Lords Sitting of 11 May 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

WELSH REPRESENTATION ON B.E.A. BOARD
2.36 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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, in view of the importance of civil aviation to Wales, a member with a good knowledge of the civil aviation needs of Wales and closely associated with Welsh affairs will be appointed to the Board of B.E.A. in succession to Mr. S. Kenneth Davies, C.B.E., whose membership of the Board terminated on March 11, 1967.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the overriding consideration must be that a member should have the personal qualities and experience that make the greatest contribution to the airline. Whilst not precluding a person with the qualifications referred to by the noble Lord, I think it would be wrong to make any appointment to the Board on a purely regional basis.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as at the beginning there were three directors appointed on a regional basis, may I take it that the rule has now been changed? May I also take it that there will now be no one on the Board of B.E.A. responsible for and especially looking after the interests of Welsh civil aviation? May I also ask what is the function of the Advisory Committee under the new procedure? Finally, would the Minister care
1574
to say a word in commendation of Mr. Kenneth Davies's long and distinguished service to aviation, both in Wales and in the United Kingdom generally?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, dealing with the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I certainly should be very happy here publicly to thank Mr. Davies for his long and very valuable service in this capacity. Her Majesty's Government are extremely grateful to him for all that he has done. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that the rule has changed. In fact it changed in 1960 with the passing of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, when the Regional Advisory Councils were replaced by Regional Advisory Committees. These Committees are, as their name implies, purely advisory, to advise the Board on matters of regional importance. It was felt then that it would be improper for members responsible for advising the Independent Air Transport Licensing Board to hold positions on the Boards of the Air Corporations.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that there are people living in Wales who would be a great asset to the Corporation, even though—or perhaps, as the noble Lord would say, in spite of the fact—that they are Welsh.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am quite sure that anybody who would be an asset to the Corporation will be considered with very close attention, whether he comes from Wales or not. The fact that he comes from Wales, will of course in no way preclude him from serving as a member, but I want to emphasise that the job of the member is in no way to represent regional interests.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, could my noble friend consider whether priority should be given here to men of Welsh birth?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not catch the second part of my noble friend's question.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, would it not be advisable in this case that, given equal status in experience, priority should be given to appointing a Welshman? I do not think the Government fully understand the fact that these little implications, and

1575
the gradual denigration of Welshmen, has not been accepted.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that there is no denigration, gradual or otherwise, of any Welshman. I think there are many examples in public service and Government which show that that is so.

COWBRIDGE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, GLAMORGAN
2.41 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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, since they have declared that, as a matter of national policy, secondary education in this country should be reorganised on comprehensive lines and since the Glamorgan County Council have adopted this policy for the administrative County of Glamorgan, whether any change is contemplated in the existence or status of the ancient and admirable boarding and day establishment known as Cowbridge Grammar School in the Vale of Glamorgan.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the Glamorgan Education Authority have, with the approval of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, postponed submission of reorganisation schemes for certain areas of the County, including the Vale of Glamorgan. I understand that they have not yet reached a decision on the future of the Cowbridge Grammar School.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while I am very relieved to hear that statement from the Minister, and grateful to him for it, may I ask him, and through him the Glamorgan County Council, to remember that this is a boarding school, the only boarding school, I believe, in Glamorgan and one of the very few in Wales, and if this school is abolished it will act very much to the social and educational detriment of the people of Glamorgan.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, both the Secretary of State and the Education
1576
Authority in the Vale of Glamorgan will take note of the noble Lord's comments, but I can assure him that in no real sense is this admirable school likely to suffer in its status.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask guidance from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. In my experience in this House we have always avoided asking in Starred Questions what one might call constituency questions. I have noticed recently that more noble Lords, on all sides, have been asking rather small constituency questions. I wonder whether we might have guidance from the noble Earl as to whether or not he thinks this is desirable.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, the noble Lord has, without warning me in advance, at any rate for more than a moment or two, raised what is undoubtedly a very difficult question here and one on which I should not wish to pronounce, either in general terms or in relation to a particular Question, without full discussion. Certainly in my experience—I do not know whether the noble Lord and the noble Marquess would agree, as past Leaders—we do try to avoid constituency questions. On the other hand, I should not agree with the noble Lord that we always succeed. It is extremely difficult to draw the line. The whole House is aware that I have no power—nobody has any power—to stop a noble Lord from putting down a Question, whether a constituency question or not, and it certainly does not lie within the power of the Table.
Nevertheless, I should think that the Leader of the House of the day carries some duty, where a Question seems to him to be unduly narrow, to suggest to the noble Lord that it might not be cast in the right form or might be better raised in some other way. I should not like to imply that I possessed such a duty in relation to this particular Question, but I realise that some such duty may fall on the Leader of the House for the time. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, feels that there has been a rather undesirable development in this direction lately, I would only suggest that he and I, and the Leader of

1577
the Liberal Party, should ourselves discuss the matter in the first place, and then, if necessary, refer it to the Procedure Committee.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, presumably my Question has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to raise this point. I do not know whether the Question referring to Mr. Kenneth Davies was regarded as a "constituency question". After all, it affects Welsh representation as a whole and is certainly not a constituency question. Wales is a nation, not: a constituency. I would remind your Lordships that at the moment this House—whether it will be so in the future is a different matter, I hope—is a House of Parliament for Wales. Secondly, may I say, if the noble Lord's remark refers to my Glamorgan County Council Question, that the whole point of the Question is that, this being a boarding school, its pupils are drawn from a wide area. That is why, again, it is not a "constituency question". I am always ready to be reproved—in fact, eager to be reproved, when I am at fault—but I do not regard myself as being at fault in this particular matter.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope I did not even imply, however timidly, that the noble Lord was at fault in any way at all. I have never noticed this passionate desire for reproof on his part, but I will venture to exploit it in the future. Nevertheless, I feel that I have really said all I can say this afternoon: that perhaps the Leaders of the Parties should put their heads together to see whether there is a tendency here which we ought to find some way of checking.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that we must be careful not to limit the freedom of this House, and, speaking as one of the three noble Lords who have had a constituency, I would say that it is extremely difficult to define exactly what is a constituency question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means, looking at me, when he speaks "as one of the three noble Lords who have had a constituency." It is true that I once failed to obtain a constituency, if that is what the noble Lord is implying; but there must be a great
1578
many more than three noble Lords who have had constituencies.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that as noble Lords are not allowed to act vis-à-vis the Ombudsman, this is probably quite a useful ventilation in another direction?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may say so with great respect to the former Leader of the Liberal Party here, I feel that that raises a rather wider and slightly different issue. I should hope that the Leaders of the Parties could now get together.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not in any way wish to interfere in the agreement which is taking place on the Liberal Benches upon the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore; and I was not particularly attacking him, though I venture to think that his second Question was perhaps a constituency question. But surely the point is that we are allowed only four Questions a day, and where we have Questions on matters of relatively minor importance, which are perhaps of importance in constituencies, it limits the opportunity of other noble Lords to ask Questions of more national importance.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that, as a general principle, is attractive, at any rate, but I see the difficulty of even implying that a Question, shall we say relating to justice towards some individual, should be excluded. So I feel that these suggested talks are perhaps the only step that can be taken.

IMMIGRATION BAN ON INDIAN BOY
2.47 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 on what grounds Dharambhir Singh, a boy of fourteen, was refused admission to this country and sent back to India on May 6, 1967.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, Dharambhir Singh was refused

1579
admission because he did not qualify for admission under any head of policy. He was living with his parents, brothers and sisters in India, and no case was made out for admitting him on grounds of hardship. Moreover, no application had been made on Dharambhir Singh's behalf for an entry certificate before he set out. I cannot emphasise too strongly the desirability of would-be immigrants applying for certificates before undertaking such a journey.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I apologise to my noble friend for having in a supplementary question yesterday on a similar issue, used the conscriptive words "in detention." I did not mean more than the less emotive word "detain". I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the Minister for using those particular words.
On this Question, I should like to ask, first, whether it is not the fact that this boy was coming to his sister in this country; and if this sister had been a Commonwealth immigrant would he not, under the present law, have been allowed in? Further, is it not an anomaly that he was not allowed to enter this country because his sister happened to be a British citizen married to a British resident?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on behalf of the medical and nursing staff at Heathrow I would express my grateful thanks to my noble friend for withdrawing the word "detention". Certainly those concerned carry out their not easy duties in accordance with the highest standards of medical care and courtesy.
With regard to my noble friend's supplementary question, it is true that this boy made the journey in order to join his sister and brother-in-law in this country. But I do not think there is an anomaly here. Had the boy been coming with his parents, and had his father been a voucher holder, he would have been admitted. But none of these circumstances arose in this case. It was admitted that the boy was nearly 15 and that, after continuing his education for a short time, it was the intention that he should take up employment. I think that not only in accordance with every rule, but also in justice to other would-be immigrants, it was right
1580
that he should be excluded on this occasion.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer, may I ask him this? Could more thorough arrangements be made in the countries from which these children come, so that parents and the children are informed of the conditions of entry to this country? Is it not the case that an information slip is inserted in the passport, and that very often there is no opportunity for the parents or for the child to be aware of the conditions under which he may have to return to India?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think that one would not expect a boy of 14 or 15 to be aware of all those conditions, but I cannot accept the implications of my noble friend's question. It is the case that the Indian passport authorities advise intending passengers to this country to check with the British High Commission before travelling to find out whether they are eligible for admission here. The proof that the duty was carried out on this occasion is the fact that a note to this effect was found in this boy's passport at Heathrow Airport. No inquiry of the British High Commission had been made on his behalf, and certainly he did not have an entry certificate. It may well be that the Indian passport authorities do not spell this out sufficiently—that I cannot say. But they accept the duty, and if one sees the slip in the boy's passport one is entitled to believe that proper steps had been taken to try to prevent an unnecessary and expensive journey.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us in the House think that these immigration regulations are working reasonably satisfactorily, and is it not the case that if these regulations are not carried out it would make the job of the immigration officer quite impossible and would be grossly unfair to other immigrants who want to come here?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I tried to point out, in answering my noble friend, the unfairness that would be involved had this boy been admitted, but that still does not take away the fact that the raising of questions such as that which my noble friend has raised is of considerable value, if only to the extent that it underlines

1581
what the regulations are and helps to ensure that these very expensive journeys, and these great disappointments to such people, are avoided.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not likely that the slip is put into the passport at the airport as the boy is leaving? Would it not be possible to consider giving the information at the time when the ticket is purchased, so that there is a longer period in which those concerned can appreciate what the results may be?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is not as easy as all that. The fact that a boy comes from India, at a very expensive fare, may mean in many cases that the arrangements have been spread over a period of months. If the noble Lord, Lord Byers, were at the airport to see what happens when these young people arrive here he would realise that every effort is made by the immigration officers to explore every possibility of eligibility; and, if the children are in any way eligible, they are admitted. It is not for me to say whether or not the Indian passport authorities are carrying out their duties as explicitly as we should like them to—I believe that they are—but I do know that the fullest possible information is given to citizens in this country who intend to have their relatives come to them from overseas.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, is there no way in which it would be possible to allow responsibility for these journeys to fall more heavily on the shoulders of the airline transporting the people? I feel that if this were done before the passengers were allowed to board the aircraft in the country of origin, particularly India or Pakistan. the airline would make sure that their papers and documents were in order and that they would be allowed into the country to which they were travelling.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order! Speech!
LORD MOYNIHAN: I suggest that possibly the noble Lord might consider some way in which the airline would be required to take them back free of charge.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would only remind the noble Lord that the airline authority have to carry the person back to the country of origin if he is refused entry here, with a very doubtful chance
1582
of recovering their fare, and I am sure that they do all they possibly can to avoid bringing people here on fruitless journeys.

GIBRALTAR: AIR TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS
2.55 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position reached in the discussions taking place within the Council of the I.C.A.O. in Montreal over the restrictive Spanish ban on flights near Gibraltar; and bearing in mind the possible interference with established air navigation and the creation of a hazard to the safety of aircraft and passengers, what action is proposed:

(a) to ensure the continuance of normal air navigation;

(b) to determine the delimitation of territorial waters between Spain and Gibraltar.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the question of the prohibited air zone declared by Spain in the vicinity of Gibraltar was, on our initiative, raised in the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation at Montreal yesterday. The British representative made clear Her Majesty's Government's view that the Spanish declaration infringes the Chicago Convention and should not be put into effect. The Council's consideration of the matter will be resumed to-day. As soon as the outcome of the discussion in Montreal is known, we shall decide what further steps may be necessary to ensure the continuance of normal air navigation.
As regards the delimitation of territorial waters between Spain and Gibraltar, this was one of the issues which we proposed to the Spaniards should be referred to the International Court of Justice. The Spanish Government rejected this proposal last December but our offer remains open.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord

1583
very much for that answer. May I ask him one supplementary question? As any ban on flying for civilian aircraft between the Spanish mainland and Gibraltar up to within 200 yards of the airfield is totally unreasonable, will Her Majesty's Government take any step which may be necessary to guarantee that B.E.A. and B.U.A. are able to carry out their normal and established approach procedures into the airfield?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the area in question, as the noble Lord may know, is in fact in close proximity to the Gibraltar airfield, and it is about 40 miles long by 20 miles wide. So obviously the prohibition, if implemented, would affect the safety and regularity of flights of civil aircraft to and from Gibraltar. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear—and I make clear again now—that we fully intend to uphold our right to use the airfield at Gibraltar; and this means both for civil and military use.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Chalfont will be making two Statements at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. The first will be on Aden, and the second will be on the reorganisation of the Infantry.

CENTENARY OF CANADIAN SENATE
2.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to move, That this House most sincerely congratulates the Senate of Canada upon its centenary and upon the fulfilment of the farseeing hopes with which the Government of Queen Victoria introduced the British North America Bill into this House in 1867, and assures the Canadian Parliament and people of its continuing interest in their future, and in the maintenance of the close ties which have been built up over the past hundred years between this House and the Senate; and that this Resolution be communicated to the Senate of Canada with the warm greetings of this House.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before I do
1584
so, I should like to tell your Lordships that earlier this week I had the pleasure of entertaining Senator Connolly, the Leader of the Senate in Canada. I was then able to discuss with him this Motion, and was pleased to hear from him that what we are setting out to do to-day would be warmly received in the Senate in Canada.
The hundred years since the creation of the Confederation of Canada and of the first independent nation of the Commonwealth have seen the peaceful evolution of a young pioneer society into one of the most advanced industrial nations of to-day. Yet her standing to-day on the world scene is based not only on the material wealth created by the strenuous endeavours of her people but in the example of responsibility, enterprise and democracy which Canada has given to the world in her domestic affairs and in all her dealings abroad.
Members of this House need not be reminded of the sacrifices of Canada—our ally in two world wars—in past years. To-day her efforts continue, within the Commonwealth, within NATO, within the United Nations, for the safeguarding of world peace, the pacification of troubled areas, and the bringing of prosperity to the developing countries. Her contribution to the more harmonious world order which we are all seeking has been second to none. But in moving this Resolution I should like particularly to suggest that Canada's pre-eminent role in modern society and in the international scene is above all a measure of the soundness of her roots, the spirit of her people and the Parliamentary institutions which have so outstandingly guarded her democratic tradition. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House most sincerely congratulates the Senate of Canada upon its centenary and upon the fulfilment of the farseeing hopes with which the Government of Queen Victoria introduced the British North America Bill into this House in 1867, and assures the Canadian Parliament and people of its continuing interest in their future, and in the maintenance of the close ties which have been built up over the past hundred years between this House and the Senate; and that this Resolution be communicated to the Senate of Canada with the warm greetings of this House.—(The Earl of Longford.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there will be no-one in this House who will not wish to associate himself with the Motion moved by the noble Earl, and with the way in which he has commended it to your Lordships. I rise only to say that we who sit on this side of the House wish to join in the good wishes to the Senate and the people of Canada expressed by the Leader of the House.
Earlier this week we were discussing the Common Market, and there may have been some who thought that in some degree this decision might affect the ties—the family ties and the ties of relationship and affection—of those whose history originated in this country and who form the Commonwealth. This would be a complete misjudgment. On the contrary, we believe that such an association will mean a stronger Britain and, consequently, a stronger and closer Commonwealth. Canadians should always know that whatever may happen in the future, Common Market or no, they can always expect from us in this country the same feelings of friendship and kinship which have existed for these last hundred years.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches should very much like to be associated with this Motion, and I should personally like to endorse the words of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition—and particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about the Common Market. We have a very high regard for the Canadian people. Speaking personally, again, I was in a position during the war to appreciate the very great contribution made by, first, the Canadian Corps, and later the Canadian Army. We on these Benches, in particular, have many friends in the Liberal Administration of Canada, and we should like to join with the other Parties in this House in sending the warmest greetings to the Senate.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, as Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which has 900 members from both Houses of this Parliament, I hope I may be allowed to associate myself with this Motion on behalf of the United Kingdom branch. Last year the Annual Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was held in Ottowa. The plenary sessions of
1586
the Conference were held in the Senate House of the Canadian Parliament, and the committee sittings were held in the Lower House. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Shepherd, as a hereditary Peer, did not make history as a result of his making speeches at one of the committees in an elected Chamber.
However, be that as it may, I think I should be expected by all the members of the United Kingdom branch to express on their behalf our warm welcome and our warm support of this Motion. I made my own position clear in the debate on the Common Market the other day, but I should like to endorse very strongly what has just been said by the Leader of the Opposition: that the Commonwealth of Nations, whatever action we may take in entering the European Economic Community, will remain as one of the great forces for peace and cooperation in the world in the future.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am sure the House does not want to linger long on a Motion about which we are all so fully agreed, but we owe so much to Canada that it would be a pity if there were any suggestion that this was a formal acceptance of what has been moved. I wish particularly to refer to the point which my noble friend Lord Carrington has made, because in the discussions on the European Economic Community not very much was said about Canada, although it may have been in most of our minds. Indeed, there was sometimes a tendency to paint with one brush the United States and Canada.
They are very different countries. Indeed, the whole existence of Canada depended on the resolution and character of the Canadians in refusing to join the 13 revolting Colonies. Secondly, Canada is the only country of the Americas—either North or South—which has wanted to maintain positive links with Europe. She has done that to this time, and in the course of doing so has set the pattern of the Commonwealth which we know to-day. It is Canada who set it by her constant refusal to allow institutional reform to supersede her own independence, and yet she maintained considerable individuality of outlook.
As far back as, I think, the time of Mr. Gladstone she refused to support his action in the Sudan. She said: "No,

1587
this is something which he has got into and we are not going into it, too." As we all know, she came immensely into the First World War and into the Second World War. She declined to join Mr. Lloyd George in Chanak. I mention this only to show that this was the form which she very early took, and which has been followed in practice by many other countries. She did it very slowly. She took, I think, ten years to get a High Commissioner in this country, about forty years to form the Royal Canadian Navy and sixty years before sending an Ambassador anywhere at all. We owe her a great deal for the form in which she has led the Commonwealth and which has been followed by others, though I regret to say not at the same easy pace which Canada herself has taken.
May I add one other point? Canadians have taken one quality from this country, and that is self-criticism. We are very self-critical and so are they. I believe they carry it to the point of masochism, which is wholly unnecessary. When you go over there they are constantly telling you of the difficulties they have—of geographical lines which are North and South rather than East and West, of the preponderant power of the United States, of their linguistic problems. I hope that that period in Canadian life is over and that they will realise that they are a great nation playing an immense role in the world to-day, and if they disappeared something would be lost from the comity of nations which would be the loss of us all.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, may I, for a very particular reason, be allowed to associate myself personally and very warmly with this Motion? The particular reason is that my great-grandfather was Governor of British North America when the Bill referred to in the Resolution was before your Lordships. He became the first Governor-General, a fact of which my family and I and our successors will always be extremely proud. For that reason I asociate myself most warmly with the Motion moved by my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Longford, and trust that Canada's future may be even more glorious than her past.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
Ordered, That this Resolution be communicated to the Senate of Canada with the warm greetings of this House.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is purely a consolidation measure and applies only to Scotland, except in relation to cross-Border warrants and a number of consequential amendments and repeals. Basically, the Statutes to be consolidated are the Police (Scotland) Act 1956, Schedule 7 to the Police Act 1964, and the Police (Scotland) Act 1966. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The cardinal feature of this Bill is that it transfers the functions of some 200 local water authorities to 13 new regional water boards. This is not change simply for the sake of change. It is a measure which the Government put forward as an integral part of the modernisation of Scotland, the urgency of which cannot be over-stated in relation to economic growth. The Bill makes changes which will take the water service out of an administrative framework which has altered very little in the past century and which is so unsuited to modern needs that it cannot be allowed to continue even for the few years until the Royal Commission on Local Government has made recommendations. A new administrative basis for water supply—one which will serve present needs and

1589
all foreseeable future needs—is needed now. I should like to develop this theme briefly before describing the Bill itself.
Water supply in Scotland has for many years been wholly a local government service. There are no private water undertakings. The local water authorities have, on the whole, served our needs well. Some of them can stand comparison with undertakings anywhere in the world. This must not be allowed to blind us to the fact that many, because of inadequate financial and technical resources, are no longer able to keep pace with rising demands for water. The pattern of course varies throughout Scotland. In the past, local water authorities were able to meet immediate needs from sources close at hand. Some can still do so. In many parts of the country the demand for water is now such that it can be met only by developing the more distant sources, and the heavy costs involved must he kept within reason by the maximum degree of co-operation.
Slum clearance, the construction of vast new housing schemes in the overspill areas and in the new towns, and better living standards, have all increased domestic demands. It is the extraordinary requirements of industry, however, which have created the real problems of water supply, which must be solved if our economic plans arc not to be frustrated. Some industrial processes use enormous quantities. To take just one example, in Grangemouth water consumption has risen since the end of the war from about 2 million gallons a day to about 15 million gallons a day, nearly 90 per cent. of which is for industry; and during the next decade the demand is expected to rise to 25 million gallons a day. Scotland can he particularly attractive to large water-using industries because of the huge reserves of water which it possesses; but these new industries will not come to Scotland unless the water can be made readily available to them. The problem is to create the organisation which can develop the sources and bring the water where it is needed. We believe that the Bill does this. It will establish a water service that is geared administratively, financially and technically to meet all the demands which are likely to be made on it.
1590
The Bill implements the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, made in a series of four Reports since 1963, and covering the water service throughout Scotland. The Committee drew attention to serious shortcomings in the service, and said that many of these arose from its being in the hands of too many small water authorities. I would be among the first to recognise that efficiency does not go hand in hand with size. But about 100 of the 200 present water authorities supply populations of less than 5,000, and I think we must recognise that such small authorities will usually find it easier to improve their water supplies in a wider combination.
In their fourth Report last October, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee recommended that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible to provide for a regional water service. This was hardly a surprise to us, because the principle of regionalisation had been recommended in the Committee's first Report on Central Scotland in 1963, and both the previous and the present Government had accepted it and had been making efforts—unavailing efforts, as it turned out—to secure the establishment of regional boards under a procedure prescribed in the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. That is the backcloth against which the Government present this Bill. It has been fully examined and debated in another place, and its general principles have been accepted on all sides.
I turn now to the main content of the Bill. Clauses 1, 2 and 7 provide for the establishment of 13 regional water boards which between them will cover the whole of Scotland. The region each board will serve is detailed in Part I of Schedule 1. It is not to be expected that everyone will agree on the ideal way of dividing Scotland into regions for water purposes. There has been a great deal of discussion over this—in the Scottish Water Advisory Committee and with the local authorities as well as in Parliament—and in another place disagreements over the boundaries of three of the regions, the North, the North-East and the East of Scotland, were taken to Divisions. We shall he able to discuss them in detail during the debates in your Lordships' House. For the moment, I will content myself with two I observations: the regions must be large

1591
enough to enable the boards to provide an efficient service, and particularly to enable them to command the services of adequately-qualified water engineers; and the boundaries between regions should wherever possible follow natural divisions between catchment areas—that is to say, the tops of hills—rather than existing county boundaries.
The boards will be responsible for the supply and distribution of water for their regions. In general, they will be responsible for all headworks, treatment works and distribution mains—that is, for the whole service, from source to tap, even where the source is situated outside the region. But some of them will obtain some of the water they require from the water development board, to which I shall refer in a moment, or from other regional boards. Each board will be autonomous within their own region and will have direct access to the Scottish Office. They will come into existence on dates to be appointed by orders made by the Secretary of State—most, if not all of them, before the end of the year. This will allow time for the boards to settle in. to appoint their staffs and to make other necessary arrangements before the functions of the present water authorities are transferred to them. We hope that this transfer of functions will take place at the beginning of the local authority financial year on May 16, 1968.
Apart from fixing these appointed days, some administrative matters of a relatively minor character will be dealt with by orders. These include the membership of the boards (Clause 7). special financial arrangements in appropriate cases (Clause 11(5)) and consequential amendments of local enactments (Clause 29). Clause 30(4) requires that there should be consultation with the local authorities concerned before any order is made. This consultation process has already started. A senior officer of the Scottish Development Department has had meetings in eleven of the proposed regions with representatives of the authorities. Arising out of these meetings, the local authorities in each region are now consulting together about the administrative and financial questions which will have to be settled before the orders can be made; and they have also undertaken to consult together about any water supply proposals which
1592
arise in the next year, to ensure that they will fit into the regional pattern.
Clauses 3, 4 and 8, with Part II of Schedule 1, establish a water development board for Central Scotland and define the board's area and functions. The board's area will cover the seven most populous regions—about 80 per cent. of Scotland's population. As with the regional water boards, the Secretary of State is to determine by order matters such as the date on which the Central Board will come into existence and will take on functions under the Act.
The Central Board's main functions will be to co-ordinate the development of new sources within the central area and to manage those water schemes which are designed to supply two or more regional boards. The Central Board will supply water only to regional boards and not direct to consumers. But from the beginning the Board will be responsible for the Loch Lomond and Loch Turret schemes, which eventually will supply up to 120 million gallons a day, and inevitably will play a key role in the strategy of providing for the water requirements of industry in Central Scotland.
Clause 5 provides for changes of detail which may be required in the future within the framework established by the Bill. It enables the Secretary of State, by order, to alter the boundaries of regions, or to create entirely new regions (for example, by combining two regions, or by reorganising three to form two), and to establish boards for the new regions. It also enables further water development boards to be established if needed, and the areas of water development boards to be altered. The procedure relating to orders under this clause is set out in Schedule 3. It is more detailed than that applying to other orders under the Bill; it provides for notice of proposals to be published, an opportunity for objections to be submitted and, if the objections are not sustained by the Secretary of State, for the draft order to be approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.
Clause 6 specifically requires boards to consult together and to collaborate in matters of common interest. The regional boundaries have been drawn by reference to physical considerations but this does

1593
not mean that there is no need for cooperation between boards; as I have already mentioned, some boards will give bulk supplies across their boundaries to neighbouring boards as a regular arrangement, and encouragement will be given to the linking up of the mains of neighbouring regions so that, even though water is not normally moved across the boundary, it will be possible for regions to help each other out when needs arise through, for example, a sudden upsurge of demand in one of them.
The main financial provisions relating to boards are contained in Part II of the Bill. Householders will still pay for their water by rates; but premises which are wholly metered will, as a matter of convenience, no longer require to make part of their payment through the domestic water rate. Regional water boards will requisition from local authorities in whose area they supply water—that is in Clause 11. One effect—I think a desirable one—of regionalisation is that there will be a levelling out of the wide disparities in water rates which exist at present. Clearly, however, the ratepayers in a low-rated area should not be suddenly faced with an unduly steep increase in rates. So subsection (5) of Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to include special financial arrangements in orders, where the normal basis of requisitioning would be unreasonable or inequitable. In the first instance, the local authorities in each region will consider among themselves what special financial arrangements may be necessary; and the Secretary of State will be disposed to accept any reasonable arrangement which has the support of all the authorities in a region. Clearly, however, if there is a difference of view between constituent authorities, the Secretary of State will have to consider all the factors and decide on an arrangement which is in his view reasonable and equitable to all the authorities.
Clauses 12 to 15 provide a means for the water development boards to recover their expenditure from the regional water boards in their area; the method of requisitioning is to be embodied in an "apportionment scheme" which requires to be approved by the Secretary of State, but the Bill states a general principle which schemes are to follow—the requisitions are to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to
1594
be supplied to boards over a period. Part III of the Bill contains provisions under which assets and liabilities of the existing local water authorities will transfer to the boards, and Part IV contains a number of miscellaneous and supplementary provisions.
My Lords, while Scotland is blessed with abundant water resources—sometimes, but not always, abundant when we want it—it will never harness these resources efficiently and economically under the present administrative structure in which responsibility is fragmented among so many separate water authorities. Responsibility must be placed in the hands of units which are financially and technically strong, which can command the best engineering skills, and which are capable of serving the industrial needs of Scotland. The proposals in the Bill have been accepted by the local authority associations and individual authorities themselves are already anticipating the transfer of functions by the consultations to which I have referred. I can, therefore, commend the Bill to the House with an assurance that its principles enjoy wide acceptance.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hughes.)
3.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining the provisions of this Bill with his usual clarity. I should also like to endorse that the Bill commands general acceptance, in principle, on all sides of the House. As he pointed out, the climate of Scotland is such that a great deal of water falls, at any rate on one part of it, but, nevertheless, it is increasingly essential, in view of the industrial development of our country, that these supplies should be efficiently conserved; and what is more important, I think, that supplies of pure water should be properly preserved and conserved. Therefore, I should like to tell the noble Lord straight away that we on this side of the House accept the general principle behind his Bill quite wholeheartedly. I do not wish to keep the House for very long this afternoon, as I suspect that noble Lords have their eyes, if not their hearts, on the forthcoming Recess. But there are one or two points that I should like to make concerning the Bill.

1595
As the noble Lord said, there has been a great deal of discussion both inside and outside Parliament regarding the number and geographical divisions of the new regional water boards. Indeed, passions have been aroused on this subject in certain parts of Scotland. I think, personally, it is right that the present 199-odd water authorities should be drastically reduced. I can only hope that the number 13, which is what we have now arrived at for the new water boards, will not prove to be unlucky.
I have reservations concerning the proposed inclusion of Orkney and the Shetlands in the North of Scotland Water Board, and I am not convinced that the North-East Board could not profitably be divided into two. I do not want to argue these matters this afternoon, although I think it is probable that we shall return to them in the Committee stage. What I think is important is that before the appointed day the Secretary of State should be absolutely satisfied that the regions are, as it were, right. I understand and appreciate that under Clause 5 of the Bill the Secretary of State is taking power to alter the regions and, indeed, to create new boards; but my own feeling is that, in practice, once the present boards become settled it is not going to be at all easy to alter them. I think therefore it is extremely important that before the appointed day everyone should be satisfied that the regions are the right regions, and that the divisions are reasonable and equitable to all concerned.
My Lords, may I mention a small point here in connection with Clause 5. As I understand it, at the moment there is no provision for any sort of inquiry in the case of objection to any scheme that the Secretary of State may put forward. I feel myself that in the public interest, and to safeguard the rights of the general public, it would be better if there were included a provision for a public inquiry in the case of objections which are not withdrawn. After all, I think this is so in the case of planning legislation, and I do not see why it should not be so in the case of water legislation under this Bill. I am not saying that it is something which would happen very often, but I feel it would be better if such provision were made.
1596
My Lords, I wish now to say something briefly about the composition of the boards. I understand that some of the smaller counties and water authorities are a little troubled in case their representation will be swamped by the larger authorities. I have no doubt that this is something which the Secretary of State will take into account, but I think it worth mentioning and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will bear the point in mind because I think it is a genuine fear.
Secondly, I feel that it is very important that there should be on each board one member, at any rate, who has professional knowledge of the needs of industry regarding water. The same, I think, may be said to apply in certain areas to the question of tourism and the hotel and catering industries. I doubt whether the ordinary local authority member of a board would have this knowledge. The Secretary of State may well be aware of the problem, but I thought I would mention it and ask the noble Lord to take note of it and pass it on to his right honourable friend.
There is another question on which the noble Lord did not touch much. It refers to staffing. I understand that there is a considerable shortage of water engineers and trained and skilled staff generally. Added to this there is the difficulty, which exists at any rate in some of the smaller authorities, that the water engineer undertakes all sorts of other duties as well, such as looking after lighting, sewerage and roads. I wondered what proposals the Government had in mind to deal with this problem, which is a very real one. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about that when he winds up the debate.
I do not intend to say anything about finance this afternoon, except that I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the Secretary of State realises that the transitional period will be a difficult one and that some form of arrangement, either with the local authorities or the Scottish Office, will have to be made if some of the more drastic consequences of the levelling up of the water rate between rural and urban areas are to be avoided. The only worry I had was that I saw in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that it is not considered there will be any extra call on the

1597
Treasury. I hope that any expense the Secretary of State may have to incur in this bridging finance will not be at the cost of postponing urgent schemes. Perhaps the noble Lord could say something about that as well.
My Lords, I have one further point to make: it concerns the duties of boards, a matter which the noble Lord did mention. Under Clause 6 they will collaborate and consult with each other. I have no quarrel with this, but I think it would be very desirable that the new boards should be required to consult with other boards working to some extent in the same field—I am thinking particularly of the river purification boards. After all, apart from the need on which I think we all agree, to have good clear pure water, these boards have been in existence for some time and have acquired a good deal of experience and technical knowledge, which I should have thought would prove very useful to the new boards. One might say the same to a certain extent of the Hydro-Electric Board. I have no doubt that the new regional boards will consult the river purification boards, but I feel that it is something which should not be left too much to chance and that it would be better if it were written into the Bill.
There are many other points which one could raise, but I shall not attempt to do so this afternoon. I have already spoken for too long, and I apologise to the noble Lord for "hopping about" over his Bill in something rather less than chronological order. But in conclusion, I would say just this. We sometimes hear a lot of talk about excellent enterprises—as indeed I think this is—but I feel that sometimes we fail to put into practice what we preach, because we have not always thought the thing out from its foundations. That is why I have put forward some of these points; not only because, in my view, they are important not only for the efficient working of the Bill when it becomes an Act, but because I feel strongly that the members of the boards and their staffs, and all the people who will be concerned with this legislation, should feel that they have a good Act to operate. Certainly, as the noble Lord says, modern Scotland needs a modern water system, and this Bill, though not, I think, absolutely perfect,
1598
goes a very long way to achieve that. Therefore I hope very much that it will receive a rapid Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
3.36 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that this Bill is generally accepted by both sides of the House, so that I do not wish to say very much on that aspect. I should like, however, to air one issue with regard to the Bill which has not very general acceptance. When the Water Resources Act 1963 went through your Lordships' House I argued at all its stages that it was a great mistake to put Cumberland in with Lancashire: I thought this the wrong sort of "marriage". I got nowhere. I argued the matter on Second Reading and again during the Committee stage, and, as I say, I came up against a blank wall. Sometime later, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood (as he is now, though at that time he was in another place), managed suddenly to push the matter just over the edge and achieved his object. The Minister gave way, I think because he felt that the arguments were sound. I hope that the same thing will happen regarding what I have to suggest to-day.
My right honourable and honourable friends in another place feel that the same sort of mistake is being made in this Bill with regard to Orkney and Shetland, which the noble Marquess mentioned a moment ago: the same sort of administrative mistake which was originally to be made in the 1963 Act about Cumberland and Lancashire. It is a mistake: Orkney and Shetland cannot be put in with Caithness and Sutherland. This Bill proposes to do for Scotland more or less what the 1963 Act did for England, and I think that the advantages of that are self-evident. Everything it does in other respects is good. I entirely agree that the greatest benefit to Scotland from the present Bill will be that it reduces the ridiculous number of 199 different little water authorities to a total of 13. I agree that it has taken something like twenty years to reduce the number even to 199, for originally the total was about 208, or something like that but now that we are to reduce the number to 13 we shall achieve something.

1599
Nevertheless, it seems to me that there are exceptions. Where you have isolated places like Orkney and Shetland, or the Hebrides and the Western Isles, special problems arise, and they cannot be treated in a uniform manner. Some of the problems with regard to the Western Isles and the Hebrides have apparently been solved, although possibly with some anomalies; but the difficulties of Orkney and Shetland do not seem yet to have been solved.
My Lords, these difficulties were argued at great length in another place, and there was a feeling among my honourable friends that the Minister was accepting their arguments and was going to give way; or, at any rate, was prepared to review the problem again. However, that did not happen. The difficulties have also been the subject of long and difficult negotiations in Scotland, and it appeared at one time that a compromise had been reached. Unfortunately, it fell through. It might be supposed that this is very much a "parish pump" issue, but I do not think so. It would not have been listened to and argued with the care and attention it received in another place if it were; nor, indeed, would it have attracted the amount of support among all Parties that it has attracted if in fact it were not a point of real substance. It is a difficult administrative problem and there is much to be said for both sides of it. I suggest that the Government are finding the easy way out by proposing to go back to the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. These proposals are neither the recommendations of the Institute of Municipal Engineers nor the original recommendations of the British Waterworks Association.
I admit that from all accounts Caithness is one of the most go-ahead water authorities in Scotland, one of the strongest, and has an extremely good record, but I still do not see that that is a good reason for putting Orkney and Shetland with it. Orkney and Shetland are an area with totally different problems. It is not an area which in any foreseeable future is going to be one of industrial growth. The islands are remote. The distance from the North of the Shetlands to the South of the Orkneys is half the length of England. There are dozens of islands. The existing trans
1600
port links are not with Caithness, but with Norway, Inverness and to some extent Aberdeen. It is half a week's job to attend a meeting on the mainland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed to some of the arguments that have been put forward for this amalgamation, without actually mentioning Orkney and Shetland in the course of his speech. One of those arguments is that nowadays it is impossible for a small authority to get technical advice. I do not accept that argument. It is argued that it is expensive to go outside and get the advice of consultant engineers. I think it was suggested that Orkney and Shetland had spent too much money in the past getting advice from consultants; therefore, they ought to be in one big set-up where it would be unnecessary to go to outside consultants. I am not sure that I accept that argument.
A great deal is said about how difficult it is to get water engineers and how they are not available to join these new authorities. I suggest that one of the reasons why they are not available is that we are asking too many engineers to go into too many different set-ups. It is much better to go on using the services of the large consultant firms. When you want legal advice, you go to a large and important firm of solicitors. It is not necessary to have your own solicitors and consulant engineers. Because an authority like Orkney and Shetland have to go outside for their technical advice, this is not necessarily a waste of money.
Another argument is that a small authority cannot be a viable one. Is this really true? It is currently fashionable to suppose that no small business can be viable, but surely this depends on the field in which it operates. There are fields where the mosaic of mini-patterns are best served by a mini-authority on the spot rather than by a supposedly more viable machine three days journey away. It seem to me that in Orkney and Shetland, where there are these dozens of islands, small-scale water supplies and all the difficulties of communication, a mini-authority may well be the best one. I entirely agree that it is only in exceptional circumstances that one can allow a small authority to remain in being to-day, but I suggest that here there is a reasonable exception.

1601
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that we cannot wait until the review of local government comes out to make up our minds about what happens in Orkney and Shetland, because the need to get on with the reorganisation of water supplies is too urgent. I admit that the Minister and the Government have tried hard to achieve some sort of solution which would be acceptable not only to the Scottish Office but also to the people in Orkney and Shetland and other countries concerned; but, having failed, they have thrown their hands in and have gone back to their first paper thought. I wonder whether they would not be willing to have another look at this, after having asked themselves whether large-scale set-ups are necessary in all cases and whether in this case something rather smaller would not meet the requirements very much better.

SOUTH ARABIA: APPOINTMENT OF NEW HIGH COMMISSIONER
3.47 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement on South Arabia which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary: The Statement is as follows:
"During the last week I have been giving the most careful thought to the situation in South Arabia and what we need to do in order to bring about the transition to independence with the best practicable results, the least harm to our own interests and the greatest prospect of a stable and assured future for South Arabia. In these discussions I have had the advantage of the advice of my noble friend the Minister without Portfolio, Lord Shackleton, who returned for consultation after two weeks in Aden, and also my noble friend Lord Caradon, the Minister of State at the United Nations.
"The final stages of the transition to independence will increasingly give rise to important problems of an international and diplomatic character, as well as those of colonial administration. I have concluded that it would greatly help the Government in dealing with these problems to have available someone with wide experience both in international affairs and in the affairs of the Arab world. I propose to arrange
1602
forthwith for Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to take over the High Commissionership in South Arabia. Sir Humphrey has been our Ambassador in a number of posts, including two posts in Arab countries. In addition to being—as the House well knows—a man with an independent mind, I am confident he possesses the ability, experience and energy to accomplish the very difficult task, which he has agreed to undertake. He will take up his post in about ten days' time.
"In making this appointment it will be necessary for me to recall the present High Commissioner, Sir Richard Turnbull. Since there have been leaks which I must tell the House I deeply regret, and in consequence a lot of uninformed speculation on this change, I wish to make it clear that there is no truth in any suggestions that there have been differences between Sir Richard Turnbull and myself, either personally or over policy. What is more, the change casts no adverse reflection on Sir Richard, to whom I should like to pay a special tribute. He had long passed his normal retirement date and we should all be grateful to him for carrying out a task of the utmost difficulty with courage, resolution and high ability, after he had already completed a distinguished career in the public service.
"He and Sir Humphrey Trevelyan are both public servants of notable distinction. The change is being made because I think that Sir Humphrey's experience and background will bring new and valuable assets to bear on the problems at this stage. As a result of all the consultations I have had, I have become convinced that the situation which will develop over the remaining months will require a somewhat different kind of background and experience from that which Sir Richard has had, and it is for that reason alone that I am making this change.
"The new High Commissioner must clearly now be given time to settle in.
"The House will understand, therefore, when I say that this is not the occasion to go into detail about the policy which I propose should be followed from here on. I realise, however, that the House will wish for me to deploy and for it to be able to discuss

1603
a full statement of Government policy. I undertake that discussions will take place through the usual channels to arrange for such a debate as soon as it is desired when we return after the Recess.
"I can, however, assure the House now that the action I propose to take will be inspired by the twin aims announced by the Government, which will continue to be the orderly withdrawal of our military forces and the establishment of an independent South Arabia at the earliest possible date. We shall continue to work in close consultation with the United Nations for the establishment of a broad based Government by the time of independence."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his courtesy in repeating the Statement which, as he has said, does not come as much of a surprise to anybody in your Lordships' House. I really feel that the Government ought to look at the security on these matters. This is not by any means the first time that this has happened in the last few weeks: in fact, I cannot think of any Statement which the Government have made since Christmas which has not "leaked" to the Press before it has "leaked" to your Lordships' House. I should have thought that in a case of this kind it gives rise to all sorts of undesirable speculations, and indeed it certainly has done so in this case. I see, for example, that in the Evening News we are told that there is to be a Statement in the Commons to-morrow that the Government have decided on Stansted as the third London airport. I really do think it was a good system that Parliament should be informed of these things first.
There are two questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord, and they arise as much from the speculation in the Press as they do from the Statement he has made. The first is this. Will he confirm that Sir Richard Turnbull was not dismissed as a result of the United Nations Mission incident, or that his
1604
dismissal shows in any way a weakening in the Government's determination to maintain law and order in, and responsibility for, Aden? Secondly, can he confirm that the Government still intend to keep to the rigid timetable of withdrawal and no military commitment to the Federal Government, which has been their policy hitherto, or does this mean that there is a likelihood of a change of policy? If there is not, though, of course, we naturally wish Sir Humphrey Trevelyan well, I must say that I do not feel hopeful about his chances of success. I should, however, like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said about Sir Richard Turnbull.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to associate ourselves with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said. It is difficult to comment on the merits of this change, but we indeed wish Sir Humphrey Trevelyan the best in a very difficult political and diplomatic situation. We should like to have some statement from the Government, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Party asked, about the implications of this Statement on the Government's intentions with regard to dates of withdrawal and independence.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask whether it is still the view of Her Majesty's Government that the United Nations can play a useful role in the solution of this complicated problem; and, secondly, whether they desire that the United Nations Mission should return to Aden as soon as possible and make their contribution to ending the present deadlock, possibly by organising a round table conference to be attended by all parties concerned in this problem?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on leaks are concerned, I repeat, as my right honourable friend has said in another place, that we much regret that a leak took place in this instance. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will recall from his own days in Government, it is difficult to keep confidential matters of this sort from a questing, unshackled and free Press. But having said that I regret this leak,

1605
I think I should also say that I regret any embarrassment that it has caused to the people most immediately concerned, and particularly to Sir Richard Turnbull. I hope the noble Lord will agree that, apart from this unfortunate aspect of the case, no lasting damage has been done, and I hope that we can now forget it and go on to the problems of the future.
Following on from that, I can certainly confirm, and do confirm here and now, that Sir Richard Turnbull was not dismissed as a result of the experience which he and all of us had when the United Nations Mission went to, and subsequently left, South Arabia. Nor indeed does the change in the High Commissionership indicate any weakening in our determination to maintain law and order for as long as we remain responsible for the Colony of Aden.
So far as change of policy is concerned, I think I made it clear, or at least my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement, that this change does not mean any change of British policy. Perhaps I might use this, also, as my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers. We shall continue to make every effort to bring together the various political groupings in South Arabia.
In reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Rowley, we believe that the United Nations has a valuable part to play in South Arabia, and we hope that it will be possible to reach a solution with the participation of the United Nations. The Mission is now in New York. My noble friend Lord Caradon is in close and constant touch with them, and we hope they will find it possible to go back and make contact with those who boycotted them in the first instance. I think I should end by saying that, so far from indicating any change in policy, we shall withdraw our forces from South Arabia on independence, which is to take place by 1968; but in the meantime we shall do our utmost to conquer terrorism in the area.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while refraining from any comment on policy at this moment, could I ask my noble friend whether in this House, as well as in another place, an opportunity will be given after the Recess to discuss this matter?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall, of course, consult with the noble Earl the Leader of the House about this, but I am sure that a debate of this sort can be arranged through the usual channels.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect what was said in your Lordships' House only four short weeks ago in exchanges, in which, on the eve of his departure, the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, said:
"… repeat what my noble friend Lord Chalfont said about the administration, both as regards the High Commissioner and the troops. Everything that I have learned in a fairly intensive study in the last two days confirms the high opinion that has always been expressed about them. I have no doubts at all—and indeed great confidence—that we shall get on very well together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1170, 11/5/67.]
In view of that statement only four short weeks ago, and while I am very glad of the tribute which the noble Lord has repeated, it seems strange that in such a short time it is found that this change is necessary. One hopes (and perhaps the noble Lord can comment on this) that The Times in its leading article to-day has not put its finger on the nub of the problem when it says:
"Put in the simple terms in which Arabia and other parts of the Middle East will see it, is Britain preparing to sell more of its friends down the river?"
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not a fact that Sir Richard Turnbull has served his country well?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in line with the question which has just been asked—a question which I have put to the Government once before—if it becomes clear that the fulfilment of their policy will entail a lamentable bloodbath in Aden and the Federated Government, will the Government still rigidly adhere to their policy, or will they be willing to modify it?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the question about Sir Richard Turnbull and the remarks made about him a few short weeks ago are concerned, I see nothing inconsistent in this and in the Government's latest decision. We still have the highest regard for Sir Richard Turnbull. I can confirm, of course, that he has served his country well, and has

1607
continued to do so beyond the age when he might normally have expected to retire. As my right honourable friend explained in another place, the change is due to the need for a change in background and what has been called the style, modalities and methods of dealing with this problem. This is no reflection at all upon Sir Richard Turnbull, and I cannot see that there is anything inconsistent in this policy.
As to future policy in the area, I have said, and I say again, that we contemplate no change in this policy; but of course it will be our aim—it has been all along and will continue to be—to keep the bloodshed down to an absolute minimum in this very difficult period that will face us between now and independence. This is a classic example of the struggle for power that goes on when a withdrawal is contemplated. I should like in this context to pay tribute again, as I have before, to the way our Armed Forces are playing their part in these terrible conditions in South Arabia.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I revert for one moment to a point raised at the beginning of his observations by my noble Leader about the unfortunate leaks which have taken place? What I am going to say is certainly no possible reflection on the Minister who is answering here, and who always treats this House with complete frankness and courtesy. But, having been responsible for public relations in Sir Winston Churchill's Government, I would ask this question. Is it not really impossible to suppose that the large number of leaks which have taken place on this subject—and this is not a unique occasion—could have arisen without the knowledge, if not the approval, of some of the Ministers concerned? I am not making a Party point upon this matter, but it is really quite intolerable that Parliament—either House—should be treated in this way. I honestly should have thought that for the Ministers closely concerned with the negotiations it was almost equally embarrassing.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, what the noble Earl said in his last few words is of course the key to the whole thing. The Government can have no possible interest in allowing or encouraging these
1608
leaks. They are as embarrassing and unwelcome to us as to this House and to the other place. This is not a new development in public life. I hope that no one will suggest that the business of leaks to the Press, and of the Press revealing confidential matter, has suddenly become a problem. This is a problem about which my noble friends on this side, I recall, had occasion to complain when noble Lords opposite were in office. There is nothing new about it. It is a natural risk of public life and of Government. We regret these leaks and we will do all we can to prevent a recurrence of them. But I think it wrong and misleading to suggest that we are faced with a completely new problem.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is nothing new about this. I am not wishing to disagree with that comment, but is it not the case that these leaks are taking place far more frequently than ever in the past, and cannot the noble Lord say that steps really will be taken—and the utmost possible steps—to try to trace the source of this leak, whoever it may be, and to prevent such leaks from occurring in future? Also, if this leak was through the indiscretion of a Minister, and not through something improper happening, should that not be told to Parliament?
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that these matters have occurred so much more within the term of office of the present Government that he should look most carefully at the source from which these leaks may arise, having regard particularly to what has been said, with a view to making an example of any person found guilty of it? This matter has now got beyond the stage when we can just gloss these things over. We must do something serious about them, and whatever the cause or reason behind them we should make an example of any person, whatever his office, who may be found guilty of leaking matters of this kind.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, without commenting on any of the observations made, I think I should say that we have passed a long way from Question Time. A number of noble Lords have offered views, and I would, with great respect, suggest that if there are any more points to be raised they

1609
should be raised strictly in interrogatory form.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may we have an answer to the point I raised?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the direct answer to the noble and learned Viscount's question is that I have no statistical evidence that there has been greater frequency of leaks under this Government than under any previous one, and I should doubt whether that is so. However, this does not affect the fact that we regard this leak, as all other leaks of confidential and secret information, as of great seriousness. This is no disposition on the part of the Government to gloss these things over. There is now a well established procedure for investigating leaks. This one will be investigated, and if there is anything that transpires that is worth saying in this House or in another place, I am sure the Government will arrange to say it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is a well-established procedure for investigation when these leaks are noticed. Can he tells us, regarding any of the other leaks we have had in this last three months, whether the source has been discovered and, if so, who was responsible and what happened to him?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will realise that I could not disclose information of that kind at this time, even if I had it by me. But I can assure him that when a leak has taken place it has been fully investigated, although not always successfully.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, in view of the importance of this matter, can it be agreed through the usual channels that after the Recess a debate on it may be held in order that it is fully discussed and properly explored?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking whether this House could profitably hold a debate about leaks, I am afraid I would not commit myself to that view. I think it would be a very strange kind of debate. But I never like to turn down a suggestion from any noble Lord, certainly not one from Lord Wakefield of Kendal, and
1610
the usual channels can discuss any subject. But, as I say, I think it would be a curious kind of debate.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, if such a debate were held, would it not have to be on the integrity of the British Press, which is wholly antagonistic to the present Labour Government?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before this matter goes too far, may I say that if the Government investigate this matter and find any culpable person, I would not of course ask them to hold their hand. But so many leaks may occur. I could cite one that occurred in Sir William Harcourt's time, which is rather amusing. But so many leaks occur through things for which people can hardly be held responsible, that I should not wish the House to take a very fierce view while it was still in ignorance.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will take note of and, of course, pass on all that has been said on this subject. I should like to say, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, that I think that in the vast majority of cases the British Press behave with notable integrity and restraint, and I personally am not surprised if, when they come into possession of a piece of information, they publish it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think the House may feel that they have explored this matter sufficiently for the moment.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, may I revert to the original subject and ask this question? Is it not very unfortunate, from the point of view of timing, that this Statement should be made on the third day of the Royal Saudi Arabian State Visit to London? Is it not well known that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, however distinguished he may be an an ex-Ambassador, is well known to be a friend of Colonel Nasser, in contra-distinction to his predecessor, who has taken exactly the opposite view?
A NOBLE LORD: Disgraceful!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is a most unfortunate element to have crept into the debate, and I think the noble Lord may, on reflection, regret that he said it. I also do not believe that there is anything particularly relevant or

1611
dangerous in the fact that this Statement was made at this time. The most far-reaching and friendly discussions are going on with King Feisal at the moment, and I do not think—indeed, I can assure the noble Lord—that this announcement has caused any deterioration in those discussions.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, contrary to many of the views expressed by noble Lords opposite, is my noble friend aware that, while paying the highest tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull for the work he has done as High Commissioner in South Arabia, many noble Lords on this side of the House feel that the replacement of a High Commissioner with experience in East Africa by a High Commissioner with wide experience in the Middle East will enormously strengthen the hands of the Government in the very difficult negotiations that lie ahead?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that remark and I am sure it reflects the view and the hope of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

REORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
4.11 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat another statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence: it concerns the reorganisation of the Infantry. The Statement is as follows:
"As the White Paper on Defence explained, a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army is being carried out. The Government has already taken decisions about the organisation of the Infantry. Since we must now consult a wider circle about putting these decisions into effect, I thought it right to inform the House about them now.
"The Infantry of the Line is at present grouped into thirteen Brigades or Large Regiments and the Parachute Regiment. Each contains either three or four battalions. It has become clear
1612
that the present groupings are too small to meet the needs of the future.
"Accordingly, the Infantry of the Line, apart from the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into five new larger groupings, to be known as 'Divisions', each being formed by amalgamating either two or three Brigades or Large Regiments. The names of the new Divisions will be as follows:

The Queen's Division, which will consist of

The Queen's Regiment,

The Fusilier Brigade,

The Royal Anglian Regiment;

The King's Division, which will consist of

The Lancastrian Brigade,

The Yorkshire Brigade,

The North Irish Brigade;

The Prince of Wales's Division, which will consist of

The Wessex Brigade,

The Mercian Brigade,

The Welsh Brigade;

The Scottish Division, which will consist of

The Lowland Brigade,

The Highland Brigade;

The Light Division, which will consist of

The Light Infantry Brigade,

The Royal Green Jackets;

The Brigade of Guards also will become a Division.

"These large groupings will allow for contraction, or for expansion, with the least possible difficulty. In the new organisation it will be easier to smooth out inequalities in manpower as between one battalion and another. The reorganisation will make for efficency in recruit training and economy.
"The new organisation will be introduced by planned stages and will be complete by the middle of 1969.
"The aim is to meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system.
"I have arranged for the details of the reorganisation to be available in

1613
the Library and they will also be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following are the details of the reorganisation referred to by Lord Chalfont:

REORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
Introduction:
1.The White Paper on the Defence Estimates 1967 (Cmnd. 3203) stated that a wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army was being carried out, and that it was hoped to announce further plans for the long-term size and shape of the Services later this year. Decisions have already been reached on the future organisation of the Infantry. As these are of very close concern to the Army the earliest opportunity is being taken to announce them.
Present Organisation:
2.The Infantry is at present organised into Brigades or Large Regiments. The Brigade of Guards contains eight battalions. The Infantry of the Line is made up of ten Brigades, three Large Regiments and the Parachute Regiment, each containing three or four battalions. A Large Regiment is a more closely integrated group than a Brigade of Infantry of the Line. This organisation is set out in the Annex.
Divisions of Infantry:
3.It has become clear that, for the reasons given below the present groupings of battalions within Brigades and Large Regiments are too small.
4.The Infantry structure of the future must allow for contraction, which could be considerable, or for expansion in the number and size of infantry units with the least possible difficulty. The present structure is a well established organisation but it is now necessary to develop it further into larger groupings to meet such changes.
5.Recruiting is largely on a territorial basis. There arc inescapable fluctuations in the recruitment to individual Brigades and Large Regiments. The formation of larger groups for personnel management purposes will make it easier to eliminate any inequalities in strength and in specialists.
6.With larger groupings, it will be possible to concentrate recruit training into fewer Depots; this will make for training efficiency and for economy.
7.The Army Board have rejected the possibility of a Corps of Infantry devoid of subordinate groupings of Regiments. A single Corps would he unwieldy and impersonal to a degree inimical to effective personnel and general management. What is needed is a reduction in the number of groupings, not their abolition. They have accordingly decided that the Infantry should be reorganised into larger groupings to be known as "Divisions".
8.The Infantry of the Line, less the Parachute Regiment, will be organised into the new
1614
Divisions by grouping together existing Brigades and Large Regiments as follows:

Division

Existing Brigades and Large Regiments

The Queen's Division

The Queen's Regiment

The Fusilier Brigade

The Royal Anglian Regiment

The King's Division

The Lancastrian Brigade

The Yorkshire Brigade

The North Irish Brigade

The Prince of Wales's

The Wessex Brigade Division

The Mercian Brigade

The Welsh Brigade

The Scottish Division

The Lowland Brigade

The Highland Brigade

The Light Division

The Light Infantry Brigade

The Royal Green Jackets

9.The Scottish and Light Division are smaller than the others but each has distinguishing characteristics justifying a separate identity. In general the new groupings reflect geographical contiguity of home recruiting areas. In each Division a Headquarters will be formed, superseding existing Headquarters of Brigades and Large Regiments. Officers will be gazetted, and soldiers enlisted, into the Division. Whenever possible, officers and soldiers will be posted to the Regiment of their choice. Basic training will be carried out in Divisional Depots. Regiments will preserve their identities, territorial affiliations and titles. To facilitate posting between battalions, there will in due course be some rationalisation of dress and eventually a Divisional cap badge will be introduced.
10.The Brigade of Guards, which is already roughly of the size proposed for a Division, will continue as a separate organisation. In conformity with the new nomenclature its title will be changed to The Guards Division.
11.The Parachute Regiment, because of its special characteristics, will not be included in any Division of Infantry and will remain in its present form.
12.The new Divisional organisation, which will be introduced by planned stages, will be complete by the middle of 1969.
The Future:
13.The new system of Divisions of Infantry will meet the needs of the future while preserving the best features of the regimental system inherited from the past. It will be flexible enough to meet all the demands that may be made upon it and will thus provide a stable enduring structure for the Infantry.

PRESENT ORGANISATION OF THE INFANTRY
The Brigade of Guards:

1st and 2nd Battalions, Grenadier Guards.

1st and 2nd Battalions, Coldstream Guards.

1st and 2nd Battalions, Scots Guards.

1st Battalion, Irish Guards.

1st Battalion, Welsh Guards.

The Lowland Brigade:

The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment).

The King's Own Scottish Borderers.

The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles).

The Queen's Regiment:

1st Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Surreys).

2nd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Queen's Own Buffs).

3rd Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Royal Sussex).

4th Battalion, The Queen's Regiment (Middlesex).

The Lancastrian Brigade:

The King's Own Royal Border Regiment.

The King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool).

The Lancashire Regiment (Prince of Wales's Volunteers).

The Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire).

The Fusilier Brigade:

The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers.

The Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers.

The Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment).

The Lancashire Fusiliers.

The Royal Anglian Regiment:

1st (Norfolk and Suffolk) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

2nd (Duchess of Gloucester's Own Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

3rd (16th/44th Foot) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

4th (Leicestershire) Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment.

The Wessex Brigade:

The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment.

The Gloucestershire Regiment.

The Royal Hampshire Regiment.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment (Berkshire and Wiltshire).

The Light Infantry Brigade:

The Somerset and Cornwall Light Infantry.

The King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry.

The King's Shropshire Light Infantry.

The Durham Light Infantry.

The Yorkshire Brigade:

The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment).

The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding).

The York and Lancaster Regiment.

The Mercian Brigade:

The Cheshire Regiment.

The Worcestershire Regiment.

The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's).

1616

The Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire Derbyshire Regiment).

The Welsh Brigade:

The Royal Welsh Fusiliers.

The South Wales Borderers.

The Welsh Regiment.

North Irish Brigade:

The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.

The Royal Ulster Rifles.

The Royal Irish Fusiliers (Princess Victoria's).

The Highland Brigade:

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).

Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons).

The Gordon Highlanders.

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's).

The Parachute Regiment:

1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions, The Parachute Regiment.

The Royal Green Jackets:

1st Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd).

2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The King's Royal Rifle Corps).

3rd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets (The Rifle Brigade).

THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. He will of course appreciate that we cannot give our approval to these proposals until we have heard a great deal more about the details and the reasons for them. I think it is only nine years since a very thorough reorganisation of the Infantry was carried out, and it seems to many of us that the new system established in 1958, with the large regiments, has hardly had time yet to settle down and get working, and there are many people who are most anxious that nothing should now be done which might upset the operational efficiency of the Infantry.
May I ask the noble Lord to say what is the main reason for this change now? Is it simply in order to achieve greater flexibility? I think we agree that under this new set-up it seems likely that it will be much simpler and easier to transfer officers and men from one unit to another; but, after all, in two world wars, under much more difficult conditions, the regimental identities were preserved because the value of the regimental spirit was always recognised. Or is t he reason for taking this action that it will be much easier in future for the Government to

1617
make cuts, to disband units by detaching them from one of these new large Divisions, than it would be under the present system? If so, under what principle are these reductions to be made? Are they going to be made in accordance with our commitments, or are they going to be made to fit some financial ceiling which has no relation to our military commitments?
In particular, may I ask the noble Lord to confirm what I think was probably implicit in his Statement. He mentioned the Scottish Division, which will consist of the Lowland Brigade and the Highland Brigade—and these, of course, have already been agreed upon. Can he confirm that the Highland Brigade and the Lowland Brigade will each continue to consist of the present four regiments, the Black Watch, the Gordon Highlanders, the Queen's Own Highlanders, and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and the four Lowland regiments in the Lowland Brigade, and that there will be no interference with their identity, their uniform or their regimental organisation? Further, will the Government bear in mind that the amalgamations which have already taken place among Highland regiments are really as much as can possibly be afforded, and that any further reductions in the future would very gravely damage recruiting in an area where the ratio of recruitment to the population is probably higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the reasons for this reorganisation are, as I have indicated, that the Brigade system as it is at present constituted—a system of Infantry Brigades—does not solve the problem of the inequality between recruiting in regions. I agree with the noble Earl that Scotland is a special case; indeed, that has been taken account of in this reorganisation. But we have to minimise the effect of these variations in recruitment by making the organisations larger and therefore covering a wider region of the country.
Secondly, it is, as the noble Earl suggested, and I confirm, much easier to move officers and soldiers between one battalion and another if the two battalions concerned are part of a single organisation. Experience in the functioning of the present system has shown that larger
1618
groups are needed. So far as flexibility in the size of the Infantry as a whole is concerned, this will make it easier to alter the number of battalions in the Order of Battle, not only to reduce the number but, if necessary, to increase it. With regard to the reductions and the increases I think I can assure the noble Earl that these decisions will be taken on the basis of a whole complex of factors, including the Defence expenditure and the commitments that we have to carry out.
So far as the Scottish Division is concerned, the future of the regiments, as in the case of all the other Divisions that are being formed, is that certainly for a time the Brigade cap badges and other insignia, and the identity of regiments, will be retained. But it is possible that when this system has settled down there may be some move towards a more divisional esprit de corps, which might even be reflected in Divisional cap badges.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that we have not yet sufficient details to decide on the general principle which has been enunciated in regard to the new Divisional organisations. I wish to make one point, however, and that is that I believe the new organisation, so far as it affects Wales, will be totally unacceptable to Wales. There are English Divisions; there is, as we have just heard—and I am very glad of it—a Scottish Division, but there is no Welsh Division. I am quite sure that my fellow-countrymen will not put up with that, and I am most surprised to hear it from the lips of a former member of the South Wales Borderers. It there can be a Guards Brigade turning into a Guards Division, why cannot there be a Welsh Brigade turning into a Welsh Division? Is it not a fact that the noble Lord's Regiment, the South Wales Borderers, my Regiment, the Welsh Regiment, and the Royal Welch Fusiliers have some of the finest recruiting statistics in the islands?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, you can well imagine that I am predisposed to sympathise with anything that has to do with the susceptibilities of Wales and especially with the future of Welsh infantry regiments. But I fear that in this case the facts of life must take precedence over whatever affiliations I or the

1619
noble Lord may have had in the past. There are, after all, only three Line Regiments in Wales. They may indeed be the most distinguished Line Regiments in the British Army, but there are only three of them, and this would make too small a unit. To have kept the Welsh Brigade, even as a Welsh Division, in being would have created a precedent that all other Brigades would have wanted to follow. The noble Lord will realise that the analogy of the Brigade of Guards, or Guards Division, is not complete, because there arc many more battalions in the Household Brigade, in the Foot Guards, than in the Welsh Brigade, which has only three of the best Regiments in the British Army.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, surely if the Government wished they could raise at least one more battalion in Wales. May I stress once more to the noble Lord, and ask him to look into this question of the national identity of the Welsh Brigade. Surely to a Welshman I need not stress that. I am sure I have his support. I would ask him to use his undoubted charm on his colleagues.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will of course take note of what the noble Lord has said, and I can assure him that I will represent his views to my colleagues. The question of whether we can raise another battalion in Wales is in no doubt. As he says, we have one of the best recruiting records in the whole Army, matched only, I think, by the Scottish Division, as it will be, but the question of raising another battalion is outside the frame of reference of this reorganisation.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I make one remark which is meant to be helpful. I do not know whether the noble Lord realises that in the Highlands—talking about my own Seaforth, Cameron and Queens' Own Highlanders, Black Watch, Gordons, and Argylles—people do not join the Army, they join the Regiment. This has always been the case in the Highlands. I think it is worth remembering that you could very seriously affect recruiting at some future time when you needed it.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, being a member of a war-like tribe my
1620
self, I know only too well that our countrymen tend to join infantry regiments and not the Army. My own view of this reorganisation is that within the requirements of reorganisation, which are imperative if the Army is to function efficiently over the next 10 or 15 years, we have done our best to preserve what is good in the regimental tradition.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke about the changes making the training of recruits more rapid. Long experience has shown that there is a great psychological difference between people of the Highlands and people of the Lowlands, and a great deal of time will be saved if the training of Highland recruits is carried out in one place and the training of Lowland recruits in another unit. There is a great deal of time and expense to be saved in that way, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government to keep that in mind in training recruits.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, of course we will keep that in mind. There is a need here for economies and rationalisation, but within that need we will, of course, bear that sort of consideration in mind.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Statement means that the name of every infantry regiment of the British Army will disappear from the Army List?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, that is not so. The regiments will retain their names and identities. The only difference will be that, instead of being parts of infantry brigades, they will become integral parts of infantry divisions of the names I have mentioned.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is obviously a subject which will be of great interest for some months to come. In view of the fact that we are in the midst of the Water (Scotland) Bill, if we continue discussion on the Statement I will be in grave difficulty with my Scottish friends who wish to speak and then depart North for the Whitsun holiday. May I suggest that we now move back to the Bill?

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.25 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, from the subject of the infantry of the British Army may I return to the more pedestrian matters of the Water (Scotland) Bill. From the leakage of the secrets of State may I come down to the question of the water leaks which occur in the inefficient distribution of water at the present time in Scotland and which this Bill seeks to remedy. I would join with other noble Lords in giving a warm welcome to this Bill, the general principles of which are accepted on all sides.
I was particularly persuaded by the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, his clear exposition of the reasons for having an ad hoc regional authority and the importance of the ad hoc regional authority. It is therefore rather interesting to see in the report in the Scottish Press to-day of evidence given to the Royal Commission on Local Government, sitting at present in Edinburgh, that the Directors of Education were pressing their views in favour of regional education authorities, but that these proposals were countered by Mr. Norman Graham, Secretary of the Scottish Education Department, who said that the ad hoc system had been condemned and they knew no reason why it should be more successful now. The serious problem, he said, lay in having two local government authorities both dependent on local government finance structure. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give us an assurance that Mr. Graham was speaking for himself, that his views are not those of the Government and that St. Andrew's House is not speaking with two voices.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has raised the question of Orkney and Shetland being linked with Caithness in one regional authority. I hope that the Government will take another look at this absurdity. During the war I served for a time in Ultima Thule and in a modest way was responsible for the provision of water for the troops, as I happened to command a battalion that
1622
was moved into a new area. The water supply is what one might call a very ad hoc thing throughout these islands of Orkney and Shetland. It is impossible to work a large system of water supply; water is taken from the locality. Some of the islands are large; they have hills and a good water shed, and it easy to collect the water. All that is needed for organising a good water supply in the greater part of these islands is an intelligent plumber. There is no need for a water board at all. If the problem in Orkney or Shetland, or in any of these islands, becomes too difficult they can do as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggested and call in consultants.
The absurdity of this proposal to link the islands with Caithness can hardly be credited. Here you have Orkney and Shetland looking to Aberdeen for their main communications, looking to Aberdeen for their Hospital Board, looking to Inverness for the Highland Development Board, looking to Inverness for the Crofters Commission; and now, under this Bill, they will have to look to either Wick or Thurso for their water supply. The idea does not stand reasonable examination, and I hope that something can be done to put this matter into proper perspective.
To change to another subject, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, raised the question of how the river purification boards are likely to be affected by the regional water boards and water development boards. I think it is most important that before the major water developments take place, when they are planned, it should be written into the Bill that purification boards should be consulted at that stage. If water is suddenly extracted from a river either by a regional board or by a development board, without the purification authority knowing, then the purification authority will have immediately to raise its standards; and that may have serious repercussions on industry. It is absolutely vital that the purification boards should know what is going on at the earliest possible moment. Already in their sixteen years existence they have gained tremendous local knowledge. They have the understanding of how to gauge rivers; they have the knowledge of the flow of the rivers, and they have the understanding of the measurement of the rainfall which affects the problem. They

1623
also employ people called hydrological engineers. Hydrological engineers are not the same species of engineer as the water engineers, who are the engineers of the type that will be employed by these water boards and water development boards.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of the assurances he gave me when we were discussing the last purification board Act in this House, of the high quality of the scientists and engineers already employed, or to be employed by the purification boards; and he said that there was no need for we ordinary mortals to have any fear about their probity or skill. Those employed in the purification boards have that knowledge which the water boards will not have. Therefore I think that it should be written into the Bill that there should be, at a very early moment in thinking out the scheme, consultation with the purification boards. I would also point out that in the Lothians area 50 per cent. of the river water comes from underground sources, and the problem of the water before it reaches the rivers should be considered.
In the Third Schedule to the Water Purification Act 1951 the river purification boards are included among the bodies to whom notice of proposals to make a Water Order are required to be given. This provision seems insufficient, since by the time that stage is reached a draft Order will already have been published, and the only public remedy would be a formal objection, leading to a time-consuming public inquiry. And once you get the water engineers up against the hydrological engineers, you have two sets of experts fighting each other at an inquiry. I suggest they would be much better occupied being made to thresh out their problems at an early stage. My Lords, this situation of too late consultation with the purification boards has already occurred once in Scotland, in the Lothians area, and a repetition of this in the future could be averted if a requirement for this earlier consultation is written into the Bill. It is because of this that I would plead that the Government give consideration to an Amendment to this effect.
4.35 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, with the knowledge and consent of my noble friend Lord Bowden, whose name appears on the list of speakers in mistake for my own, I hope I may detain your Lordships for a few minutes in connection with what is a purely Scottish problem. As I am sure everyone will agree, we are indebted to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hughes, for his clear explanation of the Bill, but there are one or two points which the staff consider to be most important. Amendments have been put down centring round Clause 20. Of course, I do not propose to discuss those Amendments at the present stage, but I sincerely believe that if between now and the Committee stage the Department and my noble friend Lord Hughes, with his long and varied experience of local government in Scotland, get together, with the assistance of the representatives of the staff, they will be able to resolve the difficulties and effect adjustments.
Ordinary organisation causes problems, and with this Water Bill there is a major reorganisation for Scotland. I believe I am correct in saying that 199 separate authorities will disappear in due course, when this Bill becomes law. On reflection, noble Lords will realise how all the staffs of those authorities must feel concerned for the future. But I believe that if what I have suggested takes place between now and the Committee stage we may be able broadly to overcome these difficulties to the satisfaction of all concerned, and that when it becomes law the Bill will enter on its new stage with the goodwill of all concerned.
4.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. In doing so I have the unanimous support of seven water authorities; namely, the Counties of Ross and Cromarty, the Royal Burghs of Dingwall, Tain and Fortrose, the Burghs of Cromarty and Invergordon, and, last but not least, Stornaway in the Isle of Lewis. Noble Lords who are familiar with this area and others like it, and indeed those who are not familiar with it but who look at a map, will come to the same conclusions, I think, as those which are so well set out in the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. In this the Committee advise that Ross and Cromarty Water

1625
Board should cover all the water authorities that I have just mentioned.
I will not go into all the conclusions that made this the obvious course, as they are all detailed in paragraph 86 of the Report. But, broadly speaking, they give as overriding reasons—and this applies to the Highland counties generally—the widely flung landward areas, almost wholly covered by mountain mass, the population for the most part scattered sparsely in glen and coastal lowland and therefore served perforce by local water supply systems. The Report continues that any amalgamation with another county would be quite unsatisfactory, creating managerial difficulties, and would be inefficient and uneconomic.
I know that Orkney and Shetland wish to continue as two separate water authorities, and I have no desire to introduce any spanner into their works; yet we should object very strongly if any change introduced by this Bill were to alter the position of Ross and Cromarty. I would draw the attention of the House to the difference in population within the area which I have mentioned. The two water authorities in Shetland would serve a population of under 18,000, while the three authorities in Orkney would serve a combined population of under 19,000. The 3,000 square miles of Ross and Cromarty have a total population of over 57,000, of which 43,000 live in the landward area and within six small burghs. This Bill is well reasoned and workable, and I would urge your Lordships to give it your support.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:
My Lords, I should like to make one or two remarks before the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, replies to the debate. I support all that my noble friend Lord Lothian has said, and would commend the principles lying behind the Bill. I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. These water boards are, of course, regional water boards, and rightly so. What will be the relationship between the county councils and these regional boards? Can the regional boards operate quite independently of the county councils or the city councils within their areas? In other words, will they be all-powerful bodies?
1626
I should like also to join my noble friend Lord Lothian in his question as to whether the Bill will contain any provisions relating to appeals. If a local authority has recently embarked upon a big, expensive new water supply, as is the case in the county council of which I am a member, the costs involved are very considerable, and are met partly by central grant and as to a large part from the ratepayers. When these supplies are taken over will the Boards pay compensation to the county council and, through them, to the ratepayers for the amount of money which they have been spending in recent years in putting in a new water supply? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is aware of the Alewater scheme, which is a very large scheme and one which is not yet finished, but which will make a great contribution to the water supplies in the Borders of Scotland.
May I ask the noble Lord if he can say whether the boards will be anxious to develop new water supplies so as to increase supplies of water everywhere? Of all the local authority subjects one comes up against when speaking to people all over the country, the subject of water is always predominant; there just never seems to be enough water. I hope that most of the new regional water boards will pursue actively and energetically the question of getting enough water. It is not only a question of the needs of industry and housing. The agricultural industry to-day, with its modern equipment and methods, requires water, and its needs will increase as the years go by.
The noble Marquess asked whether the boards would have upon them representatives from industry. May we be assured that the agricultural industry will be well represented upon them? When I look through the list of the boards and the areas into which they are divided, I am struck by the fact that the overwhelming number of boards which are being joined together in these regions deal with industrial subjects and areas. I hope very much that the interests of agriculture will not be overlooked, as I think they are apt to be at present; it is certainly unfortunate when they are overlooked.
Finally, I would ask the noble Lord to remember, when he is considering appointments to the boards, that women

1627
are as heavy users of water as men. Therefore, when he is thinking of choosing people to serve upon water boards, I hope he will remember that in local authorities there are a great many first-class women who are interested in health, welfare and water supplies. I hope that we shall not be faced with a whole body of regional water boards to which not one single woman is appointed. The noble Lord knows that this is one of my "King Charles's heads" with which I pursue him from time to time, but I thought that if I got my word in now he would have no excuse, when the moment for appointment comes, to say that the idea had never occurred to him. With those few remarks, may I say that I support the Bill, and hope that it will prove to be a very useful piece of legislation for Scotland.
4.46 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF NORTH CAPE: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment or two? The Orkneys have been mentioned, and I know the Orkneys fairly well. I was taking a walk one day in the Orkneys and came upon a small crofter's house. There was a dear old lady of about 65 tending a cow. I sat down and had a little talk with her and said, "When did you last go across to Caithness?". She said, "I've never been to Caithness". I said, "Why not?". She answered, "I would not trust my life with those Sinclairs".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the noble Lord. Lord Hughes; and I apologise to him for not being present when he started his speech. I should like to take up a point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, which was that the Bill does not anywhere say what the duties of the regional boards are to be. It may well be argued that since it is monopolistic this is not very important, as it is not possible to lay down duties and see whether or not they are being carried out. But it raises the question of how the ordinary member of the public can have any influence on the regional boards. How is the member of the public to get anything done, and what kind of pressure can he bring to bear?
Most of these regional boards, so far as I can see, will consist of representatives from the local authorities. Local autho
1628
rities vary in the degree of sensitiveness which they show towards members of the public and public representation, but this organisation set out in the Bill is one step away from a local authority. It would not appear to me that it would be very sensitive to public pressure. It would be interesting to know how representations could forcefully be made. This is something which is very real and which not only affects industry and agriculture, but private houses and ordinary people. How can an ordinary member of the public get his views put across to such a body? I welcome the Bill as a step forward, but I should be grateful if the House could be given some idea how the point which I have outlined could be met.
4.49 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the welcome which has been given to the Bill, and I will endeavour to answer some of the points that have been raised during the discussion. The noble Marquess asked whether there would be any provision for a public inquiry where there were conditions arising under Clause 5. I would remind your Lordships that Schedule 3 to the Bill lays down the procedure to be followed in the circumstances. A draft order has to he advertised, so there is an opportunity for objections. Under the Bill the Secretary of State will consult interested authorities about his proposals, and if there are objections which are not withdrawn the order has to have the approval of Parliament.
These are very wide safeguards, and it seems inappropriate, having regard to all this, that the Secretary of State should be required, in addition, to hold a public inquiry. The Secretary of State already has power to hold an inquiry into any matter which may be considered necessary under Section 73 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. Should he consider that he needs the benefit of an inquiry into a draft order under Clause 5, he would not hesitate to use the power which he already has under that previous Act.
The question of the value of having direct representation of industry on regional water boards was discussed, I think fairly fully, in another place. It was decided that that was not necessary because, having regard to the wide nature of the representation which is to come from the local authorities, in the sort of

1629
regional boards to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, particularly referred, it is virtually impossible that the local authorities could keep out of membership all the representatives of the agricultural industry who form such a large part of their own membership. It would require an exercise in ingenuity almost beyond that of the ordinary county council so to devise the representation as to keep them all out. So I do not think there need be any undue worry that these boards will not have within their membership people with experience in almost all of those subjects in which the boards would be interested.
The noble Marquess raised the question of bridging finance. The special financial arrangements to which I referred, and which are contained in Clause 11(5), are meant to ease the transition from varying rates to a common regional rate. For those authorities whose rates will go up as a consequence of regionalisation part of the increase will be deferred by a similar deferring of part of the reduction which some of the other authorities will get. It is purely an adjustment between the rating authorities concerned. That is why I was able to say that if we had a proposal which was accepted by all the authorities concerned, the Secretary of State would have little difficulty in putting it into effect. I must, however, at the risk of disappointing the noble Marquess, make it quite clear that there is in this connection no intention involving an injection of additional Exchequer funds.
He also raised the question of staff who carry out omnibus duties. In addition to water supply, he mentioned sewerage, lighting and a variety of other services. It may be that in the more remote areas it will be necessary for the existing local authority staff who are responsible for some of these other subjects as well as for water to continue to carry out some minor functions on behalf of the new water board, at least for a transitional period. Clause 25 provides that a local authority may provide a regional water board, or a water development board, with such services as the board may request. This will help local authorities whose employees are not being transferred to the new board but whose duties would otherwise be fragmented because of the transfer of water functions.
1630
Those who are engaged full-time on water supply will, of course, transfer to the new boards, if they so wish, under Clause 20.
The noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised the question of consultation with river purification boards. I would not dispute for one moment the importance which they rightly attach to this matter; and my right honourable friend entirely shares their view of its importance. But it does not require a statutory obligation to consult. After all, water cannot suddenly be abstracted from a river. The water board will require to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to an order under Section 21 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946, and the board will have to serve notice on any interested river purification authority. The Government's view is that water boards should carry out the widest consultations with all interested parties, and that could mean not only river purification authorities but also fishery boards, the Nature Conservancy, angling associations and others.
The omission of a reference to any one of these in a Statute might be regarded as meaning that consultations with them were not needed. I assure noble Lords that steps will be taken administratively to advise boards by departmental circulars to consult widely at the earliest stage in the formulation of their proposals to develop a scheme. This is best done by persuasion, rather than by requirement, and by having regard to the common sense of the people who are going to do these jobs. Nobody goes out of his way to make difficult what would otherwise be an easy job by ignoring the people with whom he is going to work, and this is the best safeguard to ensure that, so far as possible, difficulties will be eliminated in advance. The Government have set an example in this. All these discussions that are taking place at the present time come very much into this category of early inquiries, so that one can find out where the difficulties are, where the disagreements may be, and give the maximum amount of time for ironing them out and reaching agreement. I think noble Lords will have no occasion to be worried about the way in which the new boards perform these functions.
More than one noble Lord raised the question of Orkney and Shetland, and if

1631
I refer particularly to the way in which the arguments were deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, it is perhaps because he may be conceived to have a special interest in this matter beyond and above that of the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. It was stated earlier on by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we should be careful about getting into discussion of constituency matters. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was so regarding it. I do not think so. But we must be equally careful—and perhaps the intervention of the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, makes it unnecessary for me to say so—not to get into the position of regarding Orkney and Shetland as being a Liberal colony.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord telling me, and indeed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Fraser of North Cape. that he has been "got at by those Sinclairs"?
LORD HUGHES: Perish the thought, my Lords! What I would say on this is that I have listened very carefully to all that has been said, and if eventually it should prove that we can do something about it, it is not because we regard Orkney and Shetland as a Liberal colony. If we should decide that we cannot do anything about it, it is not because the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has brought any particular pressure to bear on me to regard the interests of Ross and Cromarty as being supreme over those of Orkney and Shetland. The one certain thing that has emerged from this Bill and the discussion, is that whatever happens there will not be unanimous approbation in the Lords about the way Orkney and Shetland has been dealt with, because if I satisfy the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian. and the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Balerno, the Sinclairs, led by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, will be after me.
I hope that I misheard the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because I thought that at one point he made a reference to a "Scotch" water board. I would remind him that it is perfectly proper, although some people regard it as a disgusting habit, to talk about Scotch and water, but "Scotch" water is something of which we do not admit the existence.
1632
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to an apparent discrepancy in the views of the Scottish Office on the value of ad hoc bodies. In the first instance, it is possible that strong arguments could be advanced against an ad hoc education authority, without necessarily implying that every other ad hoc body suffered from the same disadvantages. I do not propose to express any views on that subject. But I can assure the noble Lord that the opportunity has been given to Departments in the Scottish Office to put forward departmental views in relation to the reorganisation of local government. and no steps whatever have been taken by the Secretary of State to vet these views in any way. The Departments are free to put forward views which may or may not coincide with those put forward by other Departments, and the Secretary of State is not under any obligation to back one or other of them.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that particular assurance, as well as for his other assurance about purification boards.
LORD HUGHES: I thank the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised the question of safeguarding the rights of staff. Clause 20, I think it is, talks about those employees who are employed solely on water duties. This does not mean that employees who are engaged partly on water duties and partly on other duties may not be taken over, if they are willing to transfer. It is simply that it was not thought desirable to make it mandatory on the new boards to take such officers into their employment. Indeed, to do so might well frustrate the general activities of local authorities. It might be that manpower would be better used if some of these officers remained with a local authority and were employed in, for example, its engineering department. The problem must be kept in perspective. The information I have is that about 75 per cent. of the employees are engaged whole-time on water duties, and under the Bill these will automatically transfer; but many of the others may be taken over as well.
I should like, however, to give the noble Lord, Lord Burden, the assurance which I have given on previous Bills when this question has arisen; that we

1633
have not had difficulty in the past in satisfying the staff that the arrangements being made in relation to compensation and other matters were fair, and I do not expect to have any such difficulty on this occasion. If the noble Lord should find it necessary at the next stage to table an Amendment on this matter, I assure him that it will receive very careful consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, asked whether local authorities would be compensated for having their assets taken over. The answer is, No. This reorganisation represents a sharing of responsibilities on a regional basis, and all the local authorities who become involved in the regional boards will have not only their assets but their liabilities transferred to the new boards for the benefit of the whole community. Some, of course, will feel that they have got a better bargain than others. It may be that some of those who have spent a great deal of money on improving their services may be among those who will find that the rates will diminish, and that some of those who have not done quite so much, or who have found it easier to meet their particular requirements, may have to pay more. But the emphasis is on a sharing of these responsibilities, and the boards will take over both liabilities and assets.
The noble Baroness also asked: what will be the relationship with the county councils? The regional boards will be completely independent bodies. They will be independent of the county councils in the same way as the counties are independent of the boroughs, or the boroughs are independent of the counties. Technically, they are entirely independent. In practice, however, they will have some common membership, and we have no doubt that they will work in close collaboration on all matters in which they have a common interest.
Then the noble Baroness asked whether the boards would be able to augment water supplies in their own regions, because experience has shown that, no matter how much there is, there always seems to be a need for more. There will be a statutory duty placed on the boards to provide wholesome water supplies for the whole of their districts. The only limitation on what can be done is that it should be capable of being carried out
1634
at reasonable cost; and I am quite certain that this obligation is one that almost every board would be expected to keep firmly in mind. Everybody wants a water supply, but people do not want to have to pay "through the nose" for it.
The final point (I am sure the noble Baroness would never forgive me if I did not answer it), was the question of women's membership of these boards. This, of course, is primarily a matter for the local authorities, and if—and I have no doubt that she is perfectly right—there are so many capable women in the local authorities who can become members of one or other of these water boards, and if at the end of the day none of them is so serving, the reflection will certainly not be on the Secretary of State, and certainly not on the noble Baroness. It may be that, to put the best possible view on it, the local authorities so value the services of these women that they wish to keep them entirely to themselves.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In commending the Bill to your Lordships, I can be relatively brief since it is tolerably straightforward. Its purpose is to establish new salaries negotiating machinery, and this, as well as being of topical interest, is a matter of some importance. Perhaps, first, I might briefly explain the situation which has given rise to the need for new salaries negotiating machinery.
The present negotiating body, the Scottish Joint Council for Teachers' Salaries, consists of representatives of the education authorities and of teachers, with an independent chairman. The Secretary of State, under existing legislation, appoints the negotiating body and has the duty of prescribing in regulations the salaries that education authorities must pay to their teachers; but he has no part in the negotiating processes. It is this latter aspect

1635
that has given rise to considerable difficulty in recent times.
To illustrate how the present machinery works, let us assume that the teachers want their salaries to be increased. They lodge a claim with the teachers' panel of the Scottish Joint Council, and they in turn present it to the employers' panel. The two panels then engage in negotiations, and after several meetings extending over weeks or months they may reach agreement that certain increases in salaries should be granted. The next stage is for the Scottish Joint Council to submit their agreement in the form of a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who, however, at present, is quite free to accept, modify or reject a recommendation from the Scottish Joint Council.
It is not difficult, my Lords, to envisage the vexation and frustration that can be caused by the rejection of a recommendation from the Council. Nevertheless, it can happen that the Secretary of State, for wider considerations than the Council have taken into account, is unable to accept their recommendation. This indeed happened in connection with the last revision of salaries, just as it happened under the previous Administration.
It seemed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the time had come when the whole salaries negotiating machinery ought to be revised with a view to remedying the defects in the present arrangements. Apart from the difficulty apt to arise because the Secretary of State is not involved until after the negotiating processes are concluded, it was clear that the present system could, and did, lead to delays in reaching a final settlement. Accordingly, the Secretary of State put proposals for new negotiating machinery to the local authority and main teachers' associations last summer. These proposals were subsequently discussed in detail with the interests concerned and general agreement was reached. It is with this new negotiating machinery that the present Bill is concerned.
I now turn to the Bill itself. There are three main features in the proposed negotiating machinery which distinguish it from the present arrangements. First, the Secretary of State, through officials of his Department, will be represented on the
1636
management side of the new negotiating committee; secondly, agreements reached in the committee will be binding on the Secretary of State; and, thirdly, if there is disagreement between the two sides of the committee the issue in dispute will go to arbitration, and the findings of the arbiters will be binding on the Secretary of State, save in exceptional circumstances. The provision for the appointment of arbiters has been the subject of some controversy in another place and I shall return to it later.
As will be apparent to your Lordships, under these proposals the Secretary of State no longer will have the all-powerful position that he has at present. He is quite prepared to accept this, subject to certain essential safeguards, in order to secure speedier and more effective negotiating procedures. The main safeguard is that his representatives on the management side will have control over the total sum which can be offered to the teachers' side for the purpose of a salaries settlement but not over its detailed distribution. This matter has already been discussed with the local authority associations, and they fully appreciate that the Secretary of State could not undertake to participate in the new negotiating machinery in a minority position, as is proposed, unless there were some arrangement whereby the Government had the controlling say as regards the total cost of a salaries settlement.
Clause 1, it will be observed, provides for the constitution of one or more negotiating committees. The intention is, however, to proceed at the outset with only one such committee. This is in deference to the wishes of the majority of the bodies concerned. This single committee will have within its purview the salaries of teachers in primary and secondary schools and in further education colleges. This clause also places on the Secretary of State the duty to determine the bodies to be represented on the new committee, and the number of representatives. The main interests are already agreed as to their prospective representation. Before I leave Clause 1 I might refer to subsections (4) and (6) which cater for the possible need to remove a body from membership of the negotiating committee. In such a circumstance, the Secretary of State's determination for this purpose will have to

1637
be embodied in an order which would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament.
What happens when the negotiating committee get down to business is dealt with in Clause 2; and herein lies the second main feature of the new arrangements to which I have already referred: that if the committee reach an agreement their recommendation must be implemented by the Secretary of State. It is also proposed in future to dispense with the practice of prescribing salary scales in regulations. Instead, the Secretary of State will lay down the salary scales in the less formal and more comprehensible style of a memorandum which will be given mandatory effect by means of an order made by him under subsection (6).
Clause 3 deals with the situation that will arise if the committee find themselves unable to reach agreement. To prevent deadlock from continuing the clause provides for arbitration; and, as I mentioned earlier, it was this provision that gave rise to the only real controversy on the Bill in another place. What was at issue was not the proposal for arbitration of an effective kind, which is the third main feature of the new machinery proposed in the Bill. This indeed was welcomed by all the local authority and teachers' associations, particularly when it is compared with the present Scottish Joint Council's arbitration arrangements which do not commit the Secretary of State in any way whatever. The difference of opinion has arisen over the Government's proposal that the appointing authority for arbiters should in future be the Minister of Labour. The Educational Institute of Scotland have taken exception to this proposal. They want the arbiters to be appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, as happens at present in the context of the limited arbitration available under the Scottish Joint Council's constitution.
My Lords, the Government's intentions in this matter are quite simple and open. They wish to see introduced in the wholly new arrangements of the future the familiar procedure whereby the Minister of Labour provides the facilities for arbiters and appoints the arbiters. This is an arrangement that has won acceptance over the years, both in the public and private sectors. On the other hand, the services of the Lord President of the
1638
Court of Session are invoked for the appointment of arbiters in salaries negotiations only in the case of Scottish teachers; and, as I have already pointed out, the resultant arbitration is of a limited or non-committal kind. In the Government's eyes there is no justification for importing the present arrangement into the quite different process proposed in Clause 3 whereby the results of arbitration will be binding on the Secretary of State.
The Opposition in another place argued the E.I.S. case at length. This case was based mainly on the premise that arbiters appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session would be seen by the teachers to be completely impartial, whereas arbiters appointed by the Minister of Labour, a colleague of the Secretary of State, would be seen, shall I say, to be less completely impartial. The fact is that arbitration under the auspices of the Minister of Labour is recognised to be wholly impartial: indeed, I have never heard any suggestion to the contrary; otherwise it would not have stood the test of time in the way that it has done.
I now move on to Clause 4, which deals with the action to be taken following a reference to arbitration. The nub of this clause is that the results of arbitration are binding on the Secretary of State unless by virtue of subsection (2) it is resolved by each House of Parliament that national economic circumstances justify the setting aside of the arbiters' recommendations. As your Lordships will appreciate, no Government could bind itself by Statute to accept, without safeguard, whatever findings independent arbiters might reach. But the safeguard provided by subsection (2) is one which cannot be invoked lightly by the Government. Indeed, before the arbiters' recommendations could be disregarded by the Secretary of State two hurdles would have to be surmounted. First, the Government would require an Affirmative Resolution, and not simply the acquiescence of each House of Parliament; and, secondly, each House must be satisfied that national economic circumstances justify the course proposed. If Parliament on any occasion should resolve that an arbitration award ought to be set aside it is then left to the Secretary of State, under subsections (3) and (4), to determine what changes, if any,

1639
would be justified in teachers' salaries at the particular time.
My Lords, Clauses 1 to 4 are the important and substantive clauses of this Bill: the remainder are largely consequential and supplementary in character, and I do not think I need elaborate on them. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this Bill will meet what is the earnest desire of all concerned with teachers' salaries: the teachers themselves, their employers (the education authorities) and the Secretary of State whose interest derives from the fact that the larger part of the cost falls on the Exchequer. What is desired is negotiating machinery of an effective kind; machinery that will obviate troubles of the kind that have surrounded several salaries settlements in recent years, and machinery that will shorten the time between the presentation of a claim and the final implementation of an award. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
5.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his clear explanation of the Bill and the way in which he has presented the case for it. As he made plain, the Bill in its main provisions has the assent of all parties, all those concerned in Scotland, and it is really only on one issue that there is a certain amount of controversy. The noble Lord told us that these proposals had been put to the education authorities in Scotland and that with the exception of this particular proposal they had received general assent. The fact that these proposals are identical, or practically identical, with the actual terms of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, applying to England and Wales, is neither here nor there. If these proposals are likely to work in Scotland, the fact that they are applied elsewhere should not in any way be taken as a disadvantage; in fact if there has been satisfactory experience of them elsewhere that would be rather an advantage. But I do not think that that can yet be claimed for these proposals.
My Lords, there are one or two minor differences from the English Act to which I may perhaps be allowed to refer. One
1640
is that Section 7 of the English Act empowers the Secretary of State when making an order under Sections 2 or 4 to make
"such transitional, supplementary and incidental provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary or expedient."
No doubt the Government have decided that they do not need this power in Scotland, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why that is so. Then Clause 6 of this Bill has no counterpart in the English Act. This clause empowers each education authority to pay teachers not covered by the scales set out in orders under Clauses 2 and 4 "such remuneration as they think fit". I should like to ask whether the noble Lord can say who are these teachers, and why it has not proved possible to devise arrangements to cover them in Scotland, when apparently it has been possible to do so in England within the framework of the negotiating machinery. I am not suggesting that the arrangements should be the same, but as it has been possible to do this in England one wonders why it is not possible to do it in Scotland.
As the noble Lord said, the present Scottish system has one inherent defect, which is that the Secretary of State, who has to find most of the money has at present no part in the negotiations. Perhaps I should rather describe that as one of the main inherent defects. The noble Lord has indicated, as I understand it, that what is likely to happen under the proposed system in negotiations is that there will be a management side and a teachers' or employers' side. The noble Lord has said that, so far as the management side is concerned, the representatives of the Secretary of State (of whom I understand there are to be two; it will be a small minority in numbers, but a very powerful one) will state what is the maximum amount of money available for distribution. I hope that by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not intending to give the impression that this amount is not negotiable; that it is the maximum amount, which the Government have fixed for good and all, and that no negotiation is available upon it. I hope that he is merely giving an indication to the management side of what their starting figure or target figure may be. Does the noble Lord, Lord Hughes wish to intervene?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords; I have changed my mind.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is a point of considerable importance, and ties in with what I shall say in a moment or two.
I should like, in passing, to ask whether it would normally be one of the Government representatives, the Secretary of State's representatives, who would conduct representations on behalf of the management side. I hope that on the teachers' side also there will be an agreed spokesman in the negotiations. No one can force, and certainly no one ought to try to force, all teachers to belong to one organisation. But if there is more than one organisation representing a substantial number of people in the profession it is only right that they should be represented on the committee.
I do not want to say very much on the question of keeping negotiations confidential while they are in progress—an issue to which the noble Lord did not refer—or on the question of making agreements subject to the confirmation or rejection of the constituent organisation. I would only urge that the Secretary of State should be as liberal as he possibly can on both points; and that the organisations, for their part, should be prepared to make concessions. There must be conventions about these things, of course, but it is not asking too much to expect all concerned to adjust their constitutions and practices in order to enable them to observe the conventions. On the other hand, it must be possible for negotiators to consult the appropriate committees and secure confirmation of what they have done, just as after signing a Convention the Government seek the confirmation of Parliament before ratifying it, if any change in the law is involved. It is all a question of the point at which agreement is reached, and I doubt whether agreement will ever be achieved unless an opportunity is given to the various organisations, including representatives of the Secretary of State, to refer back proposals before finally agreeing to them. I would ask the noble Lord what further progress has been made on these issues which I know the Government have been doing their best to resolve.
My Lords, if agreement is not reached, as the noble Lord says, Clause 4 pro
1642
vides for arbitration on matters in respect of which agreement has not been reached. I take it that this means that while broad agreement may be reached, there may be outstanding matters, matters of detail, on which it has not been possible to reach agreement; and where agreement cannot be reached the matter will be referred to arbitration. Under Clause 3(1) the Secretary of State has to
"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 in accordance with the foregoing provisions in the Bill may be referred to arbitration."
From what I understood the noble Lord to say, invariably they would be so referred. Perhaps he will confirm that.
It may well he that one or more of the three organisations on the teachers' side (I understand that there arc to be three, or it is hoped that there will be) will not be able to agree with proposals acceptable to the rest, and it seems likely that reference to arbitration will be quite frequent, at least on some points, because of the disparity of interests of the three teachers' organisations. This underlines the importance of ensuring that the arbitration procedure is universally accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has explained the Government's approach to this matter and the reasons for replacing the Lord President of the Court of Session, as the person who appoints the arbiters, by the Minister of Labour, thus following the pattern of the English Act. I thought that he made a better case for this than had previously been made in another place. Even so, there are causes for some doubt.
The arguments put forward in another place for not opposing the change were that the only people who opposed it were the Educational Institute of Scotland. But of the teachers' organisations the Educational Institute has had the longest experience of the present method of appointment. I am not sure whether the Government have asked the other organisations which method they would prefer. My information is that one would prefer the present arrangement. The remaining organisation has closer links with the corresponding English organisation and for that reason is perhaps more ready to accept the change.
LORD HUGHES: My Lord, I take it that when the noble Lord is referring to "other organisations", he is speaking only about teachers' organisations and not about local authority organisations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is so, my Lords.
The other argument is that the Lord President has no experience of this field and no special competence in appointing arbiters for salary negotiations. He has had to do it on several occasions, however, and, as the Government admit, he has
"exercised his present function with the highest distinction and judgment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1497; 25/4/67.]
If the Lord President's choice of arbiters commands the approval of the Government and the organisations, it does not seem to matter whether he consulted them before making the appointments or not—consultation being quoted as another point of advantage in changing. The E.I.S., I gather, would in some ways prefer not to be consulted on the choice.
The point on which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has laid great stress is that circumstances have now changed, and the position now under Clause 4 is that the Secretary of State, except in the circumstances indicated in subsection (2), will be bound by the decision of the arbitral boards (to use the term of the Prices and Incomes Board). Surely this makes it all the more important that the arbiters should be wholly acceptable to all parties. I am bound to say that I think it is for the Secretary of State to convince the teachers' organisations, which he has failed to do so far, that this is the best way of doing it. He has failed in particular to convince the Educational Institute, which represents four out of five teachers in Scotland.
The Government have so far refrained from referring to the Report of the National Board for Incomes and Prices, No. 15 (Cmnd. 3005). I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, in his place, because the care with which the noble Lord went into this matter was, I know, greatly appreciated in Scotland. The Report says:
"We conclude that the only rational way of determining an increase in teachers' salaries in either England and Wales or in Scotland is through a separate examination of the problems of each … we recommend that the
1644
Government, in developing the two different educational systems of Scotland and England and Wales, should not regard themselves as bound either way to negotiate with one group of teachers the same average salary increases as have been negotiated with the other".
The Report went on to make the point that negotiations for teachers' salaries in Scotland and in England and Wales should be conducted at approximately the same time, provided it is recognised that awards to teachers should be related to the needs of the educational system in which they are employed, rather than to awards made to teachers in a different system. I regard that as an important proviso. Negotiations have started in England and it is not easy to get these two adjusted, especially as the Bill provides that these matters are capable of being raised at any time, either by the teachers or by the Government, and the committee machinery set in motion.
They also suggested that legislation for new negotiating machinery in Scotland should be framed so as to make possible the appointment of the same chairman to the two arbitral bodies. I would ask the Government whether, in preparing these proposals, they accepted the principle of these conclusions of the Prices and Incomes Board. Are they prepared to accept that, even though the negotiations of salaries in the two educational systems are governed by almost identical legislation, the level of remuneration in one system should not be tied to the level in the other if the needs in the one differ from the needs in the other at any given time? Do they accept that there should be the same chairman of both arbitral bodies and that the task of these bodies is to see where the systems differ and, in consequence, where remuneration differs, rather than keep them in line so far as the total of increases is concerned?
If they accept both these propositions, there may be something to be said for making the change proposed in the Bill and having the same chairman to preside over both arbitral bodies, not in order to keep the awards in line but, on the contrary, to ensure that the two systems are treated differently where they need different treatment. If we can get this point clear, it should go a long way towards meeting the objections that have been made. If the Government do not accept these propositions, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to persuade the E.I.S.

1645
of the need for this change. For my part, I recognise that the system already adopted in England has advantages over the existing system in Scotland, but it does not follow that the Scottish arrangements should follow the English in every particular; nor does it follow that merely because the Ministry of Labour procedure has been found widely acceptable it is necessary to replace a system which has been found acceptable in Scotland, although admittedly, as the noble Lord said, in slightly different circumstances.
So far as the change in the arbitration arrangements is concerned, there is the strongest opposition in the E.I.S., which represents, as I have said, four out of five teachers in Scotland. They consider the reasons for the change that have so far been put forward not plausible—in fact, so implausible that they believe there must be some more cogent reason which the Government are unwilling to disclose. The noble Lord, by implication, addressed himself to that suspicion, but the fact remains that this suspicion has not yet been allayed. What matters, surely, is that these arrangements should get off to a good start. At the moment it looks as if, should it prove impossible to resolve this difficulty one way or another to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, they will never get off the ground at all. Therefore, I strongly urge that the Government should either accept the responsibility of convincing teachers that the change is for the better, or else should give way and keep the present machinery.
5.40 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, for the past twenty years or so there has been in the teaching profession in Scotland a considerable unease, to put it mildly, over their salaries and remuneration. I welcome this Bill as being a step forward. Over the last five or six years considerable progress has been made towards getting better agreement with the teaching profession as to their remuneration. That is why I think it is a pity that at this juncture (and I propose to speak only to this point) there should be inserted into this Bill the provision that when a final decision has to be made and an arbiter is appointed there should be a change from the arbiter appointed by the Lord Pesident of the Court of Session to the arbiter appointed by the Ministry
1646
of Labour—a requirement in the English Bill.
One of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was that the Lord President appoints an arbiter for wages only in the case of teachers. I do not find that a very convincing argument. The teachers are working in a separate educational system from that of England, and their salaries are rather different from the wages negotiated by trade unions. I can see the Government's point in trying to make things legislatively tidy: that is something that Government offices love to do. So we have one arbiter appointed both for Scotland and for England.
In this connection I would refer to the evidence that Sir Roy Wilson, the President of the Industrial Court, gave to the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. Among other things, he said:
"In the first place, I have always regarded it as axiomatic that under the voluntary system of arbitration which exists in this country arbitrators should be entirely independent and free from the advice and influence of the Government or a Government Department. I believe this to be the universal and the correct view. The Industrial Court should remain entirely independent of its decision. That independence could, in my view, be modified only by Parliament."
This is what four-fifths of the teachers in Scotland have got their teeth into: they have their teeth into this principle of an independent arbiter, and that is why they want to continue the existing practice of the arbiter being appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session.
The present arrangements have worked well in this respect. There have been something like four or five arbitration cases, and only one of those has gone in favour of the teachers. This being so, it might have been thought that they would want a change of arbiter but they do not. They want an arbiter in Scotland who can go ahead, without any tiresome delays, and whose decisions will be clear-cut and objective. We have a well-tried and trusted system. To change this system, which the teachers of Scotland like and want to continue, at the moment when we are winning their confidence on this difficult question is the greatest pity.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that this Bill is substantially the same as the English Bill. We in Scotland have no objection to copying what is done in

1647
England if it suits us. But that is no reason why we should have imposed upon us something from England which does not suit us. At this particular juncture in the history of Scotland the thistle of Scotland is particularly prickly. It must be remembered that the educational system of Scotland is different from that of England, just as the judicial system of Scotland is different from the judicial system of England.
I wonder whether the English will ever learn. You English can lead, you can guide, and you can greatly influence other nations with which you are associated; hut you must remember that you cannot drive us. In no small measure the breakup of the British Empire has been due to this failure of the English to recognise this in time. The process started, of course, with Ireland and the failure to recognise, until too late, that Home Rule was the right action; and so half a century ago the British Empire began to break up. In this Bill we see—I would almost say a deliberate attempt, but perhaps I should not say that it is deliberate—something that is being done to impose on Scotland a crucial and controversial matter, and one which differs very much from its counterpart in England.
Many of us in Scotland feel that to have a common chairman for the two different arbitral bodies is wrong. If this is not the intention, then let the Government say so. But in doing so, they must say that they disagree with the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report No. 15, which deals with the Scottish teachers' salaries. There it says:
If the same chairman were appointed to the two arbitral bodies this would ensure that arbitration was governed by the same criteria, subject to the fact that there were two structures and levels of salaries and two different systems of education."
Two structures, two levels of salaries and two different systems of education; but one arbiter from England. Can anything be more absurd or more calculated to raise the hackles of the Scots? Can any stupidity of Government be more meant to raise the national passion? I am not a Scottish Nationalist in the narrow sense, but with many other Scots I have a passionate desire to see our country retain its own distinctive ways. Some of them are much better than the English, and some of them are much worse. But we
1648
should like to have our own faults: they are our own.
Last Tuesday, the fiery cross was out in Scotland. In the results of the local government elections yesterday heads rolled in the mud: two Lords Lieutenant, and at least one (I am not sure if it was not two) Convener of Counties. I would plead with your Lordships to take heed of this before it is too late. I do not want to threaten your Lordships, and I certainly do not want to threaten the Government. I merely want to remind you of two things. The first is that the teachers of Scotland will, in the long run, make a much deeper mark on the future of Scotland than any Act of Parliament. The second is the pictures in the corridor of your Lordships' House, painted last century. The subject of the debate of two of them was Home Rule. My Lords, beware!
5.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I did not anticipate wrongly that, if there was going to be disagreement on anything in the Bill, it would follow the pattern in another place, and I thought objection or discussion would be very largely confined to the arbitration procedure. I did not expect to find that the Scottish National Party was on the verge of obtaining so distinguished a recruit. But if I might first of all deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I would say this. He said that we have no equivalent to Section 7(5) of the English 1965 Act. This is because the draftsmen considered that we did not need this kind of provision to cover the transition from the present procedure to what the Bill proposes. The transition in England was a rather different one: it went from a different starting point. For example, the salaries had never been prescribed in regulations in England. So it is a purely drafting procedure and, of course, draftsmen nowadays are not encouraged to put things in Bills unless they are absolutely essential; and they themselves are not anxious to put things in unless they are essential, because they are over-burdened with work as it is.
The other point raised was that there was no counterpart to our Clause 6 in the English Act of 1965. The explanation is a reasonably simple one. The

1649
Scottish salaries regulations apply only to full-time certificated teachers. There is power in Section 83(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act enabling education authorities to pay what salaries they think fit to part-time teachers and to uncertificated teachers. Clause 6 merely continues this power if Section 83 of the Act is repealed. There was no corresponding statutory provision in England when the 1965 Act was considered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? First of all, is the situation the same in England, that it is left entirely to the discretion of local education authorities in England what they pay to such people? Secondly, are there no discussions going on at the present time to ensure some measure of uniformity in this matter?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I am afraid I do not know what the English position is. I think it would be wrong to say that there are discussions going on at the present time to achieve some measure of uniformity in these matters. But it would be wrong to conclude from that that there was any terribly wide divergence as between one local authority and another. The noble Lord is well aware that, as soon as one local authority takes a decision favourable to a particular section of employees, it does not need the fiery cross to enable that piece of information to get to the knowledge of anyone who could seek to take advantage of it. Therefore, there is not uniformity, but there is not terribly wide disparity in what is done at the present time. The nearer authorities can get together in this matter, the better. But beyond that I am afraid I cannot go at the present time.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but is not the difference in this case that these particular people have no association of any kind to represent them, and that therefore the chances of what is done by one local authority being repeated by another are not so great as where there is a union or association representing the parties concerned?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, there is a certain measure of truth in what the noble Lord has said, but, of course, it
1650
is not for any of us here to dictate to the teachers' associations whether or not they should think it is proper to represent these people. We know that there are very strong views held on the employment of uncertificated teachers by some, perhaps all, of the teachers' organisations. I regret to say this, but I think we should probably serve the interests of these people better by leaving the matter as it is, rather than by attempting to bring them into a machinery which perhaps some parties at least would not welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also referred to Government control of the total sum, and expressed the hope that this would not be a completely rigid operation. Of course, as the noble Lord is aware, this is not a completely new feature of negotiating machinery. In the Whitley Councils for the Health Service the arrangements throughout have been that the Government, the Ministry or Department, have taken part in these negotiations. Obviously the negotiations would fail at some time or other, perhaps more frequently than otherwise, if the Government representatives arrived always on the basis of saying: "This is the amount. You may argue as much as you like, but this is the one thing about which there will be no negotiations." So long as it is accepted by the other members of the negotiating body that the Government are coming forward with a realistic proposal, that there is not a sort of horse trading, and that the Government will give reasons for putting the sum forward in the first instance, obviously there will he from time to time room for negotiation of the total sum.
It would be ridiculous to have the arrangements breaking down solely on, perhaps, the point of another £50,000 or another £500,000—I am talking very loosely, and the figures must be related to what the total would otherwise be. If the negotiations were going to break down only for the lack of something of that kind, it would be ridiculous of the Government representatives not to take it into consideration. I have a feeling that as I have mentioned figures I could get into dangerous ground. Let me make it quite clear that £50,000 in relation to an award of £5 million would be comparatively unimportant; £500,000 in relation

1651
to an award which might otherwise be £750,000 would be totally unreasonable. I am quite certain that the noble Lord is right in expecting that reasonable working of the machinery would require that this should not be an absolutely inflexible sum in every set of circumstances that arises.
On the subject of keeping the negotiations confidential, this is a matter which is not comprehended in the Bill, but to which some thought has been given. The Secretary of State in this regard has suggested that the standing orders of the new committee might provide that as full and informative statements as can be agreed by the two sides, and compatible with the pursuit of further negotiations, should be issued for publication after each meeting of the committee. A broad measure of agreement on this proposal has already been reached in discussions with all the main interests, except the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association. That Association are as yet undecided whether they can agree to their representatives being fettered in any way from divulging information to their general membership. The Secretary of State has made it clear to the Association that he would like to see them represented on the new negotiating committee, but that if they elect to come in it must be on the basis that they abide by the new committee's rules of procedure. No other course, I am sure your Lordships will agree, would be feasible.
The second point was on the subject of the ratification of the decisions. This was the point the E.I.S. had raised. It was reported in last week's E.I.S. journal that the Council of the E.I.S. have agreed not to pursue their claim for ratification. So it would not appear that that was any longer an issue between us. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked whether we accepted that teachers' remuneration should not be tied to remuneration in England and Wales. We intend that there shall be separate salary negotiations. This, after all, is the purpose of the Bill, which can take account of the distinctive educational systems North and South of the Border. There would be an advantage in negotiations for teachers in Scotland going on at the same time as those in England and Wales, in order that they could be considered in
1652
the same economic climate. It is the Government's intention to bring the two sets of salary negotiations into phase at an appropriate time in the future.
Having said that, may I say that I do not wish to go beyond that just now, because I should like to look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said in their references to the Prices and Incomes Board. I am quite certain that I am at one with them, on this matter of the arbitration procedure, in seeking to have something which can be agreed by the E.I.S. It is true that it was said in another place that it was only the E.I.S. that objected. When one then proceeds to look at it on the basis—as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said—that the E.I.S. represents four-fifths of the teachers concerned, the "only" would appear to be misplaced. But that is not so when one considers that the teachers are one side of the organisation and the procedure, far from raising the hackles of Scottish local authorities, did not seem to arouse any mistrust in them at all because, after all, they are familiar with the operation of the other procedure.
It was not any incipient Scottish nationalism on the part of the teachers that led them to object to the alteration. It was the fear that they were exchanging a system of arbitration, which they felt was completely independent, for one which they felt might not be so. I do not wish to say overmuch on this subject because there are obviously further discussions to take place with the E.I.S., and as I said in my opening remarks I hope that in all the circumstances they will find it possible to modify their stand.
However, I must say this. There is no system being imposed on Scotland which it does not have at the present time. This present system of arbitration through the arbiters appointed by the Minister of Labour works very satisfactorily in fields far beyond manual workers. It is applied over a wide range of provisions, and I have not heard any criticism of this system by those who come under it. I could understand the objections of the E.I.S. if the suggestion was being made—and I do not think they have made it, and I am quite certain that noble Lords here have not made it—that the Minister of Labour was going to

1653
recruit as arbiters the services of professional men who have such little regard for their own integrity that they would be prepared to accept arbitration on the basis that they were working to specified instructions of the Minister. It would be the very negation of arbitration, and no one has ever suggested that. It would be an insult, a completely unjustified, unwarranted insult, to men who have rendered valuable service in the arbitration field, to suggest that their integrity is complete until they come to look at Scottish teachers' salaries and then, for some reason completely unstated, they change character and throw overboard all the things which should be inherent in an arbiter.
It cannot be suggested that in those circumstances the Minister of Labour can, or would, wish to bring any influence to bear on them. However, I recognise the fact that people may hold suspicions quite sincerely that there is some ulterior motive in a change, even although they may not he justified in doing so, and I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. The Government must pursue this matter further, and if they wish to continue on the lines laid down in the Bill there must be further efforts to persuade the Educational Institute of Scotland that what is in the Bill is suggested because the Government believe that it will be in the interests of teachers to have this done, and not because they have any ulterior motives in the matter.
I would remind your Lordships of what I said in my opening remarks. The Secretary of State is divesting himself of exceedingly wide powers, and he does this gladly. To do so, and then to have the whole exercise nullified by turning it over to false arbiters would indeed be the height of folly, because the arbitration would only have to be once of the character which some people fear—that it is not fair arbitration—for the whole machine to be completely discredited. I think this is the best safeguard that the E.I.S. can have, and I am quite certain that they, with the Education Department, will be prepared to look at this matter
1654
again. If they accept the fact that the motives of the Department and the Secretary of State are not ulterior, I do not think they will have difficulty in the end in accepting this principle.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I think the point at issue is that one of the main apprehensions of the E.I.S. is that there will be one and the same arbitrator for England and for Scotland. If he has the background knowledge for England, he will not have the same background knowledge for Scotland, and vice versa. If we appoint a Scotsman as arbiter, the poor English will suffer. I think this is one of the main misgivings so far as the E.I.S. is concerned.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had intended to come to that point. I think it is useful that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has laid particular stress on this, because I can assure your Lordships that my honourable friend finally responsible for education matters at the Scottish Office will be looking carefully at what is said in this House to-day; and I am quite certain this is a point which he will feel is worth exploring further with the E.I.S. If it should be on that point that their difficulties are entirely centred, then I think we are much nearer a possible solution than might otherwise be the case.
I think I have covered most, if not all, of the points which have been raised during this debate. I hope that by the time we come to the next stage it will have been possible to reach agreement on this one outstanding issue. I can assure your Lordships that if we have not reached agreement, it will certainly not be because the Government have neglected any opportunity of doing so. We think that this Bill is so very much worth while that we should not like to lose the advantages of it if there is any possibility of obtaining agreement on the one point at issue.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC RECORDS BILL [H.L.]
6.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. To conclude the Sittings, here is a tiny Bill in two clauses, and your Lordships will not, I know, want me to take longer than I need over its Second Reading. Its sole effect is to reduce from 50 years to 30 years the period for which public records, subject to certain exceptions, are closed to public inspection. This is a Bill which has a history behind it, and I am afraid I must remind your Lordships of that history.
Before 1958 transfers of departmental records selected for permanent preservation to the Public Record Office were dependent on arrangements made with individual Departments and on mutual convenience. Access was at the discretion of Departments, who were asked to open for public inspection down to whatever date they judged suitable, as nearly as possible without reserve, all records which they had transferred to the Public Record Office. By 1958 the majority of Departments allowed access up to 1902, but there were a number of variations from this practice. So there was nothing very systematic, and in a sense the whole question was on a rather amateur basis.
To some of us it may be surprising to be reminded that until 1916 no formal records of any Cabinet meetings were kept. It was only in 1916 that the Cabinet Secretariat was created. The Committee of Imperial Defence had come into existence in 1904, but none of its records were available to the public. In 1952 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Butler as he then was, appointed a Committee, of which Sir James Grigg was Chairman, a Committee on Departmental Records, and this Committee reported in July, 1954. The Committee recommended that Cabinet papers and departmental records should become available to the public 50 years after their creation.
In recommending this period for Cabinet papers, the Committee drew attention to the need to provide adequate
1656
safeguards against, first of all, the premature publication of confidential information which could handicap current administration, and secondly, the impairment of the convention of collective responsibility of the Government or the responsibility to Parliament of individual Ministers for their own Departments. In recommending the same period for departmental records the Committee had in mind what they described as "the quality of un-self-consciousness" which they thought would he impaired if an official knew that what he wrote would be made available for public inspection during his lifetime. The Committee also said that their general recommendations would sufficiently tax the resources of Departments without the added complication of different dates for the release of Cabinet documents and departmental records, and pointed out that their recommendation would result in a substantial increase in the amount of departmental records which would become available to the public.
The Public Records Act 1958, which the present Bill would amend, gave effect to the recommendations of the Grigg Committee, and Section 5 made provision for access to public records. Subsection (1) provides that records to which the public had not previously had access
"shall not be available for public inspection until they have been in existence for 50 years or such other period, either longer or shorter, as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval, or at the request of the Minister or other person, if any, who appears to him to be primarily concerned, for the time being prescribes as respects any particular class of record".
Subsection (2) of Section 5 provides that where records were obtained under conditions under which allowing their inspection by the public might constitute a breach of faith, such records would only be made available, even after 50 years, in special circumstances or under special conditions.
Subsection (2) of Section 10 of the Act provides that where records created at different dates are, for administrative purposes, kept together in one file, all records in that file shall be treated as if created on the date of the latest record in the file. Thus the release of records under Section 5 is governed by the date of the most recent record in the particular file. Section 5 therefore gave effect to the

1657
Grigg Committee's recommendation providing the general rule of release of records after 50 years and enabling the Lord Chancellor to prescribe shorter periods or longer periods for different classes of records.
Under the powers to shorten the 50-year period Lord Chancellors have released a considerable volume of records. The most striking example is when I made an order for the release on February 10, 1966, of all the First World War records up to December 31, 1922. But the War Diaries of the First World War had already been released in 1965, and in some other instances records relating to particular departmental activities have been made available earlier than 50 years, when it had been thought desirable that the information in them should be made publicly accessible. Sometimes they have been made available much earlier; for example, the papers relating to the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Halsbury on Decimal Currency were released after six months. More usually, however, if I make an order for a longer period than 50 years it is 100 years, and if I make it for a shorter period it is usually 5 years.
The Grigg Committee had also recognised that it would not be possible for all records to be released at 50 years. Their object was to ensure that
"all records which it is practicable to open to the public after 50 years are in fact available at that time".
This has been the policy of successive Lord Chancellors when considering whether to prescribe periods longer than 50 years for any particular class of records. Those for which longer periods have been prescribed fall into the following categories: first, those containing information about individuals whose disclosure would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants (such as criminal or prison records, records of courts martial, records of suspected persons, and certain police records); secondly, those containing information obtained under a pledge of confidence, such as the census, and various individual returns used in publishing statistical compilations; thirdly, certain papers relating to Irish affairs; fourthly, certain exceptionally sensitive papers which affect the security of the State. In addition certain papers,
1658
the ownership of which is shared with "old" Commonwealth countries, cannot he released until all the Governments concerned have given their consent.
Classes of records which have been closed for periods longer than 50 years will, of course, remain closed for the period prescribed after the 30-year rule comes into force. Like all my noble and learned predecessors since the Act, I have the great advantage when an application is made to me to make an order as to a specific class of documents that the Act created an Advisory Council on Public Records, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whom I am very glad to see here this afternoon, is Chairman, and that Advisory Council has always been the greatest possible help to Lord Chancellors in discharging their duties under this Act.
I come to the reasons why this Bill proposes to reduce the 50-year period. Although the effect of the Public Records Act 1958 had been to release a great quantity of records for public inspection, there was soon growing criticism of the 50-year rule. The study of recent history had attained full academic recognition and was attracting much interest from the universities and in the world at large. Many scholars of standing and repute were said to feel seriously hindered by the 50-year rule and to consider that the whole field of scholarship had suffered as a result.
It was also suggested that as a result partial and biased accounts of our affairs gained currency, in which the British case went by default and British historians were handicapped in correcting them. These criticisms went too wide to be capable of cure by the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's power to prescribe periods shorter than 50 years for the release of classes of documents or by the exercise of the power under Section 5(4) of the Act, which I have not yet mentioned, under which the Keeper of the Public Records is enabled to allow inspection of closed records by a particular person when authorised to do so by the department concerned. The lack of sufficient flexibility of departments in authorising the Keeper to allow inspection under this subsection was also a subject of complaint.
In 1964 the 50-year rule was considered by the Advisory Council on Public

1659
Records. The functions of that Council as laid down in the Act are:
"to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office".
The Council's Report (which is laid before Parliament) recommended unanimously that the closed period should be reduced to 40 years. They also recommended that scholars undertaking research within the closed period should be given more liberal access to official papers. A parallel recommendation was made by the Scottish Council on Public Records.
In amplification of their recommendation the Council attached to their Report a copy of a letter dated October 26, 1964, in which the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, as Chairman of the Council, had informed me of their decision. That letter sets out the arguments for relaxing the 50-year rule to which I have already referred. It also mentions the argument in favour of a closed period which had been referred to by the Grigg Committee: that good administration requires that a suitable period should elapse before records are made available to the public, so that Ministers and officials should be absolutely free to express their views without fear of publication for a long time thereafter. The letter stated that all members of the Council considered 50 years too long; most thought 30 years too short. After fluctuating between 35 and 40 years they had unanimously recommended the latter.
In considering the proposal of the Advisory Council to reduce the 50-year period to 40 years it is useful to consider the position in other countries, although such information as is readily available concerns the records of diplomatic affairs only and is subject to qualifications in matters of detail. Perhaps the most important, from our point of view, is the position in the United States and Canada. The United States and Canada allow conditioned access after 30 and 35 years respectively, with facilities for the earlier release of special categories and for specially authorised inspection of closed records, somewhat on the British lines. The following allow free access, with similar "escape" clauses after 50 years:
1660
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and South Africa. In France various categories are "open" from different dates, which range from 1815 to 1914; in Italy searches of records later than 1870 have to be specially authorised. The same is true of Turkey for records after 1860, and of India for records after 1900. I do not know what the position is in Russia.
The 50-year rule is therefore by no means exceptional. But 50 years is admittedly an arbitrary figure, and another, lower, figure might equally be regarded as preserving the confidential nature of a Minister's relations with his colleagues and his senior advisers and as likely to preserve the quality of "unselfconsciousness" in official records. But in fixing a new figure it was necessary to consider at the same time the Council's other recommendation of more liberal access to closed records and the establishment of a body to advise on subject matter and vet applicants.
This raised rather more difficult issues. While on the one hand there is much force in Lord Acton's dictum:
"to keep one's archives barred against historians is tantamount to leaving one's history to one's enemies,
the proposal raised the following difficulties. First, except for the established doctrine that former Ministers are entitled to have access, in order to refresh their memories, to Cabinet papers which they wrote or saw during their period of office, and that access to War Cabinet papers has also been permitted to the official historians of the two World Wars, it is a firm principle that access to Cabinet and Cabinet Committee papers still within the closed period is not given to any "outside" individual. Secondly, the Council's proposal would enable the Government to circumvent the recognised convention that one Administration does not have access to the policy records of its predecessors simply by authorising an historian to have access to them to write a book. Thirdly, the suggestion that a Committee of Historians should advise upon the professional standing of applicants for access to closed records would burden them with a most invidious jurisdiction which might well involve the task of adjudicating upon the merits of several candidates.

1661
My Lords, the Government have gone some way to resolve this dilemma by proposing to extend the range of official histories, which have hitherto been confined to the two World Wars, to include selected periods or episodes of peacetime history, on the basis that although works of this kind would not necessarily be suitable for publication during the closed period, they would enable important periods in our history to be recorded, while official records could be supplemented by reference to the personal recollections of those actually involved in the episodes. They also propose to extend to other overseas departments the Foreign Office practice of publishing selected documents concerned with our external relations.
In these circumstances the Government consider that it is both safe and desirable to introduce a lower figure than that recommended by the Advisory Council, and have fixed 30 years as the period which they consider would be reasonable for a closed period for Public Records. This decision was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on March 9 of last year. He pointed out that the Opposition Parties would of course be associated with its implementation and referred to the necessity of further consultations about the arrangements to he made for this purpose. On August 10 last year he was able to announce that the Leaders of both Opposition Parties had agreed to the Government's proposal and that Her Majesty the Queen had been graciously pleased to approve the disclosure of Cabinet documents falling outside the 30-year period. I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the past practice of making any change of this kind only after full discussion with Opposition Parties is a right course to adopt.
In the Eighth Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Public Records which they have recently made to me, covering the year 1966, the Council say:
"We also welcome the Prime Minister's further statements of March 9 and August 10, 1966, concerning proposals to reduce the general statutory closed period for public records to 30 years: we hope that the necessary legislation will soon be introduced. We consider that the introduction of a 30-year rule should meet the legitimate requirements of most scholars; but we foresee that there will still he cases meriting special access either to records within the 30-year period or to records
1662
closed for a longer period under Section 5(4) of the Public Records Act 1958, and we hope that departments will continue to give sympathetic consideration to applications for such access."
The Report will, of course, be laid before Parliament as soon as it is printed. The facilities provided by the Act of 1958 for granting special access to closed records will remain unchanged, and the proposals which I have mentioned are also designed to assist in attaining the objects the Council had in mind in the latter part of their statement.
The Bill makes a simple amendment to Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act reducing the 50-year rule to 30 years. It gives effect to the existing practice of the Public Record Office in providing that documents becoming 30 years old will be made available on January 1 next following that date. This is purely a question of what is practicable. It is clearly impracticable for the Public Record Office to release, each day of the year, records which have passed out of the closed period that day; and it has therefore been their practice to make this an annual event at the beginning of each calendar year. Clause 2(1) of the Bill brings it into force on January 1, 1968, to give the Public Record Office and Government Departments time to complete their administrative arrangements.
Although Section 3(4) of the Act of 1958 requires that Public Records selected for permanent preservation shall be transferred to the Public Record Office after 30 years, some Departments have been unable to meet this timetable which, as long as there was a 50-year rule, did not matter, but they have now had to take steps to ensure that these records are in the Public Record Office by the date the 30-year rule begins to operate, and every endeavour is being made to comply with the requirement. But there may at the outset be cases where some delay will occur.
It is also necessary for some Departments, especially the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office, to review their selection so as to ensure that records which had previously satisfied a 50-year test for sensitivity were not sensitive if released for public inspection after 30 years. There is clearly the possibility of records falling into one or other of the categories to which I have referred

1663
though they were thought not to be within these categories when considered in the context of a 50-year rule. It is not, however, the intention of the Government to countenance any evasion of the 30-year rule through the Lord Chancellor's exercise of his powers to prescribe a longer closed period. The same principles wilt apply to prescribing periods longer than 30 years as have applied for the prescription of periods longer than 50 years.
The sort of cases one has in mind—and they are only examples—are those of confidential correspondence with or about British firms that have been operating continuously in foreign countries, where disclosure of the correspondence might now have adverse repercussions on trade; comments by Ministers and officials on events and personnel abroad which could be exploited by hostile propagandists or otherwise used to embroil us with foreign rulers or statesmen whose public careers have spanned a 30-year period. With regard to the Government's proposals to extend the range of official histories to peace time, it has been agreed that the selection of topics and questions of publication shall be referred to an all-Party group of Privy Counsellors. It is intended to consider not only political topics but other topics of general interest, although free from acute Party controversy.
Here, then, my Lords, is this small Bill which is put before your Lordships' House with the approval of all Parties. I hope that these two little clauses will be found unlikely to give rise to a number of Committee points. The number of additional documents which are likely to become available on January 1 next year is something like 150,000 files. As your Lordships may know, the accommodation for readers at the Public Record Office is not as I should like it to be. But for our economic difficulties we had hoped to be able to start an additional building last summer. It has had to be postponed. However, arrangements will he made which I hope will provide places for a further 40 readers. I hope that they will enjoy themselves at that very interesting and very well-run place, the Public Record Office. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.36 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill. If I have to leave before the end of the discussion I hope your Lordships will excuse me, but it is owing to a long-standing engagement. Historically, the Master of the Rolls is the Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England. But now all this has gone. He is now Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records. The Council, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor said, is engaged in considering these public records, and in the last three years, particularly, there has been an overwhelming demand by historians for a relaxation of what is called the 50-year rule. This is all due to the impact of modern history. We do not now go back so much into mediæval times, or even back 100 years. Researchers, scholars, and indeed the world at large, like to know the history, even of such events as the First Wold War and the beginnings of the last war.
Historians have complained greatly, not only because they are impaired in their own researches but because other countries open their records more freely and more recently, and therefore their historians get a good start. This has been the case whether it be the United States, with its 30-year rule, or, a good many people, even a 20-year rule. This applies to Commonwealth countries, such as India; and in Israel the records are open in regard to some of the controversial events of the last 20 to 30 years. Therefore there may exist partial accounts of the great events of history which may operate to the detriment of this country and, indeed, to the detriment of history generally.
In view of this great demand by historians, and bearing in mind all the considerations, the Council considered the question of restricting further. One has to place the importance of our administration of our affairs against the demands of historians. The reasons were all too cogent. Whether it be Ministers or civil servants, they must be able to write their memoranda, their minutes and their papers without the fear of their being disclosed too soon. Of course, the 50-year rule was laid down by the Grigg Committee on the basis that there would be statesmen—

1665
for instance, a man like Sir Winston Churchill—who could start writing important minutes at the age of 30, and that it would be undesirable for those to be brought up against them at the age of 80.
The 50-year rule was really applied for that contingency, so that Ministers should not be challenged afterwards in the course, for instance, of their working life. It is the same with civil servants, too, but it was thought that perhaps 50 years was rather too much for them. A 30-year span, however, might mean that a civil servant, who so often may influence policy, would find it very embarrassing to have documents brought up against him. At all events, the fundamental reason for the restriction is good administration, which must take the paramount ground; and historians, for all they say, must take second place. There is also this further reason. If the period is rendered too short, there is a danger that the most sensitive documents will not leave the Departments concerned and will not come to the Public Record Office to be seen.
So on the whole we recommended 40 years, but the Council themselves were delighted when the Prime Minister announced in another place, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself announced to-day, that the 30-year limit could safely be made. When the matter came before the Council they wholeheartedly welcomed it and felt that it satisfied the legitimate demands of historians and enabled this country and its historians to work comparably with other countries. That is the fundamental principle behind the change, subject always to the power of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and it may be necessary to use it on occasions—to make an order fixing a longer period, as he does now in some cases. It may be necessary to make even more of those orders if there is sensitive material which may be harmful, as well as allowing the shorter periods about which we know.
We must also bear in mind the power for controlled access. One knows that sometimes, when statesmen retire and write their memoirs, they get special access to their own papers. There is still to be power to have controlled access when it can be given without harm to the interests of the State. But with those
1666
qualifications the Council, as I say, wholeheartedly welcomed this measure. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it means a great deal more work for the Public Record Office. They do not have enough accommodation at the moment, and they are doing all they can to cope with the greatly increased number of research workers, historians and others who are coming now that these new documents are being made available. This is a Bill which is to be warmly commended.
6.44 p.m.
LORD BRIDGES: My Lords, may I add my deep thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the full exposition he gave of the history of this very complicated matter? Needless to say, with most of what he said I am in the fullest agreement; in particular, with what he said about extending the range of official histories to selected periods of peace-time history. As one who was closely concerned with civil histories in the Second World War, this is something which is very near to my heart, and I am very glad to hear that that is going to be done.
I am concerned with only one thing. I speak as a former civil servant, and the official file is one of the tools of a civil servant's trade. I am speaking of the sort of files in which a civil servant has to put together the facts of some difficult and complicated question, to give advice to his superiors, whether civil servants or Ministers. He has to analyse the position and set out all the courses, and not cover up any uncomfortable facts. That is a job which has to be done fearlessly and frankly, and if it is going to be done as it ought to be done, the people concerned must have confidence that their advice will not be disclosed prematurely. That, of course, is the basis of the whole confidential relationship between civil servants and Ministers, and likewise between Ministers and the Cabinet.
How long a period is necessary for that confidence? Fifty years is/ obviously too long, and I entirely agree that forty years would be absolutely safe. I admit that if the closed period is going to be reduced to around thirty years I shall have certain misgivings as

1667
to whether that will give public servants the degree of confidence which they ought to have, so that they can put out the facts absolutely fearlessly, without any thought of their being disclosed prematurely. This question is, in a sense, rather subjective and it depends upon what one feels. It is not the sort of matter on which one can ask a computer for the right period. I am trying to see how I can bring this subject alive, so to speak.
I remember a quotation from my father's collection of the worst lines from the best authors. This was the first line of a German poem. I shall give it to your Lordships in English as I do not know German:
"Eternity, eternity—
How long art thou, eternity?"
Of course, it is a very silly quotation and does not deserve an answer. But it does point to what the civil servant has in mind when he is setting out the facts on an uncomfortable, perhaps disagreeable, question as fully as he can. What he really wants to feel is that disclosure will be so long ahead that there is no harm in spilling all the beans.
I do not think I shall make any impression on your Lordships unless I try to give some instances of the field in which this applies. I should have thought it applied much more to our relations with other countries than to our internal affairs. I think that in 30 years we sort out most of our internal difficulties in this country to such an extent that disclosure would not be embarrassing. But I am not at all sure about the disclosure of the part played by particular people in dealing with or recommending courses to be pursued or negotiations to be undertaken with foreign countries. I am thinking of this primarily from the point of view of the national interest, but it could also have an effect on individuals.
A man between the ages of 25 and 30 might be serving in, shall we say, the Ruritanian Department of the Commonwealth Office or the Foreign Office. He might be appointed 30 years later as High Commissioner or Ambassador to Ruritania, and then people would ask what he knew about Ruritania. It would appear that he had served in the Ruritanian Department and people might rush off to the Record Office to see what they
1668
could find out about what that individual had said 30 years earlier. Your Lordships may think that that is a rather fanciful example, but there are certain particularly sensitive areas, more especially in our dealings with foreign countries, where a firm rule that you must always throw all the records open after 30 years would prove embarrassing.
I am afraid I did not follow all the details the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave about the practice of foreign countries, but I gather that there are a good many of them who do not throw all of their records open in anything like so short a period as this. I admit that I hope that the special powers enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor to prescribe not only shorter but, on occasions, longer periods will be considered for use in regard to certain specially sensitive areas, where it is found that longer periods are needed for the protection of public servants who are working in that field, and to give them the necessary confidence. I hope I am not wrong in putting forward the suggestion that that line should be considered and not ruled out of court as impossible.
If I may, I should like to make just one other point, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, also mentioned. What happens if the public servants in a Department or branch are not really confident that it would not be contrary to the public interest that the facts regarding some negotiation with which they were concerned should be disclosed at the end of the 30-year period? I think it is quite obvious what would happen. However strongly a man may feel, however anxious he is to do his duty, I do not think one can compel him to write out all his arguments and thoughts and put them on the file if he thinks it wrong that he should do so. If he takes this view, what will he do? He will do one of two things. He will either write a very short Minute and ask if he can speak to the Permanent Secretary or the Minister and explain his position more fully, or he will write a little note and say, "Perhaps you will read this but do not put it on the file".
In either of those events, two things will happen. Not only will the Department not have a proper record for its own use as to why particular decisions were reached, or the basis of the advice on

1669
which they were reached, but when the papers do go to the Record Office that particular paper will not be on the file and the historians will not be able to get it either when the papers go to the Record Office or at any subsequent date. That, I think, is a factor concerning human nature which I think it right to take into account, and perhaps I may add it as a subsidiary argument. I hope that this will lead to further consideration being given to prescribing a somewhat longer period than 30 years, at any rate, for the time being, in what I have described as certain very sensitive types and areas of work.
6.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I feel that I owe an apology to the House because I may be either saying things which are repetitive or using arguments which have been squashed in advance, as I have not really been able to follow things very closely. Basically, I should have liked to oppose this Bill. I regard it as damaging and possibly dangerous. It seems to me that people in high positions—not only Cabinet Ministers, who are the first people who come to mind, but many other people in high positions—are even to-day, as things are, tremendously obsessed (I am not blaming them; it is almost impossible to avoid this) with looking over their shoulder. In the good old days people did not bother about looking over their shoulder: they did what they thought was right. Of course, many people differed from them and thought they were wrong, but they were acting according to their consciences.
Nowadays, everyone is always thinking, "How is it going to be considered?"—and every time one reduces the period one makes this position much graver. Imagine a young man—say, an Under Secretary—hoping for a political career in which he might end up as, perhaps, Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor 30 or 40 years ahead. That is perfectly feasible. He will imagine, "I must be very careful what I say; this may be used against me." It is extremely important that people should feel that their confidences will remain, not for ever but for a very long period.
It seems to me that it is one of the curses of modern life that we are all watching
1670
our step—and the whole of the jargon that goes with that is bad. If one calls it democracy, it is the bad side of democracy. People want to do what they think is right, and what they think is right will constantly clash with what they will find if they look over their shoulder. For myself, I have got to a period in life when there is nothing over my shoulder to look at; therefore, I am able to speak with greater freedom. This, of course, is very desirable in itself—that people should be able to speak with that extra freedom. I should not in the least mind if the gap was a 100 years.
On the technical side, too, I am surprised at the Bill, because the Bill is saying, as the previous Act did, that there is power to alter it to anything you like, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, upwards or downwards. That is an overall statement which covers this position as it covered the old one. I do not know what limitations there are on that; but it may be asked: "In that case, why are you bothering?". The reason why I am bothering, my Lords, is because it gives a lead to what the Government feel and what I quite accept many people on the Opposition side of the House also feel, and to my mind that lead is a bad lead. In a case of emergency there arc these ample powers. Incidentally, I think one thing that needs watching is the safeguarding of the position of the Crown, because the Crown is brought into issues and it might be exceedingly undesirable for there to be revelation after 30 years.
I well understand the entirely different position which arises over the official histories of the war. That is a series, and it is absolutely vital that the information should be collected at the earliest possible moment, before it is too late. when it may not be so readily available. But we do not treat that very seriously when you think that in the case of the First World War whole patches have been completely ignored by the Government. For instance, after 50 years, in the case of the East African Campaign we still stop almost in the middle of a sentence. Part II was never done. We have had nothing on the North Russian Campaign, nothing on the South Russian Campaign, nothing on the fighting in Afghanistan; nor have we had the second Dardenelles report, nor filled

1671
the gaps in the Mesopotamia report. All that has been left, and that is 50 years ago. I think that is a major case against, I was going to say the Government of the day, but I admit that it perfectly well applies to the previous Conservative Government. I think it is quite inexcusable. It was a war series, and it ought to have been treated in an entirely different way from the general question.
I know all this has been urged because researchers want it. That leaves me completely cold. Researchers have no business to want it, and to my mind they should not be encouraged to mix up history with contemporary research—and 30 years is contemporary. That is a very good definition of "contemporary"—30 years. The whole basis of history should be perspective and balance, and it should he absolutely dispassionate. To judge the events of 30 years ago, with all one's immature reactions to those events, and with all the prejudices of one's upbringing and background, is to he in absolute conflict with everything which can be called history. By all means let people write about things: that is always interesting. It is quite right that people who have been in public life should write about their experiences; but that is quite different from revealing public documents dealing with those matters. I am quite unmoved by the fact that a number of historians want to write about things, but these cannot make up the full story and therefore they must he misleading. It takes generations before all the facts are available, because all the facts are not those which emerge purely from Government documents.
There is a very big task for people during the 30, 40 or 50 years period, and for public servants in connection with, say, the Record Office. That task involves collecting the documents, seeing that they are recorded, filed, and put in their proper places so that everything is ready against the day when they can be released. During the 30, 40 or 50 years period they should be engaged in collecting all the authorities and seeing that when the time comes people will find that the maximum amount of information is available. At the present time, we are always absorbed with the question of foreground. Thinking of
1672
the foreground is quite the most dangerous basis on which judgment and statesmanship can be based. In the first place, the facts are not complete. They have not, like old wine, had time to mature. We want records to help us in our judgments. Those judgments are not going to be wisely formed on the basis of documents revealed after 30 years. It is to my mind a complete conflict with everything which stands for judgment from an historical angle.
My Lords, I hope I have not said anything which other people have said before me; but I feel it is very important that these points should be emphasised. I hope sincerely that there will be second thoughts and that this Bill will be dropped. If there are exceptional cases—and one can never make laws to cover everything—the previous Act already has powers to deal with them. I referred to one case, that of the Official History of the First World War. There may well he others that could arise. They can be dealt with in the way provided for by the earlier Act. But as a general lead as to what is desirable, I think that the provision in this Bill is dangerous and absolutely in conflict with all that we mean by statesmanship, and also from the point of view of being helpful to later generations in guiding them in the policies of their own day.
7.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, those of your Lordships who have stayed until now have been rewarded by a most interesting debate to which experts in their own spheres have contributed; they have certainly illuminated what seemed to be a very bare Bill in itself. I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in expressing the appreciation that we all feel for the comprehensive and fascinating manner in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us about the background to this Bill, and how he expected it would be operated if it were brought into effect. I need not detain your Lordships for long on this matter. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, that he certainly did not say exactly the same as was said by others; and I may add that what he did say was very worthy of attention.

1673
It seems to me that the core of this matter is simply that the practice of keeping public records secret has one justification, and one only; that is, the public interest, and the effect on the conduct of our affairs, whether collectively or individually. It is that effect which has to be considered in conjunction with any proposal to alter the present practice. For my part, I was extremely glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who has such an important role to play in these matters, say so categorically that the fundamental consideration so far as the time limit was concerned must be good administration. I think his words were that good administration must constitute the paramount ground, and that the needs of historians must take second place. I think all who have spoken to-day would agree with that.
Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, have expressed the thought that it may well be that, if your Lordships accept the proposals in this Bill and 30-years is substituted for 50-years as a general limit, it may fall to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to make rather more exceptions than he has had to make in the past. I was not entirely clear from what was said by the noble and learned Lord whether this was what he himself anticipated would happen. But I am certain that in matters of this kind it can well be left to the noble and learned Lord (who has the benefit of the advice of the Advisory Council) to judge where the public interest lies and how the public interest can best be served. Where a longer period is necessary, he will make provision accordingly.
The noble and learned Lord said that he did not expect that there would be a great many points to be raised at the Committee stage on a Bill of this kind We shall have the opportunity of looking at the matter again between now and the Committee stage. My only comment would be that there are so many noble Lords who have played a part in public life that when they have read the debate in Hansard they may discover points that they may wish to raise on the Committee stage—although the only salient point is whether the period should be 30 years or 40 years, as the Advisory Council originally suggested.
1674
But in view of the agreement between the Parties, and in view of the fact that the Advisory Council (though, in the first place, it recommended 40 years) has now acceded to the 30-year proposal in this Bill, I think it would be difficult for your Lordships to take a contrary view, although I feel a good many of the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I am sure that this will be borne in mind.
With these few remarks I would once again thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his most interesting and comprehensive explanation of this matter. At a late hour, on the eve of going into Recess, I feel that we ought to express particular appreciation of his having done so, rather than to have treated this in a rather summary manner.
7.8 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this small Bill. It was a great advantage to the House to have the benefit of the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with his experience as Chairman of the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council themselves hesitated between a period of 35 years and one of 40 years. Eventually they agreed on 40 years. It is therefore a comfort to me that the Council have unanimously approved the decision to reduce it to 30 years. The noble and learned Lord was too modest in saying that his only power now is as Chairman of the Advisory Council, because by Section 7(1) of the Act he is still responsible for the custody of the records of the Chancellory of England including the Patent Rolls.
The House will have been particularly glad to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, with his unrivalled experience, and we have all had very much in mind the considerations to which he has referred. It was only after the most anxious consideration and consultation with the Leaders of the other political Parties that this decision was made. The precise period must, of course, be a matter of opinion; but, as the noble Lord realises, this Bill makes no change at all in the powers of the Lord Chancellor to make orders prescribing longer or shorter periods. I am sure that if any Department or Ministry feels they have a

1675
specially sensitive class of papers they will apply to the Lord Chancellor to make an order in respect of that particular class of document.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, does not really approve of the Bill at all. He took part in the debate on the 1958 Act and he is not, I think, in favour of any reduction at all. My Lords, these things are, of course, matters of opinion. The noble Earl does not think that researchers should be encouraged at all, but I would suggest for his further consideration that the country is placed sometimes in a rather difficult position. For example, American historians, and some of other countries who have access to their documents may write a history about a matter in which we were involved, and may so write that matters appear to have been to our detriment; and our historians cannot correct that because we do not allow our historians to have access to our documents.
I would also suggest this further point for his consideration. It is not only civil servants who, very naturally, want to be protected against too early disclosure of their documents. The same, naturally, applies to Ministers. But the decision to reduce the period from 50 to 30 years was, after all, taken by Ministers, and by the Ministers of this Government, only after consultation and agreement with the Leaders of other political Parties. Therefore, if Ministers feel that 30 years is supportable, one might feel that the most distinguished civil servants might be in the same position. After all, very few people are likely to be Cabinet Ministers, or Permanent Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries. I suppose, earlier than 35; and after 30 years they would be 65, and no longer occupying those respective positions.
My Lords, I am very much obliged for the consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given to the Bill. In answer to the point he made I feel sure that successive Lord Chancellors may be relied upon to do the right thing in relation to particular documents, or classes of documents, without, of course, using that power on such a scale as in effect to reverse the decision to produce the documents, in general, after 30 years instead of 50 years.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.