Lords Sitting of 21 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
11.5 a.m.
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message reads as follows:
"I have received your Address, praying that the draft Summer Time Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament. I will comply with your request."

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House that, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, Her Majesty the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance,

Road Transport Lighting,

Matrimonial Causes,

Control of Liquid Fuel,

Criminal Law,

Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Buxton, Stockport and York),
Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (West Hertfordshire Main Drainage District),

Metropolitan Water Board,

University of Bradford,

Newquay Urban District Council,

Guildford Corporation.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in moving the Resolution that stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should explain to your Lordships that its purpose is to continue the progress of this Bill through Parliament next Session. The Bill was opposed and went to a Select Committee of this House on July 4. On July 13 the Committee reported that the Bill should proceed with Amendments. I am satisfied that it would be impossible for the Promoters to complete the proceedings on the Bill in both Houses before the end of this Session. I am therefore asking the House to agree to allow the Bill to be carried over until the next Session. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that point be paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONFIAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District Council of Driffield be approved. This is the normal form of Order under the 1932 Act. All the statutory requirements have been properly complied with. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Driffield be approved.—(Lord Stonhani.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL
11.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Commitee.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exemption of police instructors from prohibition imposed by section 1 of this Act]:
LORD LINDGREN: It may be to the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we consider also Amendment No. 2, because they are connected. These are technical Amendments to ensure that the exemption in Clause 2 for police driving instructors will include civilian driving instructors employed under the Commissioner of Police or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, to give driving instruction to members of the Metropolitan Police. The employment of such civilians is recognised by the Metropolitan
506
Police Staff Superannuation Act 1875, and is not covered by Section 10 of the Police Act 1964, on which the existing Clause 2 is based. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("person") and insert ("civilian").—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) In the application of subsection (2) above to the metropolitan police, for the reference to a civilian employed by a police authority, there shall be substituted a reference to a civilian employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.")—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [The register and registration and duration thereof]:
LORD LINDGREN: Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are also connected with this Amendment No. 3, and I suggest that we should deal with them together. It has been suggested that lines 16 to 20 on page 3 of the Bill might be interpreted as meaning that throughout the period of four years preceding the date of his application an applicant must have held both a current licence of one of the kinds mentioned and a current foreign licence. The intention is that on every day during the four-year period mentioned the applicant should hold either a current licence of one of the kinds mentioned, or a current foreign licence. These are drafting Amendments. They do not alter the substance of the provision; they are there really for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, as beginning insert ("that")—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("has he held neither") and insert ("did he not hold one or other of the following licences, namely")(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("nor") and insert ("and")—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"( ) Regulations shall provide that persons who have passed the Royal Automobile Club test for registered driving instructors shall be exempt from the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above."
The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I think I should first say that I regret very much that I was unable to take part, as I had intended, in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, and I should like to apologise to your Lordships for the last-minute adverse circumstances that prevented my doing so. Had I done so, I should have got up to welcome and support the principle of the Bill and indicate the welcome and support of my organisation, the R.A.C. It has been argued for many years that good professional driving instruction is a major factor in contributing to road safety. I repeat the assurance that we are in support of this Bill, and the Amendment I have put down is only an attempt to improve it in one certain respect.
It is a slightly double-barrelled Amendment, in that it seems to me that subsection (3) of Clause 3 is a little deficient, for it gives the Minister power to exempt any chosen body from only part of the conditions referred to in the Bill above—that is in subsection (1) paragraph (a)—and it seems to me that the Minister might just as well have power to exempt from the whole of that requirement. But that is not the real substance of my Amendment. I hope your Lordships will not think I am doing a wrong thing in any way in moving this Amendment with a direct reference to the R.A.C. in it. I do so because I am convinced it is a reasonable thing, and, after all, I think I may claim that at least I know as much about it as anybody else.
I do not think I need delve very far into the history of this matter, because my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on Second Reading gave your Lordships a certain amount of information about the attitude and activity of the
508
R.A.C. in this regard. I would remind your Lordships that since 1935, a period of 32 years, we have put the principle into practice by operating our scheme for registration of driving instructors in order to encourage learner drivers to be trained by suitably qualified and properly professional experts. Your Lordships may wish to know that we have some 5,000 such qualified instructors on the register at the present time. An association of those registered instructors was formed in 1958 in order to protect and promote the interests of instructors. One of the declared objects of their scheme is to secure that persons giving driving tuition in the course of business shall be properly qualified so to do. So your Lordships can see that our views coincide completely with my statement that we are quite in support of the principle of the Bill.
Your Lordships will also know that since 1964 the Ministry have operated their own scheme for voluntary registration of approved full-time driving instructors, on very similar lines to the scheme which we have run for so long. They brought it in after close study and a good deal of willing co-operation from us at the time. I understand there are now about 5,000 instructors also on the Ministry's voluntary register, and I understand that quite a number of them are also R.A.C. registered instructors. It may be a point of interest that so far as we are concerned we still get a very substantial number of applicants for our test, the Ministry test notwithstanding.
This matter was discussed fairly fully when the Bill was going through another place, and a number of rather astonishing things happened, to which I think I am bound to draw your Lordships' attention. In the course of that discussion the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"On a number of occasions the R.A.C. has claimed that the standard which instructors have to obtain before being included in its register is at least as high as, if not higher than, that required for inclusion in the Ministry's voluntary register. There is, however, no evidence to support this. I wish there were."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Standing Committee C. col. 95; l0/5/67]:
To put it mildly, I thought that was an astonishing statement to come from the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport. As I have said, since 1959 we have been in constant discussion with the Ministry regarding the setting up of

509
their own scheme, and we have from time to time, quite often—and many meetings have been held—provided detailed information concerning our own scheme. And, as I have said, the Ministry scheme is closely based on ours and we were pleased to help with these matters, even if we had at the time no prospect of any form of exemption. The Ministry really must know everything there is about these two schemes because of those discussions. So it would seem strange for them to say this.
I myself over the last twelve months have had a number of opportunities to discuss these matters with the Ministry, and I certainly had no idea that the whole of the evidence was not well known to the Ministry. I have upon my file a detailed assessment of the differences between the two schemes prepared by the Ministry, and without the evidence I do not see how that could have been made. In fact, happenings of the past bring it to my own personal knowledge that the Ministry were fully aware of everything there was to know about it in 1962, when the whole subject was under consideration and the question of exemption for R.A.C. registered instructors was discussed at that time; and I must admit that even then I personally thought that the decision made not to do so was the wrong one.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
"I wish the honourable Member had been able to adduce evidence to support this. If there were evidence, we might have had it this morning. I do not blame the honourable Member for this. Repeatedly, the Ministry has asked the R.A.C. to adduce evidence on this and it has not so far done so."
again, an extraordinary statement, to my way of thinking. Just for the sake of the Record, if nothing else, the evidence is coming in a moment. But to say that repeated requests have been made and it has not been forthcoming is really rather odd.
I do not know about these repeated requests, but I should not have thought there was even any necessity to make them in the circumstances; and it is probably the reason why the honourable Member whom the Parliamentary Secretary was at that time addressing did not bring all the evidence forward, because it was considered to be already so well known. I do not think he could have
510
anticipated such a reply, that the evidence was not there, when I should have thought that obviously it was abundantly there.
The Parliamentary Secretary then referred to evidence being required to substantiate the R.A.C.'s claim. Well, the evidence has been there. There have been many discussions on this basis. I suppose that substantiation must be a matter of opinion, because so long as you are determined not to consider anything as substantiated it is difficult to think what more evidence can be produced that will change the situation when all is already known.
Your Lordships will know that in the course of proceedings in another place it was announced that there would be partial exemption from the Ministry's test for R.A.C. registered instructors and also those who were on the register of the Motor Schools' Association. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the R.A.C. were willing to accept the compromise. I suppose that is true; but in my view it is stretching the point a little. We are indeed glad to have this compromise, because I have always understood that half-a-loaf is better than no bread. I am also quite willing to concede that this is a full half-loaf. But I think it in no way detracts from the force of my argument on the standard of our test. Incidentally, I wondered how one could come to a conclusion on partial exemption when there was no evidence on which total exemption could be considered; but perhaps that is not an important point.
We continue to regard the R.A.C. registered instructor as a man who is demonstrating to the public that the services of one who belongs to the cream of his profession are available. We are going to do our best, by tightening it if necessary, to make certain that our test remains the best that there is to offer. If I may take a couple of minutes, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice various points which I claim are in favour of our test. The first one is that the Ministry do not set out the motoring offences which make a candidate ineligible for registration under their scheme. The R.A.C., on the other hand, provide in a quite forthright way for the rejection of candidates or the cancellation of their registration if they are convicted of careless driving or any more serious offence. That I score as a point for the R.A.C.

511
The Ministry test the candidate's teaching ability with the examiner taking the place of the learner driver. The R.A.C., on the other hand, has a separate pupil who is not necessarily a learner but is certainly not an expert driver, and that, I submit, is a more practical test and scores another point. The Ministry re-test instructors at regular intervals. We can only conduct a limited number of re-tests because our availability of manpower and resources is less. So I would score a point for the Ministry, making two to one so far.
With regard to fees, I may mention that the Ministry's fees are £10 for the test and £5 every two years for re-registration. Our charge is four guineas, and two guineas for re-registration each year, plus two free plates to put on the instructor's car. Because of the sample retesting basis that I mentioned, I would score that one at half-a-point each. The Ministry require records of tuition and driving test pass rates to be kept by the instructors. The R.A.C. does not. But I do not score more than half-a-point to the Ministry for that. We have a positive control over advertising concerning R.A.C. registration. This the Ministry do not do, beyond providing that it is an offence for an instructor to represent improperly that he is Ministry of Transport approved. I have scored half-a-point to the R.A.C. there. The Ministry of Transport do not examine and register schools. The R.A.C. does—another point. The R.A.C. test of driving and tuition is certainly more extensive and covers higher speed techniques with a practical test on motorways or a suitable dual carriageway road. That is another point.
The Ministry's theoretical test covers some matters which do not seem to us to be an essential requirement for all registered instructors; that is, a detailed technical knowledge of car construction and design. The Ministry also has what I gather is a highly prized asset; namely, the Civil Service standard of invigilation when an examination is taking place. It is often spoken of in hushed whispers, and consequently I will give the Ministry half-a-point for that. Over the years we have accepted part-time or full-time instructors. The Ministry has only recently decided to accept part-time instructors, though professional, of course.
An important point is that the R.A.C. requirements in regard to the character of an applicant are, I think, a good deal more stringent than those of the Ministry. This is important, because under a compulsory registration and compulsory test it is much more difficult for the Ministry to be selective about the personal and moral background of an applicant than it is for us. A refusal on the part of the Ministry can deprive a man of his livelihood; and it will be much more difficult for them to insist on that kind of standard. Then I score another point to the Ministry, for the reason that in these circumstances the R.A.C. is burdened with something called selective employment tax; whereas, of course, as and when necessary the Ministry have the weight of the Exchequer behind them. The score card at the moment adds up to: R.A.C. 7½, Ministry 4.
I have another point which it is relevant to mention. The failure rate of the Ministry's test is 45 per cent. It was quoted not very long ago that that was the rate of failure in the R.A.C. test, but I can tell the Committee that at present the failure rate in our test is something over 50 per cent. I do not know whether, when the compulsory test comes in, good thing as it is, the Ministry will be able to maintain the same standards as they can under the voluntary scheme, for the reason I mentioned; namely, that the person will be deprived of his livelihood. We shall continue as a voluntary scheme, and therefore we should have no difficulty in keeping up the very high standards which we maintain at present.
It is our intention to impose even higher standards in future to keep our test the best of the lot. That is worth a point, and I consider that 32 years' experience and enthusiasm for this business is worth a point. I feel justified in saying that if your Lordships accept my Amendment, considerable economies for the Ministry will result from the operation of the test, because so many of the tests will be carried out by us. That, it seems to me, is a very valid reason. It leaves the score cards at 10½ to 4. I hope that I have explained the score cards in a sufficiently detailed way to convince your Lordships that you should accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD SOMERS: It is with the greatest reluctance that I rise to oppose my noble friend's Amendment. I have the greatest respect for him as a motorist and for his organisation, but the question of exemptions is always rather tricky, since if one starts making exemptions in one place, the question must inevitably arise: where does one stop? There will doubtless be other organisations which will also claim exemption; and on what grounds will they be refused? Although my noble friend has made a very good and strong claim for the R.A.C., one does not know, for instance, what conditions prevail in the A.A. or in other motoring organisations, such as the British School of Motoring. Therefore I feel—and, incidentally, these are also the opinions of the Institute of Advanced Motorists—that it is better and safer to make no exemptions at all. I hope that my noble friend will not feel that I am making any direct attack either upon him or upon the R.A.C. when I ask the Committee not to agree to this Amendment.
I had another point to raise, in relation to dual control which does not arise under this subsection at all; but, as the Bill is going through all stages today, I should like to have some instruction from the Lord Chairman as to how I am to put it. I have not put down any Amendment, not even a manuscript Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: If the noble Lord cares to draft a manuscript Amendment on the subject of dual control, I can accept that manuscript Amendment. I am afraid that I cannot accept an oral Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: I understand.
11.34 a.m.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his intervention and for his opposition to this Amendment. We have heard a lot of special pleading on behalf of the R.A.C. I should like to make it quite clear to your Lordships that in this matter the R.A.C. are completely out on a limb and that no section of the motor instruction profession supports them. I take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that there should be no exemptions
514
whatever. This is a Ministry standard and a Ministry test for the protection of the public.
But during the course of the Committee stage in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, a concession was made that the R.A.C. and the Motor Schools' Association should be exempted from the written part of the examination. I take it that that was a concession intended to placate people and to assist the progress of the Bill. However, I should like to make it quite clear that the Motor Schools' Association themselves would much prefer that there were no exemptions. They took the view that if the R.A.C. were going to have it why should not they, because they were both in the same position. The R.A.C. are a non-profit-making organisation who are not engaged in the profit-making profession of giving driving instruction. But the same is true of the Motor Schools' Association. They would prefer that there should be no exemptions, but their attitude was that if the R.A.C. were going to have this treatment, they should have it too.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned the British School of Motoring. They have a very high standard of teaching instructors, but they are training instructors who will be professional instructors carrying out the job of instruction for their weekly salary and in order that their School may make a profit. They are in a different category from the R.A.C. or the Motor Schools' Association. Where does one draw the line? The British School of Motoring equally would claim that their standards of instruction and their standards of testing are far higher than those of the R.A.C.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is an ex-Parliamentary Secretary, and in that we have something in common. But there is a phrase that, "Dog doesn't eat dog"; and, as the noble Lord went for the present Parliamentary Secretary, I must come to his defence. I have just been handed a note which states that the R.A.C. were asked in January and February of this year to substantiate their claims. But neither a reply nor an acknowledgment has been received at the Ministry. That was before the Committee stage in another place, and therefore the Parliamentary Secretary was quite right to say that the Ministry had no knowledge of the standards. I want to make

515
it quite clear that the whole of the profession are against the exemptions.
When it comes to the practical test, it is the Ministry, of course, who are setting up the standards, and they must have the examiner to test those standards. It is not only the content of the examination which is important; the standard of testing is of equal importance in giving the profession the standard required. After all, whatever the content of an examination, the pass rate may even be 5 per cent. and not 90 per cent., but the Ministry do not know the standards so far as the R.A.C. are concerned.
I must make this point—I shall be accused of making a debating point, but it is a very good one. If the R.A.C. are confident that their standards are so high, that their qualified instructors whom they have passed are of such a high standard, what is the worry? If they go in for the Ministry examination they need have no fear of failure. If we are to have this Bill, which is a Road Safety Bill to protect the public, there should be one standard and the Ministry should be responsible for it.
Even the Press are against the R.A.C. on this issue, and I should like to quote them. The People said:
"It will be possible to improve tuition standards only if all driving instructors are obliged to take the examination set by the Ministry of Transport before they can be licensed to operate."
Then the Yorkshire Post, quoting a Mr. Lewis Radcliffe, an instructor in the Goole area, said:
"To qualify for Ministry of Transport registration one has to pass a very rigorous test—much stiffer than the R.A.C. test. Driving instructors who take pride in their work have taken this test; some qualify but many fail."
Then I have one quotation which is not quite Parliamentary but, after all, it is made by a driving instructor. According to the Birmingham Evening Post, Mr. John Lee, an instructor in the Birmingham area, said:
"The R.A.C test is a lot of codswallop."
That is descriptive, if not Parliamentary. The motoring correspondent of the Daily Sketch said:
"I consider that the 4,000 R.A.C. registered instructors are wrong in trying to dodge a Ministry of Transport examination. They want to be exempted from the official register of approved driving instructors' examination, because they claim they have already passed an
516
R.A.C. test. There is no reason at all why every driving instructor should not be forced to sit the Ministry examination."
In view of all these facts, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to withdraw, or not to press, his Amendment. If it is not withdrawn, I must ask the House to resist it, because we are trying to set national standards with a Ministry test, in exactly the same way as we have national standards and a Ministry test for the driving test itself. The driving test will be a national test with a national standard, and the instruction will be of a national standard with a national test. I must resist the Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): May I rise briefly to support my noble friend? The Government believe that his arguments are sound, and they support them. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has also supported my noble friend in making the point that almost all organised motoring associations, other than the Royal Automobile Club, do, in fact, hope that there will be one standard of testing in the country and that the R.A.C. will not receive special treatment.
I should like to add only one point to the argument. I think this Committee will agree that it is extremely difficult to make valid judgments about standards. How exactly does one measure the quality of instruction of testers and so on? What is happening now is difficult, but the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would automatically exempt all future R.A.C. instructors. As the Bill stands, it governs them now; it will govern them in the future. Although the noble Lord has asserted—and I accept this—that it is the intention of his organisation that standards will always remain high, and if possible higher than those of other organisations, this is not certain. I believe that, for reasons of justice and sound administration, it is much better that we should have a single set of standards for the country, and that the R.A.C. should not have special treatment in this matter.
LORD CHESHAM: May I deal for a couple of minutes with what has been

517
said? This whole debate seems to have been confined to past and present members of the Parliamentary Secretaries' "union". I do not think I can really be accused of eating any of my fellow "dogs", but when you have a responsible position which you are trying to maintain, if somebody says something with which you disagree you have a right to say so. I do not in the least feel the pangs of indigestion on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked (and this has some bearing on what was predictably said by the noble Lords, Lord Lindgren, and Lord Winterbottom): if you have any exemptions at all, where do you stop? Where you stop is very easy: you stop with the R.A.C., for the very simple reason that there is nobody else who does the same thing in a comparable way.
The noble Lord asked what was the situation with the A.A. and the B.S.M. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, mentioned that the B.S.M. trained people up to good professional standards for employment in the B.S.M., which is a commercial organisation. The A.A. do not do anything of this kind at all. So there is no comparison there. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said that there is nobody who supports the R.A.C. in this proposal. I am not particularly surprised. When you do something different and better than anybody else, I do not think you can look for very much general support. I was not in the least surprised to hear him draw attention to that. Neither was I surprised to hear him draw your Lordships' attention to a well-selected quantity of Press cuttings. I noticed that they all condemned the R.A.C. test in this respect, but he left out all those Press cuttings—of which we have a considerable collection in the office—which said precisely the opposite. I cannot claim that there were far more of them, but there were probably just as many.
The noble Lord drew attention to two letters which he claimed had been written, and I admit that he has scored a debating point. There was a letter written in January at the time to which he referred. It was written at an official level, and it demanded an explanation for a statement made by somebody else about the R.A.C. at somebody else's
518
meeting. It did not seem a very serious request, The second "letter" (I say this just for the noble Lord's information) was a manuscript P.S. at the end of a letter about something quite different. That can possibly be described as two applications for evidence, but in view of the Ministry's knowledge it can be described as no serious failure to produce evidence. They knew it.
The noble Lord asked what is our worry about instructors taking the Ministry test. We have no worry whatsoever. Our point is just that it seems such a waste of time and effort when this good test, the R.A.C. test, already exists. Much has been made of a national standard. I maintain that the R.A.C. standard is as good as, or better than, a national standard; and it can be used by the Ministry.
At the end of the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, made a remark to your Lordships about the motor rallies organisation in which he is the chairman of the Advisory Committee. He pointed out to your Lordships, with what seemed to be emphasis, that this was running at a deficit because of the R.A.C.
LORD LINDGREN: No.
LORD CHESHAM: He said:
"I must tell the noble Lord that the motor rallies scheme, as far as the R.A.C. is concerned, is very heavily in deficit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13/7/67, col. 1278
LORD LINDGREN: I did not mean to imply that the deficit was the fault of the R.A.C. at all. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, drew attention in his speech to the fact that the Ministry had allowed the R.A.C. to provide the organisation for motor rallies in this country. He then said that they were carrying out that organisation at a low cost. I made my interjection only because at that moment, as the noble Lord knows, there was a deficit. It was not the fault of the R.A.C.; it was due to the amount that was originally charged and the number of applications. The charges are now being revised. But in my remarks there was no criticism of the R.A.C.
LORD CHESHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for saying that, because, of course, the

519
R.A.C. do this work simply as an agent of the Ministry; and they do what the Ministry want. Of course, we do not want the scheme to be in deficit. But it is, I repeat, a Ministry scheme, though we operate it—no more than that. My real reason for moving this Amendment is not worry about the Ministry test, but because here is an opportunity for the Ministry to save some money without losing any efficiency. I do not know what your Lordships will think of this, but I think that perhaps I ought not simply to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Extension of duration of registration.]:
LORD LINDGREN: The Amendments to Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are purely drafting Amendments to make the Bill a little clearer. With your Lordships' permission, I will move each group en bloc, first of all, those to Clause 4. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 33, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 4, line 37, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 4, line 42, at beginning insert ("that")
—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Removal of names from register]:
LORD LINDGREN: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10 to 14.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 4, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 8, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 11, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 13, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 6, line 14, at beginning insert ("that").
—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD CHESHAM: If I may cheat, rather, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that, regardless of what happened to my earlier Amendment, as far as I and my organisation, are concerned we wish nothing but well to this Bill.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Licences]:
LORD LINDGREN: I bee to move the next three Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 43, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 7, Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert ("that")
Page 7, line 4, at beginning insert ("that").
—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have been handed a manuscript Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, which is in the following terms:
"After Clause 14, insert the following new clause: Dual control on a car which is used for instruction shall be mandatory only when the handbrake is on the offside'".
LORD SOMERS: In rising to move this new clause, I must apologise to the Committee for having put it forward so late, but I think noble Lords will agree that pressure of business has been so heavy during the last two weeks or so that it has been a little hard to see where one was. However, this new clause is very simple. It proposes that dual control—that is to say, merely an extra brake pedal on the instructor's side—should be necessary only when the handbrake is on the offside, or the driver's side, where the instructor cannot reach it. Personally, I am not sure whether, in the case of some types of handbrake, particularly the umbrella type with which some cars are fitted, it would not be a good thing for the clause to apply there as well. But for the sake of simplicity I thought the best thing was to put down the clause as I have it here, which says that on cars which are being used for instruction dual control shall be mandatory only when the handbrake is on the offside. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Somers.)
LORD LINDGREN: As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said—and I accept his explanation—he has given no notice of this Amendment. I am therefore talking quite "off the cuff", because, having had no notice of it, it is not a point I have looked into. So far as I know the

521
standard of cars to be used for instruction is not laid down by the Ministry. There are a number of views held among those carrying out instruction. There certainly is a view amongst instructors that, in the initial stages of instruction, from the point of view of road safety and the protection of instructors, too, it is desirable that there should be dual control; but it is felt by many instructors that at the later stages of instruction the person under instruction should be carrying out the driving under the conditions in which he will be carrying it out when he has passed his test. I have now been advised that the question of dual control is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Another point is that to compel all cars in which driving instruction is given to have dual control would mean that no private instruction could be given in family cars. The position therefore is very much as I have said. The Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and I think must be resisted.
LORD SOMERS: I rather question the noble Lord's statement that this is outside the scope of the Bill, since dual control is necessary only during instruction; and since the Bill is to increase safety on the road and to improve the standard of instruction, I should have said it came very much within the scope of the Bill. That is merely my personal opinion, and I stand open to correction.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the intervention of the noble Lord is helpful when we are thinking about the problems of instruction as a whole. But I agree with my noble friend that it is beyond the scope of this Bill, which deals directly with driving instruction rather than with the construction of cars used for that purpose. While I am certain that those drafting future legislation will bear this point in mind, I think it is true to say that this is outside the scope of this Bill, and perhaps the noble Lord would be so good as to withdraw his Amendment—although, as I have said, I think his intervention has been valuable.
LORD SOMERS: In that case, I very gladly withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, may I briefly thank all noble Lords for the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with and for the expeditious way in which it has been aided to the Statute Book.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lindgren.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL
12.2 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. This is a little occasion, and perhaps I may say a few things. When we first debated these affairs—and how long ago it seems!—I said that your Lordships had it in your power to remove fear from the hearts of men. This you have done. It was this House which gave the lead. Because of the Bill now to be enacted, perhaps a million human beings will be able to live in greater peace. I find this an awesome and marvellous thing. The late Oscar Wilde, on his release from Reading Gaol, wrote to a friend:
"Yes, we shall win in the end; but the road will be long and red with monstrous martyrdoms.".
My Lords, Mr. Wilde was right: the road has been long and the martyrdoms many, monstrous and bloody. Today, please God! sees the end of that road.
I ask one thing and I ask it earnestly. I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage and for whom the prison doors are now open to show their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and

523
with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation; certainly not for celebration. Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future, any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the sponsors of the Bill regret that they have done what they have done. Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity. We shall always, I fear, resent the odd man out. That is their burden for all time, and they must shoulder it like men—for men they are.
Now, my Lords, I feel that I should single out some of those who played a big part in bringing about this reform. The palm, goes, of course, to Mr. Leo Abse, the lion-hearted, whose Bill this is and whose name, I hope, will be given to the Act. But of course there have been many others? It is due to Sir Robert Boothby (now the noble Lord, Lord Boothby) and to Dr. Desmond Donnelly that the Wolfenden Committee was set up; and, after its Report was published, it was our noble Leader himself who inaugurated the first debate in either House. The first full-scale attempt at reform was made by the present Minister of Health, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, and a Motion was tabled in the other place by the Father of the House, Sir Thomas Moore. My Lords, you see what an all party effort it has been. Later, too, Mr. Humphry Berkeley bravely introduced this Bill in the other place where it had a Second Reading. I say "bravely" because sometimes I think that we Peers are inclined to forget just how lucky we are to have no constituents but our own consciences.
So much for the Members of the two Houses. There are two other people that I must mention. One is Mr. Antony Grey, Secretary of the Homosexual Law Reform Society, who has done more than any single man to bring this social problem to the notice of the public; and the other, that great man whose name has been mentioned more often than any other in these long debates. I refer, of
524
course, to Sir John Wolfenden. It is my strong hope that we shall one day see him a Member of your Lordships' House.
For my own small part, just this. In the last two years I have been navigating in deep and troubled waters, so deep and so troubled that at times I feared I would be engulfed. At such times I have been strengthened and sustained by the knowledge that I had the approval and support of the majority of this House, including the Lords Spiritual and, in particular, of my new and neutral friends, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to whom I owe so much. These things have meant much to me. I count myself privileged to be a very minor member of this generous and, in the true sense, noble assembly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Arran.)
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I want to say only two sentences. Whatever views we may hold on this subject, I think we should pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Arran for his sincerity and his great courage. He has really seen this Bill through, and I think we ought to be grateful to him.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, before this Bill passes, I should like to add one word from these Benches. Some of my noble friends have taken differing views on the merits of this Bill, as have noble Lords opposite, but I think we shall all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in one thing: that this Bill would not be reaching the Statute Book in the very near future but for the devotion and dedication which my noble friend Lord Arran brought to his task, his self-appointed task, in these last two years or so. I should like to add my tribute to my noble friend and navigator.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, briefly I should like to add a word on behalf of the Government, but first may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the remarkable description he applied to me of his new and neutral friend. My Lords, I do not think there is such a thing as a neutral person, certainly not on an issue such as this where everyone has a feeling, probably a deep feeling, either way. Neutrality, therefore, is not possible.

525
Neither do I feel "new", because this is the third time we have considered this Bill since 1965 and some of the newness has worn off. I always seem, on behalf of the Government, to have to adopt a cloak of neutrality in relation to such Bills as this, and I can only hope that I have discharged that obligation.
The Government have, of necessity,—and I think quite properly—regarded this matter as one which Parliament itself should decide, free from any kind of pressure; and it is to the credit of Parliament that it is about to reach a decision on this extremely difficult matter. I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, upon his efforts in this matter. They have been inspired throughout by the highest motives of compassion, and all his efforts have been infused with a feeling of sincerity. It is true that, as the Minister, as it were, looking after the Bill for the Government, I have perforce been in close touch with the noble Earl on many occasion, and I know how deeply he has felt over this problem, and how much it has taken out of him. Now that it is over, or almost over, I hope that he will soon recover his health.
My Lords, there is one thing arising from the remarks of the noble Earl on which I feel I must comment. He said that the prison doors are now opening. I have no knowledge of whether there are at present any persons in prison who would come within the confines, the somewhat narrow confines, of this Bill. But I would remind your Lordships of something I said when this point was raised on the earlier Bill. I said:
"If this Bill becomes law the Home Secretary would be prepared to look at the cases of those who are serving terms of imprisonment for conduct which had ceased to be an offence, and consider in each case the possibility of recommending the use of the Royal Prerogative of mercy to remit the remainder of the term."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, June 16, 1966: col. 152.]
As your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend gave an assurance in another place on December 21 of last year that he would look into the matter sympathetically if the Bill became law. The only other thing I have to say is that, because the Home Office
526
always tries to be up with events, steps are already being taken to identify any cases which may be affected.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I wonder whether I might add a word from these Benches. I think we recognise the great issues of morality, and while we are not divided in our upholding of that morality, or in our desire to maintain it, we are deeply divided as to the ways in which we conceive this should be done. This has led to the most acute discussions in this House, and in the process of the passage of this Bill and all that preceded it, we have been through some agonising debates. Speaking from these Benches, I should like to say how deeply I, and others, have been aware of the depth of sincerity and concern, not only of those who have upheld this Bill but of those who have opposed it. For there is no division between us in our desire for the maintenance or the protection and upholding of that morality for the well-being of the community. I would endorse very much the recognition which has been given to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the deep sincerity and conviction which he has displayed and the assistance which he has given in helping us through to this point.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, would wish to be associated with the expressions of praise for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and also to recognise the great work done by Mr. Leo Abse in this matter. Many of us have campaigned for this reform for many years and I think that this House, in particular, may be extremely pleased with what it has achieved in the last few years.
On Question, Bill passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADEN, PERIM AND KURIA MURIA ISLANDS BILL
12.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Relinquishment of sovereignty over Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands
1.—(1) On such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") the territories to which this section applies shall cease to form part of Her Majesty's dominions; and on and after that day Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of those territories.
(2) This section applies to the territories which, immediately before the appointed day, are comprised in Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)had given Notice of several Amendments to Clause 1, the first being, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the first "On" down to, and including "applies", and to substitute:
"the day which, in relation to any territory to which this section applies, is the appointed day that territory".
The noble Lord said: I have put down a number of Amendments—in fact, all the Amendments on the Order paper, except the one in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and they are all to the same end and stand or fall together. During the Second Reading debate I told your Lordships that I was proposing to move Amendments to the Bill so as to enable different days for the relinquishment of sovereignty to be appointed under Clause 1 in relation to each of the three Territories. It has been strongly urged that if arrangements for the internationalisation of Perim are on the point of being concluded we should not frustrate action of this kind by being obliged to relinquish sovereignty over Perim on the same day as sovereignty
528
is relinquished over Aden. The Government accept this. Nevertheless, I must make it perfectly clear that the Government do not intend to retain Perim after the date on which South Arabia becomes independent. It is the Government's firm intention to bring independence to South Arabia on January 9 of next year and to appoint that date for the relinquishment of sovereignty over all three territories covered by the Bill, but we agree that a certain flexibility should be retained and that the Government should not bind themselves so that they have no alternative but to relinquish sovereignty on the same date for all territories.
This arises from the Amendments which were moved in another place and which we discussed in relation to the possibility of the internationalising of Perim, and this introduces the necessary flexibility into the Bill. In handling these long and, if I may say so, not very easy Amendments, it is astonishing what a lot of words are necessary to achieve what seems to a layman to be a simple business. None the less, we are experienced enough in your Lordships' House to know that the Parliamentary draftsmen often find it difficult to do even simple things. This is no reflection on their draftsmanship, and I am sure that they have made a good job of these Amendments.
The purpose of the Amendments to Clause 1 is to enable different days to be appointed, and this is spelt out in the last proposed new subsection. The other changes are consequential upon this. It has been urged that it should be possible to have separate Orders under Clause 1, and although this is not spelt out this is one of the consequences of the Amendments. In conclusion, it may be convenient for the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 together and then, after we have dealt with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to take Amendment No. 6 by itself and then Nos. 7 to 16 together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("On") to ("shall") in line 7 and insert ("the day which, in relation to any territory to which this section applies, is the appointed day that territory")—[Lord Shackleton.]
EARL JELLICOE: I greatly welcome the Government's decision on this matter. As the noble Lord has generously said,

529
the Amendments are to meet the arguments which were strongly advanced by the Opposition in another place when the Bill was before them. I am sure that the Government are right about this—they are always right in meeting the Opposition's point of view—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for these Amendments. I would echo his tribute to the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen. They have managed to make complicated what I had thought was a very simple matter.
I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask the noble Lord this question, and he may prefer to answer it on Third Reading rather than now, but can he tell the House anything more about the progress of the consultations which his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has told us he is having both within the United Nations and the Federal Government about the proposal to internationalise the island of Perim? If the noble Lord can give us any information on that, I shall be much obliged.
LORD SEGAL: If the island of Perim will be passing over to the territory of the South Arabian Federation, could the noble Lord also state what defence forces are likely to be placed on the island?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am afraid I have little to say to the Committee on these questions. Clearly it will not be a rapid process in the United Nations. I can well understand the noble Earl and all those interested in the proposals for Perim wanting to know how they are going. The fact that I cannot report anything does not denote any lack of interest on the part of the Government. This is going to be a bit of a long haul. We are not going to get United Nations to move quickly and there has to be a lot of preparation. I cannot really say anything in reply to my noble friend Lord Segal. I think it would be premature to talk about the forces that would be on the island. I can only say that, whatever else there may be, there will be no British occupation force after South Arabia becomes independent unless it should be part of some United Nations occupation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("those territories") and insert ("that territory").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("to") to ("Aden") in line 12, and insert ("the following territories, that is to say").—(Lora Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move the fourth Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("as each of those territories is constituted immediately before the appointed day.
( ) Subject to the next following subsection, in this Act 'the appointed day', in relation to all the territories specified in subsection (2) of this section, means such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
( ) Different days may be appointed by Order in Council under this section in relation to different territories specified in subsection (2) of this section; and, if different days are so appointed, any reference in this Act to the appointed day, in relation to any such territory, shall be construed as a reference to the day so appointed in relation to that territory.")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.27 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Any Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: I made the purpose behind this Amendment clear on Second Reading. Many Bills relinquishing sovereignty over what was until quite recently a very large Empire have been before your Lordships' House in the last two decades, and there will be more, but none so important in future as this particular Bill. There will be many Orders in Council foreseen of the type envisaged in this Bill and so far as I know none has been made subject to either the Negative or the Affirmative Resolution procedure. On the ground of precedent, therefore, the noble Lord may feel justified in resisting this

531
Amendment. Precedent is not necessarily an infallible guide, however, and certainly not when the circumstances are totally unprecedented.
I would suggest that in this case the circumstances are unprecedented. Independence is being gained by Aden and these off-shore islands in unusual circumstances, unusual so far as Aden is concerned and unusual in so far as the islands are concerned. In the Colony of Aden there is, as yet, no agreed Constitution. No free elections have been held and no majority rule is applied. So far as the islands are concerned, a real uncertainty hangs over their future. We have no idea of what their final destination will be. When the Bill was before another place the Government gave a firm undertaking—and I am very glad they did so—that before the precise and future destiny Of the peoples was decided they would be consulted; and that undertaking was repeated by the noble Lord on the Second Reading earlier this week. But as yet we have no idea when those consultations will be held; we have no idea (at least I have no idea) how they will be carried out, and we have no idea of what the results will be. And, of course, it will be very different so far as the Kuria Muria Islands are concerned. They may go to neighbouring Muscat; they may wish to become part of the South Arabian Federation, or they may conceivably opt for independence or for a continued association with the United Kingdom. There is an equal uncertainty about the future of Perim, potentially a very important decision.
In each case I would suggest that the precise date for independence could very well be affected by the decision about the island's future destiny. It seems right, in these quite unusual circumstances, that Parliament should not be denied the chance of a sight of these Orders in Council before they come into force.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested that this Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure—and I only suggest the Negative Resolution procedure—would import an undue flexibility into the Order-making machinery. I find this a little difficult to accept. The requirement is not very onerous. It is only that the Order should
532
lay for some 40 days. Surely the Government will know more than 40 days in advance what date they are proposing for these territories. The noble Lord also argued that, provided Parliament was sitting, and so desired, we should have a further chance of scrutinising what may be important decisions, perhaps—I do not think I exaggerate here—vitally affecting the future security of Southern Arabia. But the proviso which the noble Lord made, "provided that Parliament is sitting", is important. Parliament may not be sitting when the Order is made, and my Amendment, if accepted, would ensure that it is.
I was encouraged by the noble Lord's acceptance of the points made by the Opposition in the other place, and which have been met by the Amendments which the noble Lord is moving, and I am therefore confident that he will, after reflection, be able to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD ROWLEY: I am bound to say that I do not see how the Government, with all the good will in the world, can accept this Amendment. It seems to me to strike at the very roots of the Bill. The effect of the Bill is concentrated in the provisions of Clause 1. The Amendment which the Committee has just accepted provides that for each of the three territories the appointed day may be, so to speak, staggered. If after the first appointed day, say, in respect of Aden, any criticism were to be levelled against the policy of the Government, it is true that that would not affect the appointed day in respect of the first of the three territories. But, none the less, to some extent it meets the apprehensions—and I can understand them; there is a difference between each side of the Committee on major policy—expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
I fail to see how the Government can accept the noble Earl's Amendment, because, as I say, the whole object of the Bill is to make provision for and in connection with the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Aden and the Perim and Kuria Muria Islands. Parliament, therefore, is doing this with its eyes open. This Bill will go through

533
both Houses, and in a sense Parliament approves the intention of the Government to relinquish sovereignty over these three territories.
The noble Earl admitted that there was no precedent for this. I have had a good deal to do with the granting of independence to many of the former territories which came under United Kingdom Government, and I think it would be a bad precedent to start. I think we must leave it to the wisdom and judgment of Her Majesty's Government to operate this Act, bearing in mind the apprehensions of those who sit on the opposite side. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may make one point clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley. My Amendment is not in any sense intended to strike at the principle of independence incorporated in the Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading—and I will repeat it, if I have the chance of speaking on Third Reading—that the Opposition welcome the Bill as such. All that the Amendment is designed to do is to give Parliament another chance of reviewing the dates, if it so desires, for these three separate territories. It is a much narrower purpose than I think the noble Lord was suggesting in his intervention.
LORD ROWLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I intended to express the view that the noble Earl's Amendment would strike, not at the basis of the Bill, but at the operation of the Bill. In other words, I do not suggest for one moment that he is opposed to the relinquishment of sovereignty, but the operation of the Bill would, in my view, be prejudiced by the acceptance of this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Earl is perfectly right to put this Amendment down and, so to speak, have a try. I agree that the fact that there is no precedent for independence dates to be fixed by Order is not an overwhelming argument; but it is quite a considerable argument. The reason why this has not been subject to Parliamentary control at the Order stage is simply that it is inappropriate. I am bound to say that I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Rowley, because if Parliament were to
534
annul an Order, or failed to pass the necessary Resolution, this would nullify the effect of the Bill.
There is no scope for amending a date in an Order that is put forward. It would then be necessary for the Government, if they were defeated, to bring forward another Order with a different date. If the difference of date is a short period of a few weeks, surely this is a matter that should be left to the Government. If there were a change from the date that we have in mind, this would be a matter of very delicate judgment. The support of my noble friend Lord Rowley, with his wide experience as a former Secretary of State who carried heavy responsibilities just after the war in regard to Burma and India, strengthens the feeling that I have, indeed the conviction that I have, that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment.
I agree that in a matter of supreme importance one ought not to overstress the convenience of the Government. But in this case Parliament has been fully consulted. It has been told the dates; it has been told what the Government's firm intention is. The noble Earl has indicated his support for the Bill and the granting of independence, and it seems to me that we have had a good bite at this cherry. We have announced the date. It is, in my view, unlikely that there will be a change from this date. But if some situation arose which led to some acute crisis (which we do not anticipate), and to the Government's taking a different view, I feel that the Government should be trusted to go ahead and do what they think right. If Parliament is sitting—and the actual making of the Order is much more likely to happen when Parliament is sitting, though I cannot give an absolute promise of this—there are means for Parliament to raise the issue; and the Opposition, or anyone else, is not lacking in the Parliamentary skills to make it possible to challenge the Government's decision.
The annulment procedure does not really help. Whereas annulment procedures can be more flexible in other cases, it would clearly be, I think, a nonsense. You could not proceed for 40 days if there was a danger that the Order would be annulled. We could have

535
some practical difficulties in the Parliamentary timetable in the short period between the resumption of Parliament in October and the Christmas Recess. And the arguments of the noble Earl, which have been so strongly advanced in relation to Perim, also strengthen the case, in my view, for the Government's having the necessary flexibility to fix this themselves. We have adopted what is the normal procedure. I suppose that when every country comes to independence—and other noble Lords, particularly Lord Rowley, will have wrestled with them—it has peculiar problems. Parliament, obviously, because it is interested and feels responsibility, would like to cling on and control to the last moment. I assure your Lordships, with the utmost firmness, that I do not believe that the passing of this Amendment would add anything useful to the situation; and I hope very much, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel, after what I hope is a fairly full explanation, that he can withdraw his Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration which he has given to this Amendment. I was finding myself in some agreement with him until he came to the point in his remarks where he said that the Government should be trusted in this particular matter, when I am afraid I found myself in somewhat less agreement. I also found myself in far from total agreement with the noble Lord's point that we know what the Government's intentions here are as they have made their intentions absolutely firm. This is not the position. It is certainly not the position so far as the off-shore islands are concerned. The Government's intention, as I understand it, is to consult the people of the islands, and thereafter to decide their destiny; and we do not at this precise moment know what is going to happen to these islands. I think this very much reinforces the argument for some such exceptional procedure as is envisaged in my Amendment being adopted in this particular case.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Consequential modification of other statutory provisions]:
12.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 1. The point here is that it may be desirable to relate any modification of statutory provisions (noble Lords will recall that Clause 3 relates to the modifications of statutory provisions by Order under Parliamentary control) back to the date of relinquishment of sovereignty. As there is now provision for more than one appointed day, it may be found necessary to make use of the powers under Clause 3 if the day appointed for Aden has passed but the day for Perim has not arrived. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow for just that, so that the consequential Amendments can, if necessary, be made retrospective to the appointed day or some later date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("Any") to end of line and insert ("provision which, in consequence of the operation of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act in relation to a territory to which that section applies, is made by Order in Council under this section")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman put the Amendments to the Schedule? I am not sure that we are not in slight difficulties, having passed the Schedule, but, if so, I should like to move that the Schedule be reconsidered.
Moved, That the Schedule be reconsidered.—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The Question is, That the Schedule be reconsidered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule [Modifications of British Nationality Acts]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 1(1), to leave out the words after

537
the first "on" down to and including "applies,—", and to insert instead:
"such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
The noble Lord said: I am not sure that we did not get into a little bit of irregular procedural difficulty, though I am sure that we can rely on the House authorities to sort us out on this difficulty. I must apologise to the Deputy Chairman, because I ought to have been quicker when he put the Schedule: so it is really my fault rather than his.
The proposed Amendments to the Schedule (perhaps we can just forget that small episode) are again consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 1. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule as it stands, it would not have been possible to specify the same nationality or citizenship more than once. This was all right so long as there was to be only one appointed day. However, once more than one appointed day is possible, then in theory various possibilities start creeping in and it is necessary to make provision in the Bill for all the possibilities which may arise as a result of the Amendments to Clause 1.
One example is if Perim were to be retained. Citizenship of South Arabia is specified, and a person who possesses that citizenship, in consequence of his connection with Aden, or with the South Arabian State of which Aden is part, loses his United Kingdom citizenship, subject to the other provisions of the Schedule. It might be that at that moment the negotiations for internationalising Perim came to nothing, and Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared to retain Perim any longer; so a day is appointed for Perim, and Perim joins up with South Arabia, and its citizens acquire South Arabian citizenship. In those circumstances it is right that the citizenship of South Arabia should again be specified, so that a person who acquires South Arabian citizenship will also lose his United Kingdom citizenship, subject to the provisions of the Schedule.
The purpose of the Amendments is to permit a citizenship or nationality to be specified more than once to take account of the possibility that the relinquishment of sovereignty over the three territories may take place on different dates, and that it may in that event be necessary to apply the provisions of the Schedule on
538
more than one date. The Amendments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Schedule follow from the changes in paragraph 1. I have again pointed out that the Amendments appear rather complicated, but I assure your Lordships that the purpose is the very simple one on which we are all agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out from ("on") to end of line 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Shackleton.)
EARL JELLICOE: I should like again to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for these Amendments, and for having cast light on what was, for me, a rather obscure part of the Schedule. I am grateful to him for his explanation, and should like to say that I strongly support these Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("that territory") and insert ("a territory designated by the order")—(Lord Shackleton).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out from ("by") to ("whether") in line 9 and insert ("the order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
("( ) Subject to the next following subparagraph, the territory designated by an order under this paragraph shall be a territory to which section 1 of this Act applies, and the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than the appointed day.
( ) The territory designated by an order under this paragraph may be so designated as being a territory in which a territory to which section 1 of this Act applies which is specified in the order (in this sub-paragraph referred to as the specified component territory') is comprised on or immediately after the day which, in relation to the specified component territory, is the appointed day; and in that case the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than that day.
( ) An order may be made under this paragraph specifying a nationality or citizenship and a date, as mentioned in the preceding provi-

539
sions of this paragraph, notwithstanding that one or more orders, specifying the same nationality or citizenship but an earlier date or earlier dates, have previously been made thereunder.")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("to which that paragraph applies") and insert ("designated by an order under that paragraph")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, leave out from ("date") to end of line 31 and insert ("specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out ("if on the relevant date") and insert ("in consequence of his connection with a territory designated by an order under that paragraph if on the date specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("a territory designated by an order under paragraph 1 of this Schedule")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("territory") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("to which section 1 of this Act applies or any territory (not being one to which that section applies) which has ceased to be a colony before the date specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("relevant date") and insert ("date specified in the order").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may take a few moments to speed the Bill on its way, and to deal with certain of the points to which I should like to give answers which were not fully dealt with at an earlier stage.
At the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday I set out the objectives of Government policy in South Arabia. I will not go over the ground again now, but I will take this opportunity to answer a number of points which have arisen. The first of these related to the defence of the Eastern Aden Protectorate. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised a particular point on this matter, and I should like to give him a little more of the Government's thinking on this. He asked whether the aircraft from the carrier force and the V-bombers at Masirah would be used in defence of the States of the Eastern Aden Protectorate against open aggression. I explained at the time that the main threat to the Eastern Aden Protectorate arose from the possibility of internal subversion, and it was for this reason that we were continuing to finance the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion for two years. Of course stability on their Eastern frontier is of great importance to the Federation of South Arabia, and to my mind this also was a particularly strong case for continuing to finance this Legion, which is a very fine force. For historical and geographical reasons, the threat of open external aggression is very slight. The Yemen has never advanced territorial claims in respect of the Eastern States, and the only part of the frontier of the Eastern States which borders the Yemen is short and in a fairly remote desert area. But the Eastern Aden Protectorate States, of course, border upon the Federation, and it is difficult to see how any aggression from the Yemen against them could fail to involve the Republic of South Arabia as well. In this case our guarantee to defend the Republic in the way we have stated, by the threat of air deterrent, against external aggression, would apply.

541
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also asked what would happen if the threat of external aggression against South Arabia arose, not in the sixth month after independence, but in the seventh or ninth month, and whether therefore planning for the use of the carrier force could not be more flexible than the present limit of six months implied. I certainly would not wish to exclude the possibility that the carrier force could be brought back after six months if the need arose and if it were possible in practical terms. The noble Earl knows as well as I do—indeed very much better than I do—the problems of maintaining these highly sophisticated and complicated pieces of machinery at sea without having some maintenance. It is not like an aircraft, which can fly back to its airfield and be maintained, and I think it is a great tribute to the Royal Navy that they are able to undertake this onerous responsibility. I would not rule out the possibility, but I certainly give no undertaking. As I explained on Monday, the period was limited to six months for these technical reasons, and because there was not a great deal of flexibility I was anxious that there should be some continuing deterrent against the aggression that we all hope will never take place. It was for this reason that the Government decided to station the V-bomber force at Masirah, not only for the six months that the carrier task force will be in South Arabian waters, but for as long thereafter as the Government think necessary. This force will continue to be a powerful deterrent to aggression.
May I turn again to the islands, and the consultations with the inhabitants of the islands, which we have touched on briefly. The question of Perim is being taken up with the United Nations. The Government have undertaken to consult the inhabitants of the other islands as well as Perim, but it is true to say that the time and form of these consultations have not yet been decided. It may in practice prove to be advantageous to the islanders to leave these consultations until nearer independence, so that they may have a clearer idea of what the alternatives are and of the way things are shaping. I see a positive advantage at this stage in not pressing this particular matter too quickly. All timing in these matters of independence involves great delicacy. It involves people waking
542
up to the fact when they have not, perhaps, believed that certain things were going to happen, and therefore I think we want to approach this carefully.
In conclusion, may I say a word about the latest situation in Aden? As has been reported in the Press, Mr. Hussein Bayoomi has presented his list of Ministers to the Supreme Council. Discussions are still continuing there, and I can only say that I hope the outcome will be satisfactory. I do not minimise the difficulties, but none the less it is encouraging that an actual list of Ministers has been presented.
On the United Nations front, now that the situation in Aden has eased a little, the High Commissioner will fly to New York to meet the United Nations Mission early next week. On the way, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan will take the opportunity to spend a day or so in London for consultations and to give a first-hand report. As noble Lords know, the United Nations Mission has had meetings with Mr. Makawee, the FLOSY leader. Sir Humphrey Trevelyan wishes to explain to the United Nations Mission what is happening in South Arabia (and I personally attach the very greatest importance to the fact that they should be given first-hand information so that they may be aided to a realistic appreciation of the situation) and to explore with them the possibility of other nationalist leaders joining in a central caretaker Government as called for by the United Nations resolutions. If there are any further questions the noble Earl or any other noble Lord wants to ask, I will try to answer them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
1.0 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is, I think, aware of the high and admiring value I place on his intervention in the South Arabian problem. He did a very great deal and played a critical and most beneficial part in transforming the deep, dismal prospect of which I was made aware when I went to Aden at the end of April. Thereafter I think he recognised by implication—and this was really statesmanlike—that Nasser's defeat at the hands of the Israelis did not reduce the Egyptian threat to the Aden Protectorate,

543
to the South Arabian Federation, but indeed might well increase it. And whereas he mentioned a few minutes ago the fact that the Yemen has never advanced territorial claims on the Eastern Protectorate, the fact is that Nasser's claims and ambitions are absolutely limitless throughout the Middle East.
I should like to put it briefly to the noble Lord, in a very few words, that the situation has now been changed by a new and horrible factor, and that is the use of gas in the Yemen. I believe the noble Lord was the first British Minister to recognise publicly in Parliament the fact that gas is being used. Now it is indeed so widely known and recognised that even the Egyptians have admitted their intention to continue this bestial form of warfare. So far as the Egyptians are concerned, the Yemen operation and the Aden operation are a part of each other. Aden, in their intentions, is to be a continuation of the conquest of the Yemen. I therefore put to the noble Lord that if we can frustrate South Arabia's enemy in the Yemen we shall frustrate him also on behalf of those we have promised to protect in the Federation. Also, we shall be taking action on behalf of the Government of the Yemen which we recognise, against the usurpers of power in their country, against a foreign invader of that country and a prospective invader of South Arabia.
Bravely as they have fought, the loyal Yemenis cannot resist this new weapon; nor, of course, could those whom the noble Lord wishes so much to set on the path of freedom and safety. I spoke at some length last night and again this morning to the Yemeni Foreign Minister, Said Achmet el Charmy. He described how last Saturday in the Haggah area 150 were killed in a gas attack, and how in the Mide area three days ago there was another attack with many deaths which have not yet been counted; and there is no territorial limit to which this form of warfare can be carried. I am not intentionally stretching the ambit of the debate on this Bill, because I have described my belief that the Egyptians regard South Arabia as merely a stage of conquest after the Yemen. One small thing I think we could do—and I will not ask the noble Lord to answer this to-day—is to provide the people of this
544
territory with gasmasks in very large numbers, so that they are not so utterly defenceless as they are to-day.
What I believe we should do, as a nation led by the present Government, is to think again about the date and manner of our departure from Aden, instead of leaving it, as now appears even more clearly than before, at the mercy of an enemy who will use the vilest weapons of warfare against which those people will have no protection at all. The Bill, after all, does allow latitude as to the form and degree of help we continue to give after our departure, and I would plead with the noble Lord to regard this new and hideous factor with due importance after the Bill is passed.
1.7 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I should first of all like to congratulate my noble friend on his handling of this Bill, apart altogether from the service he has rendered to the country in the carrying out of his mission in Aden. What I rise to bring to the attention of the House is related to the visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to the United Nations. I found myself in agreement with the strictures of the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to the use of gas in the Yemen, and I do not think he would be exaggerating if he were to suggest that after we have, as we must do, relinquished our sovereignty of the South Arabian Peninsula the Egyptian Government might be tempted into an adventure which involved the use of gas.
As my noble friend knows, the use of gas is a breach of the Geneva Gas Convention. Some people say, and maybe they are right, that the United Nations are impotent to deal with any country which breaches that Convention, in view of the fact that it has not been given the power and authority to deal with such problems. May I ask my noble friend—I do not expect an answer now, but I hope the point will be considered—whether the Governor is to discuss, not only with our representative Lord Caradon but no doubt U Thant, the Secretary-General, this use of gas in the Yemen. It is a crime against humanity and it is a breach of the Geneva Convention, which has been signed by practically every country in the world that was a sovereign independent country at the time the Convention was signed. I would be very much surprised if the

545
Government of Egypt is not a signatory of it. But whether or not that is so, this is in direct conflict with everything the United Nations stands for.
Therefore, I hope that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and our permanent Representative at the United Nations will seek to discuss this problem with the Secretary-General, U Thant. I do not disagree with the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday, that it is difficult to see what our own Government can do beyond expressing their condemnation of these atrocities. But it would not rule out at least discussing the matter with the authorities of the United Nations and, if necessary, raising it at the Security Council.
The other point I would ask my noble friend relates to the possible intervention of the United Nations or the assistance of the United Nations in bringing a successful end to what I might call the Aden problem. The unfortunate visit of the sub-committee of the Committee of 24 is fresh in all our minds. Is it intended that the visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan should be restricted merely to the possible internationalisation of the Island of Perim, or is there a possibility of his discussing the return of the sub-committee—in other words, a United Nations presence in the Peninsula, in Aden, during the forthcoming weeks? I think it is extremely important that the United Nations should be represented while the denouement of this Aden problem is taking place—at least, we hope it is the denouement. Therefore I would ask my noble friend—perhaps he cannot give a reply now—to consider whether or not it is possible to invite the United Nations to send representatives to Aden during the forthcoming weeks.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a word or two to reinforce the remarks of my noble friend. We have read in the last few days that a threat has been made of a wider use of poison gas against the inhabitants of the Yemen. If at any time this threat should be made beyond the borders of Aden, and if this threat should ever be made to the present inhabitants of the South Arabian Federation, I cannot help feeling that we in this country should bear a terrible responsibility for having abandoned this territory to the risk of
546
even the threat of the use of poison gas against its inhabitants.
1.11 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration which he has evidently given, between our Second Reading on Monday and these remaining stages of the Bill, to a number of questions which I put to him on Second Reading. I welcome what he has said about the external protection of the States of the East and the Aden Protectorate. I welcome what he said, although I had hoped that he might have been able to go further. I welcome what he said, so far as it went, about flexibility in naval planning.
I was interested in what he had to say about the Government's plans for consultation with the local inhabitants and I was most interested in his statement about the forthcoming visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to this country and to New York. I should like to take this opportunity of reinforcing with all the power at my command—and I do not use that phrase lightly—what has been said by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, by the noble Lords, Lord Rowley and Lord Segal, about the threatened use of gas, or the possible threat of the use of gas against the inhabitants of South Arabia. I am sure that the noble Lord will have taken due note of this point, and I am certain that this whole matter should be fully explored with Sir Humphrey Trevelyan during his forthcoming visits both here and to New York.
This is, I suppose, the last major act of decolonisation in our Imperial history. It is sad that it should be taking place in such fluid and uncertain circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, expressed some hope on Second Reading that a way forward in peace and independence might still be found for Aden. We all sincerely hope that the measured optimism which he expressed earlier this week will prove to have been well founded. We also hope that it will prove possible for Mr. Bayoomi to broaden the basis of the Federal Government.
I certainly believe that the measures announced by the Government on June 19 improve the chances that our relinquishment of sovereignty over Aden, over Perim and over the Kuria Muria Islands will not be enacted out in circumstances

547
of bloodshed and chaos, and, indeed, of shame for ourselves. They certainly give us some assurance that the life of the new-born independent State will not be snuffed out, or that there will not be a threat of snuffing it out, at birth. But for this major announcement on June 19, it would hardly have been possible for us to extend to the Bill the welcome which we from these Benches have given it. I sincerely hope that the Government—who have been known to deviate from their decisions—will not be blown off their new course in South Arabia. I have noted and fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on this subject on Second Reading. I quote his words from column 37 of Hansard of July 17 last:
"We have to pursue the policy we have adopted and make it a success."
My Lords, I echo that sentiment.
That said, I should like, in conclusion, to emphasise that we sincerely support this Bill. I think we have been extremely lucky in having the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to pilot it through your Lordships' House, given the fresh and intimate knowledge which he can bring to this matter. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to make Amendments, for which we have pressed and to which we have just agreed. Finally, I am glad from these Benches to extend on the eve of the passage of this Bill into law, our good wishes to the future independent State of South Arabia, and to the peoples of Aden, of Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands, with whom we have been for so long so closely associated.
1.15 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful especially to those who have been kind enough to make some complimentary remarks. Lord St. Oswald's eloquence is always of the highest, whether he is praising or attacking me. But, as he knows, I appreciate very much what he said and also what has been said by my noble friend Lord Rowley and other noble Lords, and by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
I do not think much more is called for from me at the moment. But I should like to deal briefly with this subject of
548
gassing. Certainly it arouses great horror, and as one who has seen the details (not all of which have been published, because it has not been possible to confirm them) of the awful suffering and the effect this has, I share greatly the sympathies of your Lordships' House. It was for this particular reason that I attached so much importance to giving this continuing air guarantee of the V-bombers; it was precisely to meet that danger. There have been many criticisms of this decision, on the ground that there will not be this sort of threat. But it is a fact that gas is a major weapon of warfare in the Yemen at the moment. Indeed, it is not only a major weapon, but in certain areas it is decisive in the policing of areas into which troops could not otherwise penetrate easily. We have given this V-bomber guarantee because of the fear that such methods might be used in the mountainous and wilder areas of South Arabia, where gas can penetrate into caves and create much more harm and suffering, and be more effective, than ordinary relatively clean high explosive.
I do not think I ought to follow the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, into discussing the progress of events in Aden. Nor do I think it would necessarily be right for the High Commissioner, when he meets the United Nations Committee on South Arabia, to discuss it with them, although it is a matter which I am sure he will have continually in his mind; and certainly I have had it in my mind when I have talked to people. None the less, I think that this strong expression of feeling from your Lordships' House should be taken note of by Her Majesty's Government; and I will certainly see that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations, is made aware of this.
To me, it seems extraordinary that one country can get away with doing this sort of thing. As noble Lords have said, it is sometimes galling and upsetting to the British and those who have, we think, achieved a certain level of civilised behaviour, that a small deviation brings down upon us the condemnation of large numbers of nations, while other much grosser assaults on humanity are ignored. I have made clear my own attitude, and I will certainly see that the attention of Lord Caradon, who also may shortly be in London, is drawn to this matter.

549
When it comes to the question of Egyptian strategy with regard to South Arabia, again this is a matter that I would rather not discuss. I know well the noble Lord's views on this matter, and that many people share these views; and there is strong evidence to support what he says. It is true that the situation in South Arabia since the Arab/Israel war has been more difficult, but I am also hopeful that it may become easier and that the Arab/Israel war and its results may not be in the long run as damaging to South Arabia as they appeared in the short run. None the less, even if a Nationalist Government were installed, and even if some of the more extreme parties were in the Government of South Arabia, it does not necessarily follow that a Nationalist Government which starts off under the protection of one country goes on being sympathetic to that country. This is rather the story in the Yemen where many of the original Republican leaders have had to be displaced—
A NOBLE LORD: Despatched.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord said "despatched". Some terrible things have happened in the Yemen. All the same, I think that we must look to the greatest measure of conciliation. If the Egyptians and the Egyptian Government see the dangers of the situation to them, it may well be that they will appreciate the advantages of a stable situation in South Arabia; and I believe that this will be much easier to achieve. There is no course without danger in front of us, but I believe that, in this sense, the removal of the British base will make this easier of achievement. However, I do not propose to rehearse the many arguments we have had, and I appreciate the restraint of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the fact that this Third Reading debate has been conducted with a measure of agreement and certainly with an absence of any partisan expression.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, also referred to gassing. I hope he will feel that I have dealt with this subject as fully as is possible at the moment. I would only say that when the High Commissioner goes to the United Nations he
550
will be talking to the United Nations authorities. I expect—though I do not know—that he will see U Thant; but he will certainly (this is the primary object) be meeting the special United Nations Committee. Whether or not that United Nations Committee will return to Aden, I do not know. My own feeling is that probably for the moment it will be better if they did not, and that they can better conduct their activities by trying to bring people together outside Aden—possibly in Geneva or in New York. I am told that they are looking forward to their meeting with Sir Humphrey Trevelyan. I would stress that it is important that people in this situation must "talk". There are too many people who have taken up frozen positions. It is this flexibility, based on a stronger attitude, which may lead us to a peaceful solution.
I end by giving the strongest assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that we will make the greatest efforts to bring about the internationalisation of Perim. Obviously I cannot guarantee this, since I can see all the difficulties against it, but I know that it will not fail by any lack of personal determination on the part of the Foreign Secretary with regard to Perim.
There are a number of other points I could have dealt with, but I will not delay the House further. It always tends to be a nostalgic moment when we pass an Independence Bill. I remember the debates on Malaysia in your Lordships' House, the final stages of which were almost conducted in Malay by old Malay hands. I do not know that there is anyone, except the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, who could have conducted the debate in Arabic. But I am sure that those who know South Arabia, despite the agonies and difficulties which confront that country, will wish it well, and hope that it will achieve the happiness, stability and peace to which the British hitherto have made an important contribution. Whatever mistakes anybody, whoever they may be, may have made in the past, let us not underrate the contribution made by the British in South Arabia.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE) BILL
1.27 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. In order not to delay the House, all I will say now is that I understand the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, wishes to make a few points. I will reserve my remarks until after he has spoken.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Shackleton.)
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to speak first. I thought that a few words should be said before the Bill passes your Lordships' House. Although the Opposition in another place did not succeed in getting the Bill altered, they did, as my honourable friend Mr. David Price pointed out, receive some important undertakings from the Postmaster General which we feel certain he will honour. They come under five heads: accountability; concern about unfair competition; the question of confidentiality; the problem of restrictive practices; and the question of standards. My honourable friend also raised in general discussion the problem of the future and the key importance of the efficiency of the transmission network. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that these undertakings will be binding on the Postmaster General's successor. It is clear that any successor will find it difficult not to be bound by them, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure us on that point.
There are only two other points I should like to make. The first relates to the accounting procedures which the Post Office adopt. On the rather weak grounds that these already provide for the debiting of common services to each of the different branches of the Post Office, the Postmaster General stated in his Second
552
Reading speech that charges will be made to other Government Departments. This is important, because the services will be in competition with private computor bureaux. If, therefore, the Post Office are operating on a truly commercial basis, as no doubt they will claim they will do, it is essential that the sums received should be kept in a separate fund and that the accounts should be entirely separate, so that Parliament and the public may judge whether or not the Government are fulfilling their pledge and not operating unfairly. We on this side of the House might have put down an Amendment at Committee stage here to ensure this, but I hope your Lordships will feel that the Government's assurances in both Houses, and anything further which the noble Lord may say to-day, meet this point.
We might also have put down Amendments regarding confidentiality. However, during the Committee proceedings in another place, as we know, the Government were so impressed by the general fear of breach of confidence that a new Clause 2 on the obligation of secrecy was inserted and the Postmaster General agreed to discuss this problem further. It must be remembered that the data processing service described by the Postmaster General and by the noble Lord, on the Second Reading in each House, will provide not only for the use of Post Office computers but also for the provision of a data programming service and storage in data banks. Not only, therefore, will the computer itself store up much secret information, but the officials of the service will inevitably have to learn a lot about any particular business. I think my noble friend Lord Ferrers made this point during the Second Reading here, and I was very sorry not to be present myself.
There is also the danger of wrong numbers, whereby a mechanical fault might accidentally disclose secret information. It is true that Clause 2 now provides penalties for unauthorised disclosure, but there is still a danger that a future Government might insist upon such information being disclosed. One has only to consider the recent disclosure in connection with the "D" notice affair to have doubts as to how effective secrecy may be in regard to any information supplied to a Government Department. Therefore, it seemed necessary to us to have some

553
impartial body, to whose opinions the Postmaster General would have to listen to advise him on this vital matter; and that was the point of an Amendment which we might have put down.
However, a similar Amendment was rejected in Committee in another place on the grounds that there are a number of pieces of information which must inevitably be communicated if the service is to work; for example, from one official to his successor. This could have been covered by exceptions detailed by the kind of Computer Confidentiality Council which we contemplated in that Amendment. Since, however, the Amendment was rejected in another place, I did not think there was much point in pressing it upon your Lordships towards the end of our long Session; and we made our protest yesterday about the congestion of business with which your Lordships are faced in the last week of our deliberations. Therefore I hope that the assurances given, both by the Postmaster General and by the noble Lord in this House, will be found to be reasonably satisfactory to your Lordships. For these reasons I do not propose to object to the passing of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has many qualifications and many skills. One or two, perhaps, we share in common. I think we are both what he describes as new-fashioned men. We have both studied the use of computers in many different fields, and both of us are professed readers of science fiction, some of which, by and large, so often comes true. I think we are both certainly concerned about the "Big Brother" aspects of our communications system. But perhaps "Big Brother" may not always be a bad man—some, indeed, rather presumptuously confuse him with God. If "Big Brother" is always watching us we may, they say, be more likely to keep out of mischief. But even if I cannot consider the kind of services provided under this Bill to be completely satisfactory—and they could certainly be abused—I think this Bill can be very useful. I hope that "Big Brother" will not be tempted to exceed his functions, or to make illegitimate use of the information which he will inevitably acquire.
1.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has spoken
554
with his usual eloquence. I do not know whether I am a new-fashioned man; I am afraid that at the moment I feel rather old-fashioned. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was leaning on a stick on the last occasion. But I am glad we are all agreed that this Bill, should go forward. I did not quite understand the noble Earl when he said that the Government have been unwilling to accept Amendments, when later on he admitted that in another place they had dealt with a confidentiality Amendment.
The noble Earl is worried about "Big Brother". The important thing about this Bill is that "Big Brother", even if he is tempted, will not be allowed to indulge himself, because we have put in a clause which is very stringent; and, as I pointed out, not even the Postmaster General himself will have access to the information contained in the data bank I should like to emphasise that I believe, so far as this Bill and its purposes are concerned, that the protection is absolute. No information acquired by any officer of the Post Office, from the Minister downwards, in the course of the provision of services and facilities for the processing of data by computer, may be disclosed by that officer. That means that it cannot be disclosed to another Department of the Post Office, or to any other Government Department or agency, or to any other outside user. I am afraid, therefore, that "Big Brother" is really out in the cold on this occasion. The only exceptions permitted are where the person to whom the service is being provided actually consents, or where the law requires; and that is, of course—I stress again—the law and the protection of Parliament. I am not saying that this information could not be got at, but Parliament has to protect the citizen from a misuse of this kind.
Here let me stress that of course this difficulty could in theory arise not only in regard to the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the interest which he took when he saw B.E.A.'s computer with which they were booking various places, and he wondered who was going abroad with whom. There is a second order problem, in that it is supposed that this information might be processed and the result used for purposes quite different from the original intention.

555
Looking at another case, a wine merchant's ledger, for instance, could be processed to find out the people who consumed a bottle of whisky a day. The information could then be fed to the credit-making file of a hire-purchase company to be used in some way quite unknown to that person, to assess his credit-worthiness. This goes on now in relation to credit-worthiness, although I doubt whether there is access to the wine merchants' files. But I should be surprised if, in certain cases of people assessing credit, questions of reliability did not come in. In case the wine merchants or the wine victuallers complain, let me say that I do not suggest for one moment that wine merchants are other than the most discreet of men as regards the accounts of their customers. I think we are all agreed on this. I think it has been very useful to get this question of confidentiality—or, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead would have it, confidence—discussed. It may well be that a future historian will pick on these little debates, which we have had here on this subject, as of importance in showing an awareness.
The noble Lord referred to the financial aspects of the National Data Processing Service. The essence of the matter is that the National Data Processing Service will be run on commercial lines, will be expected to make a profit, will bear all the charges proper to it, and will not be subsidised in any shape or form by either the telecommunications or postal service. Speaking as a former Departmental Minister, I know how closely one looks at the services one provides to other Departments, and how one tries to refrain from subsidising them. When I was Air Force Minister we were jolly careful about letting the Foreign Office use our aeroplanes without paying for them. This, I think, is part of the proper attitude in an effort to make sure that charges are properly deployed and properly shown; and I am quite certain that the existing Post Office accounts, which show in commercial form all the appropriate information for the telecommunications and postal service, will likewise show it for the National Data Processing Service.
The noble Lord said that he accepted the assurances of the Postmaster General,
556
and hoped that they would be binding on his successor. A great deal of our practice is not in certain respects covered in legislation. There is always great argument whether somebody is bound or not, and whether it is necessary to put certain things in legislative form. But here the practice is already established, and there are strong watchdogs in the shape of the various committees and the Auditor General. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will join with me in wishing the Bill well. It is an important measure. It indicates the Government's clear intention that this service should be developed to implement in the fullest possible way not only the letter but the spirit of all the explanations and assurances which have been given, not only in your Lordships' House but in another place. I think this will be an interesting development, and we shall be able to look back in a few years' time and see it adding usefully to the efficiency and prosperity of the country.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
1.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Dangerous Drugs 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.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Control of drug addiction]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1)(a), to leave out "whom" and insert "who". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who has an important engagement elsewhere and therefore cannot be

557
in his place, I beg to move this Amendment. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) makes use of the expression,
"a person whom … is addicted … to drugs".,
If this Amendment is accepted, it will refer to,
"a person who … is addicted … to drugs".
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("whom") and insert ("who").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was delighted earlier this week to see that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was back in his place. When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I felt that your Lordships' House was back to normal. He has, of course, prevailed on a like-minded noble Lord to move this particular Amendment in his absence. I confess that when I first read it and then read out how the clause would read when and if amended, I was struck by the fact that the sound of two "who's" was a bit like an owl hoot, whatever the actual meaning was.
The usage of "whom" adopted in the Bill is not uncommon, although I of course agree it is arguable that "who" is to be preferred. Fowler's Modern English Usage, in the Second Edition, at page 708, in the second column, paragraph 2, examines this quotation from The Tempest, Act III, Scene iii, lines 91 and 92:
"… while I visit
Young Ferdinand, whom they suppose is drown'd",
Shakespeare has been almost good enough for most of us as an authority for the English language, and I must confess that at first there seemed to be something pernickety in this particular Amendment. But when I studied further the authority from which I have just quoted I noted that they said that this was an instance of a form
"now so prevalent that there is danger of its becoming one of those sturdy indefensibles of which the fewer we have the better".
I have regarded the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, as one of those "sturdy indefensibles" on some occasions, but I am quite sure that none of us would think that the fewer of his like that we have the better.
558
Fowler's Modern English Usage concludes that "who" may have become "whom" by attraction immediately before an active verb; or by confusion with another (for example, parenthetical) way of expressing the same thing; or because the writer has a vague impression that "whom" is more likely to be right. On behalf of the Parliamentary draftsmen I utterly reject that last explanation, but I think this is something that we can quite safely leave in your Lordships' hands, and I leave the decision to the House.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I was very interested indeed in that delightful speech. I do not think I can possibly withdraw this Amendment, because if I did I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, would ever speak to me again.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Increase of certain penalties under Customs and Excise Act 1952. 1952. c. 44
".—(1) In relation to offences in connection with a prohibition or restriction imposed by section 2, section 7 or section 10 of the principal Act (importation and exportation of certain drugs and other substances), being offences committed after the commencement of this Act, sections 45(1), 56(2) and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 shall have effect as if for the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years' there were substituted the words 'imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'.
(2) In section 283(2)(a) of the said Act of 1952 (mode of trial of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years), after the words 'two years' there shall be inserted the words 'or more'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause will increase from two to ten years the maximum period of imprisonment for smuggling drugs to which the principal Act applies. Sections 45, 56 and 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 create offences in relation to the importation and exportation of goods contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of any enactment with regard to the goods. Each of these sections provides for a penalty of either three times the value of the goods or £100, whichever is the greater, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both; but in each case the penalty is stated not to apply in the case of an offence in connection with a prohibition or restriction for which a penalty is expressly provided by the enactment

559
concerned. Sections 2, 7 and 10 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 provide that "It shall not be lawful" to import or export (as the case may be) certain drugs; and Section 26 provides that for the purpose of any proceedings under Sections 45, 56 or 304 of the 1952 Act, Section 16 shall not be taken to provide a penalty.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is an offence punishable, under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, by up to ten years' imprisonment, but smuggling drugs, in the ways I have specified, is, under the appropriate sections of the Customs and Excise Act, an offence punishable by no more than two years' imprisonment. Usually, a drug smuggler commits the offence of illegal possession. In such cases—and they form the large majority—it is the practice of the enforcement authorities to bring proceedings under both the 1965 and 1952 Acts. Cases however occur (there were 17 in 1964) where proceedings can be brought only under the 1952 Customs and Excise Act, which means that the maximum penalty would be two years. Although in most of the recent cases the penalty imposed has been a fine, the present law would prevent those who might organise drug smuggling but who are not actually handling the drugs, from being punished by a heavier sentence than two years' imprisonment, although their agents in possession would be liable to ten years' imprisonment. This is an anomaly which subsection (1) of the clause removes by substituting ten years for two years.
I think we are all agreed that the evil human spider, sitting at the centre of the foul web of drug trafficking, is the man we should most dearly like to stop. We cannot often catch him; but when we do he should be put out of action for a long time. This Amendment would help to achieve that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that this, the last Amendment, will be very much welcomed on all sides of the House and elsewhere outside. I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining its purpose. I shall say no
560
more on this Amendment; but I should like to make a few remarks when he moves the passing of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.53 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I think that at least the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will remember that when I spoke at Second Reading I said:
"… although this Bill is short and its substance mainly concerned with the conduct of doctors, it foreshadows great changes in the organisation and treatment for addicts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1281; 20/6/67.]
Since then the Government have proposed, and your Lordships have accepted, new clauses strengthening police powers of search and the customs penalty for drug smuggling and extending the Home Secretary's powers to regulate safekeeping of drugs. These provisions should greatly help on the deterrent and defensive side of our effort against drug trafficking and abuse. But the heart of the Bill continues to be the provisions giving effect to the Brain Committee's recommendations for dealing with the formidable problem of heroin addiction.
As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already indicated, the Government hope to introduce regulations on notification of addicts in the autumn of this year; and to brine in the regulations restricting the prescribing of heroin in the new year, by which time the new treatment facilities should be completed. The Government fully appreciate that the Bill does not deal with the problem of the so-called "soft" drugs—an expression which I hope we shall eventually be rid of—except by strengthening the powers of the police and the powers to control the custody of drugs. They are, of course, deeply concerned about the misuse of pep pills, LSD and cannabis. And they are watchful for new dangers, of which we seem constantly to be hearing.
But they do not believe that the time is yet ripe for considering new legislative action about drugs, other than the hard ones I have mentioned. There is as yet no general agreement on what new provision might be required. The Brain Committee's proposals on hard drug addiction will not do for the others. The Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, under the Chairmanship of

561
Sir Edward Wayne, is studying the problem of LSD and cannabis and will extend its review to other drugs in due course. The Government will be keeping a close watch on developments. So long as hard drug addiction continues to increase, it seems right to be cautious in judging the dangers of the other drugs.
My Lords, a few moments ago, in considering the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, we were considering the use, or abuse, of words; and I do not wish to be misunderstood. Much of our present difficulty springs from uncertainty about the precise dangers of certain drugs, and from uncertainty about the real challenge of drug abuse to society. That is, I hope, an immediate and relatively short-term difficulty which will be resolved when the present search for authoritative guidance is complete. In the longer term any debate about drug abuse cannot avoid looking at the values to which our society attaches importance, and in the longer run still it will be these values which will be the best antidote to the spread of drug abuse.
In my view, these values are constant and will stand up to the so-called values of the false world of drug-induced imagination. Its insidious influences are at work on the young; but I have been encouraged, in my personal contacts with people in all walks of life, to see how quick most of them have been to detect the appropriation by the "pop" world of the language of sensory experience used by drug takers. For example, there is Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds a song title which is a naïve cloak for the initials "LSD". People have been quick to deplore this for the contamination it affords to genuine values everywhere. My Lords, legislation cannot deal with social phenomena of this kind. Our defence must be in more personal influences, and in constant vigilance and responsible organisations so as to discourage the trivial and eliminate the false.
In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for the encouragement they have given to the Bill, and I look forward confidently to their support. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that we should like to thank the noble Lord for the penetrating words with which he has moved the passing of this Bill. As an aside I should like to assure him that if he had not said that "soft drugs" was a phrase that he would like to be rid of, I would have reported him to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I am sure there is support from every side of the House and from everywhere outside for every positive step which is taken to check the rapid growth of drug dependence that is now upon us. This Bill is a significant and positive step in that direction, and for that reason I wish it well.
But it is as well to bear in mind that this Bill on its own will achieve nothing. First of all, regulations are needed to define the addict, to specify the drugs to which it will apply, to regulate the licensing of the doctors who may prescribe under it, and so on. It has been good to get the noble Lord's assurance—I took it as such—that these regulations are, in fact, ready and that the Government have worked out the timing of their introduction. But even when the Bill is enacted and the regulations are in force, no real benefits are going to flow from this legislation until the rehabilitation centres—a word with which we have become very familiar during the passage of this Bill—and treatment centres are set up and running, and known to the addicts.
It is two years exactly to the month since the Brain Committee recomended the provision of these centres, among other steps which were recommended in its Report. Despite continuous questioning and probing in this House and in another place—and here I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his Answer to my Written Question in so far as it goes—we have as yet no firm assurances in any detail of the precise way in which these centres are now running or the plans for their further development. We have no details of any plans about rehabilitation centres except Spelthorne St. Mary, which has been going for eight years, and the All Saints Centre in Birmingham, which was started by local initiative before this Bill came before Parliament.
The other thing that must temper our good wishes for this Bill (I only wish I did not have to make this criticism to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who, as

563
his last remarks revealed, is the very last person to deserve such criticism) is the feeling that in this, as in so many other things, the Government are moved too much by expediency and the crises as they develop, and not enough by a well thought out policy. My Lords, just consider this Bill. It passed through all its stages in another place, despite the most detailed consideration and the moving of a large number of Amendments by my honourable friends, without a single Amendment. It was discussed here on Second Reading as a Bill dealing solely with heroin and cocaine addiction, and prescribing for the addicts to those two drugs.
Then note what happened. On Committee the Government tabled Amendments, desirable in themselves, concerning the custody of drugs and security, and Amendments which included an extension of the powers of search given to the police. On Report, nine days later, we got four Amendments to the previous four Amendments. At this final stage we have one further Amendment dealing with a quite separate topic, the smuggling of drugs, and dealing with it adequately, I hope. This again is desirable in itself. All these things taken separately are desirable additions to the powers of the Home Office. Any positive steps to deal with this matter are welcome. But this sort of procedure cannot but leave us with the feeling that Her Majesty's Government have not yet thought out this problem thoroughly and are not yet developing a well-based policy towards it.
Another criticism is that so far, I regret to say, Her Majesty's Government have not, in our opinion, succeeded in giving a lead in dealing with this matter. In the course of the proceedings on this Bill and in preparation for them I have moved in a number of circles where people are very concerned with this problem, and I found little evidence that the Government have yet succeeded in mobilising the effort required, either in the Health Service or the resources which are available in the community at large. The Churches, voluntary bodies and local authorities are all doing what they can, so far as they can see the problem. Only to-day I received a copy of a background paper from the Church of England Council
564
for Social Aid, of which I have given the noble Lord and his colleagues copies. At first reading it looks to me to be an extremely helpful document which the noble Lord might like to read himself and make available to other Members of your Lordships' House. But all these people who are dealing with the problem could do with very much more guidance, encouragement and financial support from the Government.
My Lords, no one in this House or elsewhere underestimates the complexity, difficulty or urgency of dealing with this problem. Thank God!, it is not yet too large a problem. But we beg Her Majesty's Government to grasp it firmly now, before it gets out of hand and does more damage to our society than it has already done.
2.6 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Stonham on introducing this Bill and piloting it through to the final stages with which we are dealing to-day. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not propose to throw cold water on the efforts of the Government in this direction. I think the Government have acted admirably, with imagination and with a spirit of realism. Had a similar spirit been shown by the preceding Government this Bill would not be necessary to-day.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, on two points. I hope that my remarks were not taken as pouring cold water on this measure. I welcome it; we all welcome it, and we all wish it well. But the last thing I want to do is to leave your Lordships' House with any feeling of complacency, and I am sure that is not in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The second point I should like to make relates to the first matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. Everything we are referring to now has resulted from the Second Report of the Brain Committee, and that Committee did not report until July, 1965.
LORD LEATHERLAND: And, my Lords, the preceding Government had been in existence—for thirteen years, was it?—without taking any specific legislative action to deal with what is admitted

565
to be a grave social evil. The present Government, in less than two and a half years, have taken that action. We want action and we do not want talk—if the noble Lord wishes to rise again, I will resume my seat.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but it is quite untrue to say that the previous Government enacted no legislation to deal with this problem. The principal Act to which this Bill refers, the Dangerous Drugs Act, was fathered by the previous Administration, as was the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act.
LORD LEATHERLAND: And, my Lords, whatever legislation the previous Government enacted left on our doorstep the very evil with which this Bill is intended to deal.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for saying, for the sake of the Record, and without wishing to inject any partisan feeling whatever into the debate, that this problem of heroin and cocaine addiction has assumed its terrifying proportions only in the last five or six years. Before then it was a comparatively minor problem and, as I feel very strongly, under complete control.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it was evidently not under complete control or it would not have been necessary to take the action which the Government are taking to-day. I was about to say that this is a good Bill, and I welcome it. I hope that it will stamp out much of this evil. I recognise that the Bill has limited application, but it goes to the centre and the core of the problem.
Having said that, I wish to digress for a moment or two to refer to a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stonham concerning soft drugs. He seemed to indicate that the Government did not attach so much urgency to dealing with soft drugs as to the urgency of dealing with hard drugs; and naturally, that is quite correct. But this evil of the soft drugs is spreading throughout our society. Young people hear so much about it on the radio; they read in the Press about it and about the effects of it—which are sometimes good and sometimes bad—that they are getting curious. As a result, they are beginning to experiment
566
with these soft drugs, and the experiments are covering a gradually widening circle.
I was going on to say that I am sure (although apparently one must not be too sure in your Lordships' House about what one says) that it would be a very good thing for the community, and particularly for our younger generation, if some urgency were devoted to this question of so-called "soft" drugs—marijuana, LSD, and the new one that was publicised a few days ago. The great danger is that if the Press, the wireless, and your Lordships' House, create the impression in the minds of young people that these drugs are not really very harmful, that they are the equivalent of taking a dry Martini or smoking a cigarette, then I am sure that more and more of these young people will be indulging in these habits, which many medical authorities have admitted are harmful. The longer we delay any action to deal with drugs of this kind, the worse it will be for the young people who are following us.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am always grateful for the speeches of my noble friend Lord Leatherland, and particularly grateful for his support; but on one point I must disagree with him. He said that I gave the impression that the Government did not attach so much urgency to the problem of the so-called "soft" drugs. If I gave such an impression—and I do not think I did—it is wholly wrong. What I did say, and would repeat, is that the Government are getting as quickly as we can the utmost information and the best possible advice available in this country and elsewhere in the world; and when we have that advice—not before, because it would be utterly stupid to jump before there was need—we will ask Parliament to take such legislative action as is necessary.
My noble friend mentioned the new drug. Anyone who takes the trouble of reading carefully what I said, in moving, That the Bill do now pass, will have an indication that we are aware of this. The Home Office received a sample on Monday and it went to the Government analyst on Tuesday. But until we receive a report from the analyst, we do not know whether this drug is controlled, or

567
deserves to be controlled, under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. This is the kind of point I have in mind.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if my noble friend would pardon my interrupting, may I say that I should like to have it on the Record that I am delighted to hear what he has just said.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurance that on this matter we are moving as quickly as humanly possible, but we are not going to move without knowledge.
The fact that three short speeches have expressed sharply different points of view reflect two things: first, that the great and proper anxiety of your Lordships reflects the great and proper anxiety of the general public; and, secondly, that people are so anxious that they are looking for different forms of action. It is for the Government, on the best information available to them, to reach decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, reproached the Government for being moved too much by crises as they develop. As evidence of that, he instanced the fact that in another place the Bill went through without a single Amendment and here we had Amendments of substance in Committee. I make no apology for that. In fact, I take credit on behalf of the Government.
The Amendments moved in your Lordships' House were for the greater safe keeping of drugs and for increased power of search by the police. Of course, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary knew that he wanted greater powers of safe keeping in the Bill, but there had to be lengthy consultations. He wanted the Bill to become an Act of Parliament this Session, and therefore started it in another place. The noble Lord will remember that I gave notice in my Second Reading speech that I should move these Amendments and stated precisely what they were. As for the Amendment moved to-day, the need for that was known when the Bill came to your Lordships' House, but again there were many preliminary investigations to be made before a decision could be reached.
This is a new situation, not only in the sense that it is vastly greater than it was before but also because it is an
568
extremely fluid and developing situation. At no time legislation-wise shall we be able to be abreast of it, but I think that we should be thinking-wise and action-wise abreast of it, if effort counts for anything. Legislation alone cannot deal with this. As I tried to convey in my earlier speech, it must be a movement by the whole body politic, by the whole people of this country, realising what the true values are and playing their part in ensuring that this menace does not become a scourge.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
2.17 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Before we conclude our proceedings on the Bill, I should like to put on record the answer to a point raised in Committee on Clause 2 by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. The noble Lord asked whether the Post Office intended to provide publicity material, for use in television shops, to explain to the customer that his name and address will be given to the Post Office by the dealer. The answer is, I am glad to say, that this is my right honourable friend's intention. Hand-outs will be made available for dealers to give, if they wish, to their customers to explain why new measures against licence evasion are needed. These hand-outs will make it clear that, in giving the customer's name and address to the Post Office, the dealer is discharging a statutory obligation. These points will also be put across in the Press publicity to be mounted by the Post Office. My right honourable friend and I are glad to have this opportunity of making these plans known.
I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Denham, Lord Airedale, Lord Strabolgi, and other noble Lords, for

569
their constructive and helpful approach to our proceedings on this Bill. There may still be some evaders who do not yet realise what the implications of this Bill are for them, if they persist in their evasion, if they persist by their cheating in extracting a subsidy from the law-abiding majority who have licences for their sets. There are two things the evader should realise. First, he must expect to be found out, and secondly, he will be liable to a fine of up to £50 for a first offence. The Bill provides a deterrent of the right order. My right honourable friend does not want to prosecute evaders. He wants them to get licences. That is why he has said that no evader need fear prosecution if, before he is detected he goes and gets a licence. He will not be prosecuted. He will not be asked awkward questions. But, for those who will not comply with the law, the passing of this Bill will give my right honourable friend the means of catching up with them and the courts the means of imposing appropriate penalties on them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness for what she has said. We are grateful, too, for the charm with which she accepted some Amendments, even though they were only drafting Amendments. I hope she will not think me churlish if I say that, acceptable though the acceptance of these Amendments is in itself, it does not really make up for the intransigence that she and her right honourable friend sometimes show over Amendments of more substance.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as this is a Third Reading and not a Second Reading debate, I shall be brief. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has said, and to congratulate my noble friend Lady Phillips on steering this ship safely to port. I should also like to thank her for the considerable interest that she has taken, often extending far beyond the brief, and for the co-operation that we have received. I think we have been able to improve this Bill to a considerable extent. It is a good Bill, and now that it will shortly become law I wish it well.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation on behalf of my right honourable friend both to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. One realises that they both have very special knowledge of the matters under discussion, particularly in relation to this Bill, and this was greatly appreciated by my right honourable friend. As has been said on behalf of the Government, the Amendments were of a constructive character. I hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Denham, can take heart from the fact that there may be more modifications in the future if he persists, as I am sure he will, with Amendments to Bills of this kind. I am grateful to both noble Lords for enabling me to take this important piece of legislation fairly swiftly through the House. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BERMUDA CONSTITUTION BILL
2.23 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. At an earlier stage of the Bill, I undertook, in answer to a question from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to clarify the position with regard to Government industrial employees in Bermuda who may wish to present themselves for election to the House of Assembly. I can now confirm that it is the intention to allow Government industrial employees not only to stand for election, but also to retain their employment while serving in the House of

571
Assembly. The question of a guarantee of re-employment, therefore, in which the noble Earl was interested, does not arise. I am very glad to be able to give this assurance, because I think it can be considered as an important, although a small, part of the process to which we referred on Second Reading of the liberalisation of the Constitution in Bermuda, and a process which I believe will continue.
With this acceptance of the need to progress steadily towards a more liberal Constitution, there is every reason to anticipate that in this beautiful island we shall see established a multi-racial society which is not only politically content and economically prosperous, but embodies all the ideals, which we all hold, for the prospects of multi-racial harmony. To build upon what has been achieved is, I think, our expectation, and I should like again to pay tribute to the contribution that has been made by the Governor—politically experienced, most approachable, the ideal man for the significant transitional period through which Bermuda has been passing. Under his guidance, and with the most able men of all races—men not only of ability, but of good will—I am sure that we can now hope to realise in Bermuda a happy, enlightened and prosperous multi-racial society. I would echo the words of the then Colonial Secretary on an earlier occasion, that if we cannot see this multiracial harmony established in Bermuda, the prospects elsewhere are very dim indeed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we part with this Bill, as one who has a close family connection with Bermuda I should like to echo the hopes that the noble Lord has expressed, and join with him in his good wishes for the future to this oldest of our Colonies. I should like, also, to join with the noble Lord in the tribute he has paid to the Governor, whom he and I, at any rate, know very well, and for whom we have a great respect and affection. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given about the industrial workers. It is good to know that there will be no obstacles to people
572
standing and playing their part in public life. With those few words, we wish this measure a fair wind.
On Question, Bill passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
2.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendments as to benefit tinder Old Cases Act]:
LORD SORENSEN LORD SORENSEN moved to add to the clause:
"( ) In section 14(1) of the Old Cases Act, in the definition of pneumoconiosis ', after the word 'treated' there shall be inserted the words for the purposes of any scheme under section 2 or 5 of this Act'; and in section 14(2) of that Act for the words 'an allowance under the said section 2 or 5' there shall be substituted the words any such scheme'."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in the debate last week, referred to the fact that "old cases" constitute a very complicated question; and this is indeed so. As a matter of fact, the complications have been so intense that they have confused even the experts; and this takes some doing. In June of this year the Old Cases Act tidied up the "old cases" provisions in a way which I am sure was welcomed by all those concerned with workmen's compensation and industrial injuries matters. In the process, however, there was a slight error of drafting which could work to the disadvantage of certain claimants. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Act 1967 provided that schemes in respect of "old cases" be extended, so that where the extent of disablement from pneumoconiosis or pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis would, if the man's physical condition were otherwise normal, be equal to 50 per cent. disablement, then the effects of emphysema and chronic bronchitis could be treated as if they were the

573
effects of the pneumoconiosis. This applies both to life and to death benefit claims. Unfortunately, the word "allowance" was used when this provision came up to be consolidated, and since a lump sum is payable by way of benefit in death cases, in line with the Workmen's Compensation provisions, and not a continuing pension or allowance, death cases are excluded. The Amendment remedies this. Very few widows are likely to be affected, but it is clearly wrong that a subsequent drafting error should deprive any widow of the benefit which Parliament intended she should have when the Amendment Act was passed. I there-
Amendment moved—
fore beg to move.
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Sorensen.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. I am sure we are indebted to the vigilance of the Ministry for having spotted this slight error. Of all the parts of legislation that had to be dealt with in the Ministry of National Insurance (as it was), I remember that by far the most complicated and difficult was this particular area. Therefore we shall certainly not hold it against the Ministry in any way that there was a slight oversight in this matter. I am glad that it has been put right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supplementary schemes—setoff of overpayments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: On Second Reading I asked whether an explanation could be given of the meaning of this clause. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give it now. If he is not, perhaps he will write to me and explain it. Perhaps this way of legislating is an extraordinary one, but this again is a very complicated field. I do not suppose that many of your Lordships would be wiser if you were given the explanation, but I might be.
LORD SORENSEN: May I assure the noble Lord that I was about to write
574
to him on this matter, and he will have all the information very shortly.
Clause 4 agreed to.
2.33 p.m.
Clause 5 [Temporary power to increase family allowances by order]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I ought to say a word about this clause. It is really very unfortunate, I think, that we are having to pass legislation of the character of that in Clause 5 without any knowledge whatsoever of the type of scheme that is to be proposed, and which is to be proposed, as we understand it, in the course of next week and set out later in an Order subject to a Negative Resolution Procedure, an Order which will probably be brought into effect before the House has any chance of negativing it. This is, I think, the effect, because if this provision is to be subject to a Negative Resolution, the House will probably not resume in time for a Prayer to be made against it. In any case, it would be a very tight run thing. It seems to me that it is not a very happy way of legislating, particularly when, as I understand it, a great deal of money indeed is involved.
It was the noble Lord himself who, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, gave me an indication of the kind of sums involved. There has been some indication that this Order may affect third and fourth and subsequent children. As I understand it, for every shilling of increase there is upwards of £4¼ million involved for all third children; and about £2¾ million, for every shilling of increase for the fourth and subsequent children. So if it is confined to only third and subsequent children, the amount of money is very considerable indeed; and to proceed by an Order subject to Negative Resolution procedure really is not a satisfactory way, when the House may not have an opportunity of considering the Order but only the bare statement that is to be made next week. I think it would be quite wrong if a protest on this matter were not made.
In view of the fact that the Report, on which, no doubt, the measure which the Government are going to introduce was based, was made some weeks ago, it is

575
very difficult to see why a decision could not have been reached in time for the whole of this matter to be considered in the context of the National insurance Bill, and indeed of the Order with which we are now dealing. I feel bound to make that protest at this point, although, of course, we would not oppose this particular clause at this stage.
LORD SORENSEN: May I assure the noble Lord that I fully appreciate his concern on this matter, but mine is "not to reason why". I will see that his admonitions are passed on to the right quarter, and I hope they will be fully considered.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Further Amendments of Insurance Act]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I asked, again on Second Reading, whether I could have an explanation of paragraphs l and 4 of this Schedule, which do not perhaps cover a great number of people. The sickness benefit provision, however, certainly covers a very great number—millions in a year. Paragraph4—on child's special allowance, alternative condition of entitlement—is the other paragraph I referred to. I beg your Lordships' pardon: I mean paragraph 3, dealing with retirement pensions of certain widows. I asked about this. Again, if the noble Lord would prefer to write to me I should be glad if he would do so, so that we can perhaps pursue this matter at a later time. It is not one's intention to amend this Schedule, but it is unfortunate that there is no explanation of these particular measures, small as they are, in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill or in the White Paper that accompanied the Bill.
LORD SORENSEN: May I assure the noble Lord again that these matters are well borne in mind, and I will see that he gets all the information he is asking for.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having being suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), the Report received: Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIRE-MENTS) REGULATIONS 1967
2.40 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN LORD SORENSEN moved, that the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on June 28, 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some eight months since the new scheme of Supplementary Benefits was introduced in place of National Assistance. The object of the new scheme was to provide a noncontributory benefit to which there was a clear, statutory entitlement, with straightforward rules so that older people, in particular, should the more easily understand, and so be encouraged to claim, what was their right. Judging from the response so far, the new scheme has enjoyed a very real measure of success. There are now some 430,000 more people over pension age receiving a supplementary pension than were receiving assistance before the new scheme, and altogether over 2,600,000 weekly benefits are currently in payment. These are arresting figures because they indicate that large numbers of people either could have secured assistance and were igncrant of the fact, despite the publicity, or, for various strange reasons, did not apply for it. We are gratified to know that these people are now benefiting.
One of the improvements made when the new scheme was introduced last November was an increase in the basic rates for requirements which, together with an addition for rent, and the standard addition of 9s. for special expenses in long-term cases, represent the levels to which other income is brought up. Your

577
Lordships now have before you draft Regulations providing for further increases in these basic rates. The main changes are increases of 5s. in the rate for a single householder, which will go up from £4 1s. to £4 and of 8s. in the rate for a married couple, which will go up from £6 13s. to £7 1s. These rates, as I have mentioned, are exclusive of the long-term addition of 9s. which was introduced last November for those over pension age, and others (apart from the unemployed) who have received a noncontributory benefit for two years or more. Thus the net income level guaranteed to those over pension age, and for other long-term cases, will be £4 15s., plus rent, for a single householder, and £7 10s., plus rent, for a married couple. The new rates represent increases of about 6 per cent., which compares with an increase of about 1½ per cent. in the prices index since the current rates were introduced. It is proposed that the new rates should take effect from October 30; that is, at the same time as the increases proposed for National Insurance pensions and benefits.
My Lords, the Ministry of Social Security Act requires that any National Insurance pension or benefit shall be taken fully into account to arrive at the Supplementary Benefit payable. The increases to be made in these payments will therefore reduce the amount required to bring a person's income up to the appropriate Supplementary Benefit level. But since these levels are being raised at the same time the effect will in general be that people with Supplementary Benefit will have their total income increased by the amount of the Supplementary Benefit increase.
Your Lordships may ask why the increases in National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit rates are not the same, so that, for example, the supplementary pensioner can receive the full benefit of the increase proposed in the retirement pension. The answer is that this is the second increase in the Supplementary Benefit rates since National Insurance rates last went up, in March, 1965, the first being, as I have mentioned, when the new scheme was introduced last November. Taken together, the two main increases in Supplementary Benefit rates—10s. for a single householder and 15s. 6d. for a married couple—are virtually the
578
same as the increases now proposed in the main National Insurance rates of 10s. single and 16s. married. I should mention that subsidiary Regulations, which are subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, will ensure that the exact Supplementary Benefit increase can be paid where this could be otherwise prevented or delayed by the provisions of existing Regulations.
I now come finally to the question of cost. The draft Regulations by themselves would lead to an increase in expenditure of about £40 million in a complete year; but because of the concurrent improvements in other social security benefits there will be a net saving of about £23 million a year. This, however, has to be considered against the background of the improvements made last November which cost over £50 million for those already receiving noncontributory benefit, apart from the cost for the new beneficiaries. I beg to move that these draft Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on June 28, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Sorensen.)
2.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the draft Regulations. These Regulations are always brought in whenever there is up-rating legislation for National Insurance benefits, and the question that the Ministry always have to consider is by how much they are going to increase the Supplementary Benefits—or National Assistance, as it used to be called. At the time of last year's legislation, when the Supplementary Benefits were raised to a level slightly higher than the National Insurance rates, I remember asking whether this was done deliberately as a matter of policy, and whether it was intended to keep the Supplementary Benefits slightly above the National Insurance rates. I remember also that I did not get a clear answer. Now, of course, we have the answer: that that was not intended to be done. So that, in effect, on this occasion we have increases of about half the amount of the increases in the National Insurance.

579
As the noble Lord rightly said, if we take the present increases, together with the increases made last time, they are pretty well equivalent to the increases in National Insurance levels. It would be strange, of course, if we on this side of the House were to complain about this, because it is what has happened in the past. So far as Supplementary Benefits are concerned, we are always up against the problem that it has been considered right in the past never to allow Supplementary Benefits or National Assistance rates (or whatever we like to call them) to fall too far behind the cost of living as the cost of living increased, so that Supplementary Benefits have often been increased. In fact, it has been the general rule to increase Supplementary Benefits once during the period within which National Insurance arates have remained stable. This, of course, has always had an awkward effect, but this has had to be accepted.
It has been a matter of great criticism in the past—and I am sure it will be on this occasion, too—that people who receive National Insurance benefits and who, because Supplementary Benefits are added, receive a total amount in excess of National Insurance benefits, will not in this case get the full increase of the National Insurance benefit and will accordingly feel disappointed. Those of us who have had to do with the Ministry of Pensions have tried very hard to find a way round this difficulty but one has to accept the lesser of two evils, and I think it is certainly the lesser of two evils to give increases in Supplementary Benefits as frequently as possible and not to wait every time until National Insurance benefits are increased.
At the same time, I am not certain in my own mind that it is right now, and I am even less certain that it will always be right in the future, that National Assistance benefits should be below National Insurance benefits. They were just about level before. I think it was £4 1s. 0d. Supplementary Benefit last year for a single man, as against £4 under National Insurance benefit. It was just a little higher, but it was so close that I was somewhat deluded into thinking that this was a deliberate act of policy. It now appears that it was not; it was just that the amount was
580
considered at the time to be the amount that it was desirable to add to the Supplementary Benefit. This being a decision of the Government, I do not think there is any reason to dispute it, because it is in line with precedents, and, as the Select Committee have said, the Regulations do not depart in any way from precedent. Therefore I think your Lordships can safely pass them, and indeed welcome them.
2.52 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for many moments this afternoon, but there are one or two points I should like to put to the Minister, and one or two matters to which I wish to refer. I listened with a good deal of interest to the figures the noble Lord gave. We have certainly not succeeded in abolishing poverty. We may have succeeded in relieving it, but certainly not in abolishing it as the Party opposite so often claimed that they would. I do not blame them. I restrict my criticism to saying that certainly this matter was pursued and pursued very vigorously when they were in Opposition, and it is interesting to see, after two years of Labour rule, that the numbers on benefit have substantially increased.
The noble Lord told us that the crease in the benefit rates was 6 per cent. as against an increase of 1½ per cent. in the cost of living index figure. That is a wide margin. But I think it is wise to have a margin when one is estimating the rates that would be required, because before you have time to introduce another set of rates the cost of living index figure may have moved again. When I was at the National Assistance Board I had a good deal of experience of this, but I think we succeeded in maintaining the rates, as apparently the Supplementary Benefits Commission is going to do, with a comfortable margin for any increase in the cost of living index. But it does not seem to me to indicate any very great confidence in the Government in their ability to stabilise the index figure in the months to come.
May I turn for a moment to another matter. The noble Lord referred to the fact that it was known that there were a number of persons who appeared to be

581
entitled to supplementary benefit but who had not claimed it. That is true, and I think we always knew that there were a large number of persons who for different reasons, reasons, perhaps, of pride—and I must say that I rather respected the independence of these old people—and recollections of past days and so on, did not apply for assistance. We know now the dimensions of that problem. I always believed that there was not really a very large number of persons in those circumstances as against the very large number of persons who came to the Assistance Board. We have the figures now in the Report on The Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners, which was published by the Ministry of National Insurance with the co-operation of the National Assistance Board last year.
The figures are, I think, instructive. It was found that there were 700,000 pensioner households who could have received assistance if they had applied for it. But a large number of those people appeared either to have income of one kind or another which would be disregarded for national assistance purposes, or to be living in households where there were other adults who made amenities available. When one deducted that class of person it reduced the total number to 300,000. Of these 300,000 households over two-thirds had some other resources in cash or were in households in which there were other people. Only about 85,000 appeared to have no resources other than the national assistance. Of course, 85,000 is a very large number. But compared with 850,000 it is not so many, and it has, I think, been described as manageable. But the figures which were used when this controversy began have proved to be completely exaggerated, and indeed when the Election was at its height I believe the figure bid up to over one million. At any rate, we know now how far this problem has gone, and I am very glad to hear the Minister say that the experience of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has been that the new methods have overcome these difficulties, and these people are now applying for the assistance to which they are entitled.
I was always told that the reason why persons would not apply for assistance was because of the name of the National Assistance Board. I never myself
582
believed there was very much in this question of the name. I am old enough to remember seeing the name changed more than once. Outdoor relief became public asssistance in 1929. Public assistance became national assistance in 1948, and national assistance became supplementary benefit in 1966. I do not believe that the name has had very much to do with this. What has really deterred persons from applying has been the means test.
The National Assistance Board and the Supplementary Benefits Commission, succeeding them, have been at some pains to build up a staff which is devoted to the work they have to do, dedicated to the relief of poverty and who understand the manner in which the Commission desire that this work should be administered. That has gradually over the years eliminated persons who associated the means test with the old tests that were carried out by the Guardians or in the early days of national assistance. I believe we are now in a position to say that a means test is not the deterrent which it used to be considered to be. But I would say this. I think it calls for a conscious effort on the part of a great many people to ensure that the old stigma is eliminated.
I think that at any rate the national newspapers could have helped us a great deal to get rid of the old background of the Poor Law and of the early days of assistance. We did not get much assistance from them. Too many papers reported their police court cases as though the receipt of assistance was in itself some sort of offence. Persons who claimed national assistance were represented as belonging to the class of "corner boys", layabouts and idlers whom the papers desired to expose. I hope, that in the years that are coming we shall get a better aproach to this question.
I do not believe that we can have an adequate system of social security without the use of the means test. We rely on many different agencies to help us to get it accepted. I believe it is to-day nearly accepted but not quite.
Payment of benefits paid on a means test, or as I prefer to call it, a test of needs and means, is a means test of particular importance at the present time. One of the major difficulties which I

583
think the Board encounters is the case of the man whose earnings are so low that he is actually receiving less than he would receive if he were unemployed and applied for supplementary benefit. It goes hard to say to a man, "Your earnings are actually less than you would get if you were on supplementary benefit." I think the Supplementary Benefit Board has no alternative but to scale down this man to the sum which he would take home if he had been in full employment at his normal trade.
When I was at the Board I was often approached on this subject. Members of another place would sometimes write to me rather indignantly asking me why this man was paid less than the standard rate. But they always, I think, accepted the explanation. It is exceedingly difficult to say that a man ought to be paid more when he is unemployed than when he is working full-time at his own trade. There it is. That, I think, is one of the major difficulties of our social security system to-day. I think the Government recognise that, and I understand that there are proposals under consideration for dealing with this particular matter. Whether it will be dealt with by permitting the Supplementary Benefits Commission to supplement the earnings of those men, or whether it will be dealt with by some change in the system of family allowances, we shall know when the Government's proposals are published.
I do not think that it makes much difference which way it is done. The question is, will it be done on a means and needs test basis? That the Government will have to consider for themselves and make up their mind about. If relief is given in that way, we shall be supplementing from public funds the earnings of a man in full-time employment. It was one of the most firmly held principles of administration of the old Poor Law and of the Assistance Board and, indeed, of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, that you ought not to do that. It had been an inflexible canon of the old Poor Law. Poor Law reformers from Sir Samuel Romilly to Lord Beveridge all held firmly to that principle.
Ought we to hold firmly to it to-day? That is the question that I think the
584
Government must ask themselves. It may well be that the time will come when by other means we can avoid the demoralisation which it has always been feared will be created by supplementing a man's wages from public funds. I do not know which course the Government are going to adopt. I do not think it matters much, because the problem that they have to ask themselves is whether one ought to adopt a method of supplementing wages which has been condemned for so long.
There is one other thing that I should like to say. I have seen it suggested that the cost of improving family allowances, not, I think, supplementary benefit, might be made by withdrawing the allowances for children which are now made in the assessment to income tax. I hope that the Government will not adopt that course. I can think of nothing more unfair than that proposal. I have never been frightened of spending public money on the Social Services, and I am not now. But I think it would be most unjust that a new Social Service should be paid for by one section of the community and not by all. If we are to make payments to relieve the position of the man in the lower earnings group, then the community as a whole should contribute to those payments, and they should not be fastened round the necks of one class of the community alone. I profoundly hope that the Government will not adopt that solution of the financial problem which the low wage earner presents. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the statistics which he gave us at the beginning of his speech, and I shall listen with great interest to what he has to say in answer to the few points that I have ventured to raise.
3.8 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, we are all most appreciative of any comments and remarks addressed, and scrutinies made, by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in view of his great experience in this matter. But I am equally certain that the House as a whole would appreciate it if I did not explore the same ground to any extent this afternoon. My own assessment of the feeling of the House is that it is better for us to get on as quickly as we can with the business; and as what the noble Lord has said does not bear directly on the immediate proposals, he will forgive me if I say no more than that

585
I shall myself reflect, as I am sure all members of the Government in this Department will reflect, on the observations that the noble Lord has made.
I will, however, say just a brief word by way of explanation. All retirement pensioners receiving Supplementary Benefit will have a leaflet sent to them explaining why Supplementary Benefit rates are on this occasion being increased by less than the National Insurance benefits. In comparing the two rates, it must be remembered that for Supplementary Benefit recipient's rent is added to the scale rates. There is also for the old and other long-term cases, the new nine shillings addition.
I agree with what the noble Lord has said with regard to the name. It is not the name that is so important, as what the name signifies and its associations. One hopes that the names we are now employing and the general nomenclature have a much warmer and more human association than some of the names covering this field in the past. "Poor Law Relief" has a very grim association. It takes us back to the days when poverty was looked upon as a crime and those who were poor, in addition to being subjected to their poverty, were punished, just for being poor. I believe there was a time when those who were enfranchised could have their franchise taken from them if they sought Poor Law Relief. Many Members of this House at that time no doubt supported that as being a moral principle. We have now moved far beyond that in this House, in the other place, and in the country as a whole. Our moral conscience has grown considerably. That is why it is a good thing that we should discard entirely the terminology of Poor Relief. Now, with the better term "Supplementary Benefit", we have surely reached the stage where we recognise that we are all bound together, we are members one of another, and therefore the assistance which we are rendering is the assistance of the nation to members of the nation who desire it.
There is much more I could say by way of reflection on this very important subject, but I want to say to the noble Lord opposite and to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that if there are any particular points on which they would like
586
further information I will see that the information is given to them. I appreciate that all have concerned themselves with this matter in a spirit of real humanity, and once more I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, for drawing on the resources of his own experience to contribute to our greater knowledge to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION (CHANGE OF NAME) ORDER 1967
3.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order 1967, laid before the House on July 5, 1967, be approved. This is a simple Order, the purpose of which is to change the name of the National Steel Corporation to the British Steel Corporation. I think that this change will be welcomed. Provision was made in your Lordships' House that such a change could be made when certain difficulties had been got out of the way, and it is now proposed that the Order should come into operation on July 27. This is the day before vesting date, and the Corporation will be able to use their new name on and from the day on which they actually assume ownership of the nationalised steel industry. The change, therefore, will come at the most convenient moment.
Moved, that the Draft National Steel Corporation (Change of Name) Order 1967, laid before the House on July 5 1967, be approved.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as the Minister has just said, the possibility of a change of name for the National Steel Corporation to the British Steel Corporation was discussed when the Iron and Steel Bill was going through your Lordships' House. We on these Benches agreed at the time that the name British Steel Corporation might be more appropriate, particularly in regard to overseas trading operations. But, having said that, I should say again from this side of the House that we do not like the Corporation any more under this new name than we did under its old name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

KENYA: BRITISH FARMERS AND LAND SCHEME
3.15 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD LORD WEDGWOOD rose to call attention to the difficulties facing British nationals farming in Kenya, with particular reference to the present 400,000 acre land purchase programme, and to ask Her Majesty's Government to make a statement on the future of the scheme. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I do so for two very good reasons. The land purchase programme in Kenya is apparently running into trouble and, partly as a result, some of our British nationals are being deported; and it may be—though I hope very much it will not be so—that if things continue in the same way others may follow. I will be as brief as I can, and I appreciate that this Question comes at the end of a long day's business and a long week's work, and that there is much pressure on your Lordships' time. But this was the most suitable opportunity to raise these matters, which are of some urgency, before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
As some of your Lordships may be aware, I have had a direct connection with Kenya agriculture for 25 years and more, though I have no pecuniary interests in that country to-day. My sole aim in bringing these matters to your Lordships' attention is to air some of the difficulties which are facing British farmers in Kenya and to seek some greater understanding and response from Her Majesty's Government in handling what is undoubtedly a delicate but, nevertheless, not insoluble problem. As we are all aware, the old political order in Kenya altered for good at Lancaster House in January, 1960, when Her Majesty's Government announced their intention of leading Kenya to independence on a basis of majority rule. Consequent upon that decision, the economic order also changed, and the security of land values disappeared. From that date the value of a farmer's investment in land and its capital assets was much depreciated.
It is no part of my case to comment or dwell on the political aspects of that decision, except to remind your Lordships of the financial implications that followed
588
and how they affected land values. So virtually from that time on there has been no ready market for European-owned land at anything approaching the investment value of 1959; indeed, titles to land in the former White Highlands were no longer acceptable to the commercial banks as security for borrowings. This created an entirely new situation for British farmers, whose loans and borrowings remained exactly the same but whose assets were seriously reduced in value. Since that year, apart from limited sales at drastically reduced prices to African farmers, generally through the media of the Kenya Land Bank, there has been no market for ordinary mixed farming land—and by "mixed farming" I do not include ranching, coffee and other specialised plantation industries.
Various proposals were made to Her Majesty's Government for underwriting land values which were ignored, but assurances were always forthcoming of the continued desirability of European settlement and sound farming to underpin the Colony's economy. Furthermore, on the achievement of African self-government, the Prime Minister of Kenya, Mr. Kenyatta, met European farmers and assured them of their future and good treatment if they would stay in Kenya I and farm well. However, all these assurances from Her Majesty's Government and the Kenya Government did not take full cognisance of the rapidly expanding African population and the pressure building up for land.
There was put into operation, financed by Her Majesty's Government, the first one-million-acre resettlement scheme, under which European farmers were bought out in certain areas adjacent to African land units. This scheme had its anomalies, but by and large it was put through without too much unfairness to the European owners.
By 1965 it was recognised that a further land purchase scheme was required to cover those who wished to dispose of their farms and to enable the Kenya Government to continue to meet the unfulfilled demand for land. The present 400,000 acre scheme was conceived following the visit to Kenya of what was known as the Stamp Commission, which reported to Her Majesty's Government—a report which, incidentally, has never been made public.

589
Subsequently, terms were negotiated between Her Majesty's Government and the Kenya Government for an £18 million interest-free loan for the purchase of land and "other development aid" over a period of four years. Of this £18 million about £6 million was earmarked for the actual purchase of British-owned farms. I emphasise this as many statements have been made about the total sum of monies provided for land purchase, but the loan included large elements for African resettlement and other purposes not directly connected with the actual buying out of the former owners of the land.
At this point I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the varying viewpoints of British farmers in Kenya after the completion of the million-acre purchase scheme. There were, roughly, four groups of farmers. There were those who did not wish to sell their farms and go, and who intended to remain permanently in Kenya under the new African Government. Secondly, there were those who wished to sell and leave, but were unable to do so as they could not find purchasers. Thirdly, there were the Settlement Board farmers, mainly tenants, who had gone out as soldier-settlers after the last world war and invested all their capital under the direct sponsorship of Her Majesty's Government in 1946 and 1947. Lastly, there was the group of what was loosely termed the "compassionate cases", comprising, principally, the elderly and widows and those who, for one reason or another, were unable to continue farming but could not find a market for their farms.
As regards the first group—those who did not wish to leave—there is no problem except in cases where their land is definitely required by the Kenya Government. Under the present 400,000 acre scheme they do not have to accept an offer and are free to refuse it, though in some cases it may be difficult for them to continue indefinitely, and they have to weigh those considerations at the time of the offer. The second and third groups are those with which I am most concerned to-day—
LORD DRUMALBYNa: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question for information on that point? Is there any provision for the exchange of land, where land next door to African-settled land is
590
to be acquired by the Kenya Government? Is there any provision of arrangements for the exchange of land for land which could be held by Europeans?
LORD WEDGWOOD: I understand, my Lords, that there are no provisions: but that is subject to anything the noble Lord may say when he replies. Perhaps he has further information but, so far as I am aware, there is no provision for exchange of land.
I refer again to the second group of farmers—those who wish to leave but naturally cannot do so unless they get a fair consideration for their farms. As I indicated earlier, for the past seven years they have been, to all intents, economic prisoners of circumstances far beyond their control. It was to enable these farmers to sell that the present 400,000-acre scheme was initiated, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out to the House last month when replying to an earlier question of mine on the working of the scheme.
I come to the point where the trouble is really emerging, for it is in the terms and conditions of the agreement between the two Governments for the operation of this scheme and in the actual methods of implementation on the ground that there is so much disagreement, such great bitterness and sense of betrayal, leading to pressures which must inevitably force the British farmers into conflict with those who administer the scheme, and ultimately through them with the Kenya Government.
I wish to make it quite clear that the quarrel is not with the Kenya Government for requiring the land; their needs are fully recognised. The quarrel is simply with the terms under which offers are made to the farmers; offers which in some cases are fantastically below the real value of the farms, by any method of calculation. A number of offers have been refused and a number of others have been accepted with the greatest reluctance, and only under duress of circumstances. Efforts have been made by a number of individuals to obtain fairer treatment for their fellow Britons which have led, in my opinion, and there is substantial evidence to support it, to the recent deportation of at least two farmers in circumstances which we all know are thoroughly deplorable and must inevitably

591
increase ill-feeling. If unfair methods of valuation and the resultant offers continue in the next year of the scheme, which is due to start next month, there may well be further protestations and a repetition of recent events.
There are a number of pertinent facts which your Lordships should know, on which you may judge for yourselves whether methods of valuation are fair. The procedure is this. The valuer visits the farm and values everything on it—the land, the stock, the machinery, the lot. He then gives his figures to the Valuations Committee of the Agricultural Development Corporation, but those figures are not made known to the farmer concerned. The Government chief valuer then makes an offer based on the valuation which is never made known, which may vary, under the terms of the agreement, by as much as 20 per cent. either way; but naturally it varies only one way—downwards. This is a comprehensive figure with no breakdown of any figures for stock or the land. The farmer has 21 days in which to accept or refuse, and often a shorter period due to the vagaries of the post. Is it suprising that these methods leave much to be desired?
Yet another factor which the House may appreciate is that under this scheme payment may be made in London, whereas other potential farm sales are all subject to Kenya currency control, which restricts capital exports to £5,000 a year and £2,000 in each subsequent year. So your Lordships will realise that this factor is a very considerable one in encouraging a farmer to accept the offer, as he knows that it is indeed his last chance to get his money out of Kenya in one lump sum if he wishes to do so. The A.D.C. know this very well when the offer is made, and it is no stretch of the imagination to see this as a factor in their calculations.
There are many other disquieting features of the manner in which this scheme is being handled, but it would take too much of your Lordships' patience which I know I must not stretch too far. I should now like to bring to your Lordships' notice the report which has been prepared by Mr. Peter Trumper, references to which have been made in the daily Press, following his visit to Kenya in May this year to investigate the
592
workings of the scheme on behalf of some 150 British farmers in Kenya.
This report has now been made public and a copy has been handed to the Minister of Overseas Development. Mr. Trumper's conclusion, in his own words, is:
"I have reached the conclusion that the method used is tending to unfairness, in some cases to a serious degree".
He goes on:
"What in fact is happening is that the farmers are getting less than a fair deal, both in terms of the procedures adopted and in terms of the offers made".
It may be of some significance that Mr. Trumper was forbidden access to the Kenya Government chief valuer and his assistants to discuss the methods of valuation in use.
He then makes in his report a number of recommendations with which I find myself in entire agreement. Amongst them are that the Kenya Government valuer should disclose to a representative of the British farmers concerned the method of valuation which he is using; that a breakdown of figures should be given so that there is a fair opportunity for negotiation; that the valuer should give a single figure as his total valuation, and that this should be the amount of the offer; and that fresh offers should be made to those who have refused previous offers which they believed to be unreasonably low. I do not think that these are unreasonable recommendations, and I should like to know from the noble Lord when he replies whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make effective recommendations on these points before making available further finance, which is being provided by the British taxpayer.
There are two further matters to which I hope the noble Lord may be able to reply and of which I have given him advance notice. One concerns the third group of farmers that I mentioned earlier, the Settlement Board farmers. This country indeed has some special obligation here, more particularly so in that these men were directly encouraged to settle in Kenya after the last war by Her Majesty's Government—a Labour Government—and that, as tenants, they are in an even more vulnerable position than those who own their land and have at least some option over its disposal. These

593
farmers have contributed financially the years to the capital value of their farms, and they should be secured in their share of this capital in any future reconstruction which the Kenya Government may have in mind; and everyone coming under this British post-war settlement scheme should have the opportunity of realising his investment. This is a debt of honour which we cannot possibly ignore. Can the noble Lord reassure the House that these men will not be forgotten?
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will confirm what was stated in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development last August, that all those British farmers in Kenya who wish to realise their assets and leave will have the opportunity to do so during the last three years of the present Land Purchase Scheme.
My Lords, I have spoken at some length, but this is a complex subject to cover, and I trust that I have described, in however abbreviated a fashion, the salient points of what has become an unhappy situation. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take due note of the anxiety felt by many of us over possible further developments, and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that British nationals in Kenya will receive in future a fairer and a squarer deal over the sale of their land and other farming assets in Kenya.
3.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, for having raised this very serious matter before your Lordships to-day, and for having explained the difficulties and the problems arising out of the Land Purchase Programme in Kenya which, as the noble Lord has said, has certainly run into very considerable trouble. The noble Lord's extensive experience as a farmer in Kenya for so many years makes him an eminently suitable person to introduce this subject—which he has done with great objectivity—and I should certainly like to support him on the points which he has made. I was most distressed recently to learn of the arrest
594
over of these honourable men, these farmers, and of their deportation without money.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has himself referred to the report by Mr. Peter Trumper, which I think, as he says, is now in the hands of the Government As your Lordships may know, Mt. Trumper was instructed to examine the method of valuation used by Kenya Government valuers in pursuance of the Land Purchase Programme, and to give an opinion as to whether this method was equitable and consistent with the policy which was, after all, agreed between the British Government and the Kenya Government. The fact that Mr. Trumper was refused permission to meet the Kenya Government valuer is certainly distressing, and it is not surprising that this refusal led Mr. Trumper to the conclusion that the proceedings were not being conducted oil an entirely fair basis.
Mr. Trumper certainly gives good reasons for considering that the procedure falls short of the standards implied in the British Government's policy towards British settlers in Kenya, and it seems to have been less fair than the procedure which I understand was adopted in the million acre scheme. I gather, however, that in spite of these shortcomings the British settlers would have been willing to accept the present procedure if they had felt that they were being offered current market values; and I should particularly like to re-emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, that the farmers seem to be getting less than a fair deal both in terms of the procedures adopted and in terms of the offers made.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will look very closely at the recommendations contained in Mr. Trumper's report, particularly the recommendation that the Kenya Government's valuer should be instructed to meet a representative of the British farmers to discuss the method of valuation he is using and, if possible, reach agreement on a code of values to be used in the remainder of the programme. I hope that the noble Lord, although he is not in his place at the moment, will take note of what I am saying. It would certainly seem desirable also that the valuer should be instructed to give a breakdown figure in each case, in order to afford an opportunity for fair

595
negotiations. There would also seem to be considerable point in the valuer being instructed to give a single figure as his valuation, and that this should be the amount of the offer. It is, I believe, normal British practice that Government valuers should open negotiations by offering the figure which they believe to be right, and not a figure below it. It would also seem to make sense that fresh offers should be made to those who have so far refused offers which they believed to be unreasonably low. But I understand—and in this I think he has been very reasonable—that there would be no question of re-opening cases which have already been settled.
The noble Lord has made his case so well that there is nothing further that I think I need add, except to express sympathy for those who have suffered so severely in these circumstances. I ask the Government to give these matters their very serious consideration, and to take appropriate action in the form of positive representations on behalf of these farmers, whom we must not forget.
3.40 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Bessborough has said regarding the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood. I do not want to bring any emotion into the subject to-day, but I have been in a country which gained its independence, and I know what Europeans feel in such circumstances. They wish to associate themselves with the countries for which they have formerly been responsible, and they wish, in a very large number of cases, to participate in helping them along the road to their own self-government.
It has been my privilege to meet the gentlemen, all three of them, who were deported by the Kenya Government, and I listened to the story that they had to tell. What one tries to do in circumstances of that kind is to assess whether the people who are giving an account of an event through which they have passed are doing so dispassionately; whether they are telling the truth; and whether they are representative of a community which respected them. So far as I was concerned the three gentlemen fell into all those categories. I
596
think the House should know of some of the circumstances through which those men passed. I should like to emphasise, in giving a very brief story of the circumstances, that they were most respected members of the Kenya European community. They were elected representatives; they had decided to stay in Kenya and to assist the Kenya Government in farming matters; and they had got into some sort of negotiations with the Kenya Government in which there were differing points of view.
I do not wish to enlarge on what happened after that, but, to put it briefly, in the middle of the night these men were faced with armed guards and told to pack their bags. Some of them (I am repeating all this from memory; I made no notes) requested permission to get into touch with the British High Commissioner and to consult their lawyers, but they were told that there was no time for that. When it was pointed out that it was unreasonable to request that they should go so quickly, they were told that if they did not go then armed force would be used.
Such circumstances as those—which I think should be on record in your Lordships' House—constitute a matter which we all greatly deplore. I have sympathy with those in control of the Government of this country in these circumstances; and I have sympathy for the men concerned. But in their case I think that a great deal more than sympathy is necessary. I think that we should become more respected if we were to lodge a grave protest with the Kenya Government about what has occurred. We should point out to them that the British taxpayer is contributing something like £18 million to this fund; and that while this country wishes to co-operate with the Kenya Government and to do all we can to help, there are limits to the insults we will stand; there are limits to the insults our nationals can be expected to stand from people who are not honourable and straightforward with us. If only we could use our voice in that direction, I think we should gain far more respect in Kenya and in other parts of the world.
3.44 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I say that I recognise the sincerity and

597
interest of the noble Lord, Lord Wedge-wood, in raising this Question this afternoon. I think he puts his case with persuasion and moderation; and certainly what he said I undertake to consider further, after I have read in Hansard the exact terms that he used. I regret somewhat his initial sentences about the possibility of further expulsions from Kenya. The implications of what he said I thought were rather unfortunate. Certainly it is our hope that there will be no occasion for further expulsions—and certainly not by the methods used on this recent occasion. If I do not go further into this matter—although the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, dealt with it at some length—I hope it will be understood that it is simply because the terms of the Question did not relate to these incidents but to the question of land transference in Kenya, and, in particular, to the most recent scheme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, said, since 1961 there have been several schemes for the transfer of land in Kenya from European to African ownership. The British Government first provided £17¼ million for the so-called Million Acre Scheme. This was followed by a further £7 million to support other schemes. At the end of 1964, the new British Government agreed with the Kenya Government that the problems involved in land transference should be examined on the spot by an expert mission, which, as Lord Wedgwood said, was led by the Honourable Maxwell Stamp. After the report of this mission the British Government agreed in November 1965 that something over £6 million from an £18 million interest-free loan, should be used to finance the transfer of 100,000 acres a year for each of the following four years. It is this scheme about which the noble Lord now asks his questions.
The noble Lord is particularly concerned—as was the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—about the method of valuation; and this I understand. When the new scheme was discussed between the two Governments it was agreed that a joint United Kingdom/Kenya working party of professional valuers, under the impartial chairmanship of the valuation member of the Stamp Mission, should consider this aspect of the problem and make recommendations. The outcome of this examination was announced in the
598
House of Commons in August, 1966. The two Governments had agreed that the basis of valuation would be current market values as assessed by the professional valuers of the Kenya Lands Department. Purchases were to be as previously on a willing buyer/willing seller basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has suggested this afternoon that the valuer should be instructed to give a single figure for his valuation instead of a range of prices within which negotiations could take place. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, thought this was a reasonable proposal; but if that was done it would cut out the accepted principle of negotiation which they have agreed upon and I cannot see that this would necessarily assist the seller. The noble Lord also asks that the valuer should provide a breakdown of his figures. This would not be in accordance with the agreement reached between the British and Kenya Governments. Moreover, the valuations are now made known to the British High Commission so that they can satisfy themselves that the transaction is taking place in accordance with the agreed arrangements. I say that, although we regard the negotiations of individual purchases as primarily a matter between the farmer and the Kenya Government. Generally speaking, the purchase programme has proceeded satisfactorily and of 31 offers made 20 have been accepted.
Let me emphasise that the British Government have full confidence in the impartiality and professional integrity of the Kenya Government's valuers. We recognise that theirs is not an easy job, but we believe that they are, in accordance with the agreement reached between our two Governments, negotiating the purchase of these farms at what they have assessed to be current market prices. If in any instance—and no such case has arisen yet—the Agricultural Development Corporation as purchaser is not prepared to pay current market values so assessed, then the Agricultural Development Corporation is obliged under the agreement to refer that case to the British High Commission.
As the noble Lord has said, some farmers, dissatisfied with offers made to them, recently commissioned a professional valuer from Britain to investigate the situation on their behalf. The Kenya

599
Government raised no objection to this visit, although they refused to allow this private individual to discuss with the Kenya Lands Department the method and conduct of valuations. The attitude of the Kenya Government in this respect can be understood, for, as they say, their agreement was with the British Government and they were not prepared to discuss what had been agreed with any third party. The British High Commission at the time expressed the view that there was advantage in allowing Mr. Trumper, the valuer concerned, to see for himself the procedures that were followed from the standpoint of the Lands Department. We still believe that some of the difficulties might have been resolved if there could have been this discussion at a professional level. Nevertheless, the Kenya Government have not been prepared to vary their decision, but there is no reason to suppose that, if a representative of the British Government asked for a discussion of the scheme with the Kenya Government valuers at professional level, this would not be agreed. Moreover, discussions on the implementation of the scheme are continually taking place between the Kenya Government and the British Government.
The noble Lord has asked whether fresh offers can be made to those who have already refused offers. I think I am right in saying that the valuers are in all cases expatriate employees of the Kenya Government, British professional valuers. On the information available to us all valuations have been made in accordance with current market values arrived at by these qualified Kenya Government valuers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords—
LORD BESWICK: Under this scheme the farmers—
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has tried to intervene twice.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I think I am in order in asking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the fact that the figure of the valuations for the farm is not made known to the farmer is a considerable drawback in any subsequent negotiations over the sale of his
600
farm. Would the noble Lord agree with this?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly agree that if one is negotiating, it is always better to have the advantage of the full figures on which one's opponent, as it were, is basing his own side of the negotiations. But I would emphasise again here that if there is any claim of unfairness, the British High Commission, it is agreed, shall have the opportunity of seeing the figures and therefore judging for itself whether the particular valuation is on the basis of the agreed procedure. I was going on to say—I am sorry that I did not notice before that the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, wished to intervene—that under the scheme farmers who refuse an offer under the present programme are not ordinarily eligible for a further offer during the four-year period.
Maybe I can answer at this point another of the noble Lord's specific questions. He asked whether, under the Agricultural Settlement Trust, farmers should not all have the opportunity to realise their capital investment. The answer is that it has never been conceded by this Government or their predecessors that Agricultural Settlement Trust farmers had a valid claim to preferential treatment.
I was also asked whether I could confirm that all British farmers who wished to sell and leave Kenya will be able to do so. The noble Lord referred to the Statement made in another place. Mr. Oram's statement was, I understand, an "off the cuff" opinion given in answer to a supplementary question, and without up-to-date information. As he subsequently explained in a letter to Mr. Wall, the best possible estimate which could be made of the mixed farming acreage in the hands of British farmers at the commencement of the present programme was 800,000 acres. On the assumption that the land transfer programme goes as anticipated, some 400,000 to 500,000 acres will be bought out in the 1966–70 period. That is 400,000 acres under the new programme, and some 95,000 acres as the completion of the Million Acre Scheme. Of course, it is not known how many of the United Kingdom citizens will in fact choose to sell, but if towards the end of the current

601
programme problems still exist, there is provision for a further review of the situation.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to a Statement which I made in answer to a Question he put on June 20 about the purpose of the scheme, and he indicated that I had said that the scheme was for the benefit of the British farmers. It is true—and I do not complain of the noble Lord quoting this; he quoted it quite fairly—that I gave as my opinion that in the first place the possibility of enabling British farmers who wished to leave to realise their capital was a factor in the scheme. I said, I think, that that was the first and foremost priority. But having had the opportunity of further considering this point I have to say that I was going wrong in placing the emphasis in this way. Certainly the scheme we are now considering, this 400,000-acre scheme, could not possibly be justified to the British electorate as being a scheme to enable those who went to Kenya to realise their capital, and I must make clear that the 400,000-acre scheme is not designed to compensate British farmers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I never at any time used the word "compensate". It is I think a word which is generally in disuse these days.
LORD BESWICK: All right, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, is not using the word because it is not applicable, and he will therefore agree with me that the Scheme is not designed to compensate British farmers. Nor, of course, were the previous schemes. It is a programme directed at the development of Kenya's economy. The British Government are providing funds not only, and not primarily, for the benefit of their own citizens, but for the benefit of the economy of Kenya. For this reason it is necessary to ensure that the prices paid by the Kenya Government for European farmers' land are not excessive in terms of Kenya's economic potential.
Equally, I agree with the noble Lord that the prices must not be so low that a British farmer cannot willingly accept them. But the evidence suggests that this balance is being maintained, though there will always be arguments about figures in individual cases. Similar arguments,
602
after all, are not unknown in this country. In the last two seasons or so farming conditions have been favourable and profits satisfactory and thus there is clearly a possibility of farmers putting a higher value on their land than they would have done in, say, 1963 or 1964. But of course the farmer, if he does not like the price offered, is under no obligation to accept it.
My Lords I feel that the British Government, and the British taxpayer, can take some credit for generosity in their support of land transfer schemes in Kenya. Over the past few years they have provided, or undertaken to provide, some £30 million for this purpose in loans and grants. Equally, we should pay a tribute to the Kenya Government who are borrowing funds to buy out British farms and committing themselves to a large outflow of capital from Kenya. The noble Lord and his friends would be well advised to reflect that there is criticism in Kenya itself of this scheme. There are those in Kenya who argue that the prices paid for British farms, based as I say on valuation by expatriate valuers, are too high. Others increasingly argue that in Kenya's present circumstances a land transfer scheme of this nature is not the best way of using scarce development funds.
It has been to the substantial advantage of the British farming community as a whole that their interests and those of the Kenya people have so far coincided to the extent that the Kenya Government have felt able to pursue a programme of land transfer with funds made available by Her Majesty's Government for their development. I do urge the noble Lord to realise the need to be careful lest by excessive criticism of particular, priced paid we do arouse emotions—and land prices in Kenya, as noble Lords will know, have always been an emotional subject. The danger is that excessive criticism may lead the Kenya Government, forced by its own public opinion, to have second thoughts about this scheme. It would not be in the interests of farmers if we caused that Government either to drop the scheme altogether or to substitute something less satisfactory. So far as we are concerned, we support the 400,000-acre programme;

603
modifications may be made in it to ensure its more efficient implementation. Certainly I agree with that, and I say to the noble Lord that we are considering the Trumper report. There may well be points in it which we could usefully pursue with the Kenya Government. It is a private document; it has no official status. But, nevertheless, if there are criticisms that have an element of justification we are always ready to consider them. So with this readiness to consider any justifiable modification, I can say that our earnest hope is that the 400,000-acre scheme will successfully be implemented. I hope that nothing will be said here or elsewhere that will prejudice this hoped-for success.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, fore the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am in some difficulty. I asked him a question about the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary in another place that the scheme was designed to cover all those who wished to sell. Does the noble Lord now retract that statement? I understand that he has retracted to a certain extent what he said in your Lordships' House last time about the principal priority for the 400,000-acre scheme. I can understand the difficulty the noble Lord is in over that, but I should like to know whether he is also retracting the statement which was made in another place in August last year.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as my own answer to a supplementary question is concerned, I have said this afternoon that, having looked at this matter again, although there was an element of truth in what I said, I was wrong in placing the emphasis in the way I did in the first place. So far as the statement made in another place is concerned, I have carefully quoted what the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to Mr. Wall, and if the noble Lord would be good enough to see in Hansard to-morrow what I said, he will see how far this is a modification of the original undertaking.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to mention
604
in his speech that the present Kenya Government would not be prepared to receive a valuation under the Trumper report, but that they would accept any negotiation or contact with the British Government. Would it not be helpful if the British Government could suggest that somebody went to Kenya, particularly in view of that report?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that the words I actually used—I have to be careful about these words so that there may be no further retraction—were that we have no reason to suppose they would not allow a representative of the British Government to discuss this matter. That is one of the points which I think must be considered in the general consideration of the Trumper report.

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, yesterday, with Amendments.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES ETC.) BILL
Reported yesterday, with Amendments.