Box.
I should like, before concluding, to pay my own small tribute to the work of the representatives of our Overseas Development Ministry. I think there are now some 173 of them around the world. All those I met are to be congratulated on doing first-class jobs in very difficult circumstances, and they deserve our full support.
The only point I would take up with the noble Lord, one on which I gather from what he said at the beginning of his speech he intends to put down an Amendment, concerns Clause 1(4) in the Bill and the reference there to
"the government of Aden and any government established for any part or parts of the Protectorate of South Arabia".
What I fail to understand—and I think this was not understood in another place—is why there is no reference to the Government of the Federation of South Arabia, which is undoubtedly the most important Government in that part of the world. According to my information, this has caused considerable offence to the Government of the Federation; and this, coupled with what I might describe as our breach of faith in regard to defence in that area, has certainly not improved our relations with the South

559
Arabians. My own view is that the Government of the Federation should be specifically mentioned in subsection (4) of Clause 1. I shall look with care at the noble Lord's Amendment when he comes to put it down, and if it does not seem to me to fill the bill I may be obliged to put down an Amendment of my own. There is no doubt, on my information, that the Federal Government consider the present wording of this clause to be completely unsatisfactory. Otherwise, I hope the Bill will, within its limits, have a smooth passage in your Lordships' House.
3.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, subject to certain reservations and some comments. The first reservation I have is one that I have often put to your Lordships in the years gone by; and that is that if trade were fair, and if there were a continuing market for the products, raw materials, of these countries—what are now called the developing countries—there would not be so much need for aid. In a way this Bill is a confession of partial failure. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government particularly for this; they are not so much to blame as many other countries. But in fact if we, the richer countries, gave the poorer countries a square deal, this Bill, and aid generally, would not be so much needed. I want to make that point quite clear; and I think it important that we should realise that. The developing countries realise it only too well. They do not like being put in the position of going round with the begging bowl.
The need is enormous. Two-thirds of the population of the world are still below the poverty level. The United Nations Development Decade is half-way through, five years. It started off with a great flourish of trumpets. Unhappily, the actual amount of development now taking place in those under-developed territories—the rate of development, the rate of increase of productivity—is actually less than it was before the Development Decade started. In twenty years the International Bank, with its affiliates, the International Development Association and the International Finance Corporation, have lent 11,000 million dollars for development. As the Chairman of the International Bank said not long ago, in
560
many cases projects were like extinct volcanos scattered around the world, because there had not been enough money and expertise to keep them going.
A project is started, but it is not always possible to keep it going. In some cases projects have been started with financial loans to the countries, their manufacturers, their industries, for setting up steel mills, and so on, in the heart of Africa, without any raw materialsto supply them. Or big factories for the supply of dried milk have been established in areas where there was not enough liquid milk to go round for the inhabitants of the area. And there are other examples of that kind of thing. The International Bank (it has an excellent Chairman) has learned by experience the folly of that sort of thing, and now concentrates to a large extent on assistance to agricultural projects. That is what is needed in most of these countries: either to make something grow that has not grown before, or to make something grow better than it did before; or to stimulate an industry which can develop the agricultural potential of the country.
I mentioned only last week the magnificent work the Commonwealth Development Corporation have done in Bechuanaland, where they have really saved the economic position in the last few years with the abattoir and canning factory at Lobatsi. That is the sort of thing needed in many places, to take the potential and develop it. It is no good starting on a Western project that has no relationship to the needs of the country to be helped and is of no benefit except to the manufacturer who supplies the materials. And there is no question that, unhappily, there are going around at this moment quite a number of manufacturers, particularly from Western Germany, who are lending money to these countries to establish, to their long-term detriment, factories and machines which they do not need. I also question whether in all cases much of this aid is going to the right people. We know that in the past, unhappily, a lot of aid money has gone not to the people who needed it, the poor peasants, small farmers and poverty-stricken people in the towns, but, in many cases to a lot of crooks, either crooked politicians or crooked contractors.

561
Finally, on this point, there is the instability of the countries. Most of the countries to-day, unhappily, are governed by military dictatorship of one kind or another. Some years ago a professor of Keele University wrote an interesting book called The Man on Horseback, in which he forecast what would happen—and unfortunately he was right. In most cases we have these military dictatorships. They are unstable. One must realise that. After them, what will come? We do not know. It is a point to be remembered when aid is thought of.
Coming to the various points in the Bill, first of all there is the Asian Development Bank. On May 26 I asked a Question on this subject.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point about the forms of Government, may I put a question? He made the suggestion that the form of Government of the receiving countries should influence the extent of the aid. Is that the point he is trying to make?
LORD OGMORE: No. I do not think it should influence it. But it must be borne in mind that we have unstable societies and unstable Governments in many of these countries; and that must be remembered when dealing with the mechanics of the aid. In other words, one must ensure that there is some chance that the aid, or the money which is given as aid, will continue to be used for the benefit of the country, even though the Government falls, as it may well do.
Coming back to the Asian Development Bank, my Question was, in effect: is this Bank a white elephant? Our contribution to the new Bank is £10 million. I asked the Government whether this money was going to be justified in these days. What was this Bank likely to do that existing organisations could not do? We have the International Bank and its affiliates. It is now an extremely good organisation. The International Bank took many years to become a good organisation. It had to go through a teething period. Is this new Bank going to do the same? Will its funds be administered wastefully? Will big wages and profits go to international civil servants? Will the money get into hands of crooks instead of those of the people?
562
It is going to be costly for us, because not only are we going to provide £10 million—and, after all, we have not got all that money to throw around the world—but also we have to make up the exchange rate. If for any reason our exchange rate here falls during the period when this loan, or this share, rather, has to be provided, we have to make good that exchange. So it may cost as far more than £10 million. Therefore, I think this information is something we are entitled to know.
I should like to ask one question about the Indus Basin Development Fund. I fully agree with the objects of this Fund, which is, in effect, to deal with the Pakistan and Indian waters. Pakistan has lately had a most serious problem with salinity in much of her territory. I should like to ask whether the Government propose that some of this money shall go towards dealing with that problem. I think Mr. Arthur Gaitskell made a report on this. He is a great expert on that part of the world. It would be interesting to know what the Government propose to do.
As to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave us an interesting talk on the financial contributions by private enterprise in conjunction with those of public enterprise. In my view, the Commonwealth Development Corporation (or C.D.C., as we know it) has been an outstanding success. Here again was an organisation which had its teething troubles after it started off, through no fault of anyone—it was a new venture in a new field—but it has pulled through and it is now a remarkable organisation. It is something of which all three major Parties can be proud, because we have all sustained it, and this House has always taken a considerable interest in it. Almost invariably the Chairman has been a Member of this House, as indeed is the case to-day because the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, is the present chairman—and a very good chairman, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, carried out an inquiry on behalf of the late Government into the finance of the Corporation, because although the Corporation has done a magnificent job it has done it to a large extent in spite

563
of its financial straitjacket and not because of the financial situation which was so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. This is a case where, generally speaking, it is public finance, taxpayers' money, which has gone into it; and the picture is not quite so rosy as the noble Lord seemed to think.
The financial straitjacket operates in this way. If any of your Lordships were proposing to introduce a new plant into the heart of Africa in order to sustain agriculture, or into Asia, as in fact the Corporation has done time after time, you would not be likely to think that you were going to get the capital back for many years to come. Possibly you might not get it back at all. These are rather risky projects. The Corporation has no risk capital. Every penny that it borrows, either from the Government or from the City of London, at the ordinary market or Treasury rates, it has to repay. Therefore, the risk in the production of development schemes in agriculture, light industry and others, which is so useful to underdeveloped countries, has to be borne at the sole risk of the Corporation. Therefore, quite naturally, the Corporation has not gone in for nearly as many projects as it would like, because it cannot afford to do so.
This Government have met the Corporation to a slight extent, and I welcome this. With regard to projects of the kind to which I have been referring—namely, the productive and development schemes for agriculture, forestry, drainage and so on—they have said, "You need not pay any interest on the money you borrow for the first seven years" That is a help. Previously compound interest had to be paid on all these projects. Interest still has to be paid on projects which are not called productive development projects—that is to say, if it lends money to build a dam, it has to pay interest on that straight away. But where these development projects are concerned it is now excused interest for the first seven years. This, however, does not meet the real problem of the Corporation. I would ask the noble Lord to have this new Ministry look up the Sinclair Report and to go into it to see whether they cannot do a little better than they have done in this Bill.
564
I am only sorry that I shall no longer be in a position to make what contribution I can to the work of the Corporation. One of the first acts of the new Minister, Mrs. Castle, when she came into office was to remove me in a peremptory and autocratic way from the Corporation's Board, so I can no longer assist it. But my heart is still in it, and I want to do everything I possibly can for the Corporation in the time to come.
I wish to raise only two further small points. I must declare my interest in the Overseas Service Pensioners' Scheme and Fund, which is also mentioned in the Bill. I am an honorary vice-president of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association. I do not, I may say, receive any pension; I do not come under this scheme in any way at all, but I am an honorary vice-president, as I think one or two other noble Lords are. Under the scheme, the present Overseas Service officers will benefit, but not former officers. It is the wish, a quite natural wish, of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association that the former overseas pensioners should be put on the same basis as the present officers. They say, with a good deal of force, that they never served the overseas Governments at all; they served Her Majesty, or His Majesty, as the case may be, in the days of the Colonial Empire. These are successor Governments, and these people feel that Her Majesty's Government should take on the obligation which they naturally expected Her Majesty's Government to take on when they entered the service as cadets many years ago. These people have served with great ability in various parts of the world, where life was often rather. uncomfortable in the days before the advent of all these modern drugs which we possess to-day to make life in tropical climates a little easier.
My final comment is on Malaysia, a country in which I take a great interest and with which I have a long association. I was very sorry to read in the newspapers last week the comments made by my old friend, Mr. Tan Siew Sin, who is the Finance Minister in Malaysia, and the comments of Inche Senu, the Minister of Information. These two gentlemen believe that Her Majesty's Government are using aid as blackmail—they did not actually use those words, but

565
that is what their comments amount to. They say that the possibility of aid is being used to force them to enter into defence arrangements which Her Majesty's Government wish them to enter into. I hope that they are operating under a misapprehension, because I personally feel that aid should have as few strings as possible, and certainly should never have defence strings. It is quite wrong to insist on defence arrangements as part of a bargain for aid and assistance.
Malaysia, as a whole, is a country to which we owe a great deal. If nothing else, it provides large amounts of dollar currency every year. Half the world's production of tin and rubber comes from Malaysia; we owe it a great deal, both economically and in other ways. I, for one, should be very sorry to feel that Her Majesty's Government were putting any pressure on Malaysia in order to force her to enter into a defence agreement which she might not want. With those few comments, my Lords, may I conclude by saying, as I did earlier, that basically I welcome the Bill, and wish it a speedy passage through the House.
3.33 p.m.
LORD CAMPBELL OF ESKAN: My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in your Lordships' House since I made my maiden speech, and as that lasted, according to Hansard, 3½ minutes, I think I may be entitled to claim some indulgence for at least part of this speech; especially as I still have ringing in my ears the rebuke of the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, during the Television debate, to people who read their speeches, and the strictures of a noble Lord on people who stammer.
During the short time I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House I have heard discussion and debate on subjects of real human importance, such as sexual offences and abortion, and of much human fascination, such as censorship and libel. This afternoon, in debating the Second Reading of the Overseas Aid Bill, we are, by implication, discussing the plight and the poverty of about two-thirds of the human race. Believing, as I do, that this presents a great moral challenge, and indeed a threat to the peace and prosperity of the whole world, I am sure that the sub-
566
ject is equally worthy of your Lordships' concern.
This Bill, as my noble friend the Minister said, does not claim to introduce any new measures. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to give a firm and comprehensive statutory base for the British aid programme. Broadly speaking, there can, I suppose, be three views about aid by richer countries for poorer countries, by developed countries to developing countries. There can be the view that it is a moral imperative. There can be the view that it is broadly desirable, but that Britain cannot at present afford it—or certainly cannot afford more aid. And there can be the extreme view that aid is positively mischievous. I shall not take up your Lordships' time with my thoughts about the last-mentioned opinion. On the other hand, I am tempted by my father's method of argument when he disagreed with his children, which was to say, firmly and conclusively: "Every man is entitled to his own opinion, but you are talking arrant nonsense". There is, however, a real problem about what Britain can or cannot at present afford to do—or not to do. What, in practice, do people mean when they say that Britain cannot afford aid, or cannot afford more aid? They mean simply that they put the priority for aid lower than other expenditures across the exchanges.
Let us look at this matter in perspective. Holidays abroad cost about £200 million a year in foreign exchange. Tobacco costs us about £83 million in foreign exchange. I have worked out a diverting, but far from insignificant, statistic about aid and rum. And here I must declare an interest. I am chairman of a company which, among other things, is a large producer of sugar and rum and has extensive trading interests in Guyana. (I must say that I have not yet found a clear distinction in pronunciation between Guyana and Guiana.) My right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development announced in April this year that Britain had offered to provide "some £3 million" in the British financial year 1966–67 for Guyana. But in 1965 the duty collected by the British Exchequer on Guyana rum—more popularly known as Demerara rum—was £11 million. It is all very well to say that these two figures are not comparable—£3 million of aid to Guyana and £11 million collected from British

567
customers who buy an important export from Guyana. But in the case of Puerto Rican rum in the United States, the United States Government return to Puerto Rica the whole of the excise duty they collect. We return none of the duty we collect on rum from Guyana or Jamaica.
To turn to a more sober subject, defence. Defence—and of course proper measures of defence are essential—costs at least £300 million across the exchanges. But I believe that the collapse of the economies and societies and political systems of less-developed countries would be a threat to world peace which would add enormously to the defence expenditure of the comparatively richer and more developed countries. In short, I believe that enlightened and imaginative aid can very often be a much better alternative to defence expenditure. It is better to keep peace with the plough than with the sword. Not to mention the fact that the staggering wastefulness involved in arms expenditure overshadows any waste there may be in aid.
British aid in total amounts to about £200 million a year, but I have seen it shown that only about a third of this is a burden on the balance of payments. My noble friend the Minister said one-half, but, with respect, I am going to assume that it may be less, and I have seen evidence of this. And even this loss is largely, or completely, offset by the expenditure on British exports of a part of other donors' large aid programmes. So the more the level of international aid as whole rises, the more Britain is likely to gain through exports. Our exports suffer from poverty, instability and disruption in overseas countries, and our exports gain from the stimulation of their economies.
So to sum up this part of my argument, British aid is at present costing, say, £60 or £75 million a year in foreign exchange, compared with holidays abroad of £200 million, tobacco over £83 million, and defence upwards of £300 million. Therefore, while we are entitled to say that we must, in proper measure, defend ourselves; while we may say that we prefer holidays and smoking to helping to develop Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America; while we may
568
say we cannot afford all these things at the same time, what we cannot say is simply that we cannot afford more aid.
It would be stupid and impertinent to suggest that Britain must, or can, try to bear the whole world's development programme on our Atlas shoulders. But it surely should be our objective to try to influence the richer countries as a group, to deploy an adequate part of their growing resources and skills towards stimulating economic development in poorer countries. I should like to see Britain taking the lead in building an alliance for development aid. This, surely, is a leading role which we could still play successfully.
To revert to what we can and cannot afford, even in the richer countries as a whole one thing we certainly cannot afford is inefficient aid. The most inefficient aid of all is that which is insufficient to ensure any progress, and such aid—there is far too much of it in this form—is really being poured away, usually into the flood of population growth.
I hope that this Bill, above all, will prove to be a further important step in the process of turning the British aid programme into an effective development programme, instead of a haphazard series of indiscriminate charitable or political contributions, which tended to be the state of affairs before the Ministry of Overseas Development was established. I certainly welcome the extra help provided in this Bill for the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and I am glad to see that there is provision for interest-free loans. I say that because this seems to recognise the fact that aid is not a strictly commercial concept, but rather a transfer of resources within the world community, like that effected by taxation and regional grants to development areas within the community of the United Kingdom. In fact, there is urgent need to examine the whole problem of development debts which have been building up over the last ten or fifteen years and now look like slowing down the very development for which the loans were originally made.
I am sure that the danger and the tragedy of there being two worlds is even greater than the danger of Disraeli's two

569
nations; and that the benefits to mankind as a whole of reducing the gap between rich and poor countries will be even greater than the benefits which have come to the British people from reducing the gaps between rich and poor in these islands—a process which has culminated in, but not been completed by, the Welfare State. We must never forget that the primary objective of aid, as the Overseas Development Ministry's White Paper said, is the development of poor countries, not the promotion of British trade as such. Certainly, as I was pleased to hear my noble friend the Minister say, trade and investment and aid are complementary to each other. Each in its own way generates development, but they are quite different things, as he said.
In passing, I must say that I am sureit is to the mutual advantage of Britain and developing countries that we should, in tax measures and otherwise, do everything possible to encourage rather than discourage British investment in specified overseas development areas. The present corporation tax arrangements, of course, positively and generally discourage it. I was glad to see that in the communiqué issued after the recent Commonwealth Trade Ministers' meetings emphatic attention was paid to the importance of commodity agreements and to securing better access and more stable prices for primary commodities (the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to this), and, further, that it was agreed that every effort should be made by Commonwealth countries to ensure practical progress in the field of financial measures to compensate developing countries for unforeseen falls in their export earnings.
The Ministry of Overseas Development's White Paper also said that the objective of aid is not to buy friendship, nor for that matter to buy off hostility. So aid should be administered by people skilled in development, not by diplomats skilled—or too often semi-skilled or unskilled—in relationships with the new nations. Aid can never be, on the one hand, well-managed and effective and, on the other, politically acceptable and appropriately used, unless the men and women representing the donor countries are able to see the problems of the recipient countries through their eyes and in their idiom. This requires real vision,
570
imagination and psychological understanding and humanity, because the problems of poverty and the means of solving them involve a great deal more than economics and good management alone.
I would argue—and I think that nowadays this may be an heretical view—that we need to move towards greater involvement with the countries we aid; not greater detachment, with the only link a cheque for blank million pounds to be spent or wasted as the recipient country sees fit. I think the process of disinvolvement, whichseemed to be the logic of decolonisation, needs to be replaced by new forms of partnership. It seems to be a tragedy that the process of decolonisation has been as fragmentary as the process of colonisation, thus making the benefits of regional development and regional partnerships so hard to bring about.
In the last result, perhaps the people who say that aid does no good could prove right, because aid does not automatically help development unless it is accompanied by technical assistance in spending it in the right way and for the right purposes, unless there is enough aid to achieve agreed objectives, unless there is proper co-ordination between the requirements of the recipient and the resources of the provider, and unless there is a relationship of mutual respect and understanding between them. It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but it is even more blessed, and much more constructive, for men and nations to strive together in partnership to develop the resources of nature for peace, progress and prosperity. And not only that. We are fighting a battle against starvation, which is why aid to agriculture—technical and financial aid—is so vital.
I want to finish where I started: Can Britain afford it? Aid is, in essence, a partial substitute for savings. Can one really expect massive savings from countries such as India or Tanzania, with an income per head of £25 a year? Is it not more sensible to look for the savings out of the affluent societies with incomes per head of £400 a year upwards—societies such as ours? We in Britain may be broke, but we are not poor. But we shall be the poorer, economically and morally, if we try in any way to contract out of playing an active part in the

571
development field. For this reason I support this Bill, so long as it is regarded as a firm foundation for a new creative edifice of British aid, and not as in any way defining or confining the range and direction of the British aid effort.
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, after all the speeches on this Bill which I have heard this afternoon I am particularly grateful to the last speaker. I am glad that the noble Lord did not confine his second speech to three and a half minutes; and in his animated and—in more senses than one—spirited speech, he has brought the issue to a point to which I feel bound to address myself from this Bench. However, my comments will proceed from a more waterish liquid than the one to which he referred at an earlier stage.
It is true that we are dealing with a Bill which is, in fact, a piece of machinery, but it is a piece of machinery to arm and equip a new Ministry which itself is a very significant departure. It is interesting that yesterday afternoon we were debating issues of social security, and the assumption there, unquestioned by all, is that within the national community there is a mutual obligation to one another in which those who have needs of a serious human nature have a right to ask help of their fellows. This obligation is now written into the whole Constitution of our country; and in the existence of a Ministry of Overseas Development we are, in fact, acknowledging that in some degree this same principle is being written larger into what is now becoming the world community: the principle that there are not merely charitable needs but obligations of one nation towards another which we cannot, without dishonour, ignore. It is this aspect, especially, which the Churches hail with a great sense of relief.
It is our claim that over a very considerable period, through what is often not suspected of us at all, the general missionary giving of the Churches, we have in fact been invading the field of overseas aid, and are maintaining it, even under present pressure and at very great cost. It is overseas aid. It is not merely spiritual aid, but aid directed to education, to medical services and to agricultural development. In other words,
572
it is a recognition that aid can never be divided, any more than human nature can be divided, between mind and body and spirit.
In the past few years the development of the voluntary agencies and the remarkable way in which they have gone on enlisting public support for the service of needs which lie well beyond any considerations of race or political alignment has itself been a heartening sign that this country is becoming aware a little of that of which the last speaker so forcibly reminded us, namely, this issue of priorities in the spending of our people here. It has been the experience of the Churches, through their own particular service of inter-Church aid, that this need has drawn us into a kind of co-operation, not only with one another but with our partners in other countries, in a service which, over the years, has mounted steadily, in spite of all expectation, to something like a million pounds a year.
My Lords, I mention this chiefly because out of that experience we have good cause to welcome the implications that lie behind this Bill. It is clear that there is a great deal of voluntary sympathy and support where the minds of people are engaged in the whole facts of the case. It is also clear, as one or two noble Lords have already reminded us, that this process of giving and receiving is an extremely delicate and complex one. The giver can so easily expect a gratitude which it is not in the nature of human beings to express, and the receiver can build up almost a resentment towards those upon whom he is dependent: and this does not necessarily produce the right relationship between them. It is a kind of personal relationship, an involvement, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has said, in which we have to engage ourselves to-day. But certainly the overall experience of the voluntary efforts that have been going on has been that, however high they pitch their target, what they can do is a mere drop in the bucket compared with the need and compared with what can be done, in a way which would be commensurate with the full need, only by nations under direct government leadership.
It is on this point, I think, that we should pick upon this Bill. Our eyes

573
would be fixed not on the direct provisions of the Bill but, in fact, on the powers that are going to be given to the Minister under Clause 1 to provide this assistance. Our questions, as the noble Earl has already said, are: What is to be the volume of the power and the resources which, in the course of the next few years, are likely to be put at his disposal? What is the size of those resources? How do we measure them? On the one hand, we are aware of our own acute economic situation, which might give us full excuse for backing down upon our already-fixed targets. We are aware that there has been a steady increase over the years and into next year. And yet this lamentable fact, which seems to defeat all statistics, still confronts us—namely, that as the level of resources and aid grows, so the value seems to diminish. We are in the world of Alice: it takes all the running you can do to remain where you are. This is the situation. Therefore, statistics by themselves do not necessarily comfort us.
The President of the World Bank, I think it was, has said that in the course of the next five years the developing countries could absorb upwards of £ 1,000 million extra per year over and above what is already undertaken or promised. That would mean a very large advance upon even the £ 200 million that has been suggested for us. What would disappoint us is not so much that we should not necessarily reach the kind of target we should like, as that we should not commit ourselves a little more boldly to a figure which is perhaps a little beyond our grasp now. I share the noble Earl's disappointment—indeed, it is widely shared in the country—that some graduated advance has not been built into the calculations of the National Plan. What we should be saying in that respect would be that, if we had an advance in prosperity in this country, then we should wish that prosperity of ours to be deliberately shared with other countries who have not got it. That, in itself, I submit, would be some kind of additional incentive. If we are requiring a national effort at the moment, let us throw into that demand for a national effort something that would be dependent upon it—that is, the increased assistance that we should then be empowered to give where it is so obviously needed.
574
Now it is clear that at this particular moment any Government of this country would be embarrassed by demands that would promise in advance resources which we have not yet got. Perhaps, as has already been suggested, it is not a question only of what resources we can see: it is partly a question of to what extent the Government could count upon the strong support of public opinion for any plans they might make. The British Council of Churches met recently to consider a very carefully-studied report upon British responsibility in the world situation, and its immediate reaction to that, as the facts became more and more clear, was that it should be the duty of the Christian Churches here to bring home more constantly to their own people this great fact of modern life. But Christian opinion is very limited in its scope. No such appeal to people, to engage themselves more closely in this, would amount to very much unless it was on a national scale, and it could not be on a national scale unless, behind any such campaign that might be evolved, it was quite clear that there was the sponsorship and the guarantee of a settled and forward-looking Government policy that would justify it.
No doubt the reactions of the country as a whole to any demand for increased overseas aid would be very mixed. There would be, I submit, a far greater response of sympathy than is apparent at present. The facts are so little known by the general public, and experience has shown that things happen when the facts are known. But sympathy is a very fitful 'quality. We are in a situation to-day in which nations are so much more closely implicated in one another's lives that the basis of this obligation is not of sympathy or of charity but very much more of common justice. We are a people sensitive to the call of justice.
It may seem a little inconsistent that there is such a hatred of racial injustice to-day and of any form of discrimination and such a passion to put it right, especially among the young people; it is inconsistent if, side by side with that, there is not also a desire for the real freedom of those peoples in terms of opportunity to share in what modern advance has made possible for us. I believe we have not yet put this on a basis of obligation; but admittedly we

575
are all subject to self-interest also, and self-interest has its own proper place in this field of overseas aid: I do not mean so much in the gratitude that we should engender; I mean more in the fact that we are concerned with the stability of our world, and in the future the relations of this country with other countries are more likely to be decided by economic policies than by, say, military policies. This should urge us to look to our own economic relationships with them.
The building up of public support in what lies behind this Ministry will itself be a long process; but for this reason one of the most important parts of the Bill seems to me to be the clause which empowers the Minister to go in for research, to study the complexities of the situation and its relationship to both the givers and the receivers. If this nation is to respond to the need, then I think it must be satisfied over a number of issues. It must be assured that aid is efficient. The kind of stories that circulate about aid getting into the wrong hands or devoted to the wrong purposes are rather like the old gibe of coals in the bath, and may do untold harm unless they can be proved to be unfounded or eradicated. People want to know where aid can be going and where it can be best used and in the right terms. They would like to know that it is flexible enough to meet a particular situation.
It comes as rather a shock to meto read that in 1965 Malawi received more than 60 times as much aid per head as India; and that Aden and the Federation received 125 times per head as much. If that is true, it is certainly an argument for greater flexibility in our programme. Above all, people want to be assured that someone, some Ministry or some Minister, is watching the connection between aid and our own economic situation; that, for instance, there will readjustment to our economy, planned where necessary, in the event of overseas aid affecting it. It is obviously not fair for us to make a call for sacrifices which other sections of the community will have to bear unless we can be satisfied that there are to be means by which their own losses can be made up. But, surely a material aid to those who would like to build up full public support for the aid already planned
576
and in future to be planned, will be a Ministry, given authority and committed to study the complexities of this situation. I hope that this Bill will encourage the country as a whole to make a worthy response to the need.
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, and I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his lucid explanation of its purposes. I would also commend the Title of the Bill to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore: it is the Overseas Aid Bill, and I thoroughly disagree with him when he says that if we had more trade we should need less aid. There can be no progress towards more trade unless we give, and continue to give, more aid in the future to developing countries. In this respect, I would wholly endorse the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan, and also that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester.
I hope that I shall not repeat too many of the arguments that have been advanced. I believe that school children should from the earliest years become familiar with a new kind of geographical map: one clearly depicting the hungry nations and the rich nations. Thus, we should all grow up with a knowledge of the predominance of poverty over affluence in this wonderful age of scientific development. Today, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, pointed out, we know that, while the highly developed industrial nations are steadily getting richer, the developing and under-developed nations are not improving their standard of living at the same rate; and that the gap between the richer and the poorer nations is widening.
There is a kind of magnetic field around all affluent societies which draws skilled and educated persons away from the less affluent countries and from the developing countries, so that this again widens the gap still further. I do not know the answer to this problem. Perhaps as we all advance there will be eventually a kind of "general post" of skilled persons, and there will then be no harm in getting them from the developing nations. The greatest drain on the amount of aid given to the developing countries to help them to raise their standard of living is due to the very familiar "population explosion",

577
whereby any increase in productivity is swallowed by the extra mouths that have to be fed. This rapid growth in population seems to me still to dominate all the other problems facing the developing countries. I believe very firmly that more could be done, and I hope that this Bill will make it possible eventually for very much more to be done, at relatively very little cost, for countries which desire family planning.
To-day, our policies in the new Ministry of Overseas Development hinge both on our balance-of-payments position and on our economic difficulties generally. I am told—and it has been pointed out already: I think by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan—that an increase in aid would not greatly affect our balance of payments. Despite our difficulties at home and those outside our control, we have managed not only to maintain but to increase our overseas aid from £191 million in 1964 to £194 million in 1965. This is not exactly a sensational increase; but what the new Ministry has done and is going to do is to give much more thought, and do more research, into the best methods of planning and using resources available.
One could say that the new Ministry was dealt a poor economic hand of cards, but is playing it with exceptional skill. It has been able to set the target for 1966–67 at £225 million. It was responsible for the introduction and extension of interest-free loans to certain developing countries, and is exercising greater control over the management of aid—a step that will eliminate much waste. It is undertaking a review of its recruitment policy for skilled manpower and improving its advertising. All the same, the number of persons recruited—900 in 1961, which rose to 2,000 in 1964—is still very small compared with France. France, incidentally, as we all know, gives twice as much aid as we do to developing countries, and there are thousands of Frenchmen living abroad in developing countries. I believe that it should be the most natural thing in the world for a professional career to include a period overseas in a developing country, a kind of international national service; and that this service should be done without prejudice to the home career or pension rights of the individual. I hope that this
578
new Bill will make this kind of thing possible, and more possible.
Perhaps one of the most important things undertaken by the Ministry is the establishment of a corps of specialists so essential to any aid project. It is said that there has been a decline in British private investment abroad, which has fallen from £90 million in 1960 to £60 million in 1962, and still further to-day. The reasons are partly practical and partly political. The Government's hand in cutting down overseas investment has not helped; nor have attacks on this country by the newly independent nations in respect of our past colonial administration, for they distract these nations from getting down to their own problems and deflect them from self-criticism. Government aid should be, as the Minister has said, both complementary and a stimulus to private investment, as the initiative for projects undertaken does not come now solely from the developing countries but is worked out in partnership and agreement with ourselves. Altogether, the new Ministry is working out and putting into effect a better planned and more coherent aid policy.
My Lords, in trying to get as much information as possible about our aid, I have discussed various aspects of it with people from the Ministry itself, as well as from that very lively organisation, the institute of Overseas Development, and I venture to give a few conclusions to which I have come. It seems that too little aid can be wasteful and ineffective (as again my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan has pointed out), and our present-day economic difficulties should not inhibit our commitments, since they will not become fully effective until 1967. As our resources for aid are still so limited, the countries which are in a better position to use it—for example, India and Pakistan—must be given priority. There seems a strong case for giving India more capital aid. I am told that those countries which rely more on agriculture need less capital. My Lords, we in the Labour Party have been brought up to believe that 1 per cent. of the gross national product should be devoted to overseas aid. We have come to believe that this is almost a pledge. So far, Government aid alone has not reached this target, but the International

579
Bank has stated that the whole world should increase its investment by 50 per cent. above what has been provided in recent years far this aid to be really effective and used by developing countries
Finally, my Lords, our approach to the whole question of aid needs continual re-thinking. We equate aid with charity; but charity is for those who cannot help themselves, and aid is for people to enable them to help themselves to increase their standard of living. The Government are making great efforts, but these are confined by the stranglehold phrase, "within the limits of our resources." It is as if there were no choice for us in the dispensing of our resources. The sum of £ 100 million for overseas aid would make a tremendous difference to the effectiveness of our aid generally. My Lords, not only is there tragedy in a world where so many people are still hungry; in such a world there are great dangers. I welcome this Bill, and I hope that it will be a springboard from which to give more and more effective aid overseas.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as the result of this very thorough debate I have been able to reduce my large sheaf of notes to four words. The first of them is "publicity". I do not think the public realises sufficiently what this country is doing in the matter of overseas aid. I suggest that the Minister should consider this aspect of the subject, for it is a record of which we have some right to be proud. It would, I believe, be appropriate if we had an annual White Paper, something on the lines of the Defence White Paper, and an annual debate on the lines of the Defence debate. I would also plead for the issue by the Minister of a more popular White Paper on the subject of overseas aid, illustrated by photographs, diagrams and so on, which could be used in schools and perhaps attract more young people to voluntary service overseas. We shall in time, I hope, become a member of Europe, and we shall then be able to co-ordinate our aid with that which is given by France and Germany, which will be to the great advantage of the developing countries. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, made an
580
allusion to the very substantial aid given by France, a fact which should finally give the lie to phrases about a "rich men's club", sometimes used to decry our entry into the European Community.
My next note is to the effect that we should regard overseas aid as a very long-term policy for the advantage of the whole world, including ourselves. I believe it to be a profound mistake to think about it primarily as a matter of charity. It is the long-term interest of the donors as well as the recipients that matters. My grandchildren will be growing up, in twenty or thirty years' time, in a world which contains three opulent continents—North America, Europe and Australia. I am quite sure that I am right in speaking of continents rather than of nations, for I believe that that is how my grandchildren will think. And it will contain three indigent continents—South America, Africa and Asia. That is a profoundly dangerous situation for the world. It is a world of communications, and for the first time the indigent peoples of the world have the opulence of the others flouted in their faces. Very soon they will be able to see, on almost world-wide television coverage, what they can already see on cinemas and hear about on the radio, the prosperity of a prosperous people.
This aid programme is intended to reduce—we cannot do more than hope to reduce somewhat—a terrible gap between the poverty of the poor and the riches of the rich in the world. It is unavoidable, as time goes on and these conditions become both better known and no less acute, that passions of envy and hatred and suspicion should arise. That may well lead to a conflict that will put an end to all the continents, rich and poor alike. Therefore it is in our long-term interest to pursue this matter with vigour. I hope that other nations beside ourselves—France, Germany and the United States—will see the matter in that light and aid us in a noble endeavour.
There is only one short-term advantage for this country which I think is worth mentioning. The young people who come back from their year of voluntary service overseas return with more experience and better developed personalities. I am glad to see that there is to be an adjustment in the matter of pensions in this Bill, which I believe will encourage people

581
not only to go out for a year of voluntary service, but also to return when their services are further called for. That is an admirable feature of the Bill and one which I wholly commend. I have a right to speak in this matter, because forty years ago I was doing a year of voluntary service in India. I am not drawing any pension for it, but it is not a matter which I in the least regret.
Finally, to echo the pleas which other speakers have made, I would say that we should not take any short-term advantage from these gifts, and we should not be suspected of doing so. Some confusion sometimes arises from the fact that most overseas aid is spent, very naturally, in the Commonwealth. That is not the whole truth. We have given considerable loans for the development of South America. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will be able to tell us a little more about this. It is an important matter, because there is always a temptation to regard it as a purely Commonwealth affair and that therefore it might conceivably be influenced by the strain and difficulties which the Commonwealth is at present undergoing. It is not a short-term matter. The strains and troubles which beset the Commonwealth should not in the least affect the matter. Its long-term importance is a matter for the world rather than for the Commonwealth.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we welcome this Bill, but in rising to do this I would at the same time register a certain disappointment and some doubts, pose a few queries and, finally, make a suggestion. I hope that this will not take more than about ten minutes. Anything that enables the Minister of Overseas Development to discharge his duties for us more effectively can be assured of full support from every quarter of this House, despite a few patches of disenchantment here and there, from a growing number of people in this country. The particular powers asked for are each separately to be welcomed, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, himself has said, perhaps they should be reserved for further discussion when we come to the Committee stage. But, as I have said, our welcome is tempered by some disappointment and some doubts.
582
I know that this is only an enabling Bill, but the Ministry of Overseas Development do not often bring their affairs before Parliament, and when they do we want to hear, and look forward to giving a full hearing to, everything they have to say. I was glad to hear this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, of the range of work which the Ministry undertake and the progress that has been made so far. At the same time, we have to recognise that he did not quite catch that note of fire and zeal which appeared—and I think rightly—in the Labour Party Manifesto at the last Election. I say that it appeared rightly, because surely alongside the building of peace, the closing of the gap between the rich and the poor nations is now the most vital task facing mankind. The first disappointment is that in opening this debate the noble Lord did not make that point emphatically, thus setting us the only true background against which a debate on these matters ought to-day to take place.
The doubt, which has been mentioned already, is whether the Minister and the Ministry, which has been set up with such a fanfare—a welcome fanfare to those of us who think this field important—will have the backing from the Cabinet, and the resources from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make full and effective use of the powers we are now being asked to confer upon them. As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Bessborough, the slice of cake for aid in the National Plan is certainly disappointing. It is no match for the ambitions in the Minister's own White Paper (Cmnd. 2736) of last August; and, what is much more to the point, it is no match for the needs of the developing countries that make the Third World.
There is disappointment, too, that there is still, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, this sheltering, behind our balance-of-payments problem, as if it were an unavoidable fact of life.As he has so helpfully pointed out, there is plenty of aid we can give—and in this he is supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan—of which only a fraction is a net burden on our balance of payments. Aid of this sort could be increased now, even under present conditions. In any case, this balance-of-payments problem is one for the rich

583
countries, which they must solve among themselves in order to be able to tackle this much more urgent problem of development with more effectiveness and in concert. Incidentally, while apparently we have not enough aid to spare for everyone who needs it, which may continue to be the case for many years, do not let us be ashamed of starting our distribution of it among our friends and among those whom we know from long acquaintance to be capable of making good use of it.
May I now come to some queries? Are we going to let these developing countries earn their own living in the world when we have helped to train them to do so? It is clearly and widely seen now, and more so since the last United Nations Conference of Trade and Aid two years ago, that the good effects of positive aid policies can be completely and quickly wiped out by negative trade policies. So it will have been a waste of all our time this afternoon, and a waste of our taxes, if measures complementary to those in this Bill are not taken in order to let developing countries earn their own living with their own products. Therefore, while welcoming this Bill, we would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to give us, if he can, some samples of what Her Majesty's Government have done, are doing and propose to do to match their trade policy to their aid policy.
For instance, are they prepared to dismantle the import restrictions on jute at the next review next year? Are they prepared to stand up to pressure from our own textile industry to keep on barriers to the import of low-cost cotton textiles after 1970? I have given the noble Lord notice of these questions, and I hope that he will be able to give fairly specific answers to them. And we will be further reassured by any other indications of the "positive and leading part" that the Government have said they will play at the next United Nations Conference of Trade and Aid next year.
Finally, I come to one suggestion. The Minister of Overseas Development, in the last sentence of his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, in another place, referring to our capacity to help, said:
"It will depend on how far-sighted and generous we are prepared, as a nation, to be.
584
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 728, col. 1199; 17/5/66.]
That is a truth which has been emphasised several times this afternoon. This implies many more people understanding much more and caring much more about the nature, the urgency and the gravity of the whole of what is before us to-day.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester has already said, this means a major and sustained campaign of enlightenment—not only fund raising and tax collecting, but enlightenment. This, of course, has been begun and is being continued at different levels and in different ways, but mostly in a very small way. It is being done, and being done well. I think, for example, of the closely reasoned and well presented literature that is available to us all from the Overseas Development Institute. I think of the factual bulletins distributed regularly by OXFAM to their local collectors. I think of all the educational work done in schools during the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. I also think of that recent study, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, called World Poverty and British Responsibility, which has been commended to us by the British Council of Churches. The concluding sentence of this study reads:
"Governments will only do what public opinion will support or demand."
Or, put more plainly, "There are only a few votes in development aid"—and some disenchantment.
My suggestion, therefore, which follows the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, is that the Ministry of Overseas Development themselves should take a far larger share than they are already taking in the cost and the effort of presenting to the public the needs of the development third world, and the opportunities for serving in it. The Minister and his Ministry should join with the various institutes, organisations and charities that are already doing this so imaginatively, but with such slender and precious financial resources, and in some cases appearing before the public as if they were in competition with one another, rather than as allies within a single enterprise. I am sure that if they were to do this it would be far easier for the politicians to lead us in choosing the right priorities between all

585
the demands which are competing for our resources.
My Lords, I am quite certain we cannot go on as we are doing to-day. In spite of all our efforts, the rich nations are getting richer, and the poor nations are getting more numerous and staying as poor as ever. Every day we go on as we are makes the scandal greater, the problem harder, and the perils of dodging and neglecting it more awful to contemplate. For that reason, we welcome this Bill.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I might say a few words, having had some experience of farming in these areas. My noble friend Lord Bessborough mentioned the lament-able fact that agricultural production in the underdeveloped countries has shown a decline in the past few years; and he is quite right. One of the reasons for this has been that, owing to the political turmoil there has been in many of these countries, the European farmers, who have contributed greatly to their agricultural production, have not felt very secure and many of them have stopped farming in those countries.
I should also like to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I think it was an admirable speech, packed with common sense. The noble Lord mentioned the question of the type of Government in power in an under-developed country to which we give aid. I consider he is quite right in his assumption that one has to be careful about the type of regime in power, because we have had some unfortunate instances with regard to the giving of aid. The whole object of this aid is to help the poverty stricken peoples; it is not to line the pockets of the politicians of those countries. So often our aid has gone for that purpose. If you take a country like Ceylon, the former Government completely wrecked the agricultural economy of that country by their form of nationalisation.
I just want to emphasise that we are ourselves a great debtor nation, and we owe the world a lot of money. I am all for aid to the underdeveloped countries provided that it goes for the people—but we ought to make sure that that is
586
where it goes. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, we must in future take more notice of the type of people in power in the country to which we are granting aid.
4.39 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first of all thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for what they have said and for the welcome that they have given to the Bill? Until the noble Viscount who has just spoken rose, I think it is true to say that we had the encouraging and, indeed, stimulating fact that, without exception, all who had taken part in the debate were asking for more money to be spent by this country on aid abroad. It is a remarkable fact, and it is one upon which we should reflect deeply.
I only say in regard to it that I recall quite clearly a statement being made some few weeks ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling attention to the fact that, for the first time in many years, he had kept his expenditure closely within the limits that were set out at the beginning of the financial year. That statement was also welcomed without exception. I feel that we must accept the challenge which is presented to each one of us: that there is no point in arguing that we should spend more money in development aid unless we accept the challenge that it will mean to us. I would say to some noble Lords, and to the right reverend Prelate (who has now left the Chamber), that while it is fair to make that kind of speech in this House, there is an obligation upon them to make it at the hustings at Election time, to try to secure the co-operation of all the taxpayers who have to provide this money.
There are two noble Lords and one Baroness who took part in the debate to whom I should like to say a separate and special word. I do not think we can argue against what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan said when he put it to us that this argument about not being able to afford aid is really an argument for getting our priorities right. I accept what he said in this matter, that, as in all Socialist policies, it is a question of priority. In the matter of getting our priorities right, I felt so strongly at the time my noble friend Lady Gaitskell was speaking that I wanted to say to

587
her that no one more persuasively and courageously tried to teach the people of this country that they had an obligation to make a sacrifice on behalf of those abroad and overseas who were less well off, than did the late Hugh Gaitskell.
Having said that and, I hope, having said it fairly, I also accept that several noble Lords, including particularly the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, put forward constructive proposals as to how we should engage in the kind of educational campaign needed to get the people of this country to accept the obligation that is undoubtedly upon us and others of the more affluent countries. I was particularly impressed by the suggestion that we might have a new map coloured according to how the areas of the world were placed in this spectrum between poverty and affluence. It was a suggestion which, I hope, will be considered more closely.
There was also a proposal put forward that this new Ministry, the Ministry of Overseas Development, ought to present each year a report, a White Paper—or, as I understand the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, to say, a coloured White Paper—setting out in forceful and, I think he meant, a picturesque way, not only what is being done but what needs to be done, so that we can get the full and conscious co-operation of all the people of this country behind this Government, or a Government of any other political complexion which accepted the challenge that is presented to us by this gap between the poor and the richer countries of the world.
I will say only one more word about this subject, and that is to repeat something which I said in the debate in January of this year about the gap. If we continue as we are now continuing with aid—and when I say "we" I now mean the world—we shall find that those countries which now have a per capita income of 100 dollars a year will, by the end of the century, have an increase in per capita income of only 170 dollars, whereas those countries which now enjoy a per capita income of 3,000 dollars a year will have an increase, at the present rate of growth, of another 1,700 dollars a year. So, as we have all said, the gap is getting wider—and how tremendously
588
wider I do not think any of us really fully understand.
I was asked some specific questions at the beginning of the debate, and I set out hopefully in an attempt to answer them all. I doubt whether it is now feasible, and if I do not answer all of the questions during the course of this debate I hope I may be allowed to write to the noble Lords who have taken part. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned the brain drain which is currently taking place from some of those countries which we are trying to help. I think he is absolutely right; there is this brain drain. Obviously, he had it called to his attention in a very forceful way in Pakistan. I recently came back from Guyana, and it was pointed out to me that, though we are sending trained people to help in that country, their own people when trained are remaining in this country or in other of the industrial countries of the Western World, partly because they can get a greater financial reward.
I am not certain what the answer is here. Of course, it cannot be done by any legislative action. It is not possible to compel these people to remain in their own countries and to give them the benefit of the skills that they have acquired here. The answer may come in a longer term when, of course, their own respective countries have developed economically and have greater rewards to offer. It may come as a result of some sort of realisation by the peoples concerned that they have a greater obligation to their own countries, rather than to the already affluent societies in the Western World.
There is no easy answer to this problem, but I think the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, did a service in pointing out to us that the problem is there. He spoke about the possibility of some of the retired specialists in this country being called for service in some of the underdeveloped areas, and I think this is something into which we shall have to look with sympathy and care. I was also asked by the noble Earl for some assurance about the change which it is proposed to make in the Bill so far as South Arabia is concerned. I am sorry that it was thought that offence was given to the present Ministers of the South

589
Arabian Federation by the present wording. In reply to that I would adopt Standing Order 29 and say that as no offence is spoken, no ill should be taken. Certainly there is no offence or ill intended here. But it will be necessary to have an Amendment. The question of naming any part of the world would not have arisen had it not been for the fact that responsibility for South Arabia had been transferred at this moment from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office. This meant, administratively, that they would not have been caught by the provisions of the Bill which applied to the Colonial Office. However, we accept the point, and I hope that we can all look at it with sympathy when I propose the Amendment.
The noble Earl also asked about the possibility of delivering equipment on time. I quite agree with him that if equipment is required, whether for developing countries or anywhere else, it should be delivered on time. I made some inquiries into this, as he was kind enough to give me prior notice, but I am afraid that I have not been able to identify the particular cases to which he referred. However, if he would let me have further details, I should be glad to look into the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that he was sorry that he was not able to continue the work which he had been doing for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the contribution which the noble Lord has made. It was a most valuable contribution, and I am sorry that, for reasons of which I am unaware, he is not still able to play his part there. The noble Lord went on to say something about the possibility of their work being more effective in particular spheres if they had at their disposal equity capital; if they were able to lend money for projects which did not mean an immediate return on capital lent. I am not sure that the answer there is in equity capital but, as we know, possibly they have been enabled to waive interest in the earlier years, on certain loans, and I hope this will go some way to enable them to finance the sort of work that he has in mind.
The noble Lord also made the point to which several other noble Lords referred, that if we were able to stimulate
590
more trade there would be less necessity for aid. This is perfectly true, although of course I did say that it is not likely that we should be able to stimulate trade to the extent required unless an amount of aid on the infra-structure to the underdeveloped countriesis forthcoming, and it can only be forthcoming from national or governmental sources. Nevertheless, we accept that there is a special case, when individual countries are dependent on primary commodities, and when there is a fall in the price of those commodities, which means very often that they are selling more in quantity and getting less money in return. To some extent this situation will be covered by the new proposals to which I referred in my opening speech. In special cases it ought to be feasible for some international aid to be given to them in order to tide them over the particularly difficult situation caused by an unusually sharp fall in the price of commodities upon which they depend.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked me about Malaysia and he suggested that we were using aid there for the purpose of influencing defence policy.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about me, but I did not suggest that we were doing that. I only said this was the allegation made by two Ministers, and I hoped they were possibly under some misunderstanding.
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I agree with him absolutely that, while there may be a case in the interests of both parties, of tying aid to certain economic objectives, it would be wrong to use aid for the purposes of influencing defence policy. As he knows, there is in that part of the world at the present time a very special and sensitive situation which has developed since Singapore separated from Malaysia, and it is conceivable that, being more sensitive at this time, they look upon our amount of aid with (shall I say?) a little more suspicion than is warranted. I should like to take the opportunity of saying that it is only the limitation upon our resources that prevents us from offering Malaysia additional development aid this year. Our economic aid and technical assistance together will in fact cost about £5 million, and this

591
will be approximately the same the previous year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked me a question about the position of certain officers in relation to the overseas service pensions fund. He put the case, which also has been put very persuasively and fairly on other occasions, and I am only sorry that I cannot give him more encouragement that those officers who had already retired could be brought into a scheme which has been devised for serving officers.
I think I have dealt adequately with the point about the fair price for commodities. I should like just to say again to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan, that this was a point which had special consideration in the Commonwealth Trade Conference which ended only last week, and I think we got a formula there as an objective about prices which were fair both to the consumer and to the efficient producer, and I can give an assurance that all the opportunities which are available to us will be used in order to get a price policy which fits that formula which we there agreed.
I was asked some questions about the Indus Basin Development Fund. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the help that would be given on the salinity problem. It is a fact that in the Indus Projects they are faced with this problem, but that Indus Projects are separate from the Basin Fund to which I have referred. It is in fact a scheme which comes wholly within the Pakistan authorities' responsibility. They have called our attention to this problem which they are facing. We have recently studied a Report which was produced in April of this year, and the Ministry of Overseas Development are considering retaining a team of eight British technical experts to advise them on that particular problem.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester made some comment about (as he put it) the disproportionate aid we were giving to certain countries as compared with India. I think he had his proportions correct, but it is possible to look at them again with another eye and to arrive at the conclusion that we are giving too much to India and too little to some of these other countries. It is
592
the fact, I believe, that a quarter of our total aid is going to India, and a third of our development aid. Also, so far as India is concerned, there are several countries which accept a responsibility, where as in the case of some of the African countries—and Aden too was mentioned—no other industrial countries accept any responsibility at all. They are dependent entirely upon us, and taking all these considerations into account I hope he will agree that the limit of the aid we have at our disposal is probably being fairly allocated. At any rate I can assure him that we are endeavouring to allocate it fairly.
Several noble Lords and the noble Baroness called attention to the population explosion. Here, again, there may be some difference of opinion as to the extent to which a nation which is out to help human life by its economic aid is entitled to take any steps which have the effect of limiting the number of human lives. But the British policy here, I would say, is that when asked by any of these developing countries for advice and assistance on this problem, it would be forthcoming.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke, and I think my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan also spoke, of the falling level of private investment. I think I indicated in my opening remarks that we, as the Labour Government, certainly do not wish private investment to fall. So far as developing countries are concerned, the steps we have recently taken to restrict investment exclude them, and in other countries restrictions are only temporary because of our economic situation. Moreover, in the developing countries the fact is that aid recently has not fallen; it has increased. The figure in 1964 was £87 million, whereas in 1965 the figure had risen to £110 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me about the Asian Development Bank and suggested there was some duplication here, that it might well be wasteful, and why did we want to spend our money in financing this Bank when there was already the International Bank. The answer to that is that this is a regional bank. There are other regional banks. These regional banks are able, I think, to bring to bear the kind of local knowledge and expertise to which the noble

593
Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, referred. They are able to give special assistance. They are also able to encourage regional development schemes when these are required. I think that the Asian Development Bank will have a special and additional part to play in the overall problem.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the encouragement of certain industries in these developing countries, and he made the point, as did others, that there really is no virtue in giving economic aid if we make it impossible for them to develop industrially. The fact is that we recognise the need for developing countries to institute some manufacturing industry, and we have encouraged it to the best of our ability by making it possible for them to send here duty free virtually all manufactures, excepting, of course, cotton textiles. Here we are up against a very difficult problem, which I hope the noble Lord will accept.
I had the opportunity last week of speaking to some of the delegates from Basutoland. They, too, were speaking about the need for diversification, for getting some manufactures going. They intended to start this policy in the near future. I asked what manufactures they had in mind and they mentioned, first, cotton textiles. I do not think really, in view of our own situation here and the fact that we have built up a very substantial export trade over the years in cotton goods, that it is easy for us to do more than we have already done. There has been, as the noble Lord will probably accept, some recognition of the need to allow an increasing amount of cotton textiles to come into this country, although in a regulated fashion; and, while we understand the pointhe is trying to make, I would have thought our record in this matter, bearing in mind our responsibility to our own industry in Lancashire, is a reasonable one.
The noble Lord asked particularly about jute manufactures, and here again our record is not wholly bad considering the situation in this country. As he probably knows, most of the jute industry in the United Kingdom is concentrated in Dundee; I understand one-fifth of the total working population in Dundee is dependent upon this in-
594
dustry. It is difficult to subject it to wholly unregulated competition, but there has been an easement of the restrictions since September, 1964, and I can say that it is the intention to review this position again later this year.
I think in winding up I can do no better than quote the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan in his excellent speech, for which there was absolutely no need to be apologetic. He said he hoped this Bill would provide a firm foundation for a new creative edifice. I accept that. I believe that is the intention of Her Majesty's Government. I accept what he said, and what I think was said by the right reverend Prelate, that we have in these matters to work towards a world community. The ideal and the obligations of a world community, despite Vietnam, despite Mississippi, despite the industrial strike in our ports, despite the struggle in Rhodesia, I think it is fair to say, has greater acceptance in this country than there ever was before.
Although we can say we ought to be giving more, when we think of the amount we were giving before the war, which was negligible, I think we can take a little satisfaction. Nevertheless, the need for further effort still remains, and I hope all those who put forward the plea for greater expenditure willcarry to the country among the electorate the sort of plea they put forward here this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CAMBRIDGE, READING ANDWALSALL) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920: ADDRESS TO THE QUEEN
5.7 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of The Queen's Message of Wednesday last.
HE LORD PRIVY SEAL)(THE EARL OF LONGFORD)HE LORD PRIVY SEAL)(THE EARL OF LONGFORD) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a State of Emergency exists. The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if this Motion were agreed to formally at once, and that the discussion should take place on the Motion to approve the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations 1966. I therefore beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a State of Emergency exists.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD moved, That the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations 1966 made by Her Majesty in Council on June 22, 1966 under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, and laid before the House on that date, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stonham, who will wind up the debate, I beg to move the second of the Motions standing on the Order Paper. This asks the House to confirm that the Regulations made in consequence of the declaration of the State of Emergency shall continue in force for another month.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been speaking on this subject this afternoon, and the House will, I think, expect me to keep very closely to his words. I shall somewhat abbre-
596
viate his speech, but that does not mean that my speech will be in any way short. It is a grave and important subject. The House will be aware that recently there have been hopeful moves in the direction of a settlement, and this debate takes place against a background of negotiations which are going on at present and which we all hope will speedily reach a successful conclusion. I would, however, point out that even if agreement had been reached a day or two ago it would still have been necessary to commend these Regulations to the House. For the time being it may be necessary to keep the port emergency committees in being, with power to regulate shipping in ports. But the Government would hope, if the House agrees to the continuance of these Regulations, that an early ending of the strike would mean that the Proclamation could be revoked and that the Regulations could lapse at the earliest possible moment.
While all our thoughts and hopes will be concentrated on the negotiations now proceeding, it is not perhaps too early to begin to consider some of the lessons of this dispute. The seamen's industry has been virtually strike-free for many years. This particular strike has no single, simple cause: it is, in the first place, the result of the accumulation over many years of grievances and frustrations which we as a nation—and we must all share some of the responsibility—should not have allowed to develop. For many years a large part of the membership of this Union increasingly felt that the Union was not adequately discharging its responsibilities. In consequence, these grievances and frustrations were allowed to grow and fester, and to suppurate.
Another lesson from this dispute is a fact which emerges from the Report of the Court of Inquiry: that a great deal is amiss in the efficiency with which this industry is conducted. It is clear that the earnings of British seamen fall below those of many of their foreign counter-parts. With those factors in mind the Government, as the House is aware, have decided to set up, as a matter of urgency, an independent Inquiry into the structure, organisation and efficiency of the industry.
The third lesson must relate to the organisation of the Union and the problems presented in terms of industrial democracy. One of the problems in this

597
dispute is a new-found militancy of the Union. In saying that I am not attacking militancy as such: I am only pointing to the situation which arises in this particular Union at the present time. No one will underrate the difficulties of democratic organisation, or an attempt at democratic organisation, in a Union catering for seamen. The difficulties of communication are of a different dimension from those experienced in any other trade union. The present Executive Council was elected (I am not saying this in any critical sense, but just to point to the difficulties of communication) by only 5,000 out of the 65,000 members. All these are points and difficulties to be borne in mind. But, superimposed on these difficulties, which can easily be expanded, there is a further problem, to which I must now turn.
I begin with what has never been challenged: that there are no Communists on the Executive Council of this Union, and that the number of Communists among the membership of the Union is extremely small. It is questionable whether, for example, the Communists would be able to man more than one or two picket lines. In addition, we must be extremely careful to distinguish between the external influences and the quite real feelings of tens of thousands of the Union members that they have had a raw deal for so many years in the past. We have to distinguish between the genuine grievances and the genuine expression of those grievances, on the one hand, and the deliberate exploitation of those grievances by outside influences, on the other.
Again, it would be wrong to suggest—and I know that the Prime Minister is stressing this point—that members of the Communist Party, and particularly dedicated Communist seamen, are not deeply concerned with these grievances and the problems that have to be settled. I should add that there was, and is, no question of impugning the integrity of the Executive Council. What the Prime Minister was referring to in his Statement in that connection eight days ago was their lack of guts.
But the House will be aware that, unlike the major political Parties, the Communist Party has at its disposal an efficient and disciplined industrial apparatus controlled from Communist
598
Party headquarters. No major strike occurs anywhere in this country, in any sector of industry, in which that apparatus fails to concern itself. In special cases it has been seen at work—for example, in the Electrical Trades Union, where it made a successful takeover bid, if not of the share capital, at any rate of the management of that Union, lasting for some years. No other political Party is organised on these lines, and it may be because of the political, as opposed to the industrial, impotence of the Communist Party that it has sought expression in industrial organisation. Noble Lords would delude themselves if they imagined that there was not the most efficient organisation on the industrial side; if they did not realise that it has full-time officers ready to operate in any situation where industrial troubles are developing. And we should underrate equally its power if we did not recognise that, however misguided we may consider their objectives or their methods, they, in their own way, desire to see an improvement in working-class standards, and would not be effective if this were not so.
One other thing I want to make clear. None of this is in any way illegal. In a free society—it may be different in a Communist society—they have a legal right to do it. And there is no evidence at all that in pursuance of these aims, so far as the seamen's strike is concerned, they have committed any individual acts of illegality. Equally, I should make it clear that there is no suggestion of any interference in this strike from overseas. Whatever has been done is indigenous in character and is rooted in our own doctrines of freedom of association and action.
But if those who act in the way I am going to describe are within their legal rights—and I take it that, whatever recommendations the Royal Commission may make, none of us would wish to curtail the basic legal rights of freedom of speech and action in a democracy—if, I say, they are within their legal rights, equally those of us who regard their activities as harmful have our rights, including the right to take such action as we may think appropriate. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has thought a great deal about this in recent weeks, and his Statement eight days ago

599
was, I can assure the House, not made without anxious consideration. Not only have some of us in the Government an equal right to take any action within our power to ensure that these activities are known and understood for what they are, but we—that is the Government—certainly have a duty to exercise that right.
For some years the Communist Party have had as one of their objectives the building up of a position of strength, not only in the Seamen's Union but in other unions concerned with docks and transport. They are engaged in this struggle for power in the Seamen's Union because they recognise the facts I have outlined to the House. The Communist Party recognise not only that democracy is shallow-rooted in this Union, but also that grievances and exploitations have festered for many years; and they recognise that the facts of seagoing employment make infiltration easier than in other industries. This bid is directed to next year's Conference, at which the rules can be changed and, equally, steps taken to change full-time officers, who for the reasons I have given, have an unusual degree of power to influence the conduct of the Union's activities, even if this power has not been much exercised of late.
This is a take-over bid, and take-over bidders on all sides of industry are notorious for their single-mindedness and ruthlessness. The whole formidable power of the industrial apparatus has for some time been directed towards this end, and the seamen's strike, with all its background of justification, has provided the ground. This has been known for some time. A seaman who had played a leading part in the localised strikes of 1960, and was a former Chairman of the National Seaman Reform Movement, made a long statement in the January, 1965, issue of the Seaman, in which he set out the way in which this take-over bid was being organised. And, having given details of what was being done on the North-East coast, and in the Mersey area, he summed up in this way—and now I quote:
"Thus the Communists are in a position to use the movement for their own purposes; and all British seamen know what this means. In particular, Gordon Norris and some well-
600
known Communists on the North-East coasts are going around all ports to ensure that the Communist Party keeps a firm grip on the movement"
That is the end of that part of the quotation,. He then went on, in this very long statement, to advise his fellow members how to counter what he called this
"…very small group of active Communists who are working for their own interests and those of the Communist Party."
My Lords, that concludes the quotation.
The central figure in the operation is the Communist Party's industrial organiser, Mr. Bert Ramelson, who in January succeeded Mr. Peter Kerrigan. Mr. Ramelson has three full-time officials on his staff, and in the London area, where the docks provide his hunting ground, his principal lieutenant is Mr. Dennis Goodwin. Round this full-time nucleus has been gathered a small group of active trade unionists in the National Union of Seamen and other unions. I referred a moment ago to the Communist Party's numerical weakness in the membership of the National Union of Seamen. Yet, despite this, as soon as the strike began, they were successful in ensuring that the chairmanships of strike committees in the country's two major ports, London and Liverpool, were taken by two dedicated Communists, Mr. Jack Coward and Mr. Roger Woods. Again, in the Union's negotiating machinery a leading member of the negotiating committee, not himself a member of the Executive Council, who was elected from the floor of the Annual General Conference, was also a highly articulate and effective Communist, Mr. Gordon Norris, who in certain of his activities also operates under the name of Mr. George Goodman.
The objectives of the Communist Party throughout this dispute were, first, to influence the day-to-day policy of the Executive Council of the National Union of Seamen; secondly, to extend the area of the stoppage; and, thirdly, to use the strike not only to improve the conditions of the seamen, but also to secure what is at present the main political and industrial objective of the Communist Party—the destruction of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
Let me first deal with the organisation of the Union and of the strike. I have

601
referred to the Communists' success in capturing two of the major strike committees. They are also effectively represented in other areas. When Mr. Norris, who has not paused in his activities during the last six weeks, visited Glasgow he made it his business to contact certain members of the strike committee, but he omitted to get in touch with the secretary, who happened to be an efficient and loyal member of the Seamen's Union. At various stages since the strike began, those I have mentioned have met and decided their policy, and have sought through whatever means were open to them, to influence the Executive Council. They started with a disadvantage, that there were no Communist members on that Council. What they had to do was to operate through any who were responsive to their suggestions, including a circle of members whose conception of the seamen's strike made them amenable to the type of proposals the Communist Party were advocating. I have already referred to the difficulties of industrial democracy in the election of the Council, and one must recognise the effects of the history of this Union in the inexperience of many of its members. This political and industrial inexperience of some of its members—which you would not find in most of our other unions—meant that a small number of men exercised an influence far beyond their numbers.
If I have to refer to Mr. Joseph Kenny and Mr. James Slater, neither of whom is a member of the Communist Party—may I repeat that: Mr. Joseph Kenny and Mr. James Slater, neither of whom is a member of the Communist Party—one must acknowledge their political and argumentative skill. The Prime Minister has had five meetings with the Executive Council, or with committees appointed by that Council, and he can testify to their ability, to their mastery of the details of seamen's complaints, to their ability to absorb skilled briefings, and to their dominance among their colleagues. They live in Liverpool and South Shields respectively, and over these past few weeks when they have attended Executive Council meetings in London they have stayed at the same flat as Mr. Jack Coward. During the strike Mr. Ramelson has visited this flat when Mr. Kenny and Mr. Slater were staving there, and Mr. Norris, of course, has also been in constant touch with them. They have, in fact,
602
been in continuous contact with Mr. Ramelson and Mr. Norris. The Prime Minister has had enough first-hand experience to recognise that these two have dominated the Executive Council throughout the negotiations. Again, they were predominant in the Executive's brusque and unanimous rejection of the appeal which the Prime Minister made to the Executive a week last Friday.
The House may well ask how influences of this kind, even exercised through a small number of highly articulate and experienced members of the Executive, could have so long secured acceptance, unanimously and almost without rebuttal, from a Council of 48 members. But first let us recognise that the views which the militant members of the Council were expressing fell on fertile ground because all their colleagues were aware of the feelings of the seagoing community. Let none of us underrate the extent to which moderate members of the Executive Council, no less militant in their objectives than their militant colleagues, would be subject to pressures which many of us would find distasteful, and perhaps almost irresistible. The treatment which those who advocated a return to work have received on occasion in the last six weeks might have daunted the toughest of us.
A long article in The Guardian last Saturday indicated the pressures to which any moderate member might be subjected in his strike committee, in his home port, and (let us not underrate this) in the treatment he might receive when he returned to his ship. That article referred to the fact that at many of these meetings they will recognise
"men who are not in the N.U.S., but are members of other Unions …
It referred to the organised pattern which could be discerned, their aim being
"to keep the temperature of meetings running high; to inflame the legitimate grievances of seamen by intervening with abrasive slogans shouted at appropriate moments."
I would commend to noble Lords the evidence produced in that article, but I will not spell it out at greater length here. Time and again in this dispute the Communist Party's objectives havevery rapidly become the policy of the Executive. This is particularly true in relation to the determination of the Party to spread the strike. This was, it is true,

603
the policy of the National Union of Seamen; it was not the policy of the T.U.C. or of any of the other unions affiliated to the T.U.C.
When the State of Emergency was declared, the Morning Star, with which is incorporated the Daily Worker, declared—and I quote:
"…no self-respecting trade unionist will work in co-operation with the Army and Navy"
and
"every trade unionist must rise in solidarity in support of the seamen."
That is the end of the quotation from the Morning Star. This was a clear invitation to extend the dispute, and obviously the most likely area of extension wasthe docks. This was, in fact, the policy pursued by Mr. Ramelson and his colleagues; it was not the policy of Mr. Hogarth who, though his presence at the dock meeting had been announced, knew that, in accordance with the usual rules with which the T.U.C.would be concerned, it would be utterly wrong for him to appeal to the members of another union except with the approval of the executive committee of that union.
The policy of extending the dispute was, however, conducted by Mr. Ramelson, Mr. Goodwin, anda number of other influential Communists whose influence extended to unions beyond the National Union of Seamen. The most prominent of these was Mr. Harry Watson, the President of the Lightermen's Union, and such well-known figures as Mr. Jack Dash and Mr. Danny Lyons, who are both members of the unofficial liaison committee in the London docks, together with Mr. Gordon Norris and Mr. Jack Coward, representing the seamen. I have referred to Mr. Dash, but I should say that he has taken a more moderate linebecause he was torn between his loyalty to the Party and his loyalty to his union, which was resisting all pressure to take the Communist line.
The House will have followed with interest the course of events in the week in which the Pearson Report came out. There is much to suggest that the rejection of the Interim Report was virtually a fait accompli before the Executive had even seen the text of the Report. Inaccurate accounts of what the Court of Inquiry was likely to recommend were
604
circulating on the night of Tuesday, June 7, and were almost certainly known to some of those I have mentioned. On the Wednesday morning, the Executive received the text of the Report and rejected it with their customary unanimity, after the most perfunctory discussion. From then on, the emphasis was on widening the dispute.
On June 13 a meeting of about 1,500 workers, chaired by Mr. Jack Coward, was held in the London Docks and was addressed by Mr. Watson, Mr. Norris and Mr. Dash—the first two with great enthusiasm, and the third with lesser enthusiasm—commending a resolution to "black" all British ships in the London docks. But a fourth speaker, Mr. Munday, the official representative for the Transport and General Workers' Union, took the opposite line. In the event, the resolution was carried, and two hours of confusion in London Docks followed while the dockers sought advice from those able and competent to give that advice. And because of the resolute advice given by Mr. Munday, on behalf of the Transportand General Workers' Union, the dockers, despite that resolution, were by 12 o'clock hard at work on the ships. This was a turning point in the history of the strike. But another turning point was the rejection by the International Transport Federation, whose British representatives include all Britain's transport unions—the railway unions, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Merchant Navy Officers' Association, as well as the N.U.S.—of the National Union of Seamen's request that they call on foreign seamen's unions to take corresponding action to prevent the movement to Britain of foreign-owned ships.
The last hope of those who sought to extend the strike, to extend the damage to Britain's economy, let alone to bring the nation and the Government to a state of surrender, was the meeting two days ago of the Management Committee of the International Transport Federation where, though an appeal for financial help was approved, moves to extend the strike were finally buried. Once June 13had passed, the emphasis shifted to the talks which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour were holding with the unions and the employers. I believe that there came a point where there was

605
a widespread recognition that the strike had reached a point of diminishing returns.
The purpose of Her Majesty's Government was to see whether there was a way to meet their concern about the question of leave arrangements—at no additional cost beyond what was contemplated by the Court of Inquiry, and at no additional cost in terms of a national incomes and prices policy. But political rather than industrial counsels won the day. The Government appeal to the Executive again met with the most brusque of rejections. This may have been connected with the intense and active canvassing of a substantial number of Council members on the night of Thursday, June 16. However that may be, that rejection was clear-cut and, as I have said, unanimous. Yet a large proportion of the Executive, almost certainly a majorityon the previous Friday, if they had voted according to their considered opinions would have voted for a return to work, or at least a return to negotiations on the basis of what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour had said to them. One result, however, of what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last Monday, is that the moderates have now become articulate, and in doing so they represent the majority of the rank-and-tile members of the union, particularly those who have—and I should pay tribute to them—suffered great hardships for the cause in which they believe.
I know that there will be those who say that it is not the duty of the Government, or of anyone who holds the responsibilities that the Prime Minister holds, to be concerned with such matters; that our duty is to remain aloof. But having regard to the great economic dangers to this nation, having regard to the determined battle we are fighting for economic solvency, I have no doubt myself—and I hope the House will have no doubt—that it was the Prime Minister's duty to take this action. I have no doubt, moreover, that his action has had a beneficial and crucial effect. This is not the moment to anticipate the findings of the Royal Commission, which will be concerned with legal and constitutional matters, and also with deep problems of human relations. But I would, in conclusion, say one final word which does not occur in the Prime Minister's speech.
He pays tribute, and I would join the Prime Minister in paying tribute, to the splendid work of the Minister of Labour in recent times and earlier, and we shall all wish him a speedy recovery from the ill-health which has temporarily overtaken him after all his exertions. But, in addition, I should like to record my strong personal conviction that the Prime Minister has rendered an immense service of permanent value to the nation, and particularly to our workpeople, by his candid and highly instructive words last week. It needed true courage to speak as he did, and as time passes it will become, I believe, ever more clear that we should all be wholeheartedly grateful to him. My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Emergency (No. 2) Regulations 1966 made by Her Majesty in Council on the 22nd June, 1966 under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and laid before the House on that date, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.—(The Earl of Longford.)
5.36 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are all obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for what he said, and for the care and trouble which he has taken in repeating to your Lordships the substance of what the Prime Minister has said in another place. All of us, wherever we sit, are equally disappointed that the signs of an end to the strike are now less hopeful than they were at the week-end, but we still do not know what is going to happen when the seamen's Executive meets.
I do not wish to comment on the terms which have been offered, or the attitudes taken up by the parties concerned. We greatly regret the continuation of the strike. I do not believe that while negotiations are in progress there is anything to be gained from criticising the conduct of the negotiations by any of those involved. I shall therefore reserve anything I might have to say about that until after the strike is over. But there is one aspect upon which I do wish to make a comment. I feel very critical of the Government in not having brought home, either by their speeches or by their general attitude to this strike, the seriousness of the situation and the economic

607
damage which will be caused to the nation. For example, it was very noticeable in the Prime Minister's statement on Monday, June 20, that until the very last half of the last sentence of his statement—which was a long one—there was no mention of the danger to the economic welfare of the country. And, indeed, if what the noble Earl has said this afternoon is a true guide to what the Prime Minister has said in another place this afternoon, there was only one sentence which referred to the consequences—and what I believe may be the disastrous consequences—of this strike.
I think the Government are particularly at fault in this sense. By the very nature of the strike itself, its effect has so far not been at all evident except in very rare cases, either by shortage of goods or by hardship to individuals. For instance, I do not think that the casual visitor to London would find a shortage of anything in the shops, nor would he find an awareness that a serious strike was going on and that it was in its sixth week. It is, of course, far too early to say what the economic consequences will be, but of one thing there is no doubt, and that is that they will be very grave indeed. To take but one example, we have been doing a good deal of trade promotion recently in Australia and New Zealand. All, or very nearly all, British goods shipped to Australia and New Zealand travel by British ship. No ship has left for many weeks. Our competitors will not be slow to take advantage of the interruption in the stream of British exports. There must be cases in many other parts of the world where non-delivery of British goods, as a result of the strike, has affected the future purchases of our exports.
The strike has now continued for so long that, even if it ended to-day, it would take in some cases up to twelve months to reposition the ships of the lines affected, and the effect of that will last a very long time. It may be true, too, that some British companies will find it difficult to recapture some of the trade that they have lost, and it may even be that some of them will not find it possible to carry on at all.
Taken together, all these things may have incalculable effects on our economy. Yet we have seen on television or heard
608
in Parliament or elsewhere very little stress laid on this most serious aspect of the strike; and, if I may say so, my Lords, members of the Government so articulate in other respects have been strangely silent in this one. Public opinion can usually play a very large part in settling a serious strike. If the overwhelming majority of the people of this country were wholly and vocally against the strike, who knows what the effect would have been, and would be, on the seamen and their families? It is very difficult to stand up to the disapproval and hostility of those whom one meets in daily life. I think the Government have failed. They have failed to make the nation aware of the gravity of the situation—and, indeed, have perhaps failed to realise it themselves. In my view, they must take a share of the responsibility for the continuation of the strike.
As for the explanation given by the noble Earl of the Prime Minister's references last Monday to Communist influences and to how far members of the executive are their own masters in taking their decisions, I would wish to study very much more carefully what he has said, because he made a long Statement. A preliminary comment, however, is that I was a little uncertain of what he said about the executive not being able to take their own decisions; but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, could clarify that point when he comes to wind up. As indeed the noble Earlhas said, it is fairly obvious that Communists and extreme Left-Wing and militant agitators do what they can to make trouble. It is, of course in their interests to do so; and though, as the noble Earl has said, it is not illegal, and in this country the Communist Party is not illegal, it is deplorable that they should seem to wield so much power and to have so much influence. We shall certainly have to question the Government very closely on what they intend to do in the future about the unions, and what proposals they have for speeding up the report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions.
In the light of what the noble Earl has said, I think there really should be an inquiry into the circumstances which have been revealed—perhaps under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, or possibly under some other procedure

609
which may be equally appropriate. But I do not think that we ought to leave things as they are after what we have been told this afternoon. In the meantime, of course, we support the extension of the Emergency Regulations, and hope that common sense will prevail and that the strike will soon end.
5.43 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for his Statement and for revealing what the Prime Minister has said in another place. It was not a very surprising Statement. I think all of us could have anticipated much of what he said. On the other hand, he said a good deal, and I therefore do not think it is suitable to turn this into a debate on the details of the matter in question. I think all of us on this side of the House must have a great deal of sympathy with the second point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. We really are guilty—or perhaps one should say the Government have been rather guilty—of fiddling while Rome burns.
The noble Earl said that this "sad and regrettable position" had been "allowed to grow and fester and suppurate" for years. My question is: Why was it allowed to do that? I think both the Parties who have recently held the reins of Government might have done something more, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, the position is not that of a domestic difficulty. Its effects are world-wide, and are damaging our commerce and ourselves to the very roots of our being.
The fact that only 5,000 delegates out of 60,000 members elected their executive seems to me a very bad state of affairs indeed, and I would support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in pressing for some sort of inquiry into this state of affairs and into trade unions in general—trade unions which we on these Benches support wholeheartedly as a matter of principle—so that the trade unionist, poor chap!, gets a fair deal and does not have some of his leaders rather exploiting him and the employers thereby having to take a more hostile line than they otherwise would.
5.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I must say that I regret the Statement made
610
by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and regard it as extremely disquieting. I am very grateful to him, as I am sure we all are, for giving us the information he did, but I think it discloses a situation of very great gravity. I agree with all that my noble friend Lord Carrington has said about the serious consequences to the nation which will inevitably flow from this strike not having been brought home to the people. They will, of course, affect everyone in this country, and great injury has been done to the prospects of the nation.
I suppose most people think that the right to refuse to work, if one wishes to refuse,is an essential feature of a free society, though many may regret that this weapon is now sometimes used, so far as one can judge, for wholly inadequate reasons and without regard to the damage done to the nation. But that kind of strike action is surely of a very different character from strike action fostered, maintained and pursued, not just on account of a trade dispute but because, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, behind the scenes there are a group of people intent on damaging the nation for their own political ends. Strike action of that kind is of a very different character and constitutes a real threat to the nation. I see that Mr. Woodcock described such conduct as a crime. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said that it is not illegal. I do not propose to express a view upon that, because it is not really upon that that I rose to address your Lordships.
I would not for one moment wish to suggest that what the noble Earl has said to us this afternoon, what I gather the Prime Minister has said in another place and what the Prime Minister said eight days ago, is inaccurate in any particular; I should not like to be thought to be questioning the accuracy of any of the information which has been given. But there are many in this country who will. There will be a great many people who will not accept what the noble Earl has said. A great many people, or some people, will seek to challenge it. If what we have been told is true, as I believe it is, then it seems to me of vital importance that that truth should be established in the most convincing way possible. I may be wrong, but I do not

611
think that in these days people are so ready to accept statements made by politicians unsupported by evidence, whatever eminence those politicians may have.
Therefore, I support most strongly the suggestion put forward by my noble friend that there ought to be an inquiry into this matter. I do not think—I never have thought—that an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 ought to be lightly undertaken—we have had several in the last few years—but if ever there was an occasion for the appointment of a tribunal to inquire into these matters and to report to the country, this, I believe, is the occasion for it. I cannot myself but believe that the report of such a tribunal would be much more widely and generally accepted, after the tribunal has inquired into the matter and heard evidence, than any statements made by anyone in either House.
What reasons can be advanced against it? It may be said that some of the information which we have been given has been derived from secret sources and it is not desired to compromise those sources. That is no argument for not appointing such a tribunal, because we have had tribunals which have sat in camera—and they should sit in camera when matters of secrecy are involved—and we have had tribunals which have sat sometimes in camera and sometimes in public, and their reports have been published and made known.
There will be many, I have no doubt, who will seek to contend that what the Prime Minister has said and what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said has been said inaccurately and is wrong. If the Prime Minister has been misled or misinformed, by all means let that be established; but if he has not, then let that be established as conclusively as possible. If it be the case that there is this conspiracy, this network of people belonging to a political Party seeking to infiltrate into our industrial organisation and seeking, whenever they can, to damage the prospects of the nation, the sooner that is made public in a form which is widely accepted and acceptable, I believe the better. When the facts are fully known I cannot help thinking that, though what has been done by these in-
612
dividuals, as the noble Lord has said, is not now illegal, certainly there ought to be consideration of the question whether such conduct should not be made illegal; and I hope that the Royal Commission will have regard to that.
My Lords, in recent years, indeed, in recent months, one has heard the word "traitor" used repeatedly and, I think, very inaccurately and wrongly. I am not going to use that word in relation to the kind of activities to which the noble Earl referred; but at the same time I should think that with the country in this present economic situation, there are few activities that could be more damaging to the prospects of the whole of this nation than the kind of activities to which the noble Earl has referred. It is for those reasons—and I do not want to pursue the matter—that I press the noble Earl and the Government to give serious consideration to the desirability of appointing a tribunal to operate under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
5.54 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I wish my first words to be words of sincere congratulation to the Prime Minister for the courageous action he has taken in dealing with some of the influences which are behind the seamen's strike. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I will not say anything about the merits of the strike. But I have been very much concerned, as I have in my trade union career, with the obvious evidences—to me at least—of Communist and external interest with the conduct of the strike.
Some of the statements made by the Prime Minister reminded me very forcibly of a pamphlet I wrote in 1927. Perceiving the menace to the trade union movement in the activities of the Communist Party in the industrial world, I wrote that pamphlet, which I called, Democracy or Disruption, and in it I gave first-hand evidence from Communist sources, international as well as national, of the existence of the Communist Party's disruptive operations. Unfortunately, there are a large number of people in the Labour movement of this country whose sympathies with anything in the way of working-class action are so strong that they confuse Communist operations with trade union or Labour militancy—something which I think is perfectly legitimate

613
and inseparable from the operations of trade unionism. But there is all the difference between the organised operations of the Communist Party to seek to control the operations of the trade unions in the industrial sphere and the militancy which has been characteristic of the trade union movement throughout its histroy.
My Lords, the Communist Party has shown its inability to succeed in the political sphere directly by the election of its members to Parliament; and it therefore approaches the matter in a quite different way. It seeks to gain, not massive support by individuals in the trade union movement joining the Communist Party, but by getting its candidates into key positions inside the unions. That has been the Communist Party's considered policy ever since I can remember; and my experience runs back over 40 years or more. That policy has operated very largely because of the apathy in the average trade union on the occasion of electing its officials. I gathered from the Statement read by the noble Earl that the Prime Minister has made some reference about the smallness of the voting in the Seamen's Union for the election of the Executive Council. That is not peculiar to the Seamen's Union: it exists in some of the largest unions in the country. The Amalgamated Engineering Union seldom gets more than a 10 per cent. vote of its members in electing its officials to the highest positions, and in the Electrical Trades Union the Communist Party specialised in methods of securing people, who would otherwise be minority candidates, to succeed to their positions because of that apathy. They are out to capture the leadership of the trade union movement. That is what they are concerned with. Once that is done, the obtrusiveness of the dictatorship method in which they firmly believe is clearly discernible to those who follow their operations.
It can be taken for granted that in nearly every large-scale strike in this country there is, somewhere or other, a Communist nucleus at work. The strike may be because of legitimate grievances—as I believe is so in the present case—but it is quite different, on the one hand, to strike to secure redress of legitimate grievances and, on the other, to disrupt industry, and to disrupt, in the course of
614
those strikes, a trade union for the purpose—to my mind remote and impossible—of somehow securing the overthrow of capitalism. It is absolute nonsense to use phrases of that kind; but unfortunately it happens to be true that that is the objective of the Communist Party even to-day.
The shop stewards of this country have been organised by the Communist Party over a long period of years into a sort of rival leadership to the ordinary elected leaders and appointed leaders of the trade union movement. One finds time and time again in the operations of the shop stewards all the evidences of Communist infiltration and leadership. The difficulty is one of proof. I am not a lawyer, but I know sufficiently well that a fact may be clearly established in a person's mind, yet he may not be able to produce the evidence of it. There may be all sorts of reasons why that is not possible; but, in regard to the Communist Party's activities in the industrial sphere of this country, the evidence is ample. It was so in my time; it remains true to-day.
It should be remembered that it is a perfectly legitimate principle of the Communist Party which enables its members to deny their membership. It is the Jesuitical doctrine, "The end justifies the means"; and as they do not believe in what they call capitalist morality, what is wrong with a member, in the furtherance of the objects that he and his Party stand for, denying his membership of the Party? We in the trade union movement long suspected certain people who were Communist in every way, except in their admission that they were members of the Communist Party. I hope that will not be overlooked.
What is going on is a definite and sustained policy for the capture of the trade union movement, to make it an instrument of Communist domination. I heard—at least I think I heard—the Prime Minister's reference to the fact that no sort of assistance (I am paraphrasing, of course), no sort of intervention—shall I so put it?—in this strike had come from abroad. Are we absolutely sure of that? Have we never heard of a body called the World Federation of Trade Unions, of which I was the first Chairman in the days of 1945 and 1946;when we tried to organise something in the way of a democratic organisation to cover the

615
whole of the world's trade unionists? That organisation was subsequently disrupted after I left it, by Communist machinations inside that body for political ends. I had indeed predicted, in February, 1945, that if political issues and tactics were employed in the International, it would go to pieces; and it went to pieces in 1949. My membership and my connection ceased in 1946.
So I wonder, are we absolutely sure that there is no sort of connection with any objectives abroad in this strike? I am perfectly sure that the members of the Executive of the National Union of Seamen have no such objective. I am satisfied that taking them as a group (I do not know what individuals may want), as an executive body, they have one sole purpose; and that sole purpose is to secure the redress of their grievances and enhance their conditions of employment.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, spoke, I had written down the words, "Inquiry into the industrial operations of the Communist Party". Therefore, so far as I am personally concerned (I speak for myself, and I know that there will be dissension outside this House over some of the things I have said), an essential feature which has been revealed to public attention by this strike is that an inquiry should have taken place years ago. I tried to do a little investigating in the Law Courts, in a libel action that I took, with some very surprising results.
My Lords, how does the Communist Party obtain its funds? How is it able to run a staff of industrial organisers? How is it able to have those men posted all over the country to take advantage of grievances and industrial disputes which may arise? Where do they get the money? That has always been the problem, and to me it was one of the biggest problems when, in pursuing the proprietors of the Daily Worker into bankruptcy, I found that the paper was legally owned by a clerk who was in receipt of £4 per week. Where do they get their money? It is beyond the resources of the Labour Movement as a whole, industrial and political, to run a daily newspaper, a national daily news-
616
paper; and yet here is a Party, of small membership, fractional membership compared with the others, the big Parties and the big trade unions, which can do so.
Just one or two words in reference to what has been said from the opposite side of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, thought that the economic stresses on the country had not been sufficiently emphasised by the Prime Minister and also in respect of the television interviews which have taken place. It is not the purpose of the National Union of Seamen, I am perfectly sure, to create damage and loss to the country as a whole, but how can they possibly pursue a strike without creating that loss? How is it possible? They believe that the owners could give them greater concessions than those which have already been offered, but what other weapon have they at their disposal to secure that the owners sufficiently feel the losses that are inevitable from a strike so as to induce them to make greater concessions?
If that reasoning by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is correct, does it not follow that any large strike of any kind, by the seamen, or any other kind of strike, ultimately has the object of inflicting economic loss, not on the country—that is something which happens indirectly—but on the employers direct? I do not know. It is a doctrine we have to be a little careful not to stress too far. I am sure that if any other method were open to the seamen, they would try to use it. It is a natural consequence of strikes that economic loss is inflicted on your opponents. Here the opponents happen to be the employers and, unfortunately, indirectly the country as a whole. Nor do I think it wise to overstate the influence of public opinion on a particular dispute. Public opinion, in the sense of an inquiry and the facts revealed by that inquiry, may be a very formidable factor indeed, but in respect of a trade union dispute it is my experience that if the union is in a strong position, public opinion is of little importance to its members. I am now, of course, talking about the individual rank-and-file members who carry on the strike.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that I hope that an inquiry will be set up. I should prefer it to be into the industrial operations of the Communist Party, but it may have to go wider than that. I

617
most certainly hope that no expedient, such as referring this matter to the Royal Commission, for example, will be employed. It would be a vague inquiry; it would not be a precise inquiry; it would be an inquiry which was lost in a large measure by the multitude of other questions with which the Royal Commission is grappling. I say, and I repeat, speaking for myself, that I sincerely hope that the Government will, when this trouble is over, launch an inquiry, a well-meditated inquiry, with proper and adequate terms of reference and proper personnel, into the operations of what has been the most insidious force, so far as I know, inside the industrial world.
6.8 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I shall detain the House only for a very few moments. I agree with a good deal of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, but I disagree very emphatically with his criticism of my noble friend Lord Carrington for what he said about the duty of the Government to bring home to the nation the economic damage. I think that I have spoken and written as much as possibly anybody in this Chamber in support of the right to strike. But, my Lords, the right to strike does not mean that it is improper to point out the consequences of a strike when they are so ruinous to the nation,
The noble Lord, Lord Citrine, was quite right to point out what is the problem of the trade union seeking better terms for its members. It is operating directly against the employers; but if it involves the nation in immense loss, it is, I think, the task of the Government to point out that loss to the nation which is so deeply concerned. It does not mean, of course, that the justice of the claim put forward by the trade union should be ignored. But it does mean that the propriety of continuing the strike after just terms have been offered for a settlement ought to be considered in the light of the effect the continuation of the strike is having on the nation.
It is curious for me to hear the sudden discovery of the effect of the activities of the Communist Party, which are now being pointed out in various quarters, for I was saying all these things in speeches and writing nearly twenty years ago. The most astonishing of all surprises is that people point out, as though
618
it were a great discovery, that the Communists do not succeed in getting their members openly returned to the House of Commons. They are not even particularly eager so to do. What they are aiming at is what the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, pointed out, the capture of key positions in which they can make their will and their action effective.
Many years ago, I remember debating at the Cambridge Union against the late Mr. Harry Pollitt. I congratulated the other side in having their foremost speaker to represent the cause and asked my audience not to be put off in any way by the fact that he had never been elected to the House of Commons. The reason was that, whenever he had stood for election, the electors had been allowed to vote for somebody else. The Communists, of course, were going to do away with all that nonsense. In every county where Communism triumphs Communists are the only people for whom it is legitimate to vote. The idea that the strength of the Communists depends in any way on political success in entering Parliament is an illusion.
In common with the noble Lord, LordCitrine, I strongly support the plea that has been made by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, but I do not think that the inquiry can be into the activities of the Communist Party. I think that they would be involved, but I do not think that would be the subject matter of an inquiry. I think that the subject matter must be the charges made by Her Majesty's Government. I am not judging on the truth of these charges at all. It seems to me, from what I know, that it extremely likely that these charges are completely true, but there are those in the trade unions concerned—honest men—who will say that these charges are smears—in fact, it has been so said—and many will believe that.
I think that the subject of the inquiry for which my noble and learned friend has asked so persuasively must not be directed in terms to the activities of the Communist Party. There is nothing new about them. The subject matter must be the charges which have been made by the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government on what they have been doing on this occasion. That will involve the inquiry for which the noble

619
Lord, Lord Citrine, has asked, but I do not think that what my noble and learned friend was asking for was a general inquiry into Communism, but an inquiry into what the Government say has happened in this case.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I do not want to crow but I feel vindicated, for ever since I came into your Lordships' House I have been speaking on this subject of the infiltration of Communism into industry, as noble Lords will see if they read back Hansards. I have also given plenty of instances. But no one ever took it seriously. I am extremely glad that the Prime Minister has had the courage to bring this out into the open at last. It is most cheering from my point of view. And I have not the least doubt that what he says is completely true.
Regarding the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, I could tell him where before the war the Communist Party got their funds. It was through a certain timber importing firm. I can tell him the name in private, if he would like to know it. I have always taken a great interest in the Communist Party, as I have always realised their extreme danger to the cause of freedom in this country. If freedom is not cared for, freedom will destroy itself. And I have often pointed out the great danger of the Communist Party's gaining control of the unions.
6.17 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, my noble Leader in his full Statement deployed a great many of the facts and most of the arguments in this matter. It will only be necessary for me to reply as briefly as I can to some of the points that have been raised in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was very critical of the Government and accused the Government of not having brought home the seriousness of the strike and its economic consequences to the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Rea (who advised me that he had to leave), even accused us—it was most
620
unlike him—of fiddling while Rome burned. It is not asking a great deal of noble Lords to cast their minds back some six weeks to the start of the strike, when the Prime Minister spoke to the nation an television. I do not think that anyone can possibly say that he did not, in the gravest terms, point out to the whole nation the serious nature of the problem which confronted us and the serious economic consequences to everyone throughout the nation if the strike continued. Indeed, he was criticised by many people for having made such a grave statement.
Ever since then, at every possible opportunity, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and all other Ministers, have not ceased to printout these facts. In particular, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, in all their discussions with the executive of the Seamen's Union, have pointed to the seriousness of the consequences. I think it is grossly unfair to make this charge. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that the casual visitor to London would not find a shortage of anything. I agree that that is so. But that, in a way, is a tribute to the arrangements that have been made, and also a tribute to the way in which other trade unions have discharged their responsibilities and kept essential supplies going, so that it has not been necessary to use the Emergency Powers which we took four weeks ago.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood what I have said. What I was saying was that, because there was no shortage, and you came to London and did not find a shortage of anything, people were not aware that a strike was going on, and this made it doubly important for the Government to bring home to the people of the country the seriousness of the economic consequences of the strike.
LORD STONHAM: It may well be that a visitor from abroad would be in some doubt about it, but anyone who has mixed with the people of this country will be well aware that they are all extremely conscious of the strike and anxious about it, and the one thing that has surprised them is that there has been, so far, less personal hardship than they had expected. But that is not a matter with

621
which to reproach the Government. Certainly we have done everything possible to bring the consequences of this strike and of its continuance to the notice of the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that public opinion could play a large part in fighting a strike. I entirely agree. But the noble Lord will be aware that at the commencement of the strike there was a large body of opinion which had considerable sympathy with the seamen's case. Neither the Prime Minister, nor anyone in the Cabinet, has ever denied that, and, indeed, have often said that the seamen have a very strong case. That continued for several weeks of the strike Indeed, I think one of the factors which is now altering the situation, and is responsible for the welcome change of attitude on the part of the members of the executive of the N.U.S., is the change in public opinion: because the good will of a large number of the people has been eroded by the constant succession of instantaneous refusals to consider what appeared to be, not only to the general public, but to the T.U.C., constructive proposals which, it was thought by objectively minded people, formed a basis for discussion. Therefore, we certainly agree that public opinion in this matter is important.
I think the most important point that has been raised in every speech, except the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is the demand for an inquiry. There is unanimity among those who have spoken about an inquiry. But there is complete disunity among all four about what the inquiry should be about.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STONHAM: I listened to all four, and if noble Lords will just listen to me, I will say how I heard it. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked for an inquiry into the circumstances which have been revealed—and they are either his exact words or a fair paraphrase of them. My noble friend Lord Citrine asked for an inquiry into the effects of Communist activity in industry. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked for a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act; and, as I understood him—and certainly as his noble friend Lord Cones-
622
ford understood him—into the legal aspects of the matter.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Not as regards the legal aspect of the matter, my Lords You do not appoint a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act to find out what the legal aspects are You appoint one to find out the facts. And the facts that ought to be investigated are the very same facts for which my noble friends Lord Carrington asked; that is, the full circumstance of what has now been disclosed by the Prime Minister and the noble Earl the Leader of this House. That is exactly another way of expressing what I, and my noble friends Lord Conesford, were asking for.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I join in that? I thought that what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had said in regard to the circumstances of the strike opened up the operations of the Communist Party in industry as a whole. Surely that is a feasible and proper deduction from what was said.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he said that I do not want an inquiry? I certainly want an inquiry.
LORD STONHAM: I left the noble Viscount out because he got up and said in terms that he knew all about it, and, indeed, had conveyed all the information, and would convey it again privately to my noble friend. Obviously, if he knows all the answers, there is no need for an inquiry. I think, if your Lordships study Hansard to-morrow, not merely what was originally said, but what has been said now, you will see that there is justification for my view that in the speeches we have listened to we have heard a virtually unanimous demand for an inquiry, and considerable differences of opinion as to what the inquiry should be about.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD STONHAM: Well, that is my view as I heard it. May I remind your Lordships that we have now the Court of Inquiry under Lord Pearson, which will continue and complete its work and make recommendations with regard to legislation? We decided to set up a separate independent inquiry into the

623
structure, organisation and efficiency of the industry. As well as these two major and essential inquiries, we have also the Royal Commission on Trade Unions which, in many of its aspects, will certainly be relevant to what we have been discussing. I have to say, in answer to noble Lords' questions, that the Government have no intention of setting up any other inquiry.
LORD CARRINGTON: Why not?
LORD CITRINE: Hear, hear! Why not?
LORD STONHAM: I thought that I had made the reasons quite clear.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD STONHAM: I have made the reasons clear, because I have given the nature of the inquiries now going on, including the Royal Commission on Trade Unions; and the Government do not intend to have any other inquiries.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? As I understand it, the Pearson Committee are inquiring into the industry, and there is the Royal Commission on Trade Unions. What my noble friends and I were asking for (and, of course, the terms of reference would have to be settled at a later date if there were an inquiry) was an inquiry into the circumstances which the Prime Minister has revealed. This is not touched on by the other two inquiries.
LORD STONHAM: The Government have no present intention of having such an inquiry.
LORD CARRINGTON: Why not?
LORD STONHAM: Because they have decided not to.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord that the Government, before hearing a word of the debate in this House, have made up their mind? If so, I protest most strongly against it.
LORD STONHAM: Well, my Lords. it is the case, also, that a number of noble Lords had made up their minds to demand an inquiry before ever they heard a word of the debate.
LORD CITRINE: Well, do not include this noble Lord in that. I wrote out my points while the debate was in progress.
LORD STONHAM: I have one or two more points that I should like to deal with which were raised during the debate.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to make the same disclaimer. I did not even know that the request for an inquiry was going to be made. I had had no conversation whatever with any of my noble friends. I decided that there ought to be an inquiry when I listened to the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. What I had in mind was that everything he said might be absolutely true and relevant. Of course, I knew that he thought it was. But I also had in mind, as one who has in the course of time met many trade unionists and trade union leaders, that the trade union concerned and many of its members might say, "This is a smear". I thought that, if they did, as I believe they will, these allegations should be the subject of an inquiry.
LORD STONHAM: I do not doubt that there are people who would say that what has been said is a smear. They are likely to be people who are affected by the truth, and we should be quite unmoved by statements of that kind. On the point about not having prepared any of this, I hope that my noble friend Lord Citrine and the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, will acquit me of any kind of slur. I, too, am speaking without any kind of notes, except those I have taken down during the debate.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord trying to suggest that I have come here with the completely preconceived idea of asking for an inquiry? That seems to me to follow from what he has said. After the Prime Minister made his statement eight days ago, I thought that there might be need for an inquiry into those allegations so that they could be established beyond any doubt. That is what I should like to see. When the statement was made to-day by the Leader of the House, I was confirmed in that impression, and I should be grateful if, as a matter of courtesy, the Government would say why they have rejected my suggestion flatly and straight away—I asked that it should be

625
thought about—without giving any reason. The noble Lord will bear in mind that the Prime Minister has been challenged to say outside this House what he has said inside, obviously with a view to bringing the matter before the courts. If he does not repeat it outside, great capital will be made out of that fact. I do not want to cast the slightest criticism on the Prime Minister for what he has said. I want to see it established conclusively and convincingly by an independent tribunal, because then it will carry weight.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for repeating again what he said in his speech: that he has no doubt about the accuracy of what has been said. But he did say, or suggest, that there might be many people who would question that accuracy; and he has said it again. I do not think the Prime Minister's words, which have been repeated by my noble Leader, will be questioned by any but a small minority of people in this country. Remember, my Lords, that the people have seen and heard on their television screens, very convincingly, the words and actions of many of the people to whom reference has been made. They are aware of these things, and I do not think they will have any doubt at all from their own knowledge that what has been said to-day, both here and in another place, is absolutely true and has been submitted in very restrained terms.
The noble and learned Viscount said that the conduct about which we have been talking to-day should be made illegal. I have nothing to say on behalf of the Government about that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but with great respect I did not say that. I said that consideration should be given to that question. I was not expressing a view on it.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves the question of an inquiry, I should like to ask whether I understood him correctly when he said that all these matters could be investigated by the Royal Commission. Was he suggesting that that is an alternative way of
626
carrying out the inquiry? If that is so, is not the real question which of the two methods is the more satisfactory?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, to quote my noble friend, I did not say that all these matters can be considered by the Royal Commission. What I said, and would repeat, is that there are many implications in the present circumstances which it would be natural for the Royal Commission to inquire into, and which may well guide them in any views they may express. But we certainly could not, and should not, attempt to anticipate what the Royal Commission might say.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Citrine for his speech and for reminding us that as long ago as 1927 he published a pamphlet called, as I understood him, Democracy or Disruption. My Lords, that is nearly forty years ago, but that is what this whole dispute is about: it is a choice between democracy or disruption. It is quite clear from what my noble Leader has said this afternoon, and from the facts that he has given—and again they were confirmed by my noble friend Lord Citrine out of his forty years'experience—that what he described was the calculated and sustained policy of the Communist Party to capture the trade union movement and use it for the furtherance of Communist policy. What that means is that it is an attempt to create industrial chaos in which they think Communism may breed and flourish. That is what makes the Statement by the Prime Minister on June 20 of such outstanding importance. As my noble Leader said, it took a great deal of courage to make that statement at that time, and to say what has again been said to-day. But the Prime Minister decided that he would not be doing his duty if in this matter he stood aloof.
It is absolutely vital that we fight and win the fight for economic solvency. In order to do that, the unions and the public must be informed and aroused to the need in a free democratic society for them to be active all the time, and to defeat the few organized wreckers in our midst. In other words, as my noble friend suggested, people have to decide as much in 1966 as in 1927 whether it is to be "democracy or disruption". In nothing which has been said by the Prime Minister, and certainly in nothing which

627
has been said by my noble Leader, has there been any attack at all on trade unionism or on militancy. What we are doing is attempting to create the right conditions for constructive trade union action on behalf of trade unionists and the nation.
I welcome the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which we all share, that this disastrous strike will be settled soon on the fair terms which are available, and have been available for a long time. But it does not rest entirely with us; it certainly does not rest entirely with the Government. It is our duty, and will be our continuing duty, so long as the strike lasts, to take whatever action is necessary to preserve the interests of the nation and our people. In making the statements that have been made, the Prime Minister has been fulfilling his duty to the nation, and in that fulfilment he has the right to expect the wholehearted support of every one of us. I am quite sure that he will get that support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL HOMES BILL [H.L.]
6.40 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.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Protection against eviction, etc., from matrimonial home of spouse not entitled by virtue of estate, etc., to occupy it.
1.—
(b) may require a spouse occupying the dwelling house or any part thereof by virtue of this section to make periodical payments to the other in respect of the occupation;
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in subsection 3(b), to leave out "require" and insert "order". The noble Baroness said: The Committee will recall that I explained these clauses in some detail, and that Clause 1(3)(b) enables the court,
628
on an application with regard to a spouse's rights of occupation, to require the spouse occupying the matrimonial home, or any part of it, by virtue of Clause 1 to make periodical payments to the other in respect of the occupation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, whom I am glad to see here this afternoon, said on the Second Reading that he felt some doubt as to the nature of the payments which might be required to be made. He asked whether they would be recoverable as a civil debt or whether they were a condition which, if not complied with, would terminate the right to stay in the house.
It is possible, I agree, that the word "require" might be misconstrued, and the object of Clause 1(3)(b) is to give the court power to order the occupying spouse to make periodical payments. I apologise if that was not quite clear. It was to get that power so that if the payments are not kept up the other spouse may enforce payment of the arrears by issuing execution or employing any of the other recognised means of recovering money under a judgment.
If the court simply wishes to make the payment of an occupation rent a condition of the occupying spouse remaining in the premises, it can do so in the exercise of its general power under Clause 1(2) to restrict, terminate or regulate the rights of occupation. If the court imposes such a condition without making an order for payment of the occupation rent, any arrears which accumulate will not be enforceable as a judgment debt, but the owner spouse will be able to take steps to evict the occupying spouse. Therefore the Amendment seeks to make the position clear by substituting "order" for "require" in Clause 1(3)(b), and I hope the Committee will accept this rather minor Amendment which will nevertheless possibly have some major effect when the clause comes to be operated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("require") and insert ("order").—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD WILBERFORCE: I am grateful that the noble Baroness referred to the observations which I made on the Second Reading and which have led to this Amendment. I welcome it because it seems to be an improvement, although I

629
must say that I feel the draftsman of this clause has been somewhat economical in the way in which the objects I suggested are to be achieved by changing one word into another. I should have liked to see something rather more explicit which would have made it clear what the effect of any such requirement order might be. But the noble Baroness has given us an explanation and I am far from disputing it. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I gratefully accept the Amendment as meeting, at any rate to a large extent, the point which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to subsection (5):
"Where a spouse entitled under this section to occupy a dwelling house or any part thereof makes any payment in or towards satisfaction of any liability of the other spouse in respect of mortgage payments affecting the dwelling house, the person to whom the payment is made may treat it as having been made by that other spouse, but the fact that that person has treated any such payment as having been so made shall not affect any claim of the first-mentioned spouse against the other to an interest in the dwelling house by virtue of the payment."
The noble Baroness said: The object of this Amendment is to meet a point raised by the Building Societies Association. I would say at this stage that I think certain noble Lords felt that the building societies would be aggrieved, but I can assure them that this is the only point which has been raised. Therefore I hasten to meet this criticism, and in doing so I hope I shall have the support of the Committee.
When a mortgagee has notice of a subsequent incumbent he is obliged, on redemption of the mortgage, to hand over the title deeds to the subsequent incumbent. If the wife of a mortgagor pays off the mortgage debt out of her own pocket she acquires an interest in the property to the extent of the payment she has made. If, therefore, the mortgagee knows of the position, he will be obliged to hand over the title deeds to the wife. However, it may be difficult for him to make certain that the wife has paid the money out of her own pocket. Her husband might dispute this and say, for example, that she had paid it out of housekeeping money which he has given her. At the present
630
time a mortgagee may avoid this difficulty by refusing to accept any payment from the wife. A mortgagee is not obliged to allow a mortgage to be discharged by someone who has no interest in the property. If, therefore, the wife tenders the money, he can decline to accept it unless she takes proceedings, for example under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882, in order to determine her interest in the property. If her husband has disappeared and it is impracticable for her to take such proceedings, the mortgagee may insist upon an indemnity insurance being taken out before he accepts the money and hands over the title deeds to her.
Under Clause 1(5) of the Bill a mortgagee will have no right to refuse to accept mortgage payments tendered by the wife. The subsection provides that any payment or tender of mortgage money by the spouse entitled under Clause 1 to occupy the premises shall be as good as if made by the other spouse. Consequently the mortgagee will have no more right to refuse the money from an occupying wife than he would have if it were offered by the owner husband. But although he will be obliged to accept the money, he will not know whether it has been paid by the wife on her husband's behalf, thus reducing his liability, or on her own behalf, thus giving her an interest in the mortgaged property. Indeed, she may not tell him in what capacity she is making the payment; and even if she does he will have no means of knowing whether the husband accepts her statement.
He will therefore be in a dilemma if, when the final payment is made, she claims the title deeds on the footing that she has redeemed the mortgage on her own account. In order to rescue the mortgagee from this dilemma the Amendment provides that he shall be entitled to treat any payment made by the occupying spouse as having been made by the owner spouse. If he does so, it will not affect the position as between the spouses themselves. The occupying spouse will still be able to take proceedings against the other spouse under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882, or otherwise, to establish any claim which she may have to an interest in the property by virtue of any payment she has made.
The Amendment simply provides that the mortgagee may treat the payment by the occupyingspouse as having been made by the other spouse. The mortgagee will not be obliged to do so, and if the occupying spouse were prepared to take proceedings to get her claim established, or to take out an indemnity insurance before the title deeds were taken over, the mortgagee might well be prepared to hand them to her. I hope the Committee will agree that this is an equitable approach to the complaint made by the Building Societies Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD MESTON: I am very exercised in my mind about the position of mortgagees, and especially that of building societies. I must declare an interest; I am a director of a building society myself, although I may not have that appearance. At the outset, I have great sympathy with the deserted wife—that is to say, the wife who has been left by her husband in a home and probably has children to look after as well as herself; and there is the even worse position where the wife has been obliged to leave the home on account of her husband's behaviour and has probably had to take the children with her. But we live in an imperfect world, and in this imperfect world we find it necessary to be practical rather than always to rely upon man's sympathy.
May I read what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said on the Second Reading of the Bill?
"The general rule with regard to the priority of equitable interests is that an earlier interest prevails over a laterone. If a house is already owned by a husband subject to a mortgage at the date of the marriage or at the date of the commencement of this Act, the mortgage will have priority over the charge for the wife's right of occupation. The charge created by Clause 2 will be binding on third parties who acquire an interest in the house, but a purchaser for valuable consideration will be bound only if the charge is registered as a land charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 275 (No. 20), col. 24; 14/6/66.]
That may be satisfactory so far as it goes, but how far does it go? As your Lordships know, a building society lends
632
to the individual whose name appears on the title deeds. If the loan is made to a married man in whose name are the title deeds, then indeed there is no initial difficulty. On the other hand, if the title deeds are in the name of a woman it is sometimes desirable to obtain a male guarantor. In the case of the title deeds being in the name of a married woman, needless to say the guarantor is usually the husband. It is quite impossible for a building society to lend money to an individual on the basis of whether he or she is on good or bad terms with his or her spouse. There is no machinery for doing that.
I am going to ask in plain language that this Bill be so drafted that the situation of a building society is left absolutely untouched: that is to say, so that it can exercise its proper functions in the ordinary way as it does at present, without any interference from the provisions of this Bill. I am not being the slightest bit offensive to the noble Baroness, because she has explained the position very nicely and very clearly, but I think it utterly wrong that a building society should be concerned with the question of whether or not the husband and wife have been slapping each other's faces and have left the house. It has nothing to do with the subject at all. No building society, no business, could be carried on on that basis.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I can help the Committee at all on this point, I should like to do so. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the Bill will not in fact affect the position of building societies at all, provided that this Amendment is made. He will no doubt agree that the Building Societies Association has agood deal of experience of mortgages. They were apprehensive that without this Amendment their position might be prejudiced. They are satisfied that with this Amendment it will not be. The sole object of the Amendment is to meet the point which had been raised by the Building Societies Association and which this Amendment does meet. As the noble Lord will see, all it does is to give them a power, and provided they have that power they are satisfied.
LORD MESTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for what he has said. May I still, with due respect to him, consider the matter again in my mind?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Effect of statutory rights of occupation as charge on dwelling house
2.—(1) Where, at any time during the subsistence of a marriage, one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of an estate or interest, then the other spouse's rights of occupation under section 1 above shall be a charge on that estate or interest, having the like priority as if it were an equitable interest created at whichever is the latest of the following dates, that is to say,—

(a) the date when the spouse so entitled acquires the estate or interest;

(b) the date of the marriage; and

(c)the commencement of this Act.

(5) Where a spouse's rights of occupation under section 1 above are a charge on the estate or interest of the other spouse, and the other spouse—

(a) is adjudged bankrupt or makes a conveyance or assignment of his or her property to trustees for the benefit of his or her creditors generally; or

(b) dies and his or her estate is insolvent;

then, notwithstanding any order under section 1 above, those rights shall determine, and any such order relating thereto shall cease to have effect.
6.56 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE LORD WILBERFORCE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "one spouse" and insert:
"obtains an order under section 1 of this Act, then any right of occupation conferred by that order shall be a charge on the estate or interest of the other spouse having priority as from the date of registration of the order:
Provided that if within one month prior to the date of any such order a priority notice shall have been registered in accordance with this Act the charge hereby created shall have priority as from the date of registration of such notice."
The noble and learned Lord said: My noble and learned friends whose names appear on this Amendment have asked me to move it, and I am very pleased to do so. The purpose of the
634
Amendment is to remedy certain doubts that were felt on the Second Reading of this Bill by, I think, a number of your Lordships as to the wisdom of extending the rights of spouses in relation to matrimonial property so widely as this Bill does. Your Lordships may take occasion to look back at the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, which appears at the beginning, and you will see there that the occasion for it was the decision of the House of Lords in the Ainsworth case, which it was thought brought prejudice to the position of deserted wives. Also it is said there in the first paragraph that:
"the Bill gives substantial effect to the recommendations …of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce."
But, as I ventured to suggest on Second Reading, this Bill and in particular Clause 2(1), goes a long way further than merely protecting the rights of a deserted spouse; it goes a long way further than restoring the law as some thought or wished it to be before the Ainsworth case, and goes a long way beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
The particular point to which this Amendment is directed is the provision in Clause 2(1) which says that the right of spouse who does not own the property is to be an equitable interest dating from, among other things, the date of the marriage, or if the property is acquired afterwards the date of acquisition. That has two possible damaging effects on the general law as regards property belonging to one spouse. In the first' place, it introduces complications into the title to that property and into dealings with that property; that is to say, it complicates the dealings with all matrimonial homes all over the country, irrespective of whether or not the situation of desertion has arisen.
As the clause now stands, the effect is that any wife, or any husband if the property belongs to the wife, is in a position to register a charge against the property of the other spouse immediately on marriage. That this is not merely a theoretical possibility was shown on Second Reading, when certain speakers, my noble and learned friend Lord Denning among others, suggested that that was desirable, and indeed expressed

635
the wish that it would become the general custom of the country. So we are not dealing here with a possible theoretical right; we are dealing with a right which it is intended shall arise and be exercised as regards all matrimonial homes as from the date of the marriage.
The possibility of a spouse so registering his or her claim against the property at that stage immediately gives rise to the possibility, or really the necessity, of expense and the employment of lawyers over the machinery and technicalities of registration. Toregister a charge is not an easy matter. You have to get a form to do so. You either have to employ a solicitor or you have to execute a statutory declaration. And, of course, if charges are going to be put on every property, there will be a lot of work at the Land Registry. Then, once the charge is on the register, and suppose it is a wife who has put the charge on, before any dealings in the property can take place it is necessary for the wife's charge to be cleared off.
I venture to think that no building society would dream of lending money on the security of a house unless a charge registered against it under this Bill were cleared off before the charge was made. Again, if the charge is to be cleared off that means delay, it means expense, and it means the employment of lawyers. So that anybody thinking of moving house, or selling his house in order to acquire another, or thinking of raising fresh money on his house, will be put in the position of having to get rid of a charge registered against the house under this Bill.
Secondly, the Bill, as it stands in effect gives a general right of veto to one spouse on all dealings by the other spouse, because once a charge is on the register it gets priority over anything else, and therefore no dealing can take place unless the owner of the charge gives his or her consent. So that the owner of a house, who up till now has an absolute right in his property, is from now on, according to this Bill, to be fettered in the disposition of his property. In our view, that is a major step in social policy which, we venture to suggest, should not have been brought in in connection with this Bill.
The whole question of the property rights of spouses generally over the home, over furniture, was most carefully considered by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce under two headings. They considered whether there should be community of property, and they considered the question of the deserted spouse's rights. As regards community, there was a great division of opinion. Some thought there should be, some thought there should not be; some thought it should extend to the house, some thought it should extend to furniture, and some thought it should extend to combinations of the two. But certainly there was no agreement there. That is a matter on which, so far, there is no consensus of opinion; and certainly no such consensus has justified a step to-wards community being taken in this Bill.
So far as this Bill is concerned, it does not go so far as to reintroduce community of property, though again I think some thought that this was a welcome step in that direction. In a way, this is worse, because under any system of community of property at least one spouse has the right of management of the community property, so that dealings in it can be made. But under this Bill one spouse has not the right to deal with his property without the consent of the other if there is a charge on it. It is, in effect, a wrangler's charter.
As regards the extent of the deserted spouse's right of occupancy, as I pointed out on Second Reading, the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce carefully considered exactly when that should arise, and suggested in paragraph 669 of their Report that it should arise from desertion and not before. Therefore, one is entitled to ask, what is the justification in this Bill for going beyond that suggestion?
The Amendment which we are suggesting is not in any way an anti-spouse, an anti-feminist move—not in any way at all. The reason for it is that it is just as much in the interests of wives, of spouses, that dealings in property should be easy, should be cheap, should not be limited by technicalities, as it is that they should be secured in the possession of their rights. There are many people who are interested, in a perfectly normal way, in having made available easy mortgages,

637
easy and cheap dealings in property; and it is in order to facilitate that objective, which is just as good an objective as to protect deserted wives, that this Amendment is put forward.
I need not, I think, spend much time in explaining the Amendment; I hope it explains itself. It goes somewhat further than the Royal Commission suggested, and is, perhaps we might suggest, rather better than what the Royal Commission suggested. We quite recognise that if one were to wait until one spouse, the deserted spouse got an order from the court against the deserting spouse, that might be too late. The husband (if he is the deserter) may by then have gone off and sold the property over his wife's head, or placed a mortgage on it. So, therefore, we suggest this mechanism which is reflected in the proviso: that a spouse who can see trouble coming can go straight away and put a charge on the register, and that gives a priority as from the date the charge is put on. Then, of course, if an order is obtained under Clause 1 of the Bill, the charge is carried forward. If an order is not obtained, then the charge lapses.
One can discuss the details of that mechanism. Some may think that one month is not long enough. It is easy to extend it to two or three months, if that is desired. We think that one month is enough because, as was pointed out on Second Reading, it is intended that these applications should come before the county court and that they should be dealt with rapidly. But if anyone thinks that one month is too short, it is easy to adjust it by extending it. Furthermore, this Amendment deals only with Clause 2 of the Bill, and if it were to be agreed to it would be necessary no doubt to carry out some consequential Amendments of a technical character to subsequent clauses. We assure those who advise and assist the noble Baroness that they will have no difficulty in dealing with them. The mechanism of the priority notice is, I should say, nothing new. It is a well tried and recognised mechanism in this sphere of land registration, and it has the practical advantage of enabling steps to be taken in advance before the actual order of the court is obtained.
That is the Amendment which is suggested. We hope that it does rather
638
better than the Royal Commission, that it avoids the difficulties which otherwise we feel will result from the wide terms in which Clause 2(1) of the Bill is at present couched. So I have pleasure in moving it. Perhaps I may just say that if, by any chance, I am called away before the discussion is concluded, I know that the noble Baroness will acquit me of discourtesy. But at any rate two of my supporters are here to sustain the burden of the debate.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out from ("spouse") to end of line 14 and insert the said words and proviso.—(Lord Wilberforce.)
7.8 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on making the best of a weak case. I want to appeal to the Committee, on grounds which I hope they will agree are absolutely fair. In my opinion, the scheme embodied in the Amendment which the noble Lord has just expounded would not afford a deserted wife sufficient protection from eviction, which, after all, is what we are seeking to do. It is what the Royal Commission sought to do; they are seeking to afford a wife protection against eviction.
I want to prove to the Committee that the noble Lord's case is such that a wife would be absolutely vulnerable if her marriage were threatened. She can already apply to the courts under Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, for an order restraining her husband from parting with his interest in the matrimonial home. But it is most uncommon for this step tobe taken, except in the course of divorce proceedings. Wives are usually reluctant to go to court and, so it seems, to have to publicise difficulties about which women are most sensitive, unless compelled by necessity to do so. I want to emphasise that the wife will be reluctant to reveal that there is domestic disharmony unless absolutely forced to do so. Furthermore, a wife would not want to incur trouble and expense in taking proceedings unless actually threatened with eviction.
Experience tends to show—and I am supported in this by many of my friends in the legal world—that if protection could be obtained only by going to the

639
court, many wives would fail to take proceedings before their husbands had sold or mortgaged the matrimonial home. Therefore, this proposal will, in effect, shut the door only after the steed has escaped. That analogy has been made before, but in this case it is a sound one.
The noble Lord said words to the effect that when the husband and wife quarrel she will then take action. Is a man so simple that he is going to wait for the last quarrel before he sees the estate agent and asks him about getting rid of his house? It is true that the Amendment would enable her to register a priority notice while she was seeking an order, but this would be of no avail to her unless she registered the notice before her husband parted with his interest and she obtained an order within a month after registering the notice. It is unlikely that she would register a priority notice until she decided to take proceedings, and by that time it would be too late. Even if the husband gave away his interest, if he said to his mistress, or to a relation, "You can have this house", I am advised that the transferee would obtain a good title against the wife unless she had obtained an order or registered a priority notice before the transfer was completed. So it would be possible for a husband one night to write to a relation or to his mistress and say, "The house is yours". What on earth then is the good of the wife, in the following weeks, trying to register her charge? Surely the Bill, as it stands, gives the wife much more certain protection.
First of all, there is no need for her to take court proceedings. She need not even register her charge to make it binding on a person who acquired the husband's interest otherwise than for value. In other words, if the husband did as I have suggested and said to his mistress or friend, "You can have the house", that would not be valid. She has not got to register her charge in those circumstances. It will, for example, be binding on anybody to whom the husband gives away his interests after the date specified in Clause 2(1). That subsection, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his friends object, gives certain dates and it is after
640
the last of those dates that this could operate. If the wife registers her charge it will be binding on a purchaser for value who acquires the husband's interest after the date of registration.
Furthermore, we were told about the cost of registering her charge, and I am very glad that Lord Wilberforce has changed his mind to-day. Registration is much simpler and cheaper than taking court proceedings. Application for registration is made on sending or delivering the prescribed form to the Land Charges Department of the Land Registry. The application need not be made by a solicitor if supported by a statutory declaration. If after the wife has registered her charge the husband wishes to sell or mortgage the property while the parties are still living in amity, surely the wife will agree to release her charge so as not to impede the transaction. The average wife is not an ogre; she is not watching her husband the whole time to catch him out. Most marriages are happy. The wife has a vested interest in the home;not a material one, but her whole happiness is bound up in the home. Surely the love of her children, her home, and security are the most potent forces in a woman's life. Surely those noble Lords who are happily married have realised that. I have never met a happily married wife who would refuse to help her husband in circumstances of this kind.
Therefore, when noble Lords say to me that if she put a charge on this property she would not be prepared to help her husband if he wanted a mortgage, I say these are not the realities of life. Provided the couple are living in happiness, she will be only too prepared to help him. To do this she would simply arrange for one of the solicitors involved in the transaction to lodge an application for cancellation of the registration. If she did not agree, if there was some trouble, then the husband could apply to the court for an order under Clause 1 restricting or terminating her rights if he felt that her opposition was not justified.
I am sorry the noble Lord has gone, but I see that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is here. I must draw his attention to this, and I can assure him that I would not dare stand in front of noble and learned Lords if I had not had the very best legal advice.

641
Apart from being objectionable in principle, the Amendment is technically defective and I hope your Lordships will not support it in the following respects.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lady heard my noble friend Lord Wilberforce say that he realised that the Amendment would be required to be made and that there would be consequential Amendments, but the Amendment is sufficiently well drafted surely to show its object.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am not a lawyer. I am a simple woman.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): Not so simple!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I must confess to the House that I was shocked to find an Amendment, in the names of a former Speaker of the House and three Judges, which contains three important technical defects. Therefore, it surely falls as an Amendment. May I therefore dare to instruct their Lordships in the technicalities of the law? First of all, it makes the priority of the wife's charge take effect from the date of registration of an order conferring any right of occupation. Registration of the order should, however, be relevant only in the case of a disposition to a purchaser for value. As against any other person, the order should take priority from the date it was made.
The second technical defect: a priority notice is a method of securing priority for a charge as from the date of its creation, notwithstanding that it is not registered until later. Its purpose is to prevent priority being lost to another charge which is registered in the meantime. The priority notice mentioned in the Amendment would be used for quite a different purpose. Its object would be to secure priority as from the date of registration of the notice of an order which might not at that time have been made, applied for, and indeed which might never in fact be made.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: What is wrong with that? The noble Lady is getting into rather deep technical waters.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Well, the very best legal advice—and the noble Viscount knows I have had it—has told me that the Amendment is very wrongly drafted, and indeed the priority notice is being used in an entirely wrong sense.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord challenges me, and I have to rub it in. The third technical defect is that a priority notice is appropriate only where it relates to unregistered land. Where the title to the land is registered, priority is secured by the entry of a caution or inhibition. That seems, even to my non-legal mind, to be absolutely elementary. So I hope the Committee will support me.
May I just interpret this now in simple words? As the Committee will realise, I have had to stick to the technicalities of the law and, indeed, the non-technicalities of the law, because they must obviously be very carefully considered. But what am I trying to do? A marriage is not going well, and various unpleasant incidents culminate in what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, described to me in the Tea Room as a "blow-up". The wife decides, finally, that the position is intolerable—and I do not have to tell your Lordships that a woman does not allow her home to be upset until she has endured so much that she cannot stand it any longer—and for the sake of the children and her own peace of mind she says that there must be some change.
The wife registers a priority notice, which I understand lapses—this is according to the new Amendment—if she does not take action and obtain an order within one month. This surely provides a clear warning to a husband that she is prepared to take action to protect herself and her family. No doubt in her distress she will then telephone her mother, her father and her friends, and most husbands will not be placated by that kind of publicity. Then, in consequence, the husband may decide to endeavour to soothe his wife for a month until the priority notice lapses, and then make private arrangements to dispose of the house. This is the effect of the Amendment which we have had

643
described to us. I can think of no proposition like the one embodied in the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment more calculated to destroy the chances of a reunion, and that is what we hope for.
All I am proposing to do is to modify a convention. The passage of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 was not easy, although it simply permitted a wife to retain her own property. Yet there were objections similar to those which we have heard on this Bill. It was argued, just as we have heard on this Bill, that it would cause disharmony in the home if a woman were given these rights, and that the husband should have complete freedom to raise money on a house belonging to his wife. On marriage a husband promises to share all his worldly goods, but this solemn promise in church has no legal sanction whatsoever. I am asking that it should be inherent in marriage that a wife should have the right to a roof for herself and her children.
Are women asking too much in seeking that it should be inherent in marriage that a wife has some rights and that a mother has some rights? By this Bill she is not even asking to own the house; she is asking to have a roof over her head under which to live with her children. In other countries wives have an equal right to the ownership of the matrimonial home, but this measure does not go as far as that. The fear that the provisions of this Bill will interfere with a man's business are not in keeping with the realities of life. If a man and wife are living happily, the wife is only too willing to help her husband in his business in every way in her power.
Finally, I would say this. If the marriage was heading for the rocks it would not be surprising if a wife was reluctant to withdraw her charge. To do so would, in fact, be a rejection of the protection which the Royal Commission sought to provide for her, and which I hope this House will agree the wife and mother should have.
LORD DERWENT: May I say one word on this Amendment and on the clause as it stands, because I raised this matter on the Second Reading? The
644
noble Baroness has talked a good deal about this clause in connection with eviction, but of course it is Clause 1 which deals with eviction, and I think it was agreed last time that cases of eviction are not very numerous, though when they occur they are very serious.
But what is Clause 2, as it stands, doing? It is, in fact, a method of stopping either spouse from dealing in any way with the matrimonial home without the agreement of the other. As is so often the case when Bills go too far, this is going to affect very adversely those who are either poor or of small means. For the rich, of course, it will have no effect whatsoever. If a man for his business, or a woman for her business, wants to raise money, either by mortgage or by a loan from the bank, there is probably no difficulty in raising money if they have a certain amount of means of their own of any kind other than the matrimonial home. So I do not think that this clause will affect any wife who may be deserted, if the persons concerned are pretty well off. As we all know, the solicitors of the two parties get together and come to some financial arrangement; and, anyhow, the hardship on such a wife is not so great as in the case of somebody with small means.
But what is the bank going to say when the only negotiable asset is the matrimonial home, whoever it belongs to, and where, perhaps, there is a one-man business, or a one-woman business, being carried on in the building, when the spouse who owns it goes to the bank for an overdraft to tide over a difficult period? Having looked at the reasons for wanting the overdraft, the bank will say, "Yes, but the only security you have is the matrimonial home and we cannot lend money unless we take priority over the other spouse's equitable interest". If the husband and wife are parting or are not getting on too well, the spouse who has to be asked to give his or her permission may well refuse. He or she may even indulge in a little marital blackmail and say "Yes, I will forgo that, provided you give me this, that or the other".
In the case of a newly-married couple wanting a mortgage on a house, will a building society, or anyone else, give a mortgage on the only property which is

645
negotiable if it is not satisfied that it is going to take priority over the other spouse's interest? Of course not. Why should it? If a newly-married husband and wife register themselves separately, and the company giving the mortgage says, "I am sorry but you own the house. Your spouse's interest must be overcome", the couple are going to say, "Yes, but what is the point of this clause? It will not be operating".
I am not going to argue about whether this Amendment is correctly drafted. I will leave that to my noble and learned friends. But it will overcome one of the difficulties. For a comparatively small number of cases which may arise, which can, in fact, be largely protected by this Amendment—and, of course, eviction is protected under Clause 1—we are asked to upset the possibility of either spouse being able, in any circumstances, to deal with the matrimonial home without the permission of the other spouse. That does not seem to me sensible. It seems to me tousing a steam-hammer to crack a nut. I do not know what my noble and learned friends are going to do. I do not know if they are going to divide, but I should like to see them press this Amendment. If it needs alteration in its drafting, that can be done at the Report stage. But if they decide to divide, I will certainly go into the Lobby with them.
7.31 p.m.
LORD DENNING: This Amendment is certainly well supported, and it also follows the recommendation of the Royal Commission. But I venture to suggest that if it were accepted it would, in fact, take away a great deal of the protection which it seeks to afford to the deserted wife. It is all very well to say that Clause 1 protects her from eviction. Yes, it does—from eviction by her own husband. In the courts, we have always protected her against that: there is no question about it. The whole trouble has arisen because, under a recent decision of the House of Lords, the husband who owns a house and has it in his name, or who has the tenancy in his name, can immediately sell it to any purchaser. He can sell it to his new mistress, to his brother or to a friend; or he can even hand it over. And even though he knows all about the situation, that person can,
646
under this recent decision, turn the wife out; and she has no answer whatsoever.
The mischief which this Bill seeks to remedy is to protect her from that purchaser, that person to whom the husband sells it. This proposed Amendment will destroy that protection altogether, because she will not get protection unless she has already gone to the court and got an order before the husband sells to his mistress, or whoever it may be. From long experience in the courts I can say that the wife does not go off to a solicitor at once. She stays at home waiting and hoping that her husband will return, or perhaps not knowing where he is.
What is he doing, meanwhile? If he is unscrupulous, he will sell it to a purchaser. She waits; and then, if this Amendment is right, she has to go to a lawyer. Then, as it is usually the poor widows, who have no money, who are involved, she has to get legalaid, and the lawyer has to apply to the court. After weeks, or it may be months, she gets an order, and for the first time she can then get a charge registered against the property. Meanwhile, of course, during all those months that have elapsed, any unscrupulous husband will have sold the property, will have transferred it to his new mistress or his relative, and indeed will not be bound at all. If this Amendment is accepted it will take away the whole object of the Bill, which is to protect the wife against the unscrupulous husband who sells the house over her head.
The only remaining thing I would say is that the fears about a young couple not being able to raise money are not supported in the least. It is mere speculation. One knows that building societies who advance money often like to have the names of both parties on it—one as a guarantor, if need be. As the building societies do not request it, I do not suggest that it would affect the loans one particle if the Bill as orginally drafted stands. As to all the conveyancing troubles—the cost of charges, the release and so on—I may say that many conveyancing points like these will have to be taken up, but in truth they are minor ones when one comes to consider them against the human problem which I think most of your Lordships would like to solve—namely, to protect the deserted

647
wife against the husband who unscrupulously sells the matrimonial home. If the Bill remains in its present form, and the Amendment is not accepted, the wife will be protected.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, one might think it was a very common practice for husbands to sell the matrimonial home over the wife's head. The noble and learned Lord has had experience of a number of cases where husbands have behaved in that way, but I suggest to him that the number of such cases is, in fact, very small indeed; and particularly small when contrasted with the number of marriages which do not end up in separations or divorce. And even where there is a divorce or separation, the number of cases in which this kind of conduct has been perpetrated by the husband would be, I should have thought, a very small proportion of the whole.
Just because of that small number of cases the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, thinks it is necessary that, immediately after the marriage, the wife should run round to the Land Registrar's office and put a charge upon the register. I must say that that seems to me a very odd consequence. On Second Reading, my noble and learned friend said:
"I would recommend strongly that in future all wives, whenever their matrimonial home is bought in the husband's name, immediately, without waiting for any trouble to arise, should go and register their right in case in the future something should go wrong with the marriage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, VOL 275 (No. 20), col. 45; 14/6/66.]
What a picture that presents to my mind! Immediately after the wedding, before the reception, a call should be made at the Land Registrar's office and a charge immediately put on the register in case, in years to come, something may go wrong. I do not take that view; and, with great respect to my noble and learned friend, I think it is an exaggeration to suggest that the passage of this Amendment will deprive the deserted wife of protection.
I am with the noble Lady in saying that, where it is threatened, I want to
648
see protection given to a woman to prevent her from being evicted from the house or denied the opportunity of getting back to it. As my noble and learned friend says, that protection can be given between the spouses, and the question comes with regard to third parties. The issue here between what is in the Bill and what is in the Amendment really is not what the noble Lady sought to suggest—nor, indeed, what my noble and learned friend sought to suggest. The scheme as devised by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce does mean that the wife can get protection without first obtaining an order of the court. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning misunderstood it when he said that it would always be necessary to get an order of the court first. The whole purpose of this priority notice is that the charge can become effective for a time without its ever being brought before a court.
Now I myself do not mind whether it is a priority notice which stays in force one, two or three months; but this priority notice would lapse unless, within that period, there is an order of the count—and I myself think that that is right. I do not see why the threatened wife should be debarred from protection, if she is given those rights, despite the advice given by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and her supporter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I think, in fact, few wives will go from the wedding to the Land Registry Office, the Land Charges Office, or whatever it is, to register the charge. I think in few wives will exercise that right at all. But the trouble is that, once that right is exercised, the charge is there, and will stay there.
I cannot speak with any great authority, and I do not intend to speak at any great length, about this, but I rest on the Royal Commission, which I have no doubt at all went into this matter with a very great deal of care. They said here—and I should like to remind your Lordships of their words:
"To give the deserted wife complete protection it would be necessary to give her a right as against all the world to stay on in the matrimonial home until ordered to leave by the court."

649
That is what the noble Baroness seeks. The Report went on to say:
"The decisive objection to that course in our opinion is the unsatisfactory and insecure position in which it would place third parties. It would be necessary, for instance, for a would-be purchaser of a house or for an intending mortgagee to make full inquiries into the matrimonial circumstances of the owner before the transaction could be safely completed. On the other hand, to give the wife a right merely against the husband personally would be equally unsatisfactory."
I agree with that. Then they recommend a middle course. Our Amendment goes a little further than the middle course in seeking to provide protection.
It is a narrow issue but I believe that the noble Lady, as my noble friend, Lord Derwent said, is using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut by seeking to have this right imposed either from the moment of marriage or from the acquisition of the house or the passage of the Act, whichever is the latest. If it is on the acquisition of the house that the right bites, then, in the case of a married couple who are buying a new house, presumably this charge in favour of the spouse must rank before any mortgage which is entered into in relation to that new house. That seems to me to be a real difficulty. The hour is getting late. So far as I am concerned I do not wish to withdraw this Amendment: I should prefer to divide the Committee. But I hope that we may reach a conclusion on it fairly soon.
LORD HODSON: I will not detain the Committee very long, but as one of the wicked men who was a member of that section of your Lordships' House which came to the decision which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning dislikes so much, Ainsworth v. National Provincial Bank, I should like to underline two points, both of which I think have already been made. One is that this legislation that we are engaged on now is concerned with poor people, and one does not want to get lost with the idea that the poor wife is the only person we have to consider. We are dealing with poor people. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made the point that it is poor people who go to building societies and raise money with a charge on the house. They have no other security to give. It is going
650
to be more difficult to raise money on houses if wives charge them prematurely.
This Amendment is intended only to delay the registration of a charge, which was recommended by, at any rate, some noble Lords in the Ainsworth case. I only ask noble Lords to remember that. Further, I would emphasise this—and I think this point has already been made. There are far more poor people seeking to borrow money on houses or to deal in houses that are charged than there are deserted wives. In the Ainsworth case, all the reported cases about deserted wives who sought to resist eviction or to protect their property or house against their husbands were trotted out before us. There were not many of them. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning moves us to tears every time he mentions a deserted wife, the poor woman he has been protecting in the Court of Appeal for years. But there are not many of them. Then he comes to this House and, in sepulchral tones, says, "When the House of Lords got the case of a bank, what did they do then? They protected the bank."
But let us not get our feet off the ground. We are not dealing with thousands and thousands of deserted wives. We are dealing with thousands and thousands of poor people who want to raise money on their houses or want to dispose of their houses, when perhaps a man has to move because his job has moved. I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I am well aware that I am sticking my neck out in saying anything on this subject. I will try to confine this speech to asking two questions. I am not a spouse, I am not a lawyer and I am not yet a wife or mother; but I will confess that nothing that has been said in the extremely formidable presentation of Lord Wilber-force's case has resolved a doubt I have had about this Amendment from the beginning. I think the expression was used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, "using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut". I am not sure that that was not a pardonable exaggeration. But even if we used a croquet mallet, that is better than to use a coffee spoon and not to crack the nut.

651
What I want to know is whether this Amendment provides the protection it sets out to provide? The point has been made that there are very few such cases. Of that I have no experience. I know that during the Second Reading debate, which I was unable to attend but which I read, it was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that these cases were rare. It was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that they were not so rare. But there is one point on which I feel I have as much experience as any other noble Lord has. It is of how many of these cases there will be in the future. Perhaps I should have said that I have as little experience as any other noble Lord of this, because, of course, none of us knows how many there will be. If one is to make a protection, then surely one has to make a protection which will work in a number of cases.
One can make a comparison with an insurance policy where one has a great problem. For example, if I insure against a broken leg I may insure from the first moment I can. There is then the hideous possibility that I shall have to pay large sums of money in premiums all my life and get nothing out of it because at the age of 95 I shall not have broken my leg. That is unfortunate. But the other possibility is to wait until I am slipping down a slope in the Alps, hoping I can get some information about getting a policy. That is leaving it too late. That is an extreme example. One must fall somewhere between the two extremes.
My own feeling is that, although I am prepared to be moved to tears by the rights of mortgagees and the rights of all property owners, I am old-fashioned enough—and I do not want to shock the noble Lady by saying this—to believe that matrimony is a Divine state and a mortgage is not. If there is a choice between protecting a wife's rights to her home and protecting the property of a bank, or even of a private person, or their rights to exercise property by "fettering"—that is the word which was used—then one of the disadvantages of matrimony (and I speak as a non-spouse) is that surely matrimony does fetter you. One cannot have all the freedom in matrimony that one has without it. If one of the objects of matrimony is to
652
preserve the rights of each spouse one cannot tell when this trouble will come.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, put it clearly during the Second Reading debate when he said, I think, that the purpose was to protect a limited class of people who are spouses deserted by the other spouse and left in precarious circumstances in a matrimonial home. I may be wrong; but I believe that was the expression he used. Of all those words a lawyer has infinitely more knowledge than I have of what is meant—except one, the word "precarious"; because I do not see how he can tell when a marriage is going to slip up. I would support what the noble Baroness has said: that these things are not always seen beforehand. A man who is a good man does not desert his wife and turn her out of the house. However, we are dealing with people who are not good husbands—or wives. I will not labour that point. So far, I have not been convinced that this Amendment does what it sets out to do.
LORD STRANGE: I should like to contribute an actual experience of this happening in real life. I do not say that I promise to be short; but I will say what I have to as quickly as I can. About seven years ago I came in contact with a man over the purchase of a house. I did not buy it, but I took a strong dislike to the man, for no particular reason—though I think the reason was that he wore a diamond ring when he was gardening, which I did not like. But this man rather haunted me, as he always wanted to sell me this house. I saw him at intervals; and I disliked him more because he would call me George, and my name is John. He had a faded wife, who must have been pretty some time back, and who had growing-up children. She was up in the forties. I suddenly heard that she had been found drinking in the local "pubs" and had taken to drink, and had a boy friend. I did not think she was the sort of woman who would have done that. She struck me as being a very respectable type of woman. The next thing I heard, through our local police, was that this man, the diamond ring man, had called them up in the middle of the night and said that his wife was trying to murder him. The police came and found this rather pathetic,

653
faded woman beaten up black and blue all over, lying crying in a corner, rather drunk. All they could find on the man was a scratch on one hand which could have been self-inflicted.
The next piece of the story was that he went to our local pier and jumped off the edge of it at low tide. He stood with the water half-way up to his waist till somebody pulled him out. He said he was trying to commit suicide because his wife had treated him so badly. She had run away with another man and had treated him badly—she was living with another man in the village. Next he put himself in a mental asylum, and said that his wife had made him mad. Finally he managed to get a divorce against his wife, and she was turned out of the house without any money or any protection. If this Amendment were carried, and she had gone (and he had known that she had gone) to put in her claim for the house, I should not like to think what he would have done to her.
7.54 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I can see the difficulty about registering a charge before anything has begun to go wrong with the marriage, but I think it is a difficulty which can be overcome simply. I am not very familiar with the procedure for registering priority notices—I do not think I was ever concerned in my life with a priority notice—but I imagine it is a relatively simple business, and I should have thought that the case of the noble Baroness would have been very well met if a priority notice was required to be given within, say, six months, or even twelve months. That would give the wife an opportunity of registering her priority notice and protecting her right at a time when she began to feel that the marriage was likely to go wrong. I propose to vote for the Amendment and to move an Amendment at the Report stage
providing for a longer period within which the priority notice could be registered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): I suppose the Committee will expect the Government to express some view about this Amendment. I hope my noble friend Lady Summerskill will stick to her guns, because if this Amendment is passed it will deprive the wife of a large part of the benefit which this Bill is intended to give to her. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said that the Royal Commission anticipated that it would be necessary for would-be purchasers of houses to make inquiries into the matrimonial circumstances of the owner. It was precisely to avoid that that the contents of the present Bill which, after all, are really very simple, were devised. The wife has a charge from the start against everybody except a bona-fide purchaser for value, and she can obtain protection against him if she registers her charge before there is any such sale.
But if this Amendment is accepted, then, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, if a man is going to leave his wife and children and go off with another woman, and he goes to a lawyer to ask what is his legal position, he will be told, "Well, give it to your mistress at once, or sell it at once". The main object in many circumstances which this Bill was intended to have will have been lost, for reasons which the noble and learned Lord, with all his experience, has so aptly described, very much better than I could have done. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject this Amendment.
7.58 p.m.
On Question, whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:
Contents 10; Not-contents, 21.

CONTENTS

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Hodson, L.

Merthyr, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Ilford, L.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V. [Teller.]

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Grenfell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Barrington, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Somers, L.

Champion, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Denning, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs.

Strange, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Falkland, V.

St. Just, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandys, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: This is merely a drafting Amendment. As it stands, Clause 2(5) provides inter alia that a spouse's rights of occupation under Clause 1 shall cease to have effect where the other spouse makes a conveyance or assignment of his property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors generally. The conveyance or assignment may not, however, include the other spouse's interest in the matrimonial home. It may include, for instance, only his business assets or personal property. There is no reason why the rights of occupation under Clause 1 should come to an end in such circumstances. They should do so only where the matrimonial home is included in the assignment. The Amendment accordingly confines the operation of the provisions to cases where property conveyed or assigned includes the other spouse's interest in the matrimonial home. I beg to move.
Amendment moved-—
Page 4, line 5, after ("property") insert ("(including that estate or interest)").—(Baroness Summerskill.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in subsection (5), to leave out all words after "notwithstanding" and to insert instead:
"that it is registered in accordance with the following provisions of this section, the charge shall be void against the trustee in bankruptcy, the trustees under the conveyance or assignment or the personal representatives of the deceased spouse, as the case may be."
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment gives effect to the suggestion made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce—an excellent suggestion, and I am sorry that he is not here to hear my congratulations. He said that a spouse's rights of occupation should not come to a complete end on the other
656
spouse's insolvency, if the termination of her rights is not necessary in order that the creditors may be satisfied. Clause 2(5) provides that, notwithstanding any order under Clause 1, a spouse's rights of occupation shall cease to have effect where the other spouse
"is adjudged bankrupt or makes a conveyance or assignment of his or her property to trustees for the benefit of his or her creditors generally; or
(b) dies and his or her estate is insolvent."
The object of that provision is to ensure that a wife, for example, cannot continue to reside in her husband's house at the expense of the creditors, if he becomes insolvent. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, pointed out, however, it may not be necessary to have recourse to selling the house in order to satisfy the creditors. The wife's rights ought only to determine where the trustee or personal representative wants to sell the property with vacant possession. If they have no need to do so and the husband's estate is wound up without the property being sold, the wife's rights ought to remain unimpaired.
The Amendment accordingly provides that, in the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) and (b), the charge in respect of the occupying spouse's rights of occupation shall be void only against the trustee in bankruptcy, the trustees under conveyance or assignment or the personal representative of the other spouse, as the case may be. The Amendment does not provide that the charge is to be void against the trustee notwithstanding any order under Clause 1. These words are unnecessary, even in Clause 2(5) as it stands, because, by virtue of Clause 2(3), an order under Clause 1 has effect against persons deriving title under the rights of the wife only when they are affected by the other spouse's charge. Again I apologise to your Lordships for being so technical, but I am sure that your Lordships realise that in a technical Bill of

657
this kind, I must explain these technicalities in words which are understood by the legal profession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("notwithstanding") to end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed. Bill reported with Amendments.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
8.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint theHouse that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.