Lords Sitting of 15 June 1967

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

OFF-SET DOUBLE WHITE LINES AND ROAD SAFETY
3.6 p.m.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the accident rate on the A.1 road between approximately the end of the Stamford By-pass and Colsterworth has increased or diminished since off-set double white lines have been in use.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the annual rate of accidents on the section of the A.1 trunk road between Stamford By-pass and Colsterworth increased by 12 per cent. during the experiment with these lines. When allowance is made for increases in traffic, accidents were 6 per cent. higher than might have been expected had the experimental lines not been put down.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether it is not the case that the biggest increase in the number of accidents occurred when the markings were first laid down, and that since then accidents have tended to decrease, both in numbers and severity, despite the 5 per cent. increase in the volume of traffic? Also, would he agree that, although some publicity was given to the system when it was first put into operation, most of us have had to learn from experience how to use these lines?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, these experiments have been continuing since 1962, and we have found that in all the experimental areas there has been an increase of about 44 per cent. in the number of accidents since these lines were put down. The increase in the particular stretch to which the noble Lord has
1022
drawn our attention was in fact the lowest. I believe that the public have now had an opportunity to see whether this system gives increased safety on the roads, and it is the view of my right honourable friend and those who advise her in this matter that these lines do not help—in fact they increase the possibilities of accidents occurring—and therefore should be withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as I use this particular stretch of road perhaps a dozen times a month, may I ask whether it is contemplated removing these markings this summer? If so, is it not unwise, when the traffic is heaviest? Also, is it not the case that within a year there will be a dual carriageway on this stretch of road, and therefore from the point of view of cost any alteration might well wait until the dual carriageway is put down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no information before me as to when this dual carriageway will be open, nor when the completion of the work in regard to these particular lines is scheduled to take place, but I gather that work is in progress on other stretches of the road.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to this question of holiday traffic, because if work is going on along that road now that we are in full summer it will make extraordinary difficulties for traffic generally.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly will.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the experience has been in foreign countries where the double white line has been in use for a very long time? Has the accident rate gone up?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are not suggesting the removal of the double white line. What we are removing is what is called the off-set—that is, where there is a three-lane road and there is a double line on one of the lanes.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the experiments which have been carried out since 1962 with these off-set double white lines, traffic cones—more commonly known among the

1023
police as "ice creams"—have been used in any way to prevent accidents and to make people observe more closely than perhaps they otherwise would, the use of these double white lines?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it the danger of the system arises when one of the off-set lines is switched to the other side of the road. In other words, you have traffic moving fast in what is a double lane, and going through, and you have traffic coming through on the other side on a fast lane, and a collision occurs. I think this is where the dangers of the system have arisen. It is not a question of going from one lane into another.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could not these cones be used to prevent those accidents? Has that been tried? If it has not been tried so far, could it be tried?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend has decided that this system should be abolished. On the question of cones, I think there are cases where cones are useful, but I think it is right to say that when the weather is bad and visibility is poor these cones are not always particularly noticeable.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware how surprised many of us are to hear of this increased accident rate in connection with the off-set white line areas? In view of what my noble friend has said can he say whether any particular instructions are being given to the police, or requests made to various police forces, to ascertan whether there has been any increase in the number of prosecutions for dangerous driving, or anything of that description?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have a great deal of information, but that is one piece I have not with me.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the changeover is immediate, or whether it is a gradual curve over to the other side, and also whether there is any previous warning to the motorist that there is going to be a change of off-set?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have some 23 miles of these lines, so clearly we shall not be able to remove them overnight. It will be a continuing process and will be done as soon as possible, and certainly notification will be made on the roads for the benefit of the motorist.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I am referring to the present system. When you have an off-set line and it changes to the other side, does it change gradually with a curve, or is it an immediate changeover, and is there a previous warning?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is one of the more difficult questions. If the noble Lord will see me outside I will draw him a diagram. It would be far better than trying to give a description here.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that it is generally the view of motorists that these off-set lines have been a source of great danger, and that their removal will be greatly welcomed?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Perhaps, in view of the great interest in this and other matters, we might have a debate upon it in the new Session.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask whether or not, where there is now three-lane traffic, it will revert to two-lane traffic, particularly on hills?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, those systems are not in any way affected in this changeover.

CONTRACEPTIVE PILL: RUSSIAN DECISION
3.16 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Soviet Minister of Health, Dr. Petrovski, stated recently to a group of Western science journalists in Moscow, that he had decided not to allow the use of the contraceptive pill in the Soviet Union, because he was not satisfied that it does not carry risks to the mother.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the Minister of Health has seen the Press report of the meeting to which the noble Baroness refers, but has had no further detailed information. The report does not indicate that the Soviet Union decision is based on original research in that country. It is noted that Dr. Petrovski also stated that women can obtain abortions in the Soviet Union with little difficulty. The advice tendered to Her Majesty's Government on the use of oral contraceptives is based on experience gained by investigators in this and other countries where these preparations have been in use for a number of years and have been subject to careful tests.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister of Heath of the Soviet Union is an eminent doctor, and having regard to the fact that yesterday during our debate on technology tributes were paid to the research work of the Soviet Union, can we afford to ignore this decision of the Soviet Union? May I ask the noble Lord whether he has also read the latest information from the United States of America in which the University of Cleveland's medical centre, which has a big neurological unit, has said that a number of women suffering from migraine who have developed serious side effects of temporary blindness and permanent paralysis have been discovered to have been taking the contraceptive pill? Why,
1026
may I ask my noble friend, in view of the fact that there are alternative methods, intoduce this method into our clinics?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree with what the noble Baroness has said about the eminence of Dr. Petrovski in his field of medicine. On the other hand, it does seem from what he himself has said that he is relying upon reports, and indeed what he described as literature, from other countries when talking about the decision of the Soviet Union not to permit the use of oral contraceptives in that country. Moreover, it is fair also to assume from what he said that in that country the practice of abortion is relied upon rather more than the practice of contraception. As far as the second part of the noble Baroness's question is concerned, the existence of the report to which she called our attention is known, and the information in that report, together with other information acquired in other universities and from other experiments, is taken into account by the Committee on the Safety of Drugs.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I realise that my noble friend is a little out of his depth in this matter, but I am afraid he has been misinformed. I am being kind to my noble friend. I noted that he was rather hesitant; that is why I dared to say this. Is he aware that what Dr. Petrovski did say was that he, quite rightly, had read all the literature of other countries—and he is to be congratulated for that, not criticised—and that, having read the literature of all other countries, he found that in every country there were doctors of the highest eminence who would not approve the contraceptive pill? May I also ask my noble friend, on the point about abortion, whether he is aware that abortion on demand was refused in the Soviet Union many years ago, and their approach to abortion is similar to that to be embodied in the Bill which is shortly to come before your Lordships' House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I readily confess to my noble friend that, so far as the practice of taking this particular preparation is concerned, I am completely out of my depth. With regard to what Dr. Petrovski actually said, I read from the report of his speech, which

1027
I believe my noble friend has already seen:
"I study all the literature about the oral contraceptive question, and I note that there is not a single country in which oral contraceptives arc regarded as absolutely safe".
That, of course, is something which I have said repeatedly in this House. They are not absolutely safe, but the information of our Minister of Health's advisers is that the risk is not greater than that to which a woman going to full-term pregnancy is submitted. On the noble Lady's second point on abortion—and I agree again that I am not an expert—I am relying on what Dr. Petrovski said, and I quote:
"Women can obtain abortion here with little difficulty."
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I just repeat the other question: that of women and childbirth? Surely my noble friend will agree with me that there is no analogy between childbirth and contraception, because a woman may be pregnant only for 18 months of her life, but she may be taking contraceptives for 30 years of her life?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what my noble friend has said about the long-term effects of this preparation is, I think, absolutely unchallengeable. Although the risk to a woman taking the pill is, so far as thrombosis is concerned, only half that to which a woman is subject when she takes child-bearing to the full term, nevertheless it is a fact that we are, as yet, ignorant of what the effects of taking the drug over a period of 30 years may be. The Committee on the Safety of Drugs and the College of General Practitioners have this problem of toxicity much in mind, and it is hoped that a more careful study can be made of the long-term effects.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one question; namely, are we going to have the Soviet Minister of Health to advise us in this country, or our own Minister of Health?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should have thought, with all respect to my noble friend, that what we really want to do is to take into account all possible information upon what is a serious matter.

CONTRACEPTIVE PILL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LIABILITY
3.22 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the possibility of legal action for damages which might arise from the death of a woman who has been officially encouraged to use the contraceptive pill at a clinic conducted by a local authority.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am advised that legal action for damages against a local authority could arise only if the courts were satisfied that the death or injury to health of a woman was the direct result of administering the particular oral contraceptive and that the prescribing doctor had been guilty of negligence. This is equally true of other medical procedures. It is for the doctor advising the woman concerned to exercise his professional judgment in weighing the advantages of the use of the oral contraceptive against other risks that may be material in the circumstances of the particular case.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, do I understand from that Answer that all the responsibility is to be on the shoulders of the poor individual doctor, and that the Government are bearing no responsibility for this serious state?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should have thought that it was unfair to draw that conclusion. After all, a doctor who takes a decision to open up the body of a patient on the operating table has to take into account possible risks, and this he does having before him all the circumstances concerning the case. As I said earlier, and as I now say again in answer to this question it is a matter of weighing one risk against another.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how can he find any analogy with a doctor performing an operation? When a doctor opens a patient there is no alternative, obviously; but so far as contraceptives

1029
are concerned, there are many other alternatives.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if my noble friend wants to go into the details of this, may I say that we are talking about contraception and the efficiency of one method as against another. I absolutely agree with her about the doubt that may exist in the mind of any reasonable person about the long-term medical effects of taking this preparation. On the other hand, if we look at it as a contraceptive method, the fact is, I am advised, that it is over 99 per cent. effective, whereas in the case of one other modern mechanical device, there is a 3 per cent. failure rate, and in another modern method there is a 6 per cent. failure rate. So the question here is one of deciding whether you want to accept a slight additional risk of long-term effects, or whether you want an efficient contraceptive device.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government saying that it is a case in which the county council has no responsibility at all for advice given by the county medical officer? That is how I understood the original Answer. I should like to be clear about it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not quite so simple as the noble Lord is suggesting. In most of these matters it is a question of the action taken by the individual. Negligence would have to be proved against the individual. Whether he was acting under instructions which would bring in his employing authority is another matter.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if such a case did arise, would the cost of it be a charge on the council or a surcharge on councillors?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is it really possible for the noble Lord to give answers to these entirely hypothetical questions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. I think that the noble Lord is taking supposition to infinite lengths.

STATE VISITS OF KING HUSSEIN AND KING FAISAL
3.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the cost to the taxpayer of the State Visits of King Hussein in July 1966, and King Faisal in May 1967.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the cost of the State Visit of King Hussein in July, 1966, was £11,400. The cost of the State Visit of King Faisal this year is not yet known, but I would provisionally estimate a figure around £13,000.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while leaving the House to decide whether this money was or was not well spent, do Her Majesty's Government appreciate, by contrast, that since the State of Israel was born no single Israeli President has been invited to Britain on a State Visit? This is meant to be a constructive suggestion. Would it be not only good manners, but enlightened self-interest, when things have settled down a little that such an invitation might be extended?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure that the House would take the view that money that is spent on any State Visit by a Leader or Monarch of any country to this country is well spent, and to be welcomed. In regard to a possible visit by the President of Israel, of course I would not speculate at this moment, but the noble Lord will bear in mind that these State Visits are fairly rare occurrences. There may be one or two in a year, which means that they are spread out quite considerably throughout the world. Certainly, no reflection is intended on any country simply because there has been no State Visit from that country in recent years.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, perhaps this is not the right question to ask, but may I ask whether the Government are going to ask King Hussein for an explanation and, if not satisfactory—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF ARRAN: Hear, hear!

THE SUEZ CANAL
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I beg leave to !ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice; namely, whether they will make a Statement about the British subjects on board the four ships held in the Suez Canal, and what provision is being made to ensure their safety?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, my noble friend Lord Chalfont will reply to the noble Lord's Private Notice Question in perhaps 10 or 15 minutes time.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORA-TION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.30 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 Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transfer to regional water boards of functions of local water authorities]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved to insert at the beginning of subsection (1): "Subject to the provisions of this Act,". The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. They are purely drafting Amendments. Clauses 2 and 4, as drafted, provide for the transfer to regional water boards and to the Central Scotland Water Development Board of the functions of existing local water authorities. But the transfer of functions is not without exceptions. For example, Clause 29 provides that provisions of local enactments may be re-
1032
pealed if it appears to the Secretary of State that they are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Water (Scotland) Acts, including the Bill. Under this clause we shall, for example, repeal the financial provisions of the orders relating to the Loch Lomond and Loch Turret Schemes, since they will be superseded by the financial arrangements for the Central Scotland Water Development Board set out in Clauses 12 to 15. To the extent that provisions of local enactments are repealed under Clause 29 the functions of the existing local water authorities will be terminated and will not be transferred to the new water boards. For this reason the draftsman considers that the clause should reflect the later provisions of the Bill and that the qualifying words, "Subject to the provisions of this Act" should be inserted at the beginning of Clauses 2 and 4. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Act,").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transfer to Central Board of functions of certain joint water boards, and other functions of the Board]:
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Act,").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Maps of regions
".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as practicable after each regional water board established by virtue of section 1 of this Act comes into existence, send to the board a map of their region and shall, as soon as practicable after an order under section 5 of this Act relating to the region of a regional water board comes into operation, send to the board a map of the region as altered or, as the case may be, designated by the order.
(2) Any map sent to a regional water board under this section, except a map which has been superseded by a subsequent map sent there under, shall be kept at the principal office of the board; and the board shall provide reasonable facilities for the inspection of the map by any person wishing to inspect it, and for the taking of copies of, and extracts from the map.
(3) Any map sent as aforesaid shall be taken to be a document within the meaning of the Documentary Evidence Act 1868, as applied to the Secretary of State for Scotland."
The noble Lord said: The new clause requires the Secretary of State to send to each regional water board, as soon as practicable after they are established, a map of their region; a similar requirement applies in the case of a region designated, or altered by an order under Clause 5. The map is to be kept at the principal office of the board who are to provide facilities for its inspection and for the taking of copies of the map.
Clause 1(2) determines the region of each of the new regional water boards by reference to the limits of supply of the existing local water authorities. To a substantial extent the boundaries of the new regions will be existing county boundaries; but there are a number of instances in which this is not so and, accordingly, the definition of the regional boundaries in such cases depends on reference being made to the enactments concerned. When the new boards are established it will be necessary to settle precisely where the boundaries between the regions lie, and it would be useful to prepare definitive maps at that stage; and they will prove particularly useful when we come to consolidate the Water Acts. Furthermore, while it is unlikely that disputes will arise over boundaries as such, it is possible that in relation to the responsibility for supplying individual properties a dispute might arise about the precise line of a boundary and on whose side of the boundary the premises lay for supply purposes. In that event it would facilitate settlement—indeed, it would probably obviate such a dispute—if a certified map was available.
There is no need for a parallel requirement in relation to a water development board. Their area will comprise the constitutent regions, each of which will have its own regional map, and taken together these will define the water development board's area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
LORD SORENSEN: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SUEZ CANAL: DETENTION OF BRITISH SHIPS
3.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Four British ships are detained in the Great Bitter Lake together with several ships of other nationalities. There are 261 passengers and crew on board. I have seen reports in the Press that the United Arab Republic Foreign Minister has said that the Canal will remain closed so long as the Israelis are on the East Bank.
"The head of the United Arab Republic Interests Section in London has been summoned to the Foreign Office and told that it is intolerable that our ships should be detained in this way. We are working together with other Governments concerned and plans are being prepared for evacuation if necessary.
"Meanwhile, the Canadian Ambassador in Cairo who looks after British interests in the United Arab Republic, has told us that the passengers and crew on board the four ships are well. He is arranging for Consular officers of the Canadian Embassy and the British Interests Section to make contact with the ships. The shipping agents have told us that steps have been taken to provide the ships with food supplies." My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord very much for that helpful Statement, and also for the firmness of the protest which is being made by the Foreign Office to the United Arab Republic Interests Section in London? Would the Government consider asking the International Red Cross to assist in this matter in ensuring the safe passage of these people from the Canal by an overland route, if they so wish?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we shall take all steps to see that the evacuation of the passengers is conducted safely and with due regard to all their problems and difficulties. I think we first need to see what the United Arab Republic authorities' reply is to our protest, and then we shall have to make a decision in the light of that reply and the reports of our Consular officers. We will certainly bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must apologise for not being here when the noble Lord began his Statement; he rather took me by surprise. He sent me a copy of the Statement, and I know what he said. Since this set of circumstances is entirely due to the closure of the Suez Canal, may I ask the noble Lord what steps Her Majesty's Government are going to take, in the light of the statement reported in this morning's newspapers that the U.A.R. do not intend to reopen the Suez Canal while the Israelis are on the other bank?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for making the Statement in his absence; it is an unfamiliar circumstance for me to take him off his guard. In reply to his question, may I say that I think the question of whether, and how, and when the Suez Canal will be reopened may not be entirely a matter for the United Arab Republic. I understand that there are ships sunk in the Canal, and that the Canal is physically blocked. However, if these obstructions can be removed, then I think we shall obviously take any statement of that sort made by the United Arab Republic authorities or anyone else in the light of the legal position of the Suez Canal, which is that it is an international waterway, open to all ships going about their peaceful business.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, in the meantime would the noble Lord register on behalf of the House how grateful we are to the Canadian authorities for the work which they are doing on our behalf?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comment, and I shall see that it is represented in the proper quarters.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is possible at this stage to tell us more about the condition of the refugees?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend much more information about refugees at the moment. The refugee problem has always been a crucial one and an agonising one in the Middle East, and of course it has assumed greater proportions since the events of the last few weeks. We are keeping a very careful eye on this through the United Nations and other channels. I hope that we shall have a chance to discuss this whole problem later in your Lordships' House, but, of course, if any other information comes to us in the meantime I shall make it known to your Lordships and certainly to my noble friend.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that I have given Notice to the Government of a Motion to call attention to the World Refugee Problem with particular reference to the Middle East, which I believe is to be debated on June 28?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I understand that this has been arranged through the usual channels. I shall look forward to giving all the information I can then. But I also undertake to give any other information that comes in in the meantime.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the related subject of British nationals, diplomatic and otherwise, in the various Arab countries, and what their fate is at the moment? As he will be aware, there is a good deal of anxiety in this country about their position at the present time.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the United Arab Republic is concerned there is a good deal of information about

1037
the evacuation of British nationals and of the diplomatic staff. Perhaps I can give the detailed information separately to the noble Lord, as it is very complicated and goes into a great many facts and figures. Generally speaking, I think your Lordships would like to know that we believe that everyone who wants to be evacuated from the United Arab Republic has been evacuated. The number of people who have left is much smaller than we had expected. We rather thought that there would be something of the order of 1,000 people wanting to come out, but in fact with the facilities that we have supplied we so far have news of only about 400. But we believe that these are all the people who wanted to leave, and we have provided facilities for them to do so. Again, if we learn anything further about this I shall, of course, let your Lordships know.
LORD OAKSHOTT. My Lords, are those remaining in reasonably comfortable circumstances, so far as the noble Lord knows?
LORD CHALFONT. My Lords, so far as I know, any remaining are at least remaining under their own will and volition, and therefore, we assume in reasonably comfortable conditions.
VICOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any steps are being taken to remove the obstructions in the Suez Canal?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot, I fear, give a very definite answer to that question at the moment. We are not quite clear what the position is. We have reports of obstructions in the Canal, and of course we have heard it reported that the United Arab Republic does not intend to reopen the Canal except under certain conditions. I think the position is somewhat confused at the moment, and it will have to become very much clearer before I can say what, if anything, we can do about clearing the obstructions.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can make any statement about the arrangements which Her Majesty's Government have made to receive these British subjects who have been expelled from the United Arab Republic?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think we are now beginning to go very wide of the original statement on the Suez Canal. But I can assure the noble Lord that when these people return they will be very carefully looked after, and the experience which they have been through will be very much in the front of our minds.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD had given Notice of his intention to move to insert a new clause [Consultation with authorities in England] after Clause 6. The noble Lord said: Following that short interruption, and bearing in mind the nature of my Amendment, perhaps it is not inappropriate that I should say that the problems along the frontier between Scotland and England were for many centuries just as intransigent as those in the Middle East with which we are all too familiar to-day. But we have settled our differences and I hope that others will note and follow our example.
When I first read this Bill I was sorry to see that, while there is reference to consultation and collaboration between regional water boards in Scotland—that is in Clause 6—there appeared to be no reference to consultation between regional water boards adjoining the Border and the English river authorities on the other side of the Border. So I set to and drafted a new clause, which is based on a similar clause found in the Water Resources Act 1963. I felt that without some such clause this Bill would be sadly deficient.
I think it is curious how reluctant Departments always seem to be to provide co-operation across the Border—your Lordships will note that I now say "Border" and not "frontier"—when the advantages are so clear to the ordinary man. Furthermore, while in some cases provision for such co-operation may seem academic, in other cases, such as the planning of water resources, it seems only common sense that the catchment area of the Tweed, for example, on the East side should be considered as one and that the rivers flowing into the Solway, both from the North and the

1039
South on the West side, should again be considered as one.
A few days after I had drafted my Amendment I was delighted to to see that a similar Amendment appeared on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I take it as very flattering that many of the words which he used were exactly the same words as I had used in my Amendment. In these circumstances, and provided that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has not changed his mind in the interval and will signify that he does intend to move his Amendment, I beg leave not to move mine.
LORD HUGHES: I think it will be convenient if I speak to this Amendment and to the new clause which I propose in Amendment No. 9 to be inserted after Clause 28. I do not think that the relations between the two countries, to which the noble Lord so felicitously referred at the beginning of his remarks, really require this to be spelled out in so many words. We have long gone past the stage where co-operation of this kind, which is so very much required, as he said, in the interests of common sense, would not take place if it were not laid down. But the Amendment having been put down by the noble Lord, it seemed to the Government that it was perfectly sound that we should insert it, if for no other reason than—to use the old phrase—the avoidance of doubt.
There is nothing wrong with the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward, other than a very slight defect in the wording at the beginning. He has fallen into the error of assuming that it is the board which adjoins England, whereas it is not the board; it is its area. This is the only extent to which his Amendment is wrong. It would therefore have been quite churlish if, the Government having accepted the rightness of what he proposed, we had altered the Amendment in any place other than where it was strictly necessary. We do not believe in changing words needlessly. What he suggested was perfectly satisfactory when this particular defect was corrected. I do not know what particular purpose is served by placing it after Clause 28, as the Government suggest, rather than after Clause 6, as the noble Lord suggested—I am afraid that is one
1040
of the mysteries known only to the draftsmen—but I do not suppose the noble Lord is worried about where in the Bill it appears. I am grateful to him for submitting this Amendment, the principle of which I am happy to accept. I will in due course move—and I hope the Committee will accept—Amendment No. 9.
Clauses 7 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Transfer of officers and servants
20.—(1) Where all the functions of the authority have been transferred to one board, that board shall take over and employ, as from the second appointed day, any person, who immediately before that day was employed by the authority solely in connection with those functions, where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board on terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable than those on which he was employed by the authority immediately before that day.
3.51 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "solely" to insert "or mainly". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is simply designed to ensure that a person in the employ of one of the existing water undertakings who spends most, if not all, of his time on water functions should be entitled to insist on transfer to the appropriate regional board. There is no doubt that, in fairness to the employees concerned, this right to transfer should be given. It has certainly been given to the employees affected by the transfer to many large, new water undertakings in England and Wales. For instance, the Taf Fechan Water Board, set up for the area of 13 local authorities under an Order of 1964, was required to take over —and I quote:
"every officer or servant who immediately before the day of transfer is solely or mainly employed by an existing board or is employed by a transferring council solely or mainly in connection with the undertaking of that council"
so far as the persons concerned were willing to transfer to the board's employment. There are many other examples that could be given.
There is no reason to suppose that this will result in the over-staffing of regional boards. Indeed, on the information available to the men's trade union it seems

1041
likely that, even with the transfer provisions, a number of boards may find themselves in staffing difficulties, due either to employees preferring to remain with their former local authority employers or to the real need for further water officers. If the Amendment is not included, it must be recognised that there will be no safeguard against unfair discrimination. If a water board for some reason wished to select certain part-time officers for employment and reject others they would be fully entitled to do so. This is not the basis upon which such matters in other cases have been regulated in the past and it could result in real injustice to particular individuals. I commend this Amendment to my noble friend as fair and reasonable and I hope he will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, after ("solely") insert ("or mainly").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD HUGHES: It would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to reply to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7—although at this stage the noble Lord has spoken only to Amendment No. 5—without any prejudice to his rights to say what he wishes in moving Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I am sorry that I cannot accept for the Government any of the three Amendments which the noble Lord has put down; but I do not think there will be any ill-effects so far as the employees of the authorities are concerned.
The main effect of Amendments 5 and 7 would be to extend the mandatory requirements of the clause, relating to the employment of officers and servants of existing local water authorities, not only to those engaged solely in connection with water functions but also to those engaged "mainly" on such functions; and further to bring within the ambit of the clause the case where an officer's work is split between two or more boards. The clause, as drafted, requires a board to take into its employment any person who is willing to enter the board's employment and who was employed solely in connection with the water functions of an authority which are transferred to the board, immediately before the transfer. Subsection (1) provides for the case where all the authority's functions are transferred to one board (that is, for the vast majority of cases) and subsection (2) for the case
1042
where an authority's functions are transferred to more than one board (for example, in the case of Kincardine County). In either case the engagement must, so far as practicable, be on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which the person was employed by the authority before the transfer. These provisions represent a considerable advance on the clause as originally drafted. It was amended at Report stage in another place because the original proposals gave boards merely a permissive power to take into their employment any person who was employed soley or mainly in connection with the water functions of an authority which are transferred to the board.
The new boards will have different staffing arrangements from the local water authorities which they will replace. I must particularly draw to the attention of my noble friend the reason for the circumstances in this Bill differing from those to which he has referred as having taken place in England: we must remember the type of local authority and the resources available to a local authority in some parts of Scotland. In some of them, for instance, all the engineering functions of the local authority—for water supplies, roads, drainage, et cetera—are concentrated in a single department, whereas the board will want, at least in some cases, to have a whole-time engineer in charge of the whole region. Indeed, the engineer to a board must, unless the Secretary of State otherwise approves, be a whole-time employee, but any other employee may be engaged on a part-time basis if a board so wishes. Clause 25 enables a local authority to furnish administrative, technical or manual services to a board and some boards are likely to avail themselves of this provision.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to extend the mandatory provision to employees engaged "mainly" on water functions where all the functions of an authority have been transferred to one board. Amendment No. 7 seeks, in the case of functions transferred to more than one board, to place a duty on the boards not only to employ persons engaged solely in connection with functions transferred to one of the boards (as in subsection (2) of the clause) but also to require the boards concerned to arrange between them to take over staff employed in connection

1043
with functions transferred partly to one board and partly to another; any disputes under Clause 21 are to be determined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him. We in the Government think that mandatory requirements of this nature would be much too binding on the new boards, who must have some freedom to manage their own staffing arrangements, subject to suitable safeguards which strike a proper balance between what is right for the employee and what is best for the efficiency of the reorganised service and for the local government service as a whole. It would seem wrong, for instance, to require the new boards to take over officers whose duties were only 60 per cent. on water and who might, in the public interest, be better employed by remaining with a local authority's engineering department. The problem should be kept in perspective. About three-quarters of those engaged in the water service in Scotland are employed whole-time on these duties. Almost all of them will be covered by the clause as drafted. For the rest, we expect that there will be jobs for over 25 per cent. who are engaged part-time on water duties, should they wish to transfer. Should it prove impracticable to fit any of them into the new structure, they will, in accordance with the normal practice, be covered by the compensation arrangements provided for in Clause 24.
Amendment No. 6 would have the effect of requiring in every case that the terms and conditions of employment should be not less favourable than those on which the person was employed prior to the transfer of functions. This we accept as a general principle, but we cannot be certain that it would be possible for a board, with its new staffing structure, to achieve this to the letter in every case. The words, "so far as practicable" in the clause as drafted have no sinister meaning therefore, but have been inserted in order to avoid imposing a duty on a board which it might be unable to fulfil. In any event, we consider that the position of the officers in this matter is safeguarded by Clause 21, which provides for any disputes to be determined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him.
I would remind my noble friend that on a previous occasion when I was in charge of a Scottish Bill and he found it
1044
necessary to move Amendments of a somewhat similar kind, I was able to be a bit more forthcoming in that I accepted some of the Amendments he moved. I think that my noble friend would acquit the Government of any unwillingness in these matters and appreciate that it is merely a desire that the new boards should not be placed in an impossible administrative position which prevents us from accepting these Amendments. We are in complete agreement with the spirit which lies behind the tabling of them. I hope he will feel that what I have said is a clear enough indication that none of the employees will have anything to fear from the provisions of the Bill as they now stand; and that he will find it possible to withdraw Amendment No. 5 and not to proceed with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
4.3 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: I am obliged to my noble friend for his comprehensive reply to these Amendments. I think he strayed on to the last Amendment, which refers to an officer who may be employed by more than one local authority. May I point out, with respect, that Clause 21 will not apply to the officers on whose behalf this Amendment is moved? I will put it in this way. An officer who is employed mainly in dealing with water has no right of appeal. He is ruled out because the clause applies only to those solely engaged in that work. A person who is mainly employed, and who may perhaps do other work for only ten minutes during his office hours, is not solely employed. Therefore, as I read Clause 21, such a person has no right of appeal. The clause applies only to disputes which may arise concerning people who are solely employed, or to an officer whose activities relate to more than one of the water undertakings. I desire to be helpful as I am sure my noble friend does, but what I am asking for here has been provided in respect of dozens of these amalgamation schemes in this country. People will want to know why Scotland is being treated differently from England and why officers in Scotland are not having the same facilities afforded to them as are afforded to their colleagues in this country and in Wales. Is my noble friend prepared to meet the representatives of these men to see whether we can clear up the point at issue to the satisfaction of all concerned?
LORD HUGHES: The advice that I have been given is that Clause 21 would cover the people to whom my noble friend refers, but I have looked at the clause in the light of what he said, and I can understand why he feels as he does about the matter. If my noble friend is correct, if it should be that something further is necessary to safeguard the position of those to whom he refers, and if their right of appeal is in some doubt, I have no doubt that we should be willing to make proper provision. All we are concerned to do in this matter is to make certain that we are not placing on any water board a responsibility which it would be impossible for the board to discharge. It is not necessary to place the appeal rights of anyone in jeopardy in order to achieve that purpose. I should be very happy, if it proved the best way to deal with the matter, to meet representatives of the people concerned, because I have no doubt that we could satisfy them one way or the other that what they could legitimately expect would be carried out in this matter.
The simple answer to the question, why is Scotland different from England in this sense is that in Scotland a limited number of employees operate under conditions and in territory totally different from those in England. One of the reasons why we so frequently require separate legislation for Scotland is that the conditions in the two countries arc in some cases totally dissimilar. This is one such case. If the local authorities in the North of Scotland attempted to function as they do in the centre of Scotland, or as in the majority of cases in England, the cost of local government would be regarded by the ratepayers as being even more prohibitive than they now consider it.
LORD BURDEN: Do I understand that my noble friend will meet representatives and have this point out with them?
LORD HUGHES: I am quite happy to do so.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to my noble friend. May I remind him, although I am sure he does not need reminding, that local government staffs in Scotland were subjected to a salary or wage squeeze which affected 20,000 of them. They did not receive what was raid out to their English colleagues because, owing to the difference in dates,
1046
they were ruled out and prevented from receiving an increase. I wish to avoid a further feeling of injustice among the Scottish staffs arising out of this legislation. In the circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but if necessary I will put it down again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord, Lord Burden, intend to move Amendment No. 6?
LORD BURDEN: Yes. We wish to consider the reply because the words "so far as practicable" are of a far-reaching nature and may differ from the conditions that have been given in England and Wales. The usual form of words concerning the terms and conditions on which transferred employees are to be taken over is that the acquiring authority takes them—and this is the substance of it—" on terms and conditions not less favourable" than those on which they were employed before transfer. I would urge that this leaves the acquiring authority with a measure of flexibility, so long as the terms and conditions are not rendered less favourable. This is the right and proper answer in the interests of the employees. In the present clause, however, these words are qualified by the addition of the words "which, so far as practicable, are". It is believed that these words are directed substantially to the question of status, and I seek to have them omitted.
I readily admit that in a reorganisation such as is proposed by the present Bill there are bound to be many cases of loss of status, for example, chief officers of a number of small undertakings will necessarily no longer be chief officers. It has always been accepted by those representing staff interests that loss of status is unavoidable in any large-scale reorganisation and that it would be wholly unrealistic to endeavour to try to preserve status.
This problem of status is one which has arisen in many regroupings under the Water Act 1945, and it also came up in the reorganisation of London government and in other local government reorganisations, such as the large-scale proposals in the West Midlands Order 1965, and in the constitution of the new county

1047
boroughs of Tees-side, Torbay and Hartlepool. In none of these cases has it been considered that the terms and conditions include questions of status. If the words proposed to be omitted were intended simply to cover status, the matter could be deal with in on unobjectionable way by adopting a form of words similar to that contained in the Orders under the 1945 Water Act—for example, Section 20(2) of the Central Flintshire Water Board Order 1964, which is in the following terms:
"Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section the Board may employ any officer or servant who pursuant to the said subsection becomes an officer or servant of the Board in the discharge of such functions as they think proper and every such officer or servant shall perform such duties in relation to these functions as may be directed by the Board."
The provision for the determination of disputes contained in Clause 21 of the present Bill is by no means sufficient to avoid any detriment from the words "so far as practicable". The real objection to the words is that they could be applied far beyond questions of status and, for example, might be regarded as justifying a regional board in laying down strictly uniform terms and conditions of service applicable to all employees in particular categories which adopt something less than the highest common denominator of the terms and conditions on which those employees were transferred.
It may seem that I am stressing just a form of words but there is more in it than that, These words, "so far as practicable", give wide-open space authority to any board to do practically what it would like to do and then argue that it was only practicable to do that. This is a matter which can easily be remedied. If it is simply a question of status, we can meet the problem of the need for flexibility in the way in which we have got over this in dozens of instances. And this one is not so unique that we cannot for once take an example which long experience in these matters has brought into existence and which has given satisfaction both to the authorities and to the staffs concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 36, leave out ("which, so far as practicable, are").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD HUGHES: I have little to add to what I have already said, other than
1048
to remind the noble Lord that, while we accept the general principle to which he is speaking, we cannot be certain that it would be possible for a board in every case to achieve what it has in mind if we delete these words. I would remind the noble Lord that there are two safeguards for employees. The authority can take him over and employ him on similar functions, where he is willing to enter the employment of the board. If he is asked to go in under conditions which he does not think satisfactory, he does not have to go. He can stay with his former authority. That is his first safeguard. Obviously, every employee, before deciding whether or not to transfer to the new board, will wait and see where the greatest advantage lies.
Assuming that he wishes to transfer, as I imagine he will if he is to be engaged solely in connection with water functions, Clause 21 specifically protects the rights of such a person where it is not practicable to give him everything that he had with his previous authority. In the unlikely event of a local authority doing what my noble friend fears—namely, that they use the words "so far as practicable" to deprive some employee of a position which he could be given but for ill-will or sheer "cussedness", or for any other reason, he has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State or to an arbiter appointed by the Secretary of State to resolve the matter. In these circumstances, it does not seem that any individual has anything to fear from the operation of these words.
The omission of these words will not enable a water board to give conditions which it is not practicable to carry out. The noble Lord has said that by omitting these words he would expect things to operate as if the words remained. But with the words in the Bill, and given the safeguards in Clause 21, I think it is inconceivable—even having regard to the dispute over the freeze to which the noble Lord referred—that the NALGO employees in Scotland will assume that the Secretary of State is necessarily going to side with some wicked local authority that is seeking to deprive an employee of the rights which the Bill expects him to be given, and rights which he would have according to the principles which the Government accept without reservation. If it would help my noble friend, I am willing, if I am to be meeting those for whom he is

1049
speaking on the other matter, to discuss this with them also; and I am certain that it will not be too difficult to persuade them that their fears in this matter are not well-founded.
LORD BURDEN: I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he is prepared to include this on the agenda when he discusses the other matter with the representatives of the staff. But I want to say, quite bluntly, that from my point of view, I do not regard Clause 21 as all-embracing of the problems which may arise. However, as my noble friend has agreed to discuss it, I will not press the Amendment further, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from "more than one board" to the end of the subsection, and to insert:

"(a) any person employed by the authority immediately before the second appointed day solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards shall on that day (where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board) be taken over and employed by that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid;

(b) any person employed by the authority immediately before the second appointed day partly in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards and partly in connection with the functions transferred to another or others of such boards, shall on that day (where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board concerned) be taken over and employed on such terms and conditions as aforesaid by such of those boards as may be agreed between the boards to whom the functions of the authority have been transferred or in default of agreement determined under the next following section."

The noble Lord said: This is a tricky little Amendment. It relates to the situation where an officer, probably an outstanding officer, is not only employed by his own water authority but, in view of the fact that some of these water authorities are small in character, may be employed by two or three of them. On the strict reading of the clause which I seek to amend, a man so employed would not be eligible for employment by any of the boards, because he is not "solely" engaged by the authority whose staff is taken over; he is working for other authorities, as well. Therefore, it is a case of faulty drafting. I will not read out the Amendment, and if my
1050
noble friend is generously inclined and would include this matter in the discussions he is to have, I shall be happy to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("board") to end of line 45 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD HUGHES: I am quite certain that if I am meeting the people to whom my noble friend has referred on the first two items it would be beyond my power to prevent them from discussing the third one. I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite willing to listen to them and, if possible, agree with them.
LORD BURDEN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 27 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause:
Power of regional water boards and water development boards to promote or oppose private legislation
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a regional water board or a water development board (in this section referred to as "a board") may petition for the issue of a provisional order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 or oppose any private legislation in Parliament where they are satisfied that it is expedient so to do, and may defray the expenses incurred in relation thereto.
(2) A board shall not petition for the issue of a provisional order as aforesaid without the consent of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall not give such a consent unless he is satisfied that the powers sought by the proposed order cannot be obtained by means of an order under the Water (Scotland) Acts 1946 to 1967.
(3) An application for the consent of the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section shall be accompanied by a concise summary of the purposes of the proposed order.
(4) In this section "private legislation in Parliament" includes a provisional order, and the confirmation Bill relating thereto under the said Act of 1936, and any local or personal Bill."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that regional water boards and water development boards will have power to promote and oppose private legislation. The provision does not signify any widening of the functions of the boards or any extension

1051
of their duties. It is, however, needed to achieve consistency and uniformity in relation to the boards' powers. At present, some local water authorities have powers under local enactments to promote private legislation, and these powers will transfer to the new boards. Local water authorities which are local authorities can promote private legislation under powers conferred by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, but as these are not powers conferred on them as local water authorities they will not transfer to the new boards. It would be unsatisfactory for some of the new boards to have powers to promote private legislation and for others not to have such powers. We are working on the simple principle that it is easier to extend power to those who have it not than to try to take it away from those who have it at the present time, and uniformity is better served by giving them all these powers, although we think it may be that they will be required rarely. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I have already spoken to this Amendment on the Amendment submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
Consultation with authorities in England
(".—(1) Where a region adjoins any part of England, and it appears to the regional water board that there may be water in watercourses or underground strata in that part of England, or in the region, which could be transferred from that part of England to the region, or from the region to that part of England, as the case may be, the regional water hoard shall, in so far as they consider it appropriate to do so, consult with the river authorities and other appropriate authorities in that part of England with a view to securing the best use of that water in the public interest.
(2) In the foregoing subsection the reference to water in underground strata shall be construed as a reference to water contained in strata subjacent to the surface of any land otherwise than in a sewer, pipe, reservoir, tank or other underground works constructed in any such strata.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Short title and extent]:
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment is necessary because the Bill as it stands applies only to Scotland, but because of the Amendment which has just been made, No. 9, providing reciprocal arrangements with England, it must apply to England as well. The Amendment, therefore, in this particular instance extends the operation of the Bill beyond Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 20, after ("Act") insert ("(except paragraph 14B of Schedule 2)").— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Regional Water Boards and their Regions, and the Area of the Central Scotland Water Development Board]:
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, to leave out from the list of regions in the North of Scotland Water Board, "Kirk-wall Town Council, Lerwick Town Council, Orkney County Council, Stromness Town Council". The noble Earl said: I think it would be convenient to your Lordships if we were to discuss with this Amendment all the Amendments standing in my name and those of noble Lords associated with me, including Amendment No. 14 in the name of Lord Henley alone. The effect of my Amendments would be that the Orkney group of islands would have one water board and the Shetland group of islands would likewise have one separate water board. The effect of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, No. 14, which is an alternative, would be that these two groups, the Orkney group and the Shetland group, should be amalgamated under one board, a solution which the islanders would be prepared to accept if it is the best that the Government can offer, and if it would keep them separate from the mainland, although they would regard it as a very poor second best.
I cannot claim to have any extensive knowledge of Orkney and Shetland, but I can testify to the great vigilance and efficiency of the water authorities in Shetland. Just after the Germans had acquired control of Norway in the summer of 1940 I was stationed in a bog about 5 miles from Lerwick for about

1053
eight months. I had to construct a number of machine-gun emplacements, protected by sandbags, as part of the defences of the island against possible German invasion from Norway. Near to our camp there was a large and beautiful loch called the Sandy Loch, surrounded with bright yellow sand, and I hastily sent some men from my company to fill their sandbags with this beautiful stuff. But I soon received urgent representations from the Lerwick Water Authority that the Sandy Loch was their main reservoir, and that they themselves had put this sand all the way round it to purify the water supply. So I had to go further afield for my material.
In the 1950s I spent part of one General Election in Orkney and Shetland making a number of speeches, I am afraid I must confess, in support of the candidate who was opposing the present sitting Member for Orkney and Shetland. In spite of this serious handicap, he was elected by a comfortable majority, and I think he has been a very good Member. I have studied the debates on this Bill in another place with complete impartiality and it seems to me that the arguments which the Member for Orkney and Shetland has so consistently and valiantly advanced on behalf of his constituents in another place have not received the consideration which they deserve.
I want to keep this discussion short, and I do not want to make it necessary for Lord Hughes to explain all the details of the discussions which have been taking place in the past two or three months between St. Andrew's House and the North of Scotland local authorities, for these discussions have been almost as complex and almost as changeable in their daily results as the United Nations' discussions about the Middle Eastern war. One day you hear that everybody has agreed on some compromise; the next day you hear that this compromise has been rejected with indignation and contumely by everybody concerned. But there is one aspect of these discussions which I must stress. If I understand rightly what was said in another place by the Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, the Government were prepared to allow Orkney and Shetland to remain separate from the mainland on two conditions: one, that Orkney and
1054
Shetland agree to amalgamate—which they are still willing to do; and the other that Ross and Cromarty should amalgamate with Caithness and Sutherland. I understand that an agreement at one moment on all these proposals was arrived at, but it was rejected by the constituents of all the local authorities' representatives almost the day after it had been made.
However, if the Government were willing to allow that Orkney and Shetland in combination should be independent that is a good thing in itself. I think it is quite wrong that the arrangements for local administration in Scotland should be determined by territorial bargaining of this kind. I think we should try to insert what we believe to be the best solution. If the inhabitants and representatives of Orkney and Shetland are willing freely and without pressure to combine in one water board I think that Parliament certainly ought to allow them to do so, and I should be very glad to support Lord Henley's Amendment No. 14 in preference to my own. But I think the most sensible solution is that each of these island groups should have its own water board. I am in favour of a great deal of regionalism—and I know that most of your Lordships are, too—for many of our functions in local government, on grounds of convenience, efficiency and economy.
But what are the main advantages of regionalism? One is convenience and one is contiguity. There is no contiguity between Orkney and Shetland and the mainland. There are no possibilities of water being piped from one to the other, and they are far more separate in timing than they are in distance. If your Lordships were asked to agree to the amalgamation of Surrey and Yorkshire under one water authority you would think this a very absurd proposal; but it would not be so absurd as this which we are now discussing. It takes longer to get from Shetland to Caithness than it does to get from Surrey to Yorkshire—a great deal longer—and it is a great deal more expensive. The return aeroplane fare from Lerwick to Wick a few months ago was between £8 and £9. Since then I believe that B.E.A. have put up their fares by about 30 or 40 per cent. In order to get to a meeting of the Board, the combined Northern Board in Wick,

1055
it would be necessary for a representative from Shetland to spend no less than three days and two nights away from his home.
If any of your Lordships was a farmer, a shopkeeper, a business man or a professional man living in Shetland, and supposing you were told that you had got to leave your business and go away—even if your expenses were paid—for three whole days in order to attend one meeting of the water board in Wick, what would you say? As an efficient, industrious citizen you would say, "No, it is not good enough; I am not willing to give that kind of public service which makes it necessary for me to go off on this long absence and have this very long and trying journey for one meeting". And if you were not an industrious and efficient citizen you would not be, in my opinion, a suitable representative of Shetland on the combined water board.
The only advantage in economy, so far as I can see, to Orkney and Shetland from this amalgamation might be that they would be able to get a consultant engineer to come up without having to pay him so much as they would if they had to pay the whole cost themselves. But they do not want that; they have all the water they need. Some people think they have far too much; they have a very heavy rainfall indeed. Every-body, in both Orkney and Shetland, already has an adequate supply of water, with the exception in each group of a very small handful of islands whose combined total population is only a few hundreds, and I understand that plans are already in hand to bring water supplies to those small islands. In my view they would get no benefit from an amalgamation. They might, on the other hand, have to pay very much higher water rates, bearing part of the expense of water schemes in the mainland which do not affect them; and that, in my submission, would be unfair.
I hope that the Government will think again about this matter on grounds of justice, common sense, and geography—and, I would add, history, because the population of Orkney and Shetland has a Norse history and it differs in culture and tradition from that of the mainland in the Highlands. I hope the Government will agree to give to these islanders the self-determination which is
1056
unanimously desired by the whole population and by all their elected representatives. Under this Bill 13 water authorities are set up—which is not supposed to be a lucky number. I hope I may persuade your Lordships to support me in trying to raise the number to the much more propitious figure of 15 or at least 14. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, leave out lines 20 to 23.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: We are discussing all these Amendments together, although the arguments are slightly different. I sandwiched my Amendment No. 14 between the noble Earl's Amendments, Nos. 13 and 15, not because I think it provides a better alternative, because it clearly does not. It is an alternative which is regarded by the islanders very much as second best. Nevertheless, after the very long negotiations which have gone on up to now, the state of affairs is that Orkney and Shetland have agreed, if this suits the Scottish Office better, to go in as one board, rather than to go on pressing for two. So as not to make it appear that Orkney and Shetland might have gone back on the agreement they have reached at the present moment with the Scottish Office, I thought it better to put in this alternative Amendment. I do not think I mind any more than the noble Earl does which Amendments the Government choose, if they are willing to listen to either. But it seems to me that it makes no sense either administratively or, as the noble Earl argued, democratically, to have Orkney and Shetland in with Caithness in this new water authority.
I do not want to go over the arguments again. We put forward some of them on Second Reading in this House, they were also dealt with very extensively in another place, and they were dealt with in the meeting that took place at St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh. I do not want to go over all those arguments again, but it seems to me that it really is a nonsensical solution to put Orkney and Shetland in with Caithness. It does not even fulfil the criteria laid down in the Report as to the physical factors involved. I cannot help feeling that the Scottish Office themselves felt this, because of the length of the negotiations,

1057
and because, when the series of Amendments were pressed in another place, the movers of the Amendments were given as near as possible an undertaking that something would be changed in the later stages of the Bill—as near an undertaking as they could conceivably have had. For some reason or other the Minister in charge of the Bill has hardened his heart against it and decided not to move. I do not know why.
One is very loth to move exactly the same Amendments in this House as were argued at such length in another place, but I think there is justification for it on this occasion. I do not think that all the relevant factors have been properly considered; and, as I say, I think some of my honourable friends in another place who originally moved these Amendments were—I will not say "led up the garden path", but were led very much to suppose that further consideration would be given, and that in fact has not been done.
What I feel in the context of Orkney and Shetland going in with Caithness is this: because a thing is big it is not necessarily the best form of organisation. What you have in Orkney and Shetland are a large number of islands and a considerable number of very small water schemes; all the islands are separated by a lot of water, and there are very difficult transport problems. The noble Earl said a good deal about the democratic aspects of this; about the difficulty of getting people to attend meetings on the mainland, particularly when the authority is going to Caithness, with which Orkney and Shetland have almost no connection at all. I think such connection as they have with the North of Scotland is with Inverness or Aberdeen. With Caithness they have almost none at all; and one supposes that this is where the new authority will be.
I am not so concerned myself with the democratic aspects of this, because I think that with something like this they can take care of themselves. But so far as administration is concerned, I do not think it can take care of itself. We have this large number of islands—I admit not all of them inhabited—with a large number of very small schemes over a very wide area, and I do not necessarily think that you are going to administer them better, or indeed more cheaply, by administering them from Caithness,
1058
Caithness being the chief water authority. I know that Caithness is a very go-ahead water authority—probably one of the best in the whole of Scotland—but I do not know that it will be any better by having Orkney and Shetland tacked on to it; and I cannot see that Orkney and Shetland are going to be better by being tacked on to it. I feel there is a point sometimes that a small parish pump is the best pump, and it seems to me that this is so so far as Orkney and Shetland are concerned.
I rather like the aspect that Orkney and Shetland use some of their staff from different departments to do certain aspects of the work, even for water. I do not think that this is a bad thing at all. I think that in any small organisation you frequently have an arrangement, of necessity, where everybody has to turn his hand to almost everything else, and the small organisations are none the worse for that. And, as I say, this does not seem to me to be a disadvantage from the point of view of running the Orkney and Shetland water supply.
Again, arguments are put forward that if you have a very big set-up you do not need to engage consultants; you have your own staff of consultants. I have said before, in other contexts, that I think the reason why we are so short of professional advisers in almost every field of technical endeavour in this country is that too many set-ups try to have their own staff of technical experts, and I think this is very often extremely wasteful. The right way to make use of available technical professional advice in this country is very often to use consultants and to use other experts. I am sure that Orkney and Shetland will not be better off than they have been in the past, using the services of the best consultant engineers, by being part and parcel of a large set-up which feels it must have its own staff, when often this is quite unnecessary. One of the reasons which appealed to me why Orkney and Shetland should not go in with Caithness is that it may encourage Caithness to have a larger staff than it really needs.
I think that all these arguments about administration and the servicing of the Orkney and Shetland water supply have been fairly fully put forward. I do not want to say much more about them, except to repeat that what is proposed seems

1059
to me to make absolute nonsense. It would be very much easier to administer and service the Orkney and Shetland water supply by a small local set-up. It would be more effective from the point of view of the local democratic representation, although, as I have said, that side does not appeal to me very much because I think that very often it can take care of itself. But there is the aspect that the morale of a declining community—and this is what some of these islands are; and we are trying to make them better in this respect—is given another knock by the difficulty of trying to administer these affairs in the way proposed. As the noble Earl said, it would be almost impossible for elected representatives to go to the mainland for all these meetings.
Having said that, and having argued my Amendment at this stage, I hope that we may be able to withdraw all our Amendments if only the Government will say that they will look at this again. I know they will say that they have already studied it in Scotland as far as they can, but I do not think this meets the case. For the sake of bureaucratic tidiness an error of judgment is being made, and I strongly support Amendment No. 11, standing in the name of the noble Earl and his noble friends and myself.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: I have not joined my name to any Amendment, for obvious reasons. I made it clear on the Second Reading of the Bill that I personally and the people I really represent in this have no objection whatsoever to Orkney and Shetland having what they want; but we should have considerable objection if, where we are dealing with the Highland counties and with many more people, we were not allowed to carry on as set down in this Bill which, so far as we are concerned, is a very good one. Ross and Cromarty, of which I am particularly speaking, has a far greater population than Orkney and Shetland. We also have the largest island in the Hebrides—the Island of Lewis.
As I say, we should naturally like Orkney and Shetland to get what they want, provided that it will not alter the conditions laid down in the Bill which suit the mainland and the big Highland counties extremely well. There is one
1060
thing I should like to get clear in my mind, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can answer this. If by chance there was an alteration to the advantage of Orkney and Shetland, would it mean a re-hash of this Bill'? If so, we should object very strongly.
LORD HUGHES: If I may deal with the last question first, the noble Earl places me in a real difficulty. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said in his opening remarks, my honourable friend the Minister of State, in the very protracted discussions which we had with all the local authorities concerned, expressed willingness to have a board on Orkney and Shetland provided that the Northern counties on the mainland got together. But, as the noble Earl pointed out, this they flatly refused to do. Ross and Cromarty—and I do not think they are being unreasonable in this matter—feel that their territory at the present time is so very large that to add to it the other large territories of Caithness and Sutherland is not something with which they wish to live. Of all the authorities I think probably Caithness is the one which has been most accommodating. It has in fact been excedingly helpful.
I must go over a fair amount of what has been done, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was rather unfair to the Government when he said that he expected I would say that we had gone into this thoroughly, and he did not think that this had been done. He said that it was being done for "bureaucratic tidiness". In fact if the Government had spent as much time in discussion on every piece of legislation that has come forward as they have on this particular aspect of the Bill, the business of government would have been much interfered with. The Government have gone out of their way to try to find agreed solutions to this matter, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, between them have reiterated the main arguments which have been put forward by Orkney and Shetland throughout.
Some of these arguments are not nearly so good as the noble Lords would have us believe. In the first instance, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, implied, and the counties of Orkney and Shetland

1061
have stated, that the proposal is not consistent with the Water Advisory Committee's general principles that the boundaries of areas should be determined primarily by physical considerations. To argue in this way shows a failure to understand the philosophy underlying the Scottish Water Advisory Committee's Report. This is not something which the Government did out of bureaucratic tidiness; this is the suggestion of the Advisory Committee.
The Committee considered that there were far too many individual water authorities in Scotland, and that they must be drawn together in regional groupings. No one disputes that, but the problem is how the country should be divided into regions of a size suitable for efficient operation. Having reached broad conclusions on this, the Committee had to look at the precise boundaries, and it is at this point that the principle applies that the boundaries should be determined in relation to physical considerations. The Committee are saying, for example, that catchment areas should, as far as possible, not be divided. They say that it is better to draw a boundary between regions along the top of a mountain range rather than across the bottom of a valley. To anybody who reads the Report with care it is clear that the Committee never intended to mean that every mountain range and every stretch of sea should be a boundary of a region. If the principle followed by the Committee carried the implication which the authorities in Orkney and Shetland would like to place on it, it would not mean simply that Orkney and Shetland should not be combined in a region with part of the mainland; it would mean that these should be separate regions for the different islands in the Orkneys and in the Shetlands. They did not carry it to that conclusion because they have had to join together in the past.
The second point is that because of the physical separation of the islands from the rest of the proposed region amalgamation with the mainland would do nothing to improve supplies in the islands. Again this does not follow. It is of course true that we do not envisage a large-scale physical connection between the mainland and the islands by means of water supply pipes laid under the sea. But improvements do not come about only
1062
by connections of this sort. The Scottish Water Advisory Committee stressed that the purpose of the wider administrative unit they proposed was to strengthen the resources for the operation and maintenance of the water service in the region. In the same way, resources in other islands round the coast are strengthened by their links with the mainland, and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, referred to a case in point. When this was pointed out to the County Councils of Orkney and Shetland, their reaction was, "But the other islands have always been administered as part of mainland counties", So I think I am quite fair in drawing the conclusion that the argument for Orkney and Shetland is really for their complete inviolability. Their reaction is simply against change, and is not founded on any sort of principle.
The third point is that difficulties in communication would cause serious inconvenience, and the noble Earl referred to the air fare which perhaps would be involved. We recognise, of course, that the creation of larger regions in Scotland must involve more travel. It will happen in every one of them, and we appreciate that when one gets outside the central region the distances to be covered are often very considerable, and sometimes travel is not easy. It is probably the case that the greatest difficulties will be experienced in the North of Scotland region. Nevertheless, the difficulties seem to us to have been exaggerated. In another place, the honourable Member for Orkney and Shetland seemed to think that an engineer would have to fly from Wick every time a minor repair was needed in one of the islands. Of course this is not the case. The operation and maintenance of the water installations will continue to be undertaken by local staff. The senior staff of the Board and the members of the Board will of course have to travel between the islands and the mainland, but not very frequently. It is probable that once the Board have settled in they will not need to meet more than about once a quarter, and that meetings will be held in different places, such as Lerwick, Kirkwall and Wick, in rotation, to suit the convenience of members.
Then the question of cost was raised. This has been frequently mentioned by local authorities and others. The local authorities have not produced any figures

1063
to support this argument and it seems to us that it has been thrown in on the principle of throwing in everything, including the kitchen sink. The only figure which has been mentioned is that the domestic water rate in the landward area of Caithness, at 4s. 6d. in the pound, is the highest in Scotland.
The financing of these Highland water schemes is highly complex. There is no doubt that it is very expensive to provide piped water for sparsely scattered communities. It is because of this that all the county councils in the North of Scotland receive substantial grants towards new schemes under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts. The remainder of the capital cost, together with the running expenses, has to be met from local rates. It may interest your Lordships to know that if this balance of cost were met wholly by the consumers the domestic water rates in the landward areas of the four counties would be as follows: Sutherland 8s. 6d. in the pound, Caithness 1ls, Orkney 22s, Shetland 34s.—for water alone, if they were paying for it themselves as a domestic water rate. But there is an arrangement under the Water (Scotland) Act 1949 by which contributions towards water costs are made from the general county rates, and the effect of this is that a substantial part of the cost of water in these areas is met by other ratepayers who do not have a public water supply.
In addition, some of the costs are met by ratepayers in other parts of Scotland, through the operation of the rate support grant arrangements. This significantly reduces the domestic water rates in the North. Arrangements of this sort are continued and extended by the Bill. We accept that this is an essential thing in communities with resources such as these counties have. The arrangements are very flexible, and we think it is right that they should be, because the sensible thing is not to forgo the benefits of regionalisation by possible financial effects but to get the regions right, and to ensure that once this is done it is possible to make financial arrangements which provide a reasonable degree of equity and prevent any unreasonable degree of hardship.
Looked at generally, the objections to the proposals in the Bill are not solidly
1064
based, and little in the way of sound argument has been advanced in support of separate authorities for the islands. In fact, the case amounts to little more than a plea that the islands should be left on their own, and such objections as have been made are really all directed to this point: "We have always been separate and we want to continue being separate".
May I come to the grounds for combination? I may say that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suspected, the matter has been looked at very carefully. The noble Earl spoke of all the comings and goings and of frequent meetings and discussions taking place between the authorities concerned and the authorities and the Government. Noble Lords are aware of the fact that at the beginning of the year there was a change of departmental responsibility in the Scottish Office. I then took over direct responsibility for these matters. The present Minister of State formerly had responsibility. But these water proposals were so far advanced in consideration that it was a reasonable thing that my honourable friend, the Minister of State, should carry the thing through to its completion, particularly as a Bill was, in any event, to come before another place in the first instance and he would be handling it there. I therefore came directly into these matters only at a very late stage, and because of this I can assure your Lordships that I have gone very fully into the matter again, in my departmental responsibility, having regard to the fact that I should be speaking to it in this House. I have examined these objections and the attempts to reconcile interests which have in fact proved to be impossible of reconciliation.
We come back to the grounds which persuaded the Advisory Committee that this was the best way of creating the regions. It is not a criticism of the water service as it has been provided in the past, but rather it highlights the limitation of the engineering framework on which it is based. Most Highland county councils have built up sound engineering units to operate and maintain not only their water services but also other services, such as roads, drainage and sewerage. The units are headed by qualified engineers, but because of smaller populations in the Highland counties the number of technically qualified supporting staff is in no instance

1065
very large, and few of them are able to specialise on one service. Under the North of Scotland Board, as proposed in the Bill, a four-county combination would enable the staff available for the water service in that area to be strengthened. With the broader-based organisation the water engineer for the Board would probably be supported by one or two full-time qualified assistants for water, and this would enable him to carry out the design and supervision of most of the new works required in the region, and so to reduce the present dependence on consulting engineers.
It was implied, I think, at least by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this business of relying on consulting engineers was a good one and probably the cheapest way of doing the job. It will probably come as a surprise to him when I say that since the end of the war the four counties involved have spent a quarter of a million pounds on consulting engineers, and having regard to the resources of these counties that cannot be considered a small sum of money. On the other hand, the restrictions of size and rateable resources would make it difficult for either Orkney or Shetland to build up their staffing strength for design and construction work on their own. The population of Orkney is about 19,000 and of Shetland about 18,000, and, as stated in the Advisory Committee's Report:
"…if the resources for the operation and maintenance of the service in these counties are to be significantly strengthened, the local water authorities in them must become part of a wider administrative unit able to provide the skilled management and other facilities necessary for this purpose".
Another advantage, perhaps a minor one, which might be expected to derive from a four-county Board would be in buying stores in larger quantities, and the area as a whole would benefit from bulk buying arrangements and from being able to carry larger stocks of spares.
In conclusion I would say, as has been pointed out many times since the Bill was introduced, that piecemeal adjustments of boundaries cannot be agreed in isolation and without regard to their effect on the other authorities concerned. The Government have tried to reconcile the views of all the authorities in the North of Scotland region, and the discussions which have taken place with the local
1066
authorities have shown that the only practicable alternative to the Schedule 1 arrangement would be that canvassed by the Minister of State at his meeting with the authorities on March 31. That was: first, a Board comprising Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty; and second, a Board comprising Orkney and Shetland. It has, however, proved impossible to reach agreement with the authorities on such a compromise, and in the circumstances the Secretary of State has no alternative but to proceed with what he regards as the best possible combination in the wider public interest.
I come back to the point at which I started in replying to this discussion—the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. If the House carried this Amendment to make Orkney and Shetland, either separately or together, separate boards, would this mean going back to the combination of Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty? I do not know. Another place decided that in the absence of agreement the only safe thing to do was to adhere to the recommendations of the Water Advisory Committee. But if your Lordships, against the advice which I strongly tender to you, insert an Amendment of this kind, it is not impossible, although I must admit I think it is extremely unlikely, that another place would decide to reverse their judgment. But if they did decide to reverse their decision they might feel that the only way of doing it was to go on to the other combination. I should hope that they would not do that, but would rather adhere to the Bill as it stands, because it would merely be seeking to placate the unjustified objections of Orkney and Shetland by completely disregarding the much more soundly based objections of Ross and Cromarty. I therefore cannot advise the Committee to accept either of the Amendments proposed, a single board or two new boards.
5.11 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the manner in which he has dealt with this Amendment and the great detail into which he has gone. But what is at the back of my mind (and I do not think he has explained it, at any rate not so far as I understood him) is: what is wrong with the water supply to-day in Orkney and

1067
in Shetland? That is the first thing. Is it falling short of what it should be, or what is the situation? Then again, is it foreseen that anything is going to be done to benefit the people of Orkney and Shetland by way of a much superior water supply coming their way. If one had a clear indication of those things, I think it would help us a little. I know that the noble Lord has dealt with the matter generally and has put forward the view that has been expressed. Nevertheless, I wonder how much these people are going to benefit from an improved water supply as a result of what is proposed.
Turning to my other point, the noble Lord spoke of the enormous cost of water supply in such places as Orkney and Shetland. It is quite obvious that, with all these small islands, it must be a very expensive business. But, again, are the islanders going to benefit financially from all this? Will there be, under the proposed scheme, a spread of the total cost that will make the position in the Orkneys and Shetland better than it is at present? If the noble Lord, without going to great lengths, could satisfy us on these points I should be most grateful.
LORD HUGHES: I will endeavour in a few words to do what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asks. It is perfectly true that there is no immediate intention, or even a foreseeable intention, of greatly expanding the water supply in either the Orkney or the Shetland Islands. But the one thing that is quite certain is that with such a board any expansions or improvements as are necessary will be much more easily carried out by a four-county board than by either one or other of these boards doing it on their own—unless, of course, we accept that the intolerable expense of doing operations of this kind can be accepted on the basis that, at the end of the day, it is not Orkney or Shetland that has to face the bill, and that because of the grant arrangements, and particularly the rate support grant, the burden is in any event transferred to other parts of the country.
If we had not in fact found it necessary in past years to give exceptional support, not only to these Islands but also to the northern counties because of
1068
the paucity of their rating resources, they would not have had their present water supply, and probably would have been clamouring to be joined on to other authorities so that they should have that benefit. What they are seeking to do is to continue to have all the benefits of isolation without any of its disadvantages. Therefore, I do not suggest to the noble Lord that there is any expectation of large alterations in supplies taking place.
No one is in a better position than the noble Lord to know that when you are dealing with things buried under the ground you never know when a considerable bill will need to be faced. I have this situation at the present time. I am considering an application from a small water undertaking in the North to be allowed to go ahead with a scheme, even in anticipation of regionalisation taking place next year, because they have just discovered something which they did not know a year ago: that damage to their supplies was leading to a possible danger to public health through the contamination by the filtering into it of bog water, of what was in the beginning a pure water supply. They did not know of this until recently, but they have discovered it, and it has brought about a completely new situation which must be faced immediately. This is the sort of thing that is likely to happen, and a four-county authority will be in a better position to meet it.
It follows, therefore, that because of the eventual equalisation of charges over an area, Orkney and Shetland stand to gain at the expense of Caithness in this matter. This is why I said that Caithness was being extremely co-operative. They have nothing to gain financially from Orkney and Shetland being joined on to them, other than the sort of advantage which Orkney and Shetland will have of being able to employ their own skilled staff on the work, which in many cases will mean they will not need to have recourse to outside consultative advice. I would remind your Lordships of the figures that I quoted in this matter; and it is because of these things that it is likely that the local authorities will in due course have cheaper water than they otherwise would.
I do not think I can condense this matter any more. I doubt whether I could

1069
give much more information to the noble Lord if I were to elaborate on it much further. I really believe that there is advantage to all three of the authorities from this combination between the Islands and the mainland; and I am quite certain that, should your Lordships carry this Amendment the Government will not feel able to advise another place to accept it.
I have just been given a note with regard to the domestic water rates under the different regional water boards arrangement. If there were a board combining Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland, the domestic rate would be 4s. 9d. For Orkney and Shetland on their own, the domestic water rate would be 6s. 2d. With Orkney as a separate authority, the domestic water rate would he 5s. 2d. Taking Shetland as a separate authority, the domestic water rate would be 7s. 2d. So the immediate difference at the present time is that, as compared with the combined Orkney and Shetland Board, Orkney will be getting water at 1s. 5d. in the pound less in the four-county combination than in a two-county combination. Orkney will be getting it at 5d. less, and Shetland will be getting it at 2s. 5d. less than if there were two separate boards for Orkney and Shetland.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the noble Lord most sincerely for that further elucidation of the matter.
5.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think we have really threshed this argument out as far as possible. I should like to reiterate what my noble friend has just said, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that full explanation of his side of the story. It seems to me that we on this side of the House have failed to convince him, and I think that he in his turn has failed to convince us about this Bill. Common sense dictates that the two groups of Islands about which we are talking should be a separate entity under this Bill. All the evidence shows that their water supply systems work perfectly satisfactorily, that
they have excellent staffing facilities and that they can be operated on the spot. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says, there is a quite difficult problem of transport and communication, particularly from the Shetland group of Islands to the mainland, whether it be to Aberdeen, or to Wick, or wherever it may be.
A further point to be considered is that at the moment there are qualified engineers working in the Islands, and if these undertakings are amalgamated under the Bill there is a likelihood that such people will leave the Islands and go to the mainland. This would he a great pity and would certainly not help to solve the problem of the depopulation of the Islands, for unless there are opportunities for skilled and qualified people, it is difficult to keep the economy of these places operating. What we are arguing about here is the needs of the Islands, and to a certain extent what happens on the mainland is irrelevant.
I was glad to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is to some extent a protagonist of regionalism, as indeed I think are all your Lordships, but I believe that regionalism can be carried too far. I should like to end by quoting from the evidence given by the Institution of Municipal Engineers to the Water Advisory Committee:
"Where a county area is within a reasonably defined watershed and has ample resources within its boundaries, there appears to be no justification whatever to go outside these boundaries and to introduce regionalisation simply for the sake of creating a larger unit of authority. This would do nothing to improve efficiency and would only lead to dissatisfaction from the smaller areas who would not be able to command a very large representation on any hoard that may he formed"
I believe that that sums up our argument on this side of the House, and I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Atholl, D.

Carrington, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Boston, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Airedale, L.

Bradford, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Allerton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Daventry, V.

Ampthill, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Dilhorne, V.

Amulree, L.

Burton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Moyne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ilford, L.

Oakshott, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Inglewood, L.

Poulett, E.

Falkland, V.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Lambert, V.

St. Just, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Limerick, E.

Sandford, L.

Gage, V.

Lothian, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

MacAndrew, L.

Somers, L.

Grenfell, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hawke, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thurlow, L.

Headfort, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.[Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Huntingdon, E.

Rowley, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Royle, L.

Brockway, L.

Latham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E. [L. Privy Seal.]

Snow, L.

Citrine, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen, L.[Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stonham. L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move. On a point of explanation, perhaps it will save time if I say that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 13, but will allow the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, leave out line 27.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD HUGHES: I think I should also explain that I do not propose to carry to a Division Amendment No. 12 or Amendment No. 14. However, my objections to them remain just as strong as if I did divide on the matter.
LORD HENLEY: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 24, at end insert—

("10A. The Orkney and Zetland Water Board

Limits of supply of:— Kirkwall Town Council Orkney County Council Stromness Town Council Lerwick Town Council Zetland County Council")

—(Lord Henley.)

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Regional water boards and their regions, and the Area of the Central Scotland Water Development Board]:
LORD HUGHES: We now get back to the placid waters of drafting Amend-
1072
ments. These adaptations of provisions in the New Towns Act 1946 relating to water supply functions of local authorities are consequential on the provisions of the Bill transferring such functions to regional water boards. The Amendments do not derogate in any way from the existing powers of development corporations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, at end insert—
1946 c.68. (".In the New Towns Act 1946—

(a) in section 9 as read with section 25(11)—

(i) in subsection (1), the word "water" shall be omitted, and

(ii) in subsection (2), (3) and (4), after the words "local authority" wherever occurring there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the regional water board", and

(b) in section 25(23) after the expression "local authority" where first ocurring there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, a regional water board", and

(c) in section 26(1), there shall be inserted the following definition—

"regional water board" has the meaning assigned to it by section 31(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD HUGHES: This is a consequential Amendment to the Water Resources Act 1963, arising from the transfer of functions from local water authorities to

1073
regional water boards under the Bill. Section 127 of the Act deals with consultation between river authorities in England and local water authorities in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 22, at end insert—
(" 14B. In the Water Resources Act 1963, in section 127—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "local water authorities" there shall be substituted the words "regional water boards"; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from " " local water authority " " to "1946" there shall be substituted the words " " regional water board "and" river purification authority "have the meanings assigned to them respectively by section 31(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967".")—(Lord Hughes.)

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.36 p.m.
Read 3a(according to Order).
Clause 3:
Provision for arbitration.
3.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements whereby, in such circumstances and subject to such exceptions as may be provided by the arrangements, matters in respect of which agreement has not been reached in a committee after they have been considered by the committee in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act may be referred to arbitration in such manner as may he so provided.
(3) Any such arrangements may include provision for the appointment of arbiters by the Minister of Labour for the purposes of any reference under this section; and, where arbiters are so appointed, that Minister may pay to the arbiters such remuneration (whether by way of fees or otherwise) and such allowances as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, and may provide accommodation or other facilities required for the purposes of any such reference.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (3), after "appointment of arbiters by", to insert:
" the Lord President of the Court of Session from a panel appointed by ".
1074
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. If it is accepted, subsection (3) will read:
"Any such arrangements may include provision for the appointment of arbiters by the Lord President of the Court of Session from a panel appointed by the Minister of Labour for the purposes of any reference under this section ".
On almost all counts this measure has the general blessing of all concerned: the Government, the Opposition, the education authorities, the teachers' organisations and, I have no doubt, the Liberal Party as well.
The measure will establish a system of salary negotiations for teachers in Scotland that is recognised to be an advance on any which has existed so far. The fact that in future the Secretary of State will be represented in the negotiations themselves will undoubtedly give a much greater sense of importance and reality to those negotiations. The Bill recognises that it is not enough for the education authorities, who are technically the employers, to negotiate alone as the employers: the Secretary of State should also be represented, for he is not only responsible for finding the major share of the teachers' salaries, but is also responsible to Parliament for the whole educational system. On almost all counts there is agreement, but on one the organisation which represents the great majority of teachers in Scotland seems to hold a different view from that taken by those representing minorities, and from the education authorities and the Secretary of State.
What happens if agreement is not reached in the negotiations on salary scales? The Bill says that the Secretary of State is to make arrangements for arbitration. There can be no disagreement about that. But who is to appoint the arbiters? That is where the rub is. Some may think that, in relation to the changes made by the Bill as a whole, this is not a major point. But the Educational Institute of Scotland has all along maintained its opposition to the provision in the Bill that the Minister of Labour should appoint the arbiters. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, explained how this would be done. The chairman would be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the other two sides of the committee. The

1075
other two arbiters are to be appointed by the Minister of Labour, one from each of two panels of four or five persons considered suitable by the respective sides. But, if I understand the situation rightly, the Educational Institute do not want to nominate a panel; they prefer the present system whereby the Lord President appoints the arbiters.
The Government's viewpoint, as I understand it, is that while they are not prepared to find fault with the present method of appointing arbiters, so long as their function is merely to present agreed recommendations from the teachers and the educational authorities—recommendations which the Secretary of State is free to accept, reject or modify as he thinks fit—the Government do not think that for the system proposed in the Bill such a method of appointment is as apt as would be appointment by the Minister of Labour; because they say that in future, except in the circumstances indicated in Clause 4 of the Bill, whatever scales the arbiters determine will be binding upon the Secretary of State and the education authorities.
In short, my Lords, while the E.I.S. appear to attach a sort of mystical significance to the appointment of arbiters by the head of the judiciary in Scotland, the Government point out that the Minister of Labour has very much more experience of picking appropriate men and women to arbitrate on salary and wage differences; indeed, it is one of his principal functions in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It may be that a large proportion of the membership of the Educational Institute is not aware that there is available to any Minister of Labour a list of people of independent judgment and experience in salary as well as wage negotiations, and that there are people capable of exercising independent judgment and weighing the practical considerations involved in fixing salaries no less ably and no less impartially than the best of sheriffs and advocates.
However that may be, it is essential—and I think this will be generally agreed—that the arbiters should be appointed by and with the agreement of both sides. The question therefore is: cannot a formula be devised which will meet the points of view both of the E.I.S. and the rest of those concerned? The Secretary of State wants the Minister of Labour
1076
to appoint arbiters with experience of salary negotiations; the E.I.S. wants the Lord President to appoint the arbiters. Why, therefore, should not the statutory duty of appointing the panel be placed on the Minister of Labour, and that of appointing the arbiters from among that panel be placed on the Lord President? I dare say that this suggestion would not be so welcome, either to the Minister of Labour or to the Lord President, as the panel appointed by one or the other. I recognise that the Government may not have had time to consult the Lord President, but I am quite certain that the public spirit of the Lord President is such that he would be willing to carry out the duty that Parliament placed upon him, in spite of the slight change recommended in the Amendment. This is one of the suggestions that I made on Committee stage.
It may be that the Government are firmly determined that the method of appointing arbiters to settle differences arising in negotiations on the salaries of teachers in Scotland should be brought exactly into line with the method adopted for local authority and health service employees in Scotland and elsewhere in Britain. as well as for a host of other forms of remuneration. Clearly, in that case there would be no point in my pressing this Amendment; since even if we carried it here to-day the Government would certainly use their majority in another place to restore the provisions in the clause. My hope is that they will be satisfied to bring it broadly into line in a way that will meet the wishes of the E.I.S. It would be a great pity if the purposes of this Bill were frustrated through disagreement on this relatively minor point. I believe that this Amendment represents a compromise which will give both the Government and the E.I.S. what each seem to want. I am all for compromises that go as far as is possible and practicable to meet all points of view. For that reason, I beg to move my Amendment as the best possible compromise I can think of in the circumstances.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, after (" by ") insert (" the Lord President of the Court of Session from a panel appointed by ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has again put

1077
forward his proposals in a very constructive way, as he did at the last stage of the Bill, and I wish to thank him for yet another constructive attempt to secure a compromise settlement of the one major difficulty that remains unresolved between the E.I.S. and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I wish I could respond favourably to the noble Lord's renewed effort to find a solution that would command the acceptance of all the parties interested in the Bill's arbitration provisions, but because I am not satisfied that this would result from the Amendment I cannot accept it.
It may be that to the E.I.S. this solution would be more acceptable than the one in the Bill, because it goes a little way towards what they want. However, I must point out that if we accepted it we should have no guarantee that we should not run into strong opposition elsewhere—because none of the other teachers' associations (I admit freely that they are in a minority by comparison with the members of the E.I.S.; although, notwithstanding that, they have a strong point of view to express) has shared the concern expressed by the E.I.S. over the arbitration proposals. Furthermore, the local authority associations, which are the major part of the employers' side, at least from the representative point of view, and a substantial part, so far as payment is concerned, do not share the fears of the E.I.S. So there is no guarantee that if we were to accept this Amendment we should not find very strong representations being made from other quarters before the matter was considered once again in another place.
We do not think it would be a satisfactory solution to have the Lord President and the Minister of Labour sharing responsibility. In fact, unless we sacrifice some of the advantages which the present system confers on the teachers, we get a very complicated system indeed. As the noble Lord said, of the three arbiters one will be appointed from a panel chosen by the teachers; another will be appointed from a panel chosen by the employers, and the chairman will be appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with the other interests. But under the noble Lord's Amendment (though I do not expect that this is what he has in mind) the teachers and the authorities would be deprived of the
1078
opportunity of submitting nominations to the panel from which two of the members would be drawn. If the noble Lord intended this, it means, in fact, that the Lord President would choose three arbiters, one of whom would be chairman, from a panel chosen solely by the Minister of Labour. But, as I said, I do not think that that is what the noble Lord has in mind.
If I am right in so thinking, we then have this complicated position: that the Minister of Labour consults the teachers about one panel; he consults the local authorities about another panel; and he then draws up a third panel for the chairmanship and presents a complete list to the Lord President. Obviously, he cannot present it as one list because the Lord President might pick three people from one panel. He must, presumably, present three separate lists and say: "This is the panel for the teachers' representative this is the panel, which I endorse, chosen by the employers; and here is the third panel from which you should draw the chairman." I do not really think that, at the end of the day. this would be a satisfactory arrangement. Notwithstanding that. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has put this Amendment forward for, if it does nothing else, it at least demonstrates to the members of the Educational Institute of Scotland that in this House every possible consideration has been given to their point of view, even to examining proposals which have the merit of compromise, but which perhaps do not have much merit beyond that. I hope that the E.I.S. will realise that the suspicions which perhaps they had early on will prove to be completely unfounded.
I do not wish to repeat what has been said before, but nothing that has happened in the past in the system of arbitration by the Minister of Labour has been found unacceptable by successive Governments over many years. There is no reason to believe that when this system comes to be applied to teachers it will suffer from defects which have never crept into it before. I am quite certain that at the end of the day the teachers will—perhaps with reluctance—accept that they have a great deal to gain from this Bill and they will lose none of the advantages coming from it by accepting this part which at the moment they do

1079
not like. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept my profound thanks for his further attempt to present a compromise solution which would be acceptable to the Government and to the E.I.S.; but, for the reasons which I have stated, I cannot guarantee that it will be acceptable to everyone concerned. It certainly is not a solution which the Government favour, and therefore I ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
5.52 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for what he has said. As I said during the Committee stage we all want to give the Bill a fair wind and the full support of everyone. Unfortunately, that cannot be guaranteed. I had hoped that it might be possible, between now and the time when the Bill went back to another place to sound out all the parties on my suggestion. Then we could have seen what they thought about it. I did not envisage the complications suggested by the noble Lord; indeed, I doubt whether they would arise, because a list of independent people is a list of independent people—it does not matter whether one side or the other chooses that list.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords surely the noble Lord is overlooking the fact that the fundamental objection of the E.I.S. is that they do not trust the Minister of Labour to pick independent people.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords I think there is a subtle distinction, at least in the minds of the members of the E.I.S., between the preparation of a panel and the choosing of the arbiters. I should therefore not have been surprised had this Amendment been acceptable not only to the E.I.S. but to others. However, the noble Lord does not think that this would be acceptable to the other parties; and he has implied, though he did not say it—that the Government feel they must stand by the proposal in the Bill.
I fully agree that the proposal is in line with arrangements which exist in other fields. That being so, as I said when I introduced the Amendment, I do not think it would be right to force a Division on it. I have expressed one pos-
1080
sibility of reaching agreement which the noble Lord has not felt it possible to accept. The position now must be, as he says, that we can only hope that after further consideration the E.I.S. will think that the rest of the provisions in the Bill are worth a certain surrender of their point of view, and that they will agree with this provision for the appointment of arbiters. With that hope, and with some reluctance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill passed.

LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed and sent to the Commons.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designated Commonwealth countries and United Kingdom dependencies]:
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): This is a drafting Amendment occasioned by the fact that the Bill providing for the West Indian territories of Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla to be associated States has now received the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("of") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("the West Indies Act 1967").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.57 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, there is one question which perhaps it would be appropriate for me to ask at this stage. I understand that when the Bill becomes law it will be the intention of the Government to make a series of Orders designating all Commonwealth countries. I think it is common ground that we all hope that the work done on the revision of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 will result in broadly reciprocal arrangements being made between ourselves and all the countries of the Commonwealth. I should like to ask what the Government have in mind if it becomes clear that some Commonwealth country which we have designated is determined not to pass any reciprocal legislation, or indeed to grant us any reciprocal facilities for returning offenders in this country who are found to be in that country. I appreciate that under Clause 20 there is power to revoke an Order once it has been made, and I should like to know the Government's attitude towards reciprocity and what action they are likely to take if reciprocity in a particular instance turns out to be unobtainable.
LORD STONHAM: On Second Reading I told your Lordships that the intention of my right honourable friend was to make orders as soon as possible after the Bill was put on the Statute Book. The position will then be that we shall act in accordance with our own Act of Parliament. We hope that there will be reciprocity, but if the situation envisaged by the noble Lord arises we shall still act in accordance with this Act of Parliament.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I feel certain that we will continue to act in accordance with what Parliament has decided, but in Clause 20 Parliament is being asked to give power to reject orders made under Clause 2. I trust that the threat of doing that will be used if necessary to bring pressure to bear on any Commonwealth country which stubbornly refuses to return people who have committed crimes in this country and have taken refuge there. I appreciate that this is a hypothetical question, but I should like this view to be on record. I hope that
1082
if such a situation does arise the Government will share it.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
General restrictions on return
4.—(1) A person shall not be returned under this Act to a designated Commonwealth country, or committed to or kept in custody for the purposes of such return, if it appears to the Secretary of State, to the court of committal or to the High Court or High Court of Justiciary on an application for habeas corpus or for review of the order of committal—

(a) that the offence of which that person is accused or was convicted is an offence of a political character;

6.2 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to insert at the beginning: "Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act,": The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which refers to a point that was raised by me on Second Reading. Later in that debate the drafting of the Bill in this respect was further criticised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Simonds. It is a matter of particular regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simonds, cannot be with us to-day because he is ill. We all greatly hope, as he has taken such a keen interest in this Bill, that he may be able to attend and give us his views at its later stages.
My object in moving this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill says what it means. Prima facie, Clause 4 places absolute restrictions on the return of persons in certain circumstances. I believe that Clause 2(3) renders it possible for the United Kingdom to reach agreements and make orders which are not in accordance with Clause 4. Indeed, in winding up the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirmed that that was his reading of the Bill also. If that is right, it seems to me desirable that words should be introduced into Clause 4 to make it clear that in particular circumstances the restrictions in Clause 4 may be overriden by Orders under Clause 2(3). Surely there should be some warning words somewhere that the "exceptions, adaptations and modifications", mentioned in Clause 2(3), may be

1083
not merely fringe modifications but actual reversals of what Clause 4 says with all appearance of generality and universality.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act,")—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, reminded us, some difference of opinion was expressed on Second Reading as to whether Clause 2(3) applied to the whole Bill. I expressed the prima facie view that it did and that the noble Lord's reading of the clause was right. I have had the opportunity since of considering this point with the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen and of referring to the relevant authorities, and I am satisfied that this Amendment is unnecessary, because the whole Act will be subject to the provisions of Clause 2(3) to the extent that exceptions, adaptations and modifications—and they are not qualified in any way—may be made to any part of it by Orders in Council under this subsection.
The Committee will presumably accept that it is possible to make Orders in Council which
"substantially affect the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whether by altering its language, or increasing or limiting its extent or duration or otherwise".
These words were those used by First Parliamentary Counsel in evidence to the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation in 1953, to describe one of the types of Order in Council which ought to have Affirmative Resolutions. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill was introduced Orders were subject to Negative Resolution procedure and Sir John Hobson again used these words in another place in supporting an Amendment to make the Orders in Council subject to Affirmative Resolution. After consideration, the Government accepted that view.
Where something is unnecessary, it is always possible to argue that we might well put it in because it is not doing any harm, but the difficulty of inserting the words proposed in the Amendment at the beginning of Clause 4 is that they would then suggest to anybody who had to interpret the clause that Clause 2(3) did not apply to Clause 3, Clause 5 and
1084
other clauses, otherwise why did Parliament put at the beginning only of Clause 4 the words:
"subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section 20 of this Act "?
I feel that I can specifically advise the Committee that Clause 2(3) applies to the whole Bill, and that accordingly the Amendment proposed is unnecessary. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Lord may be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have far too great a respect for Parliamentary counsel to wish to pick a quarrel with them on their drafting of a Parliamentary Bill. Perhaps my moving of this Amendment and our short discussion of it may serve to show to later generations that Parliament knew what it was doing when it legislated in this way. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.8 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this Amendment, which would remove the prohibition in the Bill against the return of a person accused or convicted of an offence of a political character. Let me say at once that I put it down not with the intention of dividing on it, at any rate not at this stage of the Bill, but because I hope that it will be generally helpful to have the opportunity for a broad debate, without commitment, on this very difficult subject of political offenders and offences of a political character. It was referred to by most of the noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading debate, and I hope that there is a general desire to search for the best and most acceptable solution. I am well aware that the exclusion of political offences was contained in the draft proposals for the new fugitive offenders arrangements, which I was responsible for getting circulated to Commonwealth countries in 1964. But I confess at once that I can now see that it has more serious implications than were perceived at that time.
There is a prohibition against the return of political offenders to foreign countries in the Extradition Act of 1870. As regards Commonwealth countries, there

1085
is no such prohibition in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, no doubt because there was a great degree of political unity throughout the Empire at that time—a political unity which does not exist to the same extent in the Commonwealth of to-day.
If we import into the law relating to Commonwealth countries the ban on the return of people charged with political offences which the Extradition Act contains so far as foreign countries are concerned, what will be the effect of that in this country? A man who comes to this country when he is wanted in a Commonwealth country on a charge of conspiracy against, or organising secession against, or trying to subvert the lawful Government of that country will under this Bill not be returnable there. If he were unlikely to have a fair trial there, I think everybody would agree that he should not be returned. But that case is now going to be covered by paragraph (c) of subsection (1). That paragraph, it seems to me, removes the need for paragraph (a) in the circumstances I have described.
Paragraph (c) was not in the original draft of 1964, and it makes a considerable difference to the situation. Paragraph (c), may I remind your Lordships, vetoes return if a person
"might, if returned, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions."
This is something new, and it was devised at one of the conferences of Commonwealth Law Ministers.
If there has, in fact, been a dastardly plot to overthrow law and order in a Commonwealth country which is being responsibly administered by a Government freely and democratically elected, I am not at all sure that public opinion would be happy about our giving political asylum here to the conspirators. All these are difficult matters of judgment, where justice will depend on an infinite variety of circumstances. Paragraph (a), which I am moving to omit, may prove to be much too blunt an instrument for the securing of justice; and the securing of justice is, surely, our overriding aim. Whatever my feelings about the present Government, I cannot really believe that it would conduce to the public good if a man who tried and failed to murder
1086
the whole of the British Cabinet could then settle down in Ottawa, Canberra, Lagos, or where you will, in complete immunity, so long as he never returned to Britain. Yet that is what this Bill will bring about.
It is true that subsection (5) of this clause provides that an offence against the Queen should not be classed as a political offence. But what about other members of the Royal Family? What about Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries or other prominent political figures, who, like members of the Royal Family, are far more frequently travelling about in the world than were their predecessors in 1870 or 1881? I abhor to mention dreadful possibilities, but one must face them. Suppose there were an attempt made by some political fanatic on the life of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother when she was visiting a Commonwealth country. What would public opinion say of a law that offered political asylum to the would-be murderer if he could reach this country? Yet that is what I believe this Bill will do, if Clause (4) goes through unamended. I cannot see anything in that case that a man could be charged with in this country, except conceivably sedition; and I can hardly believe that a prosecution for sedition would succeed. Under the present law, the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, he could be sent straight back for trial to the country in which he committed the crime. This Bill would have the extraordinary effect of granting him political asylum here.
This country has a proud tradition for granting political asylum to fighters for freedom who might be oppressively treated if they had to go back to their own country. Surely, that is the crucial question which must be asked and answered before a wanted man is returned to his country: Would he get a fair trial, or would he be liable to unjust and oppressive prosecution and punishment because of his political opinions and actions?
I am inclined at this moment to think that, both from this Bill and from the Extradition Act 1870, we should now eliminate the blanket prohibition on the return of people charged with an offence of a political character—a prohibition even against their return to a country whose democratic political structure and

1087
whose courts of law attain the same high standards as our own. Instead, I believe we should enact in both measures—for the Commonwealth, that is, and the rest of the world alike—something on the lines of paragraph (c) of this subsection. I can see no other solution for this problem.
I have modified my views, I grant, since 1964, partly because at that time no provision on the lines of paragraph (c) had been proposed. I do not think it can be satisfactory to rest on the argument that in the last 80 or 100 years very few cases of alleged political offences have arisen and had to be considered. We must make the law sound: we must not rely on the bare hope that no future case will arise to expose its unsoundness.
I appreciate the Government's difficulty, in that Clause 4 of the Bill is really based on agreements reached with the other Commonwealth countries. I appreciate, also, what is in the European Convention on Extradition. I shall listen to all the views to be expressed on this Amendment with the keenest interest. But my present conviction is that the Government would be well advised to ask Parliament to pass this Bill now without the paragraph (c) that I am seeking to delete. Then the Government would do well to convene another conference of Commonwealth Law Ministers to consider further whether an absolute exclusion of all offences of a political character is needful or desirable, once it is established that no person is to be returned if, in the words at the foot of page 4 of the Bill,
"he might…be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The phrase in paragraph (a), "offence of a political character", is in one sense a rather curious one, because I think it would be hard ever to say that murder or causing grievous bodily harm are of themselves offences "of a political character". I
1088
think that is the phrase—I have not checked it—which is used in the Extradition Act 1870, and by that it is commonly understood that it is an offence committed for political purposes or with political motives. Nothing can be harder to determine than what are the motives which lie behind the commission of an offence. In some cases it may be clear, in others it is extremely difficult to establish, and there has never been any definition of what is meant by that. The courts, when they have had to consider it, have always been faced with great difficulties.
I think we ought to give careful consideration to the question before this House agrees to the inclusion of paragraph (a). It is true that ever since the Extradition Act of 1870 we have had this exception in relation to extradition; where it is shown to be a political offence we do not return the offender. What were the reasons for that? I do not quite know, and I do not think that any case has been made out for extending that exception to the Commonwealth, to which it has never applied up to now. Indeed, I think the time has come when one should give serious consideration to the retention of that exception in the Extradition Act 1870.
It was only just over a hundred years ago when there was an attempt on the life of the Emperor of France—a bomb outrage—and the conspiracy, was formed in this country. I refer to the Orsini case. Because it was impossible to deal with that case, a Bill was introduced into Parliament to make conspiracy to murder an offence triable in this country wherever it was intended to commit the murder. I looked at the speech made by Lord Palmerston in moving the Second Reading of that Bill on February 8, 1858. He said this in the course of his speech:
"The natural consequence of the fact that the parties who were immediately concerned in this diabolical attempt issued from this country, has been that foreign nations, ignorant of our peculiar laws and unacquainted with the spirit of our Constitution, have thought that there was an indifference in this country to the commission of crimes of an atrocious nature and that so far from entertaining those feelings which human nature must ever entertain with regard to such projects and such acts, on the contrary the people of England were disposed rather to look upon them with a feeling amounting almost to favour."

1089
I cannot help thinking that, should an offence of a political character, of a serious kind, be committed in a part of the Commonwealth, in which somebody may lose his life or is grievously injured, it might cause the greatest ill-feeling between that part of the Commonwealth and us if in fact we refused to return to the Commonwealth territory a person charged with the commission of that offence. I do not believe that public opinion in that Commonwealth territory would be in the least satisfied by our saying that in this year, 1967, we had passed an Act which prohibited us from returning to a Commonwealth territory a person charged with a serious offence if it was of a political character. That is what we are concerned with here.
It is not the question of getting back from a Commonwealth territory someone who has committed a crime in this country of a political character, although, of course, if there is reciprocal legislation that would arise. Under this particular clause is the question of our returning to a territory outside someone charged with the commission of a terrible offence, and our refusing to do so because we said that this was an offence of political character. I cannot think that that is right in these days. Whatever the origin of this exception was, I do not believe it should continue to exist, either in relation to extradition or in relation to sending a fugitive offender back to a Commonwealth territory. Certainly I do not think this exception should be extended to Commonwealth territories.
Surely, the criterion that one must look for, as I think my noble friend indicated, is the question whether or not on his return the accused person will stand a fair trial. As I see it, it will require a very heavy burden of proof, and should require a very heavy burden of proof, to satisfy the courts of this country, or the Home Secretary, that the person returned to a Commonwealth territory to stand his trial would not receive a fair trial. Surely, we ought to proceed upon the assumption that within the Commonwealth trials are fair; and that, I think, should be the only test which should be contained in Clause 4. There should be power to refuse to return, where it is not so. I do not think it would be easy to show it or that it will be shown at all often that the trial, if he was returned, would in certain respects be unfair.
1090
In this Amendment, we are dealing with the enlargement to the Commonwealth of the exception regarding offences of a political character contained in the Extradition Acts. That I am sure is wrong. I do not like—I say frankly—the provisions in paragraphs (b) and (c), because I think it is putting an intolerable burden on the courts to determine whether or not, although the offence for which the return is asked is clearly a criminal offence of a serious character, a request for the return is in fact made to punish the person, not for that offence but on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or to determine that he might be prejudiced at his trial by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
I do not quite see how that is going to be determined with any degree of precision. It seems to me to open a wide door for delaying procedure in the courts of this country, to delay the return of somebody whose return is sought, by allegations being made under one or two of these headings. But that is the position. That would require very careful investigation. It would be very difficult satisfactorily to investigate it, and I think it might well prove stultifying to the operation of this Bill.
One is faced with the fact—and I appreciate it—that this Bill emanates from a conference, I think, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and Law Officers from the Commonwealth attended. I am not sure—I do not know—to what extent they considered this question of any exception for political offenders. Maybe in trying to get our law of extradition in line with our law relating to fugitive offenders, it was just taken from the Extradition Act and put into this draft Bill. I shall listen with the greatest interest to what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, may say about it, but I think myself that this Bill would be very greatly improved if this provision were not in it.
I would not want to delay the Bill becoming an Act if that can be avoided. Perhaps it could be avoided within the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the earlier debate on this measure. After all, he could except by Order in Council this

1091
particular provision. The noble and learned Lord may say he does not wish to go back to the Commonwealth territories to get an alteration of Clause 4, as it has been agreed with all of them; but if he would say that he intends to seek their agreement to an Order in Council under Clause 2(3) not to apply paragraph (a), that will go a considerable way to meet the difficulties that I see in this case. I hope we can persuade the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that to retain this category is a retrograde step at the present moment, and indeed to apply it to Commonwealth territories is not really a step forward of any kind. I do not want to pursue the matter now, because I want to hear, with great interest, what the noble and learned Lord can say in support of the retention in operation of this provision.
6.31 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Committee have heard two very interesting speeches, from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on what is an important and not altogether easy subject. I think, in the first place, that there may well be a good deal to be said for the view expressed on Second Reading, that we ought now to have one law applicable both to foreign countries and to the Commonwealth. It is true that at the dates when these Acts were passed in the last century there were, on the one hand, a number of foreign countries which had, from our point of view, tyrannous régimes, and we afforded asylum to good democrats who wished to get away from them and did not wish to return there; whereas, of course, the Empire had the same law—or substantially the same law—in all its constituent parts and substantially the same system of justice, properly conducted. Now that many parts of the Commonwealth are independent countries, it does not follow that they will continue to maintain the same standards of justice which they have had in the past, and there is a good deal to be said for having some day one uniform law in this field which we should apply to all countries, whether foreign or parts of the Commonwealth.
On the question of what the law should be, the object of this Amendment,
1092
after all, is to propose in effect that, certainly for the Commonwealth, and I suppose, if we are to have the same law for foreign countries, in those countries too, we should give up the traditional right of asylum to those who come here claiming, when extradition proceedings are sought, that they are the victims, or may be the victims, of religious or political views. I think I ought to make it plain at once that, in the Government's view, the claim to be a political offender does not afford a blanket protection to persons who represent that criminal offences have a political purpose. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said in his judgment in the case of Schtraks:
"…not every person who commits an offence in the course of a political struggle is entitled to protection…so it appears to me that the motive and purpose of the accused in committing the offence must be relevant and may be decisive".
The clear basic purpose of Section 3 of the Extradition Act 1870 is to provide an unequivocal grant of political asylum in appropriate cases.
Prior to the passing of that Act it had not been the practice to include in the extradition treaties in operation before that date—and there were three—a provision precluding the return of political offenders. It appears, however, from the evidence presented to the Select Committee on Extradition in 1868 that, notwithstanding the absence of any such provision, the treaties operated to prevent the return of such offenders. In giving evidence before the Committee, the then Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office said:
"…it is always understood that persons charged with political offences should not be given up. Under our present treaties we should certainly not give up a person charged with a political crime."
It can very properly be said that a century of successful practice does not make this principle sacrosanct, but it is fair to point out that the absence of any provision in Extradition Acts precluding the return of political offenders had long given rise to considerable disquiet. Indeed, two important measures—a Bill designed to bring into operation a new convention with France in 1852, and a Bill introduced in 1864 to provide for extradition arrangements with Prussia—had eventually to be withdrawn because

1093
they failed to satisfy Parliament's fears for the safety of political offenders. Indeed, it became clear that no Extradition Bill could be assured of a safe passage through either House unless it included an express provision forbidding the return of political offenders. Thus it was that the Select Committee of 1868 felt bound to recommend such a provision for inclusion in any new measure, and when they came to prepare their Report they declared that the British Parliament and people would not tolerate any infringement of the traditions of political asylum; that it is the right of all to rebel against their Government, and that in the eyes of other nations such rebellion is not a crime.
And so the Act of 1870 enacted a complete prohibition of the surrender of persons accused or convicted of offences of a political character. What in fact the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble and learned Viscount, are challenging is whether that philosophy is still viable to-day. First, let me say that I would think it wrong to construe the words of the Committee as an advocacy of bloody revolution against freely elected Governments. They were sitting at a time when countries around us were still attaining true democracy after centuries of despotism, and their words were probably no more than acknowledgement of the fact that this could not always be achieved by constitutional means. My Lords, neither can it to-day. There are all too many countries of the world where political freedom, in the sense in which we know it, is denied, even, in some cases, after it had once been attained. All too frequently we learn of yet another coup d'état, possibly engineered with the highest motives, yet resulting in the suppression of political liberty, perhaps temporarily, perhaps not. And the countries of the Commonwealth have not been immune. There have been five coups d'état in independent Commonwealth countries since January last year—Nigeria, in January and July; Ghana, in February of last year; Uganda, in March; and Sierre Leone, in March of this year.
In the circumstances it is difficult to see that the situation to-day is so very different from that of the late 19th century, or to accept the contention that there is no longer any need to accord the same
1094
rights to political offenders as were accorded then.
I would venture to submit that the needs of 1967 are not manifestly different from those of 1868. One does not, after all, need to have a very long memory to recall the events of the autumn of 1956 in Hungary. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House would have been happy if this country had surrendered to the Government of Hungary a person accused of murder in connection with those events. Yet we have an extradition treaty with Hungary—one which had been invoked as recently as 1950—and that treaty extends to murder.
It is not surprising that the Council of Europe should have decided, as recently as 1957, that the time had certainly not come to relinquish the safeguards relating to political offenders when it came to drawing up the European Convention on Extradition. It is true that it was suggested at one stage during the negotiations on the Convention that surrender might be made discretionary, but the great majority of the participating countries, who had traditionally precluded the extradition of political offenders in their treaties, were not disposed to seek any relaxation of this principle, and in any event the Constitutions of France, Italy and the Federal German Republic expressly prohibited the return of political offenders. So they could not possibly agree to anything else.
There was, however, one respect in which Article 3 of the European Convention sought to limit the safeguards provided for political offenders: that was by providing specifically that the murder, or an attempt on the life, of a Head of State or a member of his family was not to be considered a political offence. This is the "attentat" clause, which has figured in much Continental extradition legislation, ever since the Belgians introduced it following a decision of their courts that two Frenchmen, who attempted in 1854 to cause an explosion on a railway line in order to assassinate the Emperor Louis Napoleon, could not be returned to France because their offence was one of a political character.
On at least two occasions recommendations have been made that this provision should be introduced into our own extradition law. The Select Committee

1095
in 1868 thought that a person accused of assassination, or of an attempt to assassinate, should not come within the exemption proposed for political offenders. And, again in 1878, a Royal Commission on Extradition suggested that an exception should be made for grievous political crimes such as assassination. The Governments of the day were not sympathetic, however, and neither recommendation was implemented. On the advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown in 1870 it was decided that it should be left to the courts to determine in every case whether the murder of a Sovereign was or was not, on the facts, a crime of a political character. As it happens, the absence of the "attentat" clause from our Extradition Act has not caused persons accused of attempts on the lives of heads of State to seek asylum here. There is no record of any such case in the 97 years of the operation of the Act. Nor is there any reason to assume that its absence from the Fugitive Offenders Bill will have any different effect.
But should such an offender come here, why should it not be left to the courts to consider whether or not the case is a political one? They have, of course, had to determine this in a number of cases, many of which I have read, and it does not appear to have caused our courts any insuperable difficulty. The murder of a Head of State is not necessarily an offence of a political character. Although such a crime would be deplorable, one can conceive that it might, on the rare occasion, constitute an upsurge of popular emotion against an oppressive régime. Such régimes, alas! still exist. Not long ago, I remember, we had a Head of State called Hitler. New ones may arise. In the Government's view, therefore, it is as difficult to-day as it was in 1870 to accept the view that there will never be an occasion when it would be right not to surrender a political murderer.
It is for these reasons and because we believe that our views still have the backing of public opinion that we urge that paragraph (a) should be retained in the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that, by mistake, the noble and learned Lord used the word "not" in his penultimate sentence. He said "not to surrender".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes: I did say, "not".
The noble and learned Viscount asked how this came to be put before the Commonwealth countries. This is what our law has always been since 1870. There is exactly the same clause in the European Convention on Extradition, and it came before the Commonwealth because in March, 1964—a period which the noble and learned Viscount will remember—proposals contained in a memorandum circulated by his Government were put before Commonwealth Governments. I give every credit to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, as being in fact the author. Part of that memorandum read as follows:
"It is therefore proposed that, subject to what is suggested below, the Agreement should contain a provision, comparable with those in the Extradition Act 1870, and in the European Convention of Extradition, prohibiting rendition for an offence of a political character."
When the present Government came into office they took up this good work. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had taken the view we have all taken: that whether it is desirable to have one Act referring to all countries or not, it was a matter of some urgency to get appropriate amendments made to the Fugitive Offenders Act so far as the Commonwealth was concerned. That is why it was taken up as to the Commonwealth, and this proposal of the previous Government was put before them.
That having been done, and there having been approval in Sydney, in August, 1965, of the idea that there should be a meeting to try to work out reciprocal arrangements; the document of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, having been before them and their agreement to it having been obtained; it having been published in the White Paper, and some countries—Australia, at least—having already enacted its own legislation based on the agreement made at the Conference, I very much fear that it is impossible now for the Government to seek to go back on that—and I would emphasise that, for the reasons which I shall venture to give, I think it would be wrong to do so.
If, from a Communist ship, Communist citizens when they arrive in this country want not to go back, and if some extradition proceedings are then started by

1097
the Communist country to get them back, there may well be the same need for protection to-day in certain cases as there has been in the past. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was particularly concerned about murder, but he will remember that we are now an abolitionist country and it has always been the practice of abolitionist countries to refuse to return somebody so that he may be hanged or guillotined or gas-chambered. And whereas it always used to be the other way round, this did not lead in practice to the abolitionist countries of Europe becoming dumping grounds for murderers, but they always insisted on being able to refuse to return to this country anyone we were going to hang. So there would be an additional reason why, in practice, it would be unlikely to arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has already said that he is not proposing to divide the Committee on this Amendment, but I would go further and express the hope that I have convinced him.
6.46 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: It is quite true that I said I was not proposing to divide the Committee on this Amendment, and I think all of us would like to study with care the speech that the noble and learned Lord has just been good enough to make. It was a closely argued speech, though I am bound to say that it did not carry full conviction to me. I can see, if we keep this clause un-amended, no protection against situations possibly arising which would be absolutely intolerable both to this country and, as likely as not, to the Commonwealth country concerned, unless we were saved by a court of law deciding that what had obviously been a political offence was not in law a political offence.
I do not think that the noble and learned Lord intended this, but certain words he used might be read as suggesting that I was wishing to undermine the traditional right of asylum in this country. That is not so. I feel most strongly that people should be able to count on political asylum in this country if the circumstances are such that they would be liable to be oppressively treated if they were to return to their own country. But I really think the time has come when we must recognise that although that still applies
1098
in some countries of the world, there are fewer such countries than there were in 1870 or 1881. I find it quite impossible to believe that in the case of a political murder committed in the United States of America we should assume that a man would be oppressively treated by the American courts if he were returned there.
My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne assisted me in my argument by citing the case of a Commonwealth Head of State or Prime Minister or prominent political figure, whose murderer, or would-be murderer, was afterwards found to be in this country. I think public opinion in this country would find it absolutely intolerable if somebody who had made a murderous attack on, let us say, the Prime Minister of India were found to be in this country and, because it was a political offence, nothing whatever could be done. I think that would be intolerable to the people of this country and even more intolerable to the people of India; and what the Government are proposing does not seem to me to offer any effective safeguard against that possibility.
Everybody realised in 1870, when many peoples were struggling or had successfully struggled to free themselves from oppressive autocracies or oligarchies, that it was more than likely that unsuccessful rebels might come to seek asylum in this country. Whether or not it has happened on a large scale in the hundred years since seems to me to be hardly relevant. The important point is that there should be effective provision in our law to enable them to be granted political asylum. But the reason for their deserving political asylum is not that they have murdered or attempted to murder somebody, but that, if they are returned to their country, the courts or the régime will be prejudiced against them and will see that they do not receive justice.
What, therefore, has been in my mind since I saw the White Paper is that the new provisions, now in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 4 might provide an effective criterion which would enable us to get out of dangerous situations in the future, while eliminating an overall prohibition against the return of political offenders. I am thinking aloud; I should like to throw out one suggestion. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that he saw some virtue in the idea, which I think I mentioned on

1099
Second Reading, of seeking to assimilate the fugitive offenders legislation and the extradition legislation.
As this in no sense arises from a difference of Party philosophy, but is a general problem which involves all Members of both Houses of Parliament, I should like to throw out the suggestion that useful work might be done by a Joint Select Committee on the whole question of rendition, in preparation for a single Bill, which would then replace whatever we are doing here and also what is contained in the 1870 Act. As I say, I am only thinking aloud. That may not be the best solution, but I am quite sure that there is work to be done and that it is Parliamentary work that has to be done. Meanwhile, I should like to consider further what the noble and learned Lord has said. I do not feel at all happy about this; nor do I believe that public opinion would feel happy if the implications were fully understood by the public.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to say a word in reply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I would thank him first of all for giving such a carefully considered and detailed reply to questions which he agrees are of importance and difficulty. I, too, want to study carefully what he has said. But I should like to make it clear that certainly I was not seeking to restrict or abolish the right to political asylum. The noble and learned Lord referred to Communists deserting Communist ships and staying here. I do not really think this arises in relation to this question, unless in an endeavour to bring them back some serious charge was preferred against them and then their extradition was sought. But in the ordinary way that would not be the case.
I feel great concern as to the consequences should we be asked to return someone who is wanted for a crime of the gravest nature and we refuse. It is all very well to talk about the situation in the last century, and how there may be dictators in the future as there have been in the past. What worries me—and I hope the noble and learned Lord will give more thought to this—is what would have been, for instance, the effect on Anglo-American relations if after the
1100
death of the late President Kennedy the man wanted for that murder had escaped to this country and we had said, as I think probably we would have been bound to say, that this was an offence of a political character. I do not believe that public opinion would have stood for our not returning him for one moment, or that American public opinion would have understood our not doing so. I give that as one instance; one can multiply it.
I do not believe that this legislation will be satisfactory until we have covered that kind of case and made it possible for a person accused of a crime of that character to be returned to a country where we are satisfied that he will obtain a fair trial. I do not want to press this to-day; indeed, I do not want to pursue it any further. But I hope that, just as I will study what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, he will also give further thought to this problem, on which there is no Party issue at all, but which may be, if we do not find the right answer, a source of very great friction in the future, which is what I want to avoid.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 13 agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 3 of British Nationality Act
".In subsection (1) of section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948 the words 'and (b) in the case of an act or omission in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act or in Eire, it would be an offence if the country in which the act is done or the omission made were a foreign country' are hereby repealed."
The noble said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Its effect would be to repeal certain words in subsection (1) of Section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948. Linked with this are two consequential Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9. My purpose in moving this new clause is to invite the Government's attention to

1101
the fact that this provision in the 1948 Act was agreed to by Parliament at the time, I believe, on the assumption that citizens of independent Commonwealth countries would continue to be returnable under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 to their own country if they were accused of offences connected with, for example, espionage. This will no longer be possible if persons accused of political offences, such as espionage, or offences against the Official Secrets Acts become, under this Bill, no longer returnable. What I am putting to the Government, therefore, is that certain words in the 1948 Act urgently need to be looked at afresh if the 1881 Act disappears and this Bi11 takes its place.
Before the British Nationality Act 1948, anyone who was believed guilty of an offence in an independent Commonwealth country of espionage against the United Kingdom or a breach of the United Kingdom Official Secrets Acts could be put on trial in the United Kingdom, it we could get hold of him. That is under Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and it still applies in the case of United Kingdom citizens or foreigners. But these particular words in the British Nationality Act 1948 removed such a man from United Kingdom jurisdiction if he was a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country. No doubt it was considered safe to do that because he was likely also to have committed an offence under the law either of his own country or of the country where the offence took place, and under the Fugitive Offenders Act he could be returned there to stand his trial. But in future he will not be returnable, and therefore he will not be triable anywhere.
On Second Reading I cited the imaginary case of two men, one a foreigner and the other an Australian, jointly suspected of having committed an offence in Australia against the United Kingdom Official Secrets Act 1911. Suppose subsequently they were both discovered to be in this country. The foreigner could be put on trial here, but the Australian could not, because he is protected by these particular words in the British Nationality Act 1948 from being tried here, and if this Bill becomes law he will in future be non-returnable to Australia. This is a complex matter which it is hard to explain with clarity,
1102
but I am sure that the provision in the 1948 Act demands early attention if this Bill goes through in its present form. That is the reason why I have tabled these Amendments, the first of which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The short answer to this Amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is quite right in the conclusions which he has drawn. He is quite right in saying that the British Nationality Act needs this, apart from any other revision. But the Government view is that the position is even more complex than the noble Lord has indicated, and they propose to undertake an early review of the provisions of the British Nationality Act. They think, however, that it would not be convenient to try to start doing that in the course of this Fugitive Offenders Bill.
The reasons for that are a little involved. The noble Lord and the Committee, I hope, will not mind if I take this fairly fast, because it will all be rather technical and it will be on the Record, and then can be studied, perhaps before the Report stage of the Bill. The Amendments would repeal Section 3(1)(b) of the British Nationality Act. Section 3(1) provides as follows:
"A British subject or citizen of Eire who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not be guilty of an offence against the laws of any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of any protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory by reason of anything done or omitted in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act or in Eire or in any foreign country, unless—

(a) the act or omission would be an offence if he were an alien; and

(b) in the case of an act or omission in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act or in Eire, it would be an offence if the country in which the act is done or the omission made were a foreign country;

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the contravention of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1948."
Subject to the exceptions which I shall presently mention, the broad effect of Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act is, so far as concerns prosecution in this country for offences committed abroad, to assimilate the position of citizens of the Republic of

1103
Ireland and British subjects who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies to that of aliens. (Citizens of the Republic of Ireland are not aliens; that flows from Section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949). For example, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act a British subject who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies cannot be prosecuted here for a murder committed abroad since an alien could not be prosecuted for such a murder. It should be noted that in relation to murder the proposed repeal of Section 3(1)(b) of the 1948 Act would make no difference to the law, since an alien may not be prosecuted here for a murder committed in either a foreign country or an independent Commonwealth country. It is otherwise in relation to certain security offences. This is where we become rather more complicated.
As to this, the law of treason is complicated by its relationship to the doctrine of allegiance. It is nowadays rarely invoked except in regard to acts done in time of war, and for practical purposes we are concerned with the Official Secrets Acts rather than with the law of treason. Ignoring, for the moment, the effect of the 1948 Act, under Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 an alien may be prosecuted here for an offence committed in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions but not for an offence committed in a foreign country; a British subject (or British officer) may be prosecuted here for an offence committed anywhere, whether within or outside Her Majesty's Dominions.
Because Section 10, rightly or wrongly in present day circumstances, enables an alien to be prosecuted here for an offence against our Official Secrets Acts if it was committed in an independent Commonwealth country but not if it was committed in a foreign country, the effect of Section 3(1)(b) of the 1948 Act is that, unlike the alien, the British subject who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies cannot be prosecuted here even if the offence was committed in an independent Commonwealth country. The odd result of it, as the noble Lord pointed out, is that if, for example, a Canadian citizen and a foreigner together committed acts of espionage in Canada, contrary to our Official Secrets Acts, the foreigner but not the Canadian would have committed
1104
an offence against United Kingdom law and, if they both came to this country, only the foreigner could be prosecuted here.
Section 3(1)(b) of the 1948 Act produces similar results in relation to a few other enactments making provision similar to that made by Section 10 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, but these enactments (for example, Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883) may rightly be regarded, in the context of the debate, as of less significance than the 1911 Act. It is, however, noteworthy that the 1911 Act and these other enactments all refer to "Her Majesty's Dominions" and were passed at a time when such a reference was a reference to the old Empire. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, took the view on Second Reading, and to-day, that the repeal of Section 3(1)(b) was enacted against the background of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, and that in the hypothetical Official Secrets Act case just discussed the Canadian might well have committed an offence against Canadian law, in which case he could have been returned to Canada, under the 1881 Act, to face trial. Under the present Bill he would no longer be returnable and the anomaly of his immunity from prosecution here should therefore be cured.
In summary, the Government agree that the matter must be looked at in the light of Commonwealth developments, but consider, for the following reasons, that the repeal of Section 3(1)(b) of the 1948 Act by the present Bill must be resisted, first, because the British Nationality Act 1948 was the result of extensive discussions within the Commonwealth. It has been on the Statute Book for almost twenty years and, notwithstanding the changes in the law relating to extradition within the Commonwealth, it could scarcely be proposed to repeal Section 3(1)(b) without first seeking the agreement of other independent Commonwealth Governments. This might be difficult to secure and would certainly not be secured quickly.
Secondly, section 3(1)(b) relates not only to independent Commonwealth countries but also to the Republic of Ireland. It would be difficult, now, to restore the position to that in which citizens of the Republic would be liable, under United

1105
Kingdom law, for acts done in the Republic of Ireland and (subject to consultations) it would seem arguable that any repeal of Section 3(1)(b) should be restricted to the words
"in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section 1 of this Act or";
And, thirdly, the repeal of Section 3(1)(b) would itself highlight what might, having regard to the development of the Commonwealth, be regarded as another anomaly.
Should a Commonwealth citizen, or for that matter an alien, be liable to be tried here for an offence committed in, say, Canada when he would be immune from prosecution here had he committed precisely the same act in the United States? While this question clearly demands an answer, it is such a fundamental one that, without prejudicing the ultimate answer, a decision could be reached only after extensive consultation and very careful consideration. In short, Section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1948 should not be amended without consultation with other interested countries, similar to that which preceded the Act, which would inevitably involve a review of the extra-territorial provisions of the Official Secrets Act. After all, this means our considerably enlarging our own criminal jurisdiction qua other countries.
Therefore, the noble Lord, by the later Amendment which he has put down in relation to the Title, appreciates clearly that the Amendment proposed would be one which was so alien to the present Bill as a whole that the Long Title would have to be altered, and that this would have to be done after the Bill has already passed another place. My right honourable friend would be the first to agree—I know that he does agree—that the British Nationality Act wants overhauling. He has it in train, but for the reasons which I venture to give we do not think that this Fugitive Offenders Bill is the appropriate place in which to start trying to amend some of the present anomalies in the British Nationality Act.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I hasten to assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government need not brace themselves to resist this Amendment. I never had the slightest intention of pressing it, and I shall shortly beg leave to
1106
withdraw it; but not before expressing my sincere thanks to the noble and learned Lord for the trouble he has taken over the matter. I think that it will be of general value that the facts of the situation, as well as the Government's approach to the problem, are now on the Record. I appreciated when moving the Amendment that the matter was a complicated one. I tried in my speech to reduce the issue to the simple essentials. I am gratified to find that I was on target, but I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that, if the British Nationality Act 1948 is to be reviewed by the Government in other respects, it is far better not to seek to make any amendment of it here. Therefore, having established the point that this Bill has some repercussion on that Act, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
7.15 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON moved to add to subsection (1):
"'race' includes tribe".
The noble Lord said: This is a small and, I hope, helpful addition to the definitions in the Bill. "Race" is a word that has many meanings, some of them good, some bad; some old, some new. All I want to do is to make sure that "race", where it occurs in Clause 4 of the Bill, does in fact include "tribe". It is obvious that every noble Lord here would not wish a person to be prejudiced or punished on account of his tribe, and that is all this Amendment seeks to meet. I would add that, contrary to all appearances, I am not a Government stooge, but I am a person of original if shallow mind.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, at end insert—(" 'race' includes tribe").—(Lord Mitchison.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government would advise the Committee to accept my noble friend's Amendment. The Bill as drafted was taken from Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition, and that, of course, was directed at inter-European extradition arrangements, where inter-tribal matters do not normally apply. There is, I think, a

1107
doubt about this. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "race" as including a reference to "a tribe", but it is open to some doubt. I know that the Commonwealth Office take the view that, on the ordinary common-sense view, tribes in certain parts of the Commonwealth could not properly be regarded as "a race". As the matter is open to doubt, it is desirable that it should be beyond doubt, and accordingly we are grateful to my noble friend for his Amendment.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Repeals and transitional provisions]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, this Act applies to offences committed before as well as after the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that after the new Fugitive Offenders Act has been brought into operation in relation to any country, and the Act of 1881 is thereby repealed, any new application made to this country for the return of a fugitive offender will be dealt with under the provisions of the new Act, notwithstanding that the offence in respect of which the application is made may have been committed at a time when the old Act was still in operation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"( ) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the reference to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 shall include a reference to this Act."
The noble Lord said: The effect of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 is to preclude the Commissioner from conducting an investigation into action taken by the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act 1870 or the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881. As was explained when the
1108
Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was before Parliament, it was thought right to exclude these matters since the aggrieved person will already have had access to the courts, and, in confirming a decision of the courts by ordering surrender, the Secretary of State is in any event acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The purpose of this Amendment is to achieve a similar result in respect of action taken under this Bill. Your Lordships may wonder why the Parliamentary Commissioner Act is being amended to refer to the Bill in addition to the Act of 1881 instead of in place of the Act of 1881. The reason is that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act may be invoked in respect of things done at any time in the past, and it is therefore necessary to continue to exclude action taken under the Act of 1881 from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. Furthermore, if this Amendment were not made it might be argued that, in consequence of the repeal by the Bill of the Act of 1881, a reference to the Bill had been substituted for the reference to the Act of 1881 in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, and that in consequence the prohibition which the Parliamentary Commissioner Act at present imposes on the investigation of action taken under the Act of 1881 had been removed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL [H.L.]
7.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The objects of the Bill are simple. Under the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922, arrangements were made whereby cottages could be provided

1109
in Ireland for ex-Servicemen of the 1914–18 war. With the erosion of time it has become clear that in order to make sure that the trustees are not inhibited from securing the greatest measure of benefit to those who qualify, additional powers are needed by them.
Subsection (1) enables the Trust to provide these men with accommodation other than cottages. Under the original Act, the trustees could house these men only in cottages. This they did, and to-day the Trust has 1,896 tenants in their cottages on both sides of the Border. Incidentally, 759 of these tenants are widows. The trustees must continue to look after these cottages and tenants as their main concern. But there are still some survivors of the First World War for whom cottages are not available or are not suitable. Cottages built for active young soldiers returning in 1918 and 1919 may not now be the best form of accommodation for men who have grown a great deal older. The Trust need the new power in order to deal with such cases, in so far as they have the funds. Old people's fiats are among the schemes they have in mind, and there will be other ways in which the Trust can assist these men with their accommodation.
Subsection (2) is needed because a number of widows want to buy the cottages which they now occupy as tenants. Hitherto, the Trust have been unable to oblige them since the expiry of the temporary power of sale given by the 1952 Act. Now that, with the passage of time, the waiting list of 1914–18 men has dwindled, the sale of cottages to widow occupants without restriction will be to everybody's advantage. The widows will secure the property for themselves and their families, while the Trust will add the purchase money to the funds they use to look after their remaining tenants, either in the old cottages or in the non-cottage accommodation which the subsection is giving them power to provide. To sum up, this Bill is short; its aims are simple and, I think, beneficial all round. The trustees need it. Their tenants want it. The ex-Service organisations support it. In fact, I can confidently recommend this Bill to your Lordships as a measure that will be welcomed in all quarters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bowles.)
7.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for his explanation of this Bill. But the fact remains that the question of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust is a somewhat rare visitor to Parliament, and as it is connected with public funds, it is one of the matters which I think ought occasionally to be debated. Therefore, I hope that the House will bear with me, and the noble Lord will forgive me, if I ask him a few questions about how this is going, other than those to which he has already provided the answers.
The first question that I should like to ask the noble Lord is whether he will be able to make available to Parliament a little more information than is at present available, at any rate to Members of your Lordships' House. When I wished to find the latest accounts of this Trust your Lordships' Library was not able to supply any. I do not say this in any way derogatorily of the Librarian, because he, with the greatest courtesy which he always displays, took me down to the Library of another place. But even that vast reference Library could produce nothing later than the accounts for the year ended March 31, 1958, which have on the front of them:
"Presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty."
They are, I believe, technically known as an Unprinted Command Paper, and that is the very last piece of information which is available in this building.
Since this is a statutory Trust, I think that we might know a little more about it. I know that the Chairman of this Trust is a gentleman to whom reference has just been made in connection with the previous Bill; in other words, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration himself. But I do not think that anywhere that I have been able to look there is available the names of the other trustees, although I think there are four others, two of them Irish.
Further than that, this seems to me to be a suitable moment to ask how the scheme for this Trust is working out. In 1922, when it was set up, it was a strict Trust, and it was there in order to provide housing for the veterans of the 1914–18 war—if I may use that transatlantic term. In due course it became

1111
apparent that amendments were required, and that was the root of the 1952 Act, as it became. That Act enabled the Trust to have wider powers to sell their houses. This was necessary because, by a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Eire in 1933, it was decided that, so far as the cottages South of the Border were concerned, there was no power in the Trust to charge any rent for them. This was because of a mistake in the drafting of Section 3 of the Act of 1922. On the other hand, the courts of Northern Ireland, for reasons which I do not exactly know, decided to the contrary and said that there was power to charge rent.
So the position is that since 1933 there has been no rent charged in Eire, but there has been rent charged in Northern Ireland; and in 1958 the rent that was charged, or at any rate should have been charged, because I think £139 of it was not paid, was £35,462. It is a considerable rent roll, and at that time there were rather more cottages belonging to the Trust than there are now, according to the figures given by the noble Lord to-day. Of course, the result of this was that it was impossible, or very difficult, for the cottages in the South to be maintained because there was no money coming in. So a scheme was put forward and incorporated in the 1952 Act, that these cottages could be sold to the sitting tenants, or to the widows, within a certain length of time, and the money used to build new cottages. I believe this was done because if I again look at the latest accounts which I have, they show that during that year 158 cottages were sold, and that since the purchase scheme started 580 of them in the South had been sold off. I have no record of how many were sold in the North of Ireland and it might be interesting to know that.
How is this going to proceed? First of all, are there plans to go ahead and sell more of these cottages—I believe the noble Lord said that there were—and, if so, what is to be done with the money? Is the Trust going on indefinitely applying the money from these sales to building new accommodation only for those who served in the 1914–18 War and their widows, or is the time now coming—it had not been reached in 1952 but it may
1112
have been now, 15 years later—when those soldiers and sailors and, I should have thought, airmen who served in the 1939–45 War might become eligible?
Again, if one looks at the 1958 accounts, there were investments in this Trust amounting to something in the region of £250,000, and I daresay that that could provide quite a number of houses. Also, unless I have read the accounts wrongly, which is very probable, there was in the reserve account something over £200,000. So there is quite a lot of public money involved, or there was at that time, and it would be very interesting for Parliament to know how the trustees propose under this new Bill—and of course I entirely approve of the flexibility which is being given to them in it—to spend the rest of this money. Is the Trust going to be self-liquidating in the end? Is it the intention to sell the houses which are already up and to use the money realised to build new ones?—with the result, no doubt, that less money will be acquired for each old house than it costs to build a new one, so that in due course the fund will run down. Or is it intended that there shall be retained these, to my mind, fairly large reserves for an almost indefinite period? This is the moment, perhaps, when the noble Lord could tell us about this. He said that the waiting list was small. But how many people are there, in fact, still on it, some fifty years from the end of the war concerned, who have still not got cottages under this Trust scheme in either the North or the South of Ireland?
There is one other question I should like to ask the noble Lord. He said that there had been consultations with the organisations representing those who live in these cottages. I should think he means the British Legion in Northern Ireland and in Eire; because it is essential that they who are the main beneficiaries of the Trust should be consulted. But I remember, when I read the debate on the 1952 Bill, seeing that that measure was not introduced without the agreement of the Government of Eire and the Government of Northern Ireland. Have those two Governments been consulted in this case? If so, do they agree with the provisions of this Bill? I think those are some of the relevant question which might be asked. If the noble Lord could

1113
give us the answer to them, I am sure it would be very useful. Furthermore, I think it would be even more useful to Members of this House if, before we reach the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord were in a position to supply some more up-to-date accounts and any other information relating to this Report so that we can study the progress of this scheme.
7.33 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Viscount. As regards the question of the accounts, which is the question he raised first, presentation to Parliament before 1958 was made by mistake. These are not public accounts and the law does not require them to be presented to Parliament. Treasury regulations which govern the procedure of the Trust require the trustees (a) to keep proper accounts, (b) to have them audited, and (c) to send a copy each year to the Treasury and to the Secretary of State. This has been regularly done and copies of the most recent accounts, those for the year ending March 31, 1966, I have in my hand. I will show that to the noble Viscount if he would like me to do so.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that I am specially privileged in this? I daresay it was presented by mistake; but there is quite a lot of money involved and I think it should not be only myself who has that honour.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think as is the case with the accounts of any charity, any noble Lord or any member of the public who wants to look at the accounts can go to the appropriate Charity commissioner—I am not certain about this; but I think that is the position—and see the accounts of the charity. Charities do not publish their accounts. The noble Viscount knows this. They are available, just as are the shareholdings of a public company. People can go along, pay their shilling or so to see the accounts or the shareholdings, how much each shareholder has, and so on.
The last question the noble Viscount asked is one that I can answer. Both the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland have been consulted. I have here the names of the other four trustees, which will interest the noble Viscount—par-
1114
ticularly as some are Members of this House. Three of them are appointed by the Secretary of State. They include the Chairman, Sir Edmund Compton, who, as the noble Viscount knows, is the Parliamentary Commissioner. Then there is Lord Carew, appointed by the Secretary of State and resident in the Republic of Ireland. There is Lord Killanin who is resident in Ireland and appointed, I think, by the Government of Ireland. Then there is Brigadier J. Y. Calwell, appointed by the Northern Ireland Prime Minister and resident in Northern Ireland. There is also the Duke of Westminster, who is resident in Northern Ireland and appointed by the Secretary of State. It may be that I have the particulars of one of those wrong; but I think I am right in saying that Lord Killanin is resident in the Republic of Ireland and is appointed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland. It may interest the noble Viscount to know that they did not think it necessary to come and say, with their own voices, that they agreed to this Bill; but they have all indicated to the Chairman, Sir Edmund Compton, that they are in agreement with the provisions of this Bill and that they hope it gets through without too much trouble or without any trouble at all.
As regards the number of cottages, in the South the original number was 2,709 which has fallen now to 1.064. In the North, the orginal number was 1,315 which has fallen now to 832. The noble Viscount was pretty well right in his explanation of the 1952 Act, so I do not think there is very much point in my mentioning it. As to the position about the 1939–40 war veterans, I may say that that proposal has been raised before and it was turned down on the grounds that this Imperial Trust was set up for those volunteers in the First World War—because there was no conscription at that time in Ireland—who were promised that when they came back from the war they would be given appropriate accommodation as a mark of the country's gratitude for their war service. That was what was done, and that is why I do not think it appropriate that the 1939–45 war veterans should have the same kind of treatment. But that suggestion will be looked into. I am not certain what the position is. You cannot suddenly put a lot of new beneficiaries into this trust without legislation.

1115
Then the noble Viscount came to the important point about the end of the Fund. I had thought of that. It could lead to a great deal of argument, as I think anybody with a political instinct would know. There is nothing urgent about this now. There are plenty of people living and many ex-Servicemen who have not moved into the accommodation provided by the Trust. The position is that, instead of having an argument about all this (if it were likely to lead to argument), it would be much better to get this little Bill through to let the trustees sell to the widows and to use the money from the sales to buy other accommodation for ex-Servicemen who have not been able, through age or infirmity, to use these cottages. That, I think, answers nearly all the points raised by the noble Viscount. If he cares to interrupt me—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it is a matter of policy that those who served in the 1939–45 war should not be included among the beneficiaries of this Trust. This seems to me to be acceptable only upon two bases: first, that there is still left a fairly large number of those who served in the 1914–18 war or their widows; and, secondly, that the reserves and the total amount of money left in the Trust at this date is unlikely to do more than provide sufficient housing for them which may in due course be sold to them. If, however, the money is being dealt with in such a way that, after satisfying the foreseeable needs of those people, there is still cash in the fund, it seems to me that this particular policy decision may have been premature, and that it might be the thing to do to add the power in this Bill to give the trustees, if they think fit, discretion to include the later war veterans among their beneficiaries.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I do not think we can possibly include it in this Bill. A non-controversial Bill of this nature can be drafted, put before Parliament, and passed in a week. Therefore I think that when a policy decision has been taken, that could easily be done. I should imagine that one of the reasons we do not like to tie this to the Republic of Ireland particularly is that the British Government would be holding out an inducement to the subjects of an inde-
1116
pendent Republic to fight in the British Army; and as this is an Imperial trust fund I do not think that would be good politics. However, after the interesting debate we have had, I hope your Lordships will agree that the Bill should now be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [H.L.]
7.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which was introduced into your Lordships' House on June 6, 1967; and it may help your Lordships if I outline briefly the background to it. In July, 1963, a Committee was set up, under the chairmanship of Sir David Hughes Parry, following the representations of the Welsh Parliamentary Group. It was given these terms of reference:
"To clarify the legal status of the Welsh language, and to consider whether any changes in the law ought to be made."
Shortly afterwards, in November, the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire presented a Report, The Welsh Language Today, and one of the recommendations they made was that those legal obstacles to the use of the Welsh language which still remained should be removed. This, therefore, was one of the points which the members of the Hughes Parry Committee had in front of their minds during their deliberations.
The Report of the Committee was presented in October, 1965, and its recommendations were debated in another place in December, 1965. The Government found that it could accept the main recommendations of the Committee, and the Bill your Lordships are now considering will give effect to those of the accepted recommendations which require changes in the law. Four main changes are proposed. The first is the removal of the present limitation on the use of Welsh in courts. The second will enable Ministers to prescribe Welsh versions of statutory forms and words whenever they are satisfied that this is justified. The third

1117
change will ensure that such Welsh versions shall in general have the like effect as the English versions. These three measures are intended to give effect to the Government's declared policy to enhance the status of the Welsh language, not only in legal proceedings in Wales and Monmouthshire but also in the conduct of public business generally. The final provision in the Bill will amend the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, so that the expression "England" in any future legislation shall not cover Wales.
Looking at the Bill in more detail, we see that Clause 1 relates to the status of Welsh in legal proceedings and is intended to enable any person to speak Welsh in legal proceedings in Wales or Monmouthshire. This gives effect to recommendation No. 14 of the Hughes Parry Report, that all witnesses who desire to do so shall be able to give their evidence in Welsh. The wording of subsection (1) of the clause allows for the possibility that, in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates' court, prior notice may be required by rules of court. Subsection (1) also refers to the provision for interpretation. Experience in magistrates' courts suggests that there is usually no difficulty with regard to interpretation in these courts. In the case of higher courts, however, it would appear to be to the convenience of the courts and to the parties to the proceedings that advance arrangements should be made for interpretation if required. The possibility of expensive adjournments and waste of time which might result while the services of an interpreter were obtained would then be avoided—a fact recognised by the Hughes Parry Committee in their recommendation No. 16. The wording of the clause allows for this.
Clause 1(2) repeals Section 1 of the Welsh Courts Act 1942, and the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the Pensions Appeals Tribunals Act 1943. Under these enactments the Welsh language may be used by any party or witness, but only if he considers that he would otherwise be at a disadvantage by reason of the fact that his natural language of communication is Welsh. It is this restriction which has caused difficulty and embarrassment in the courts of Wales in recent months; and it is this restriction which the Bill will remove.
1118
Clause 2 authorises the provision of Welsh versions of certain forms and words which are specified by or under Acts of Parliament; and it provides for determining the circumstances and conditions subject to which these versions may be used. There has up to now been doubt as to whether it has been legally possible to prescribe Welsh versions of such forms, and to ensure that this doubt is removed in all cases the clause has been drafted in the widest terms. It will give Ministers in the future the power to prescribe Welsh versions of any such documents or words whenever they feel that this is justified. They are therefore given complete discretion to decide in what circumstances to exercise the power. This clause also gives the appropriate Minister the power to prescribe conditions subject to which a Welsh version may be used. The intention is that the power to prescribe Welsh versions shall in general be exercised only in regard to Wales and Monmouthshire.
My Lords, Clause 3 contains supplementary provisions in respect of the Welsh versions of any documents or words which are authorised by Clause 2. Subsection (1) provides that things done in Welsh in such a version shall have like effect as if done in English. Subsection (2)(a) contains a power to provide that in the case of any discrepancy between an English and a Welsh text the English text shall prevail. For example, it may well be necessary to stipulate, when prescribing a Welsh form of notice which has to be published, that the requirements for publication will be satisfied only by the publication of two forms, one in each language, or of a form containing the notice in both languages; and in case there may be a discrepancy between the text in English and that in Welsh, it may be necessary to prescribe that one version—the English version—shall prevail. Subsection (2)(b) prescribes the conditions subject to which a document shall be treated as a true copy of another document.
I come now to Clause 3(3). Some statutory provisions allow the use of a document or words to the like effect as a prescribed form of document or words. This subsection authorises a similar departure from the prescribed form of document or words in the case of a Welsh version as is allowed in the case

1119
of an English version. Subsection (4) provides that the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Clause 2 shall be exercisable only by Statutory Instrument to be laid before Parliament. It includes the power to vary or revoke an Order made under that subsection.
Under Clause 4, the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, which provides that references in Acts of Parliament to England include reference to Wales and Berwick, is amended so that "Wales" shall not in future legislation be covered by the expression "England". This brings the law into line with current drafting practice. But so that there shall not be any misunderstanding, I want to emphasise that the legal position of Monmouthshire is not affected by this provision. Apart from the matters dealt with in this Bill there are no legal obstacles to the use of Welsh in public administration in Wales. To avoid any doubt on this point the position is safeguarded by Clause 5(3).
These then, my Lords, are the provisions of the Welsh Language Bill. It is a sincere attempt to strengthen and dignify the status of the Welsh language, while at the same time respecting the rights of those who do not speak it. It removes the remaining restrictions on the use of Welsh in legal proceedings and in the conduct of official and public business. The removal of these restrictions is evidence of the desire of the Government to do all they can to foster the Welsh language. The Bill will do away with those irritating anachronisms which have up till now given the Welsh language a lower status than the English langauge in the eyes of the law and in public administration in Wales and Monmouthshire. As such, it deserves full backing, and I am confident that it will receive your Lordships' wholehearted support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
7.49 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing this Bill with her usual charm and efficiency. It follows very naturally the speech which she made only last week on the subject of racial discrimination. Let me say straight away that I find it
1120
a sensible Bill. As the noble Baroness explained, it arises out of the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir David Hughes Parry on the legal status of the Welsh language. It puts into effect some of the more uncontroversial recommendations in that Report, and, sensibly to my mind, avoids some of the recommendations which are much more controversial and with which some of us do not agree.
I say that the Bill is sensible, because I think that it is really common sense that is most required when we discuss or take any action about the difficult subject of the Welsh language, because there are extremists at both ends, and they differ sharply, and often very loquaciously. There are on one side those who say that there is no point in encouraging a language which they consider to be dying, when in any case a large number of those who speak it are also fluent in English. On the other side there are those who consider that Welsh is the living language of Wales and, consequently, that it should enjoy exactly the same status as English—in fact, that Wales should be bilingual.
In my opinion, the first category ignore the fact that Welsh is a living language, with a long history and a fine literature, and that to destroy it would be to eliminate one of the essential characteristics of the Welsh people. I would venture the guess that a great many of us who may not be able to speak Welsh, other than sing Land of our Fathers, at the same time take a pride in the existence of the Welsh language. The second category ignore the facts of life in modern Wales and the existence of a majority of English-speaking Welshmen, the administrative complications and the financial cost of providing complete bilingualism. I take the view that common sense requires a middle road between these two extremes, a road which the Hughes Parry Report recommended and in favour of which they found an overwhelming majority—what they called the principle of equal validity. The noble Baroness mentioned the Report of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, which put it very well. Perhaps I may quote a short paragraph. They said:
"The task of statesmanship in Wales, as the Council see it, is to foster the growth of the Welsh language and to do this in ways acceptable to all Welshmen, who themselves for the most part are proud of the language

1121
and desire to see it survive. At the same time, measures must not be such as to inflict any hardship upon any group within the community."
That is put as well as I could put it. It seems to me the right principle, and it is the principle that lies behind this Bill.
So far as the Bill itself goes, I have only one question to put to the noble Baroness. It concerns the question of proceedings in magistrates' courts where, under Clause 1 of the Bill, no prior notice will have to be given by a person who wishes to speak Welsh. The noble Baroness said that experience had shown that hitherto there has been no difficulty. But, of course, under the present law a person may speak Welsh only if he would be suffering a hardship if he were not allowed to do so. Under the Bill, he will be able to speak Welsh if he wishes to. Therefore, there will be many more cases of people wishing to give evidence or defend themselves in Welsh, and I foresee that there may well be difficulties in magistrates' courts, particularly in areas of Wales which are largely English-speaking and in Monmouthshire. I should have thought that it would be much more sensible if prior notice were given in every case, including proceedings in magistrates' courts, before a person appeared and spoke Welsh in them. The other clauses seem sensible to me, and I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.55 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, for allowing me to speak before them, for certain reasons. I should like to begin by congratulating the Government most warmly on this Bill. I do so as one who holds a unique position in your Lordships' House because, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-v-Gest, I am the only Peer who habitually speaks Welsh. I speak more English in one hour here in London than I do in a whole month at home.
The fact that this Bill gives equal validity to the Welsh language in Wales—a dignity and a status it has not enjoyed for centuries—is a source of pride and satisfaction to me and to all Welsh people, both Welsh and non-Welsh speaking. I should like especially to congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales for presenting this Bill. It is an historical
1122
event. I hold no brief for Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, but knowing as I do his great love of Wales and of everything appertaining to Wales, I am personally distressed and hurt when I find him subjected to abuse from time to time by a small clique in the Principality. It is unworthy of my people, and if my voice carries any weight at all in the Principality, I would appeal to these people to cease from this very unkind practice and to co-operate with my right honourable friend in his divers efforts on behalf of the Wales he loves.
This Bill endeavours to remedy an injustice which we in Wales have suffered for over 400 years. Ironically enough, it was a Welsh-speaking Welshman who caused this injustice. He was Henry VIII, the greatest King who ever sat on the British throne. Oh yes, my Lords! I am aware of his matrimonial frolics, but he learned those from his English courtiers. Henry Viii loved Wales and the Welsh. In the Preamble to his 1536 Act I find the following words:
"His Highness therefore of a singular zeal, love and favour that he beareth towards his subjects of his said Dominion of Wales …"
That is as near an approach to a love letter as I have read. His motives were to give to the Welsh people the same dignity and the same standing as those enjoyed at the time by his English subjects. It is a classic example of a man doing the right thing in the wrong way.
Welsh is an ancient and beautiful language, with a literature going back to the 7th century, and it would be a loss not only to these Islands but to civilisation if it were to be neglected and allowed to die. It may be of interest to the House to know that I was brought up in a home where Welsh was the normal form of conversation. We did not speak it in school; indeed, shortly before my time Welsh was severely prohibited. Those were the days of the Welsh Not, when any child would be punished if one of the teachers heard him say a word of Welsh either in the school or in the playground. This was the official attitude, and it is remarkable that the language has survived in the face of such repression.
During this century the official attitude has changed completely, and both central and local government have adopted a civilised and liberal attitude towards the preservation of the language. There are

1123
people who say that it is not worth while conserving it, because it is not a commercial language, it has no commercial value. In other words, the language of business, science, law and technology is English. Why bother, therefore, with Welsh? But surely this is a very pedestrian and illiberal argument. The more languages people can speak, the better. While English, with two or three other major languages, will continue to be preponderant, there is no reason why Welsh and other languages should not survive. In Switzerland children speak four languages, and there is no reason why they should not do so in this country. I have friends who are extremely liberal and compassionate in their attitude towards countries thousands of miles away. They would not dream of prohibiting and stultifying the use of Swahili in East Africa, but they take a peculiarly illiberal view towards the Welsh language.
Having said this, I would remark that the majority of us who are Welsh speaking recognise, at the same time, that two-thirds of the people of Wales speak English, and English only. They are none the less good Welshmen, for all that. Had I been born a few miles from my home village of Rhosllanerchrugoc it is unlikely that I should have been Welsh speaking: it is just the right side of the border. We must, therefore, seek to keep the balance in Wales between the two elements, because otherwise we shall divide Wales and perhaps create there another Ulster. That would be disastrous. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is also a Welsh speaker, is very much aware of this danger. And to those who use the language for political ends I would issue this warning: if you make the language a party political instrument, you will in the end be guilty of its destruction.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has, in my view, produced an historic Bill. It creates the framework which enables those who desire to speak Welsh to do so. At present, my Lords, no Welshman can speak his own language in a court of law in Wales unless he can show that he would otherwise be at a disadvantage because his natural language of communication was Welsh. This is really intolerable. Someone may say: "But is it not the case that prac-
1124
tically all the people of Wales can speak English?" This is probably true. There are some in the rural areas who are still monoglot; but there are many thousands who speak English who have to think in Welsh, and when they speak English they are translating from Welsh thoughts—and they do it magnificently. Indeed, I am doing it now. If your Lordships could read my thoughts now, you would find that they were distinctly Welsh. But these people would be most reluctant, I am sure, to declare in any court of law that they could not understand or speak English, although they suffer as a result.
Let me give your Lordships an illustration. Your Lordships will remember that after the last war ex-Servicemen had to do a fortnight's training in the summer. A constituent of mine—I was an M.P. in those days—wrote to tell me that he had been called up for this fortnight's training, although he was the only blacksmith in the area. He worked on his own, and was serving farmers for miles around. I knew that anyone who worked on his own was allowed to be excused from this training, and I went to the War Office to ask about this man. They said to me: "Here is his file, and he tells us that he has a partner". I went all the way to Wales to see the man. I said to him: "Apparently you have not told me the whole story. You have a partner, have you not?" He said:" Well, yes; but not working with me." You see, my Lords, in Wales "partner" means "a friend"—a man with whom you go to the local or to church, or you spend the evenings with. That is what this man meant. When he was asked by the interviewer: "Have you a partner?", he said, "Yes". When I explained to the? War Office they granted him release, and he was not compelled to go to this camp. Your Lordships were laughing at what I said, and I can understand it as laughter of affection. But I sometimes hear people laugh because they hear the Welsh people speaking in this way, and they misunderstand, as in the case I exampled just now. But I want to remind those people that the people of Wales can speak two languages: they can speak their own language. and a foreign language from across the Border.
This Bill also enables official forms to be translated into the Welsh language, and this is on the criterion that there is a fair demand for them. Of course, a

1125
large number of forms are already available in Welsh, and if there is a demand, then I feel it right that people should be given the opportunity to have forms in the Welsh language. But, equally, there are many forms used only in limited fields where it would be hard to argue that the translation would be justified. We must keep a sense of proportion about this matter and I am sure that with a little common sense we can achieve a satisfactory solution.
I have already congratulated the Government and the Secretary of State for Wales. I should like to congratulate also Sir David Hughes Parry and the two members of his Committee, Mr. D. Jones Williams and Professor Clanmore Williams, who were responsible for the Report on the Welsh language which preceded this Bill. They are three distinguished Welshmen, and we are in their debt. It is a tribute to them that the Government have seen fit to accept almost all of their recommendations. They rejected the principle of bilingualism in their Report and came out for equal validity. I remember the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right honourable James Griffiths, declaring that this should be the policy; and we agreed with him in the Welsh Grand Committee. I am sure that these men were right when they recommended this. I want this to be quite clear, for there is a small element in Wales which is still agitating for bilingualism. To seek to force bilingualism on Wales would, in my view, not only be impracticable and derisive but would also do lasting harm. You cannot force any language down people's throats. This has been the experience in the Republic of Ireland, and we should learn from that experience.
I should like to repeat and endorse what the Secretary of State for Wales said in a speech on Whit Monday: that you cannot preserve a language by an Act of Parliament or by translating official forms. As he said, the language will survive only if the people who speak it have the will and determination to keep it alive. It is in the home, the chapel and the church; it is in the coalmine, the quarry and on the factory floor, in the school and in the playground that the language will survive. The Government have done their part, and we know there is a reservoir of goodwill in the Welsh Office and in local government. Let us
1126
make use of the facilities that are now available to us. Let us not lay the blame at the door of others. We have opportunities that we have never had before. It is the responsibility of every Welshman and Welshwoman to ensure that we make the best use of them.
In conclusion, I feel prompted to say that there is one observation in Sir David Hughes Parry's Report which is rather disturbing, and it refers to Cardiff, the capital city of Wales. I have a high regard for Cardiff and I am proud of the city. I am about to make a criticism in the best spirit and hope it will hurt no-one. Referring to the magistrates' court at Cardiff, the Report states that
"neither the clerk nor any member of his staff speaks Welsh."
I am sure this is by accident, of course, and not by design. It is obvious, therefore, that if the clerk receives a letter written in Welsh, he has to submit it to someone outside his staff to clarify it.
It is my opinion, and I am sure I could have carried the Lord Chancellor with me in this view, had he been present, that no correspondence sent to a clerk of a court of Justice should be seen by anyone outside the clerk's staff. The very nature of the court correspondence should enjoy the strictest confidence. I am aware that official interpreters, sworn to secrecy, are often attached to a court, and I have no doubt such a person or persons would be employed by this particular staff at Cardiff. But I should like to think that there was at least one individual on that staff who could readily understand a letter written in the language spoken by so many people in the Principality.
8.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Peers of this House who, like the other Peers from other Parties, are not in great profusion here to-night, I should like to welcome this Bill. It is long overdue. Why it was not brought in many years ago I cannot understand. Undoubtedly, in my view, in the past there have been great injustices perpetrated against the people of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has just given us one example of the sort of thing that happens over translation and the difference in the meaning of a word from Welsh to English. I am

1127
quite certain from my own experience of younger days in Wales that there have been great injustices.
Of course, there are the practical effects. They will not be as great as they would have been fifty years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, gave us some statistics, and I should like to give the House one or two further figures which I think will put the position in a clear light. My own county, Glamorgan, has a population of over 46 per cent. of that of Wales as a whole. Almost one in every two Welshmen lives in Glamorgan. No less than three-quarters of the population of Wales lives within a radius of 50 miles of Cardiff, which of course is in Glamorgan. According to the Hughes Parry Report, the Welsh speaking portion of Wales, monoglot or bilingual, is at most 26 per cent. I should have thought that that was rather a high figure, in view of the fact that on the Census form a person had to describe his own linguistic attainments, and I imagine a good many people put themselves down as bilingual when they were not truly bilingual and were not able to speak Welsh in the fashion of Lord Maelor or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.
I rather looked at the point myself, and it is a question which many people would have to decide one way or the other. Some would give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and put themselves down as bilingual. I rather think more put themselves down as bilingual who were not really bilingual than put themselves down as not bilingual but who were. However, let us accept the figures of the Hughes Parry Report, which were taken from the Census. In Glamorgan Welsh speakers number only 17 per cent. to 18 per cent., and in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, only 4·7 per cent., which is possibly why they are not highly staffed with Welsh speakers in the magistrates' courts in Cardiff.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said—and I think both he and the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, gave very wise advice to those who are trying to force the pace a bit with regard to the use of the Welsh language—Welsh is a very old language. In fact, it is the oldest living language in Europe, and it should be remembered that when one hears Lord Maelor or Lord
1128
Morris of Borth-y-Gest speaking in accomplished Welsh one is listening to a language which has come down from before Roman times. It has been altered; it has been streamlined; to some extent some of the flourishes have gone off it: the ultimate syllables have gone from Welsh words, but basically it is the same language—the old British language of these Islands before Roman times, during Roman times and since. We have excellent poems of Aneurin and Taliesin of the 6th century—written poems—and I know of no other European language which can produce poems of that ancient character to-day.
It always annoys me when people in this House and in another place and elsewhere talk about the use of woad as if it was something which constituted us, the ancient Britons, as barbarians. It is nothing of the kind. We used woad for the same purpose as the Commandos used black paint and mud on their faces in the last war, to terrorise the enemy. The old Celts were the most artistic people of their time, possibly one of the most artistic races that has ever lived. We are now seeing, through developments of archaeology, many of their products, of jewellery and silverware, of goldware and carving. There is also the history of the Celtic Church, After all, I imagine there could not have been a population of more than a few hundred thousand all told: after the Romans there were probably no more than 100,000, if that. What race of that size could produce two saints, both of them patron saints to this day, and a large number of minor saints? I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not here to give us an exposition on the Celtic saints. There are two patron saints, St. Patrick and St. David, and the ancient Celtic Church carried the beacon of Christianity in Western Europe after the Romans had departed.
So when we are talking about Welsh we are talking about this beautiful, ancient language which is a tremendous keepsake. It is a most important asset, not only to Wales but to Britain. So far from our being barbaric, the reason the Emperor Claudius attacked these Islands was because the Welsh, the Celts in these Islands, were running a resistance movement for the benefit of the Gauls in what is now France.

1129
As I am talking about things not strictly in the terms of the Bill, may I say a word about Henry VIII? The noble Lord, Lord Maelor, referred to him as one of the greatest Kings there has ever been, and that raised a laugh. He was a great King. I will not say that he was one of the greatest of the British Kings, but he was a great King, and his religious and matrimonial troubles have rather disguised his greatness from historians and the people of this country. He had free trade, and the economy of this country was in a higher state in his day, with free trade than it was until the 19th century, when there was also free trade under Mr. Gladstone and other distinguished politicians.
In addition—and this is rather interesting—Henry VIII was a most cultured man, and used to draft his own Bills. I do not know how many other Kings have been able to do that. So when Lord Maelor talked about the love letter between himself and the people of Wales, he was speaking quite truly, because Henry VIII undoubtedly, drafted the Preamble, which was quoted, to the Bill himself. One of the reasons, as he said in the Preamble to the Bill, that he was bringing in this Bill was because a lot of crooks (he did not use that language, but that was what was meant) were victimising the Welsh people because they could not speak English.
But, my Lords, may I say that in my view, as important as, if not more important than, preservation of the Welsh language, important as that is, is the constant need to maintain our national identity; and this national identity of Wales is being constantly eroded by Governments, of whatever political flavour they may be, in London. I would refer, for example, to the various statutory Boards the directorships of which have no representation from Wales as such. I have complained about this in your Lordships' House recently. There is the Board of B.E.A., which no longer has a representative from Wales; also B.O.A.C. And the C.D.C. no longer has a representative from Wales; nor has the Meat and Livestock Commission. The C.W.S.—although this is not the fault of the Government—I see, are closing down their headquarters in Cardiff and are to run from Bristol. Why? Wales has a population of two and a half mil-
1130
lion—which is the same as the population of New Zealand. Surely the Co-operative Wholesale Society could so organise their affairs that they have their headquarters for Wales in Wales, rather than go to Bristol.
But things are moving in Wales, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson has a Bill down for a domestic Parliament for Wales, and I hope that in due course, if it passes another place, we shall have the opportunity of considering it here. I believe that during the lifetime of the youngest Member of this House now present we shall see a domestic Parliament for Wales, and possibly one for Scotland, as well as one for England.
There are just three questions that I would ask the noble Baroness, though before I do so may I say how pleased I am that she moved the Second Reading of this Bill and will be replying to the debate. I knew her late husband very well. He was a Welshman who loved Wales, and it is appropriate that the noble Baroness, who always carries out her duties with such charm, will be doing so this evening. I have not given the noble Baroness notice of my three questions, so if she cannot answer them to-night no doubt they can be dealt with at a later stage.
First of all, what is the position of cheques under this Bill? I see that the Caernarvonshire County Council want the right—and why should they not have it? —to write cheques in Welsh; and they have been told by the Gnomes of whatever banking place it is in the City that they cannot do so. Is this proper under this Bill? Has the Minister any authority over the Bank of England and the other members of the Clearing Houses Association? If not, will the Minister, who is, I understand, considering this question, be prepared to have a clearing house for Wales? New Zealand manages to clear its own cheques perfectly well; so does the Republic of Ireland—both with the same population as we have. Why cannot we have our own clearing house, and not depend upon these gentlemen in the City of London who do not want to read Welsh?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of it, but even to-day the Midland Bank issue cheques in the Welsh language—not

1131
exclusively Welsh: the wording is in English and Welsh. I often get cheques from the Midland Bank saying, "Taler"—Pay. I am unable to, but it does not make any difference.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. I am delighted to hear that all his cheques are paid. That is not the experience of all of us, but it is what I should have expected of him. But the point I was making—whatever the Midland Bank does—was that the Caernarvonshire County Council wish to make cheques in Welsh only. They do not want "bilingual" cheques. And I should think that a cheque would be pretty crowded if it was bilingual; most cheques have enough writing on them as it is. However, this is a point which the noble Baroness can take up in due course.
Secondly, the noble Baroness made a somewhat Delphic utterance about Monmouthshire. I do not quite see the point. Does she mean that Monmouthshire, because it is now to be regarded as, Welsh, is not necessarily Welsh; or what are we to understand from that? I personally regard Monmouthshire as Welsh, and always have done; and the claim that Monmouthshire is not comes from the Act Lord Maelor mentioned, which has nothing to do with nationalism, but relates to the assize courts. In earlier days the roads were very bad, and it was often easier to get assize judges from Oxford than to get them to Monmouthshire from Swansea or other parts of Wales. It was purely a matter of administrative convenience for the assizes and had nothing whatever to do with nationalism or national boundaries.
Lastly, I understand that it is proposed under this Bill to have separate forms in English and in Welsh. The Liberals feel that this would be highly inconvenient, and indeed might cause a good deal of difficulty, because it might be found that in some places (Monmouthshire is an example, but perhaps the same might apply in Brecon or Radnorshire) a man would go along and want a Welsh form, and. because Welsh forms were rarely used, might find difficulty in getting it. The office would not stock the Welsh form. Again, if every office were expected to stock both Welsh and English forms there might be a great waste of forms and money. Would it not be
1132
better, therefore—we would put this proposal very strongly—to do as is done in Canada and Switzerland and have bilingual forms—that is, to have every form in two languages, rather than to have them separate? My Lords, with those few questions and the very minor criticism—although it is a criticism-I welcome this Bill and wish it well in its future stages.
8.28 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I have the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House in a capacity which makes it appropriate that my place should be on the Cross-Benches, but I am happy to think that this is a Bill which is entitled to the support of your Lordships from all parts of the House. I very much hope therefore that your Lordships will give a warm welcome to this Bill. If thereby your Lordships confirm or enhance the status of the Welsh language, your Lordships will be doing so in respect of a living language—as has been stated—one of the oldest of our spoken languages. In places where Welsh to-day is freely used there is nothing forced or artificial or simulated about that use. In those places it is the language of the hearth, the home, the farm, the market place, the street. the playground, the church and the chapel.
It would, I suggest, be a very great tragedy if the Welsh language were gradually to decline. That there has been a decline in the last 100 years is, of course, undoubted—more's the pity! As recently as the 1931 Census I think it was shown that the number of persons of three years of age and over who spoke only Welsh was nearly 198,000. To-day, it is of course essential that all who speak Welsh should also speak English; and so they do. But surely there is a gain in the case of those who are able to speak both languages.
Members of small nations must speak more than one language. If one speaks to a Norwegian and one is tempted to congratulate him respectfully on the quality of his English, he makes reply, "But in my country, my small country, I must learn English". My Lords, so it must be in the case of small nations. We know the figures to-day, and out of a population of roughly 2½ million the number who to-day sneak Welsh is only

1133
26 per cent., though in three counties the percentage who speak Welsh is over 75 per cent.
There have been times in past history when the use of Welsh was not only discouraged, but even positively suppressed. I hope I can say that the Welsh have never been a people who nurse grievances. I hope I can say that the Welsh have got rather too much sense of humour, I hope sense of dignity, I hope sense of historical perspective, to spend their time talking about or nursing grievances. It is perhaps almost a marvel that the decline in the number of Welsh speakers has not been more pronounced than it has been. It may be that its survival and its present vigour to the extent that it is spoken has owed much to the Welsh Bible. This year we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the translation of the New Testament into Welsh by William Salisbury. Before that date, in 1563, there had been an Act of Parliament giving statutory permission, and indeed a specific mandate, for the translation of the Book of Common Prayer and the Bible into Welsh. That was followed in 1588 by the great work of Bishop Morgan, who translated the whole Bible into Welsh. I feel sure that much has been owed to the existence of the Bible in the Welsh language.
So also, my Lords, much has been owed to the existence of a great volume of literature. Your Lordships may be familiar with the Oxford Book of English Verse. I think the earliest poem in that volume is dated 1226. Your Lordships may not be so familiar with the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse. The earliest poems in that volume are from the 6th century, many from the 7th century. and a great many from the period before Chaucer, during which period in England there are not, in the Oxford Book of English Verse, nearly so many reproductions.
In this volume, the Oxford Book of Welsh Verse, it is said in the introduction:
"That a 6th century Welsh poem can, with a little annotation, be made intelligible to an educated modern speaker of the language may he just an intriguing fact or a mere indication of the static nature of the medium. Pondered upon, however, the fact gives a partial explanation of the traditional nature of Welsh poetry, for at no time throughout the long history of that poetry was any generation of writers precluded by linguistic difficulties from
1134
knowing what all past generations had been saying."
My Lords, surely that is a language that merits efforts to preserve it. Surely the preservation of the Welsh language is therefore something to be encouraged. It is not something just to be tolerated in any spirit of amused or cynical condescension. It should, I submit to your Lordships, be warmly and actively supported. I therefore warmly welcome this Bill. I like the language of the Preamble, bold and clear:
"Whereas it is proper that the Welsh language should be freely used by those who so desire in the hearing of legal proceedings in Wales and Monmouthshire…".
I do not know whether it may become necessary to define at all what "legal proceeding" means in Clause 1. It may be that no difficulties will arise. I do not anticipate any practical difficulties in the working in courts of law of the provisions of this Bill. If your Lordships will forgive a personal reference, I have had the privilege of presiding now for nearly a quarter of a century in a court of quarter sessions in one part of Wales where Welsh is very widely spoken. I cannot think that there will be any difficulties once the principle of this Act is adopted, provided that it is operated (as I am sure it will be) with common sense and with goodwill. In an area such as that of which I speak it is unlikely that all those summoned to serve on a jury would be Welsh speaking. In practice the proceedings are, of course, in the English language. New magistrates, when they are sworn in, I find these days more often than not take the two oaths in the Welsh language.
I would confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has said, that very often it can happen—and does happen—that though somebody speaks English, and speaks it well, he speaks Welsh even better. But apart from that his thoughts are in the Welsh language, and such a person may be more at ease if he is allowed to speak in his own language. He should surely be allowed to do so if he so desires. It cannot be a very revolutionary principle that somebody should be allowed to speak his own language in his own country. The provisions of the Act of 1942 will ensure that no difficulties arise for the purposes of an appeal. It will he necessary to see that on the shorthand note everything is made available lest there should be an appeal to the

1135
Court of Appeal, and the judge or chairman will have to ensure that everything important that is said in Welsh is translated into English so that it may be on the record. The process of interpretation works very smoothly in my experience. In the court of which I have been speaking there is an interpreter who is available, and he is highly skilled. There is hardly any time taken; hardly any waste of time by the process of translation. The whole thing works quite smoothly.
It follows from what I have said that I favour all proper activities which are calculated to promote and encourage the increase of the Welsh language. I would add, however, that those positive activities are for places other than courts of law. In a court of law the sole business must be that of administering justice impartially and conscientiously, but with fairness to all.
If I may, I will add only this. As we have been speaking so much about Wales, perhaps I may be allowed to say, as a Welshman, that I have never found, and never will find, that my loyalty and devotion to Wales forms any bar or impediment to my genuine admiration for the sterling qualities of the Englishman. My loyalty and devotion to Wales are complementary to and form just a part of my loyalty and devotion to that greater area that I always like to call Great Britain.
8.44 p.m.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, as one of the few Englishmen in this House who live in Wales, I should like very briefly to add my support for this Bill. As one who lives in an area predominantly Welsh speaking, I am certain that everything in the Bill will be welcomed by those who live around me. There are just two queries that I have in mind. One is that I have always been told that the people of North Wales cannot understand the people of South Wales, and one wonders whether there will sometimes be difficulty over a translation which will be understood by both. I have been told that the matter may have to be referred to the Welsh Board of Celtic Studies. This indicates to the House that there are difficulties, or may be difficulties, if my information is correct.
The other question I should like to ask is whether this Bill can be put in reverse
1136
in the case of an Englishman duly elected to a rural district council whose members speak nothing but Welsh and who keep all their records in Welsh. In one case I know of an Englishman who went there and they refused to translate anything to him at all. He finally gave up. I am glad to know that there is now an Englishman on another local council where they have appointed two interpreters to help him, and I believe he is quite satisfied. It seems to me that this is a position which needs to be clarified, because the same position could no doubt come about on any parish council or anywhere else, and I have never heard any ruling on the point as to whether the council concerned must translate for this duly elected representative of the district.
8.46 p.m.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, first of all, I should like to congratulate My noble friend Lady Phillips on introducing such an historic measure. It appears to me that my noble friend is destined to make history in this House, first of all as being the first lady to sit on the Government Front Bench, and now in being instrumental in introducing this historic Bill which is destined to remove a stigma from the Welsh language that has endured for well nigh seven centuries.
We have been the victims of an injustice that has been imposed by some of the Plantagenets, and indeed by the Tudors, with the noble exception of Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I. Some of the worst imposters were the Border barons. When I look at the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, across the gangway, I find his presence here to-night in support some atonement for the misdeeds of the Border barons of other days. It is a strange thing that when you read about the history of the Welsh language it is the Welsh people themselves—I mean the Welsh landowners, the Welsh noblemen, the few that we have had—who really were guilty of the greatest treachery towards the Welsh language. As a matter of fact, the Welsh landowners thought that to speak Welsh was the badge of ignorance, and that to speak English was the mark of erudition, and therefore they sought to Anglicize their children.
I speak from experience on this point. You teach an Englishman the Welsh language, he masters it, and what happens? He becomes a Welsh citizen more

1137
royal than a Queen. But if you anglicize a Welshman what happens? You produce a mischievous Englishman. It needs to be said that in the 19th century it was the treachery of the leaders of the Welsh nation, in the field of the nobility and landowning section of the community, which inflicted some of the worse treacheries in so far as the Welsh language was concerned. It is no longer the case, of course.
Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, to the famous Statute of 1663 which was of great assistance in the propagation of Welsh, the right by law to have the Prayer Book and Bible translated into the Welsh language. Other noble Lords have referred to the great change in Wales which that indicated. But let me say that the movement to which we owe so much in maintaining the Welsh language is, I think, the Welsh Nonconformist Movement of the 19th century. That movement did more to maintain and to keep the Welsh language alive than any other movement in the history of the land.
I should like to refer to the need for textbooks in Welsh. The difficulty here is that the Welsh market is so small that it is difficult for any Welsh textbook to be produced at a profit. I should like the Government to take a look at this question, to see whether, if Welsh textbooks become necessary in relation to the development which will follow on this Bill when it becomes law, there may not be a case for Government help to authors of approved textbooks in Welsh.
I want to add my support to the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who referred to forms being issued separately in Welsh and in English. It seems to me that that is hardly necessary. Why clutter up the Bill with so much paper? Why not have a bilingual form printed? Experience will tell the Departments exactly what the need will be, and then, instead of issuing separate forms, bilingual forms with the Welsh translated from the English could be approved as a standard translation. This is done in Canada and elsewhere. Therefore I think the Government should have a look at this matter again, to see whether this is not practical as well as economic, and by Amendment to provide for the issuing of bilingual forms.
1138
I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill and in commending the excellent work done by the right honourable gentleman, James Griffiths, the First Secretary of State for Wales, followed of course by the present holder of that office. Between them they have been responsible for the introduction of this long overdue reform, destined to remove one of the most historic grievances that the Welsh people have had to sustain over the years.
8.53 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, whatever doubts any English or Scottish Member of this House may have, he certainly cannot doubt that Welsh is a beautiful language. This evening we have had speeches delivered in English by Welsh Members of your Lordships' House and speaking with a beautiful lilt which only a Welshman can bring to the language. One of the nicest compliments I have had paid me recently was when I was visiting Devon on my tour of the post offices on behalf of the Government. One dear old Englishman described me as "a lovely woman, speaking with a lovely Welsh accent." As an Englishwoman who had an Irish mother, I had the privilege of being married to a Welshman. I considered that a great compliment.
There is little doubt that the welcome given to this Bill has been a warm one; and there is little doubt, too, that this is an historic occasion. I regard it as a great privilege to be part of it. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take to himself the words that have been uttered here this evening, both of welcome and of commendation for his own work and that of the previous Secretary of State for Wales, in bringing about such an occasion.
As so many of your Lordships have said this evening, as well as being an ancient language, Welsh is indeed a living language. In this Bill we are concerned with the fact that it is a living language, and therefore there must be ample opportunity for those for whom it is a living language to use it on every occasion.
I must say that we have been given a wonderfully historic picture this evening. We have been taken back to the earliest times and we have been brought to the period of Henry VIII. My noble friend Lord Longford apologises to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for not being present

1139
in the Chamber during his speech, but he wishes me to assure him that he is also one of the Clan of Rees, and therefore feels that they have a great deal in common. At a later date he will be happy to discuss with the noble Lord the many Celtic Saints.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, put to Her Majesty's Government the most interesting suggestion that perhaps magistrates' courts could be included in the places where prior notice of the use of Welsh should be given. My reply to the noble Lord is that hitherto in Welsh-speaking areas interpretation in magistrates' courts has not posed any problem, and in any event the adjournment of a magistrates' court is not quite so inconvenient or expensive as would be the case with a higher court.
My noble friend Lord Maelor quoted the fact that the child was punished for speaking Welsh. I would remind him that even an Englishwoman like myself has wept over the story of How Green Was My Valley! I remember well the little boy who was punished for speaking his own language. I would also tell my noble friend that even if only one-third of the population speak Welsh, Her Majesty's Government believe that that one-third should have the consideration that this Bill will give them.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked three questions. He dealt first with the question of cheques—we seem to be extremely interested in giving little boosts to the banks nowadays. Last week, in a debate on Race Relations, one noble Lord mentioned a particular bank that offered no discrimination. This evening we have heard again of a particular bank which already issues bilingual cheques. I am informed (I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will be glad to know this) that bilingual cheques are already available. This Bill, of course, deals with the status of language in courts and in public administration, but Her Majesty's Government hope that commercial enterprises and other fields will take note of this, and that there will be a much greater extension of the use of bilingual forms.
Then the noble Lord raised the question of Monmouthshire. I was warned about this earlier, and I should not like at this point to plunge into something
1140
which appears to be fraught with all sorts of complications. My note tells me that, from a legal point of view, Monmouthshire is in England, but that for administrative purposes it is usually joined with Wales. Under the Bill this situation is unchanged. If the noble Lord is not happy with this reply perhaps he would like to pursue it either with me privately or at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I take up that most handsome offer on the part of the noble Baroness? I personally do not accept that Monmouthshire is legally England. I think it is, and always has been, Welsh. But we can deal with that at a later stage.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. On the question of separate Welsh forms, I am happy to tell the noble Lord that the Bill provides in such a way that the appropriate Minister can, if he wishes, in each case prescribe forms in both English and Welsh. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, also will be glad to have that assurance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Borth-y-Gest, delighted us with some further references to the reasons why the Welsh language is the living language it is to-day. I would certainly join with him in saying that the Bible has been a very important factor in this. I was delighted to hear from him that interpretation works smoothly and to know that this was being passed on to other noble Lords who thought that there might be some difficulty involved. Unfortunately I am not able to give a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boston—I am sorry about this, since he is the only Englishman who has intervened in the debate—but I will see that he gets a reply during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I will also see that the noble Lord, Lord Moyle, gets the information about textbooks, and I will convey to Her Majesty's Government his admirable suggestion.
It is a great honour and privilege to take part in a debate of this kind. It has been an historic occasion—a sentimental occasion, but one which, nevertheless, is the culmination of the hopes of many Welshmen throughout the years. I have much pleasure in asking your Lordships

1141
to give your assent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCOTTISH CHIPBOARD INDUSTRY
9.2 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action, if any, they intend to take to safeguard the chipboard industry in Scotland. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Question in order to draw your Lordships' attention to the worsening position in the wood chipboard industry. I must say at the outset that I am not an expert on this product, and that my principal concern is the effect that this position has on Scottish forestry. There are two types of particle board used in the United Kingdom: flaxboard, which is not produced in this country, and wood chipboard, which is a composite board made up of small particles of wood bonded together by synthetic resin, and which is used mainly by the building and furniture trades.
During 1966 the United Kingdom consumption of particle board was 237,000 tons, of which 37 per cent. was from imports; and although there is an annual growth rate of 18 per cent., a large share of this increase during 1966 was absorbed by a greater volume of imports. In 1965 Eastern European countries increased their share of our import market from one-third to one-half. The complaint of the industry is not foreign competition but the unfair trading from Eastern European countries, which no doubt is a direct result of trade treaties negotiated at Government level. It is virtually impossible to classify this unfair competition as "dumping", since in Communist countries selling prices do not necessarily have to be related to cost, and quite often the quality of this board is below standard, which means that the chipboard industry as a whole suffers adversely.
This comparatively new British industry was started only after the war, with the enthusiastic support of the Board of Trade. It has some of the most modern
1142
equipment in the world, but admittedly our industry has mainly young forests to supply its raw materials, which are not as economical as mature forests. The British price, which has remained stable for the past five years, is between £40 and £45 per ton ex-factory—and this price compares favourably with the prices from other Western European countries—as against the Russian landed duty-paid price of £30 and the Roumanian price of £31. These imported prices include 20 per cent. duty, and freight and insurance of around £10 per ton. For instance, this brings the Russian price back to approximately £15 per ton ex-factory. Lastly on the question of price, Roumania, one of the largest overseas suppliers, charges higher prices to our European neighbours. Her prices to Belgium, for example, are about 38 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom price. In fact, the United Kingdom market appears to be used to dump surplus stocks. Eire, another supplier, charges 20 per cent. import duty on British wood chipboard, but is allowed to send her chipboard duty-free into this market.
All these facts have been made known to the Board of Trade, which unfortunately is not prepared to take any action against this unfair method of international trading. We have in this country a national programme to encourage homegrown timber, and present afforestation plans involve an investment of £400 million by private woodland owners and the Forestry Commission. This vital industry used to depend mainly on the mines to use up its small round wood, including thinnings, but wooden pit props are no longer used in modern mines. It is therefore essential to have an outlet for thinnings.
In the development of a successful forestry business we must have our own wood processing industry, but because of low-priced imports one-third of the United Kingdom capacity has been unused since 1965, and one factory has already closed down in Scotland, that is, Bonawood in Inverness, despite the efforts of the Highland and Islands Development Board which has done its best to keep the factory open and, when this failed, to try to interest others in taking over the business. The prime reason for this closure is the depressed condition of the wood chipboard market.
Forestry is the only suitable crop for vast tracts of Scotland—districts already depressed and scheduled as development areas. I am sure it must be small comfort to the redundant skilled forestry workers to know that the present difficulties are stated to be only temporary, and that as a result of current discussions something may well emerge. But once labour from the countryside is lost to the towns it is well known that workers never return to the rural areas.
I should like to suggest a way in which the Government could help the forestry contractors. I believe development area grants do not cover the equipment used in the forests, and it would be of some help if this machinery was covered by the present 45 per cent. grant for the purchase of new equipment. Would the Minister consider this small point? The wood chipboard industry is already handling 35 per cent. of the softwood sales and is filling the vacuum left by the loss of the traditional outlets in the mining industry, in which the consumption of softwood is now down to 4 per cent. Chipboard factories are having to handle an over-large proportion of thinnings and must be given some protection until we have more mature forests and thus more profitable raw materials.
My second suggestion is that the imports of wood chipboard and flaxboard be placed on a quota. I do not know of any other product from Iron Curtain countries which is on open general licence, which is certainly the case with chipboard from Roumania. I know that our policy to-day is towards the liberalisation of trade, but this case must be classified as a special one and I am sure that the industry and the Government could work out a fair quota system.
Lastly, immediate action is necessary as the situation has been saved only temporarily by switching contractors from handling thinnings to larger timber. The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, drew the attention of the House to the fact that the S.W.O.A. alone has over 150,000 cubic feet of chipboard thinnings waiting to go to market. On the same day, May 3, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the Minister said that the pulp mills at Fort William and Workington will provide an outlet for thinnings. I would point out that when Workington
1144
is fully operational the mill's requirements will be 75 per cent. spruce, whereas there are large quantities of larch and Scots pine to be disposed of in the area. Pulp mills use the larger diameter softwoods, and therefore most of the thinnings are not suitable. I regret that neither Fort William nor Workington can offer an immediate solution; nor can they in the long run offer a complete alternative to the wood chip board factories. I therefore strongly urge Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the industry, to take some immediate action before it is too late.
9.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I raised this question a month or two ago and asked a number of supplementaries on it, to which the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, replied as well and as fully as he could. I do not want to add much now, except to say that I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, has raised this question, quite independently, with so much knowledge, and, if I may say so, in such a very well-informed manner. I would ask the Government to pay particular attention to what he has said.
There are two or three points which I should like to highlight. First, on the question of dumping I should like to ask the noble Lord what procedure has to be followed to establish the fact of whether or not dumping has taken place under our anti-dumping laws. Is the initiative entirely with the industry which desires protection against dumping, or is there any duty incumbent upon the Board of Trade, when they have information, to examine it and see whether or not they can establish if dumping has taken place? It seemed to me that the Roumanian figures which the noble Lord gave are very difficult to explain, except on the assumption that chipboard from Roumania is being sold in this country at less than cost prices. That is what I understand dumping to mean although I do not know exactly how, under the anti-dumping laws, steps are taken by the Board of Trade to ascertain whether the selling price in this country is, in fact, below the cost of production or not. But I should like to be assured on this. What is being done to ascertain this?
The Russian figures, too, which the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of

1145
Drumochter, gave, were I thought impressive. The noble Lord also mentioned flaxboard. I am not sure whether he pointed out that there is a difference between our duty on flaxboard and our duty on chipboard. Flaxboard is charged at only 10 per cent., whereas on chipboard we have to pay 20 per cent. Since I understand that all the Belgian material coming in is flaxboard and that it is undercutting our product, then, so long as we are out of the Common Market, it would be reasonable to put the two things on the same basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, also mentioned the case of Ireland. I am all in favour of having a free trade area with Ireland, but apparently we do not have it; it is a one-way traffic. We pay a 20 per cent. duty on what we send there and they pay nothing on what they send to us. I do not know whether the fault lies with the industry in not being active enough in presenting what happens to the Board of Trade, or whether the Board of Trade is at fault in not taking action on the representations which are being made to it by the industry.
But I would say this. First, we cannot do entirely without chipboard on our present forestry economy of the 1960s. It is not quite true to say that all the small thinnings can be absorbed by the pulp mills. For example, the whole of Workington's needs for the next two years will be supplied by the Forestry Commission, and what we are told very often by the Forestry Commission and the Government is: "Well, you ought to wait a year or two. Do not sell to the chipboard market the particular kinds of thinnings that you have to dispose of. Concentrate for the next 12 or 18 months on other types of wood."
What does that mean as far as the Forestry Commission is concerned? It means that the country is losing a great deal of money from the thinnings of the type which are being held up in the meantime. Those thinnings, you may say, are getting a little bigger; but when the wood gets too close its total increment is prejudiced. If it is thinned in good time, the whole increment increases much more year by year than if it is left a long time to grow up close like asparagus. Then it does not have a
1146
good crown and does not put on so much extra girth. So the Forestry Commission, and consequently the Revenue, by delaying this class of thinnings which ought to be going to the chipboard market, is losing increment as well as the immediate cash receipts for the thinnings which it would be getting. These are things that we ought to look into if we want to make our forestry policy a success, which is something I know we all want to do.
Finally, my Lords, I would point out that the chipboard industry in Europe is a growing and expanding industry. It is distressing and a cause of unease that it should be contracting in Great Britain when it is expanding in the rest of Europe. There, again, I do not know what difference would be made by our accession to the Common Market if that should happen within a foreseeable period. But we must proceed on the assumption that we are, at any rate, not in yet. The Board of Trade ought to consider very urgently what action it can take, either by way of preventing unfair imports or encouraging production to maintain the growth of this industry, which is of importance to our general economy as well as simply to the expansion of forestry in the Highland areas.
9.20 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, for giving us a chance to discuss this problem of the chipboard industry, which is an industry of great importance to Scotland. We all had a great deal of faith in it, and thought that many of our less saleable thinnings would go to it. In this we have been severely disillusioned. I believe, as I gather the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, does, that in the long run it will probably turn out all right. I regard it as a short-term problem, and therefore, although I should like to see legislation enacted to stop Eastern countries and Finland selling chipboard at below market value in this country, I think we must do something rather more immediate and more quickly. If we do not, the problem will be on us: foresters will have left the woodlands, trees will not be thinned, and it will be impossible for us to catch up.

1147
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when the Questions which have already been referred to were asked on May 3, said that the demand of Fort William was growing more rapidly than had at first been expected. My information is somewhat different. I have been told that they have been having great "teething" difficulties with the machines, and that this has definitely reduced the amount of wood that they have been able to take. As a result, they still are not taking timber from anyone except the Forestry Commission. My first suggestion is to ask whether, during this period of difficulty, the Forestry Commission could not give up or sub-contract to private owners some of its quota for the Fort William pulp mill, so that they could send some timber there straight away. This would not help everyone, but it would help some people.
The main difficulty about pulp timber, as opposed to chipboard timber, is that on the whole pulp demands spruce and not larch or pine; and it also demands a somewhat higher quality produce than chipboard demands. But I think that it would help a little, and I gather from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on May 3 that he feels that the increased consumption of the Fort William pulp mill will in the long run have quite an effect on this problem. I would therefore ask him very seriously whether he will request the Forestry Commission to allow private owners to get in on this market straight away by taking up some of the Commission's quota.
Secondly, my Lords, the best use for chipboard timber which is not required for the chipboard factories is for round fencing posts. Without any shadow of doubt it is best suited for this. There are many thousands of miles of main roads still unfenced in Scotland, on which the death of lambs and ewes during the year is absolutely enormous. The sheep also cause accidents which could well be avoided. I would ask the noble Lord whether he, the Ministry of Transport and the Scottish Department, could not have a crash programme of fencing these roads. This would be a great help, in that not only would it use up much of the timber which was designated for the chipboard factories and
1148
which now cannot go there, but would also help to prevent accidents, particularly where the roads have been improved but still left unfenced. I agree that there would be difficulties about who should pay for the maintenance of the fences, but I think that in this emergency we could well put up the fences first and then argue about maintenance afterwards. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this suggestion very carefully.
Finally, my Lords, I think part of the trouble is that the full potentialities of chipboard are not appreciated. I would therefore ask the noble Lord whether Government Departments could not use chipboard more than they do at the moment. I feel that this would help; it would show that the Government have faith in chipboard as a building material. One of the difficulties in a somewhat conservative country is to persuade people to use new building materials. I think that the Government and Government Departments could easily give a lead in this.
9.25 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I intervene primarily to make the point that, though the noble Lord who introduced this debate spoke largely about Scotland, this is really a United Kingdom problem. It is just as serious South of the Border as it is North of the Border. I am not sure whether the noble Lord thinks that Workington is in Scotland. It is in a part of the country which was once claimed by the Kingdom of Strathclyde, but the modern boundary is just to the North of it.
To illustrate my point, the Novaboard factory, which was so important to East Anglia, in using small-scale thinnings in that area, has closed down. The Cellotex factory, which was not so far from us here, has closed down. The Tyboard factory, in the Tyne Valley, near Newcastle-on-Tyne, is working at much below its capacity. I think that I have said enough to show that this is not a problem centred on Fort William.
When I listened the other day to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, answering the noble Earl's questions, I thought that he underestimated the seriousness of this problem. No doubt the Forestry Commission gave him his brief. I think it is fair to say that this is a much less immediate

1149
problem for the Forestry Commission than for private growers. Whether their sales be £250,000 or £500,000 more or less makes little difference to the annual accounts of the Forestry Commissioners, whereas on the private side a reduction of that amount in sales could bring large sections nearly to disaster. Chipboard is never going to be a high-priced material, and it ought not to be transported halfway across the globe and sold. The fact that that happens is surely prima facie evidence that the price, such as described to us this evening, must be an unfair price.
Lastly, may I support what the noble Duke has just said? Will the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, make representations to all his colleagues in the Government to press them to use more home-grown timber of all natures, not just chipboard? I know that his predecessors have done this every few years. It has had very little effect, because it is easier to get a level supply of timber through the ports than from home sources. We must try to get away from that established habit. The evidence which has been laid before the noble Lord this evening is, I think, conclusive.
9.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, although the Question relates to the chipboard industry in Scotland, the debate has become a miniature forestry debate. With all due respect to noble Lords, this was not the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, although it was one of the points which he brought in and it will be one of the points to which I shall refer, because of the effect that increased foreign competition has on the chipboard industry and its requirement of home-grown timber. That is the aspect to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred when he put a Question to me recently.
In some of the things that have been said on this Question, there has been an emphasis in certain directions. For instance, the statistics which I have been given do not lead me to accept the figures of imports from Roumania, one of the countries against which an allegation of dumping has been made. Whatever the prices involved, their imports are a minor part of the total. For instance, in 1966, out of a total of a quarter of a million tons used, 90,000 tons were imported; and of that quantity
1150
9,164 tons came from Roumania. So the proportion was approximately one-tenth of our total imports. We have to keep this matter in perspective, and we have to remember that we are partners in EFTA, who are considerable producers of this material, and that considerable quantities come from EFTA. One of the objects is to stimulate trade between ourselves and EFTA countries, and to that end we have eliminated duties. Secondly, we are seeking to enter the Common Market, and again the object will be to eliminate duties between ourselves and the Six. It would be inconsistent with either of these objectives, even as a short-term measure, to seek, even if it were possible—which it is not —to have duties on chipboard coming from these countries, in particular.
I should like to say something about the industry as a whole. First of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, said, the chipboard industry is a comparatively new one, not only in Scotland but anywhere. The material can be made either from industrial wood waste, such as the shavings from sawmills and joinery factories, or from small sized roundwood which is subsequently converted into wood chips. The industry is thus a particularly suitable one for Scotland, where it provides one of the outlets for the increasing quantity of forestry thinnings which are now arising.
Chipboard is a very versatile material. It is already widely used in the furniture industry, as has been said, with more hopeful prospects. After all, we know that the furniture industry is not as prosperous at the present time as it has sometimes been in the past. But chipboard is being used in increasing quantities in building, for such purposes as floorings and partition walls. Rapid technological advances in the manufacture of chipboard have resulted in improvements in the production and have widened its range of applications.
Its success in establishing a market in Britain can be judged by the steady increase in consumption in recent years. This has grown from less than 70,000 tons in 1960 to nearly 250,000 tons in 1966. I would point out that in 1960 half of the total quantity was home-produced; that is, 35,000 tons out of slightly under 70,000 tons. But in 1966 the British production provided 162,000

1151
tons, out of a total of 250,000 tons. Notwithstanding the many advantages which some of the foreign producers have, the industry has made considerable strides inside the United Kingdom and has had considerable success in getting a substantial and, up to 1966, at any rate, a growing share of the market.
It is against this background, therefore, that the increase in imports to which the industry attributes its present problems should be considered. Imports of chipboard and of other types of particle board, such as flaxboard, to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred, have risen from 34,000 tons in 1960 to 90,000 tons in 1966. This is another reflection of the rapid expansion of the market, to which I have already referred. Manufacturers in some of the overseas countries are able to produce this material at a lower cost than British manufacturers, because they can integrate their production with other forest industries and so obtain their raw materials at a substantially lower cost.
They use very much more than we do the wood residues from sawings and so on, rather than the chips from thinnings, and it is an established fact in this country that where wood residue is used it forms a much lower proportion of the total cost of the chipboard than if wood chips from thinnings are used. I realise therefore that Scottish and other British manufacturers are working at a disadvantage in comparison with overseas competitors and one which the manufacturers cannot easily overcome, since British Forestry resources are not yet able to sustain large-scale integrated production of this type.
The cost of transport of raw materials to British chipboard factories is consequently a significant factor in the total costs. On the other hand, of course, there are the foreign producers. Some figures have been mentioned in relation to these costs, and they have the additional cost of transporting their materials to British markets. This does not mean, however, that the British industry cannot compete effectively with imported particle board. Although many foreign manufacturers have the advantage of lower production costs, the home industry is much closer to the domestic market and is thus much better placed to keep in touch with the user industries and better placed to meet their requirements quickly.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Can he easily reconcile that with the fact that, in spite of these advartages, several of our factories actually closed down?
LORD HUGHES: I do not know that I want easily to reconcile it. I do not accept that the closure of all of these factories is related to the question of dumping. I have pointed out that some of these European factories have lower production costs. They are more massive timber-using industries.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who said that since 1960 the price of chipboard in this country had remained stable. But the position on the Continent is not that it has remained stable; it is that the index of price in 1961 was 100 and the index in 1965 and 1966 was 78·3. This is a reflection of the greater extent to which they have grown and where, by a much bigger production, they have been able to reduce their costs to a greater extent than we have been able to maintain our prices over a period of six years. They have been able to go from that and reduce their prices. We shall in due course get these advantages also, but we are newer in this than they are, and we have not, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has pointed out more than once in your Lordships' House, made the same efforts to produce timber, and therefore to have timber-using industries, as some of these other countries have done.
References have been made to widespread dumping of chipboard in the British market by foreign manufacturers. I understand that during last year the chipboard industry made representations to the Board of Trade about imports from Roumania. That was the only one of the Iron Curtain countries, so far as I know, about which representations were made. It is true that these imports were low in price, but they were such a small and, up to last year, declining proportion of the total imports of particle board that it would have been idle to pretend that they had other than the most marginal effect on the situation. For example, if I may quote the figures which I was given, from Roumania we took 6,700 tons in 1964, and in 1965 (the year in which the representations were made) the substantial figure of 17,800

1153
tons. In 1966 the figure had fallen to 9,000 tons.
It is difficult to prove dumping, and particularly, for the reasons stated by mole than one noble Lord, in respect of imports from Communist countries, because of the different nature of their economy. It is difficult to prove that they are in fact selling abroad at a price lower than in the home market, because where they are not necessarily selling at a price in their own home market which bears relation to the cost of production, one of the basic essentials of establishing a case for the provision of anti-dumping measures is so very much more difficult to ascertain.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I, with respect, draw the noble Lord's attention to one point? When he said that the only complaint that had come to the Board of Trade related to Roumanian chipboard, I must disagree with him. I have here in my hand a document which was submitted to the Board of Trade by the Wood Chipboard Manufacturers' Group and the British Plastics Federation, which names all the other countries that were allegedly dumping on the British market. It is not only Roumania. All these details have been submitted very fully to the Board of Trade.
LORD HUGHES: What is the date of that submission?
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the date of the submission, but the document was also covered by a Press conference, held on May 23; so it was prior to that date.
LORD HUGHES: That may be so. But I would point out that the information I was given was that the only representation which had been made was that made in 1965, when these Roumanian figures were so very much higher than those of the year before, and there was an allegation of dumping made at that particular time. But by the time it really came the figures were going down substantially. I have, however, confirmed the difficulty which exists in establishing that dumping, in the international concept of dumping, has in fact taken place.
1154
One of the difficulties about this, of course, is that perhaps the genuine price difference is such that you do not serve much useful purpose by making representations. What happens is that the price is increased appreciably, still enabling it to come into the country, and you bring in the same quantity but pay more for it. It does not seem to help either the chipboard industry or the firms. I would point out also that the removal of the temporary import surcharge and of the remaining duties on imports from our EFTA partners has naturally resulted in increased competition for the growing market for chipboard in Britain.
We note, for instance, that in 1966 we took 14,000 tons from Finland, as against 4,700 tons in 1964, and we took, from outside either EFTA or the Iron Curtain countries, 22,000 tons from Belgium, as against 12,000 tons in 1964. We see the extent to which there is competition from areas where the dumping allegation just does not arise. A considerable part of the difficulties arises as a consequence of the removal of barriers to international trade, which, after all, is one of the cornerstones, and has long been one of the cornerstones, of our overseas trading policy; and which is generally recognised to be in our best long-term commercial interests.
While I appreciate the industry's concern about this growing competition, nevertheless an increase of imports is not in itself evidence of dumping, even although most of those imports may be cheaper than British chipboard. After all, a great part of our success as a commercial nation is that we are able to sell manufactured goods to countries—sometimes after transporting them over considerable distances—at a lower price than those countries can produce them themselves. The fact that we can sell more cheaply than they produce we will never accept as evidence that we are dumping our goods on them at uneconomic prices. I am not saying that there is no dumping; I am saying that the fact that something comes in more cheaply than we can produce it is not in itself evidence of dumping; and the industry are not maintaining that a great part of the imports come into the category of "dumped goods".
The industry are aware of the situation, and it may be that the document to which

1155
the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, referred shows a more recent awareness of the need for activity on their part. But I should like to emphasise that if the industry have evidence—and this brings the answer to the noble Lord's question about how the machinery comes into operation—that the imports of particle board are being dumped, and that such imports are causing them, of threatening them, with material injury, they can apply to the Board of Trade for anti-dumping action under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. These two things are of particular importance—they must believe that dumping is taking place, and they must be able to show that they are causing material injury to the industry at home, or threatening material injury. That is why the Roumanian allegation in 1965 could not get very far. It was so small in relation to the total that it was virtually impossible to prove that it was causing material damage to the industry.
I can assure noble Lords that any such application from the industry would be carefully considered, because the Government are of course not indifferent to the chipboard industry's problems. In this connection, your Lordships may care to take note of what was said yesterday in another place by the President of the Board of Trade, which indicated that imports of particle board from Eastern Europe will be discussed with the countries concerned. Noble Lords will not expect me to go further than that. Various suggestions were made as to different ways in which this could be dealt with, and I think at this stage my right honourable friend has perhaps gone as far as he can be expected to go but your Lordships will note that it is a wider answer than merely a reference to seeking to deal with the dumping which might in fact be impossible to prove. It is the question of imports from those countries which will be discussed.
May I say that I am particularly conscious of the contribution which the factories in Annan and Irvine make to employment in Scotland? It is unfortunate that among those factories which are closed there is one at Inverness, but with the best will in the world I do not think this can be attributed solely to the effects, of competition from imports. I also recognise that the chipboard industry, relying
1156
as it does on indigenous wood and industrial wood residues, is responsible for valuable import savings of timber and other wood products, a field in which we are traditionally dependent on imports for such a large part of our requirements. We are, therefore, anxious that this industry should develop, and that its production capacity should be fully utilised. But I think it must be clear from what I have said that this development depends mainly on the ability of the industry to counter its competitors' advantages as regards raw materials' costs by making the best use of its proximity to the British market.
It has been suggested that the Government should give particular consideration to the need for making greater use of this particular material in our industry. We do in so far as we can; but, after all, the greater part, indeed almost the whole, of the users of these materials are private-enterprise companies, and this is not a case where the Government can say to the furniture industry, or even the building industry, "You must use this form of material in preference to another". They can encourage it; they can draw attention to the advantages of it, but they cannot compel people to use it if in their commercial judgment they want to do something else. We have also to take account of individual tastes, and most people, in a house for instance, are still working on the basis that an ordinary whitewood flooring is natural and that chipboard is an inferior substitute. It is not an inferior substitute, but until it becomes more commonly used too many people will continue to regard it as a substitute for the real thing. In certain varieties of use (I know this from my own past business experience) it is much more satisfactory. If you are going to put down hardwood block flooring, you get a much more satisfactory surface if chipboard is used.
We will give such encouragement as we can properly do, particularly by allowing its use to be approved in tenders for housebuilding. But some of the other suggestions made were more appropriate to the forestry side than to the chipboard industry. I cannot be expected to go too far in connection with that at a time when the Government are constantly being told that they are spending too much money; that they extort too much from the taxpayers and ought to be looking for ways of reducing taxation, and that the

1157
easiest way to do that is to reduce Government expenditure. The noble Duke suggests we should have a crash programme of fencing in everybody's land which is within sight of a roadway which may occasionally have a sheep or lamb on it. I know that I am exaggerating slightly what the noble Duke said, just as I think he exaggerated the contribution which the Government could be expected to make in this direction. But he glossed it over by saying, "I know there might be problems about maintenance once it was up". The problem, in fact starts earlier on. Whose responsibility is it to put up the fences in the first place? We cannot at one stage be discouraged from increasing our expenditure and at the same time be told that a diminution of a quarter of a million pounds in the revenue of the Forestry Commission is of little importance and that a crash programme of road works and fencing is a good thing to do.
I agree that it would be a good thing from the point of view of those people who wish to dispose of the thinnings. I think that when the noble Earl raised his Question about the use of thinnings last month I mentioned that a meeting was to take place between representatives of the Scottish woodland owners to consider ways and means of improving this situation. I understand that a meeting has been held, and that certain suggestions were made—which may or may not be acceptable to the owners—under which, for instance, the timber trade would take off their hands the 4,000 tons of thinnings presently surplus to market requirements. But of course there is a sting in it: the timber trade want a guarantee that they will get them all in the future, and this would mean that the co-operative marketing arrangements which the owners have at the present time would be abandoned.
But this is not the final meeting. Another meeting is to take place, I understand, in July. I hope that something will emerge from this, because I agree with what has been said, that the problem of the forestry side in relation to losing business which might have gone to the chipboard industry is a short-term one. Even in the medium term the prospects for forestry are good, and if they can get over this short-term problem then they
1158
will have solved the difficulties which exist at the present time.
I must apologise, because that is going on to the difficulties of forestry owners, and the noble Lord has raised the question of the difficulties of chipboard manufacturers. I know that he and other noble Lords will not necessarily be satisfied with what I have said, because they have called for certain things to be done, and to be done immediately. I hope, however, that they will accept that what I have said, and particularly drawing attention to what the President of the Board of Trade said yesterday, is an indication that the Government are conscious of the importance of the chipboard industry in this country, and of the need for its continued expansion in conditions of prosperity, and that the President and the Board of Trade will take all action that they can properly do to help this industry.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he reply to the point about Eire? We have to pay 20 per cent. for our chipboard coming from Eire, and they get theirs in for nothing at all; they pay nothing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, one of the unfortunate features of trade agreements is that if you single out particular items there may be an advantage to one country and a disadvantage to the other, but in their endeavours over the whole field of activity, no doubt the Irish could point to other spheres where they say: "If only you would alter this around the other way we should be doing a great deal more." It is impossible to single out any one single item of trade between countries and to say, "This is unfair on us". It would, of course, be better if we had exactly the same conditions. It would be a great deal better for us all if there were no duty at all between ourselves and Ireland. Unfortunately, that is not the position at the present time, and when the agreement was negotiated it was felt that there was considerable advantage in the aggregate, both for the Irish Republic and for ourselves.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.