Lords Sitting of 10 December 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME AND SCHOOL HOURS
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: 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 advice they have given to local education authorities in the matter of protecting school children against the dangers of going to school in the dark.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as he recently announced in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science issued Circular 23/68 to local education authorities on November 22. This urged any authorities who might not already have considered changes in the timing of the school day because of the effect of British Standard Time in the winter months to do so urgently, particularly in relation to younger children. The circular also passed on advice from the Ministry of Transport about precautions which could be taken to minimise traffic dangers.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. May I ask also what steps, if any, the Government have taken to remove purchase tax and other obstacles in the way of the sale of reflective and fluorescent guards for children going to school in the dark in the morning?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that I cannot give him a reply to that question, but I will see that he receives that information.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether Her
408
Majesty's Government are also taking into account the situation in Scotland, where not only is it dark at the time in question but the roads are very slippery?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords. The situation is being watched very carefully. I expect the noble Baroness will have noticed that the Prime Minister has said that an assessment will be made at the end of the winter on the basis of the information then available—for instance, in relation to road accidents.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that local authorities do not, in the interests of economy, put street lights out early in the morning in some areas, when children are going to school?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I shall be glad to convey that point to the appropriate authorities. This possibly would not apply to all authorities but to some of which the noble Lord has knowledge.

RAIL SERVICES: GOVERNMENT AID FORMULA
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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, why they have not yet revealed publicly their new financial formula on which they base their decision to grant aid to a railway line, and whether they will now do so.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, there is no secret about this. These grants are calculated in respect of individual passenger services on the basis recommended by the Joint Steering Group whose Report was published as the Annex to the White Paper, Railway Policy, of November, 1967 (Cmnd. 3439). The Group recommended, and the Government accepted, that these grants must cover the full long-term costs of providing the railway service concerned. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport then has to weigh the cost of the grant against the social

409
and economic benefits which the service would provide.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether I am not correct in saying that Her Majesty's Government sought the views of a financial consultant who prepared a formula on which to base their grant-aided programme?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the word "formula" suggests a series of algebraic symbols. In point of fact, the formula is Section 3 of the Paper, Cmnd. 3439, which I mentioned in my original Answer.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether in the last eighteen months or so there has been a change in the formula adopted by the British Railways Board in making assessments? Will he also deny or confirm that where a branch line is showing a loss of more than 6d. per passenger mile that fact has an important bearing in the new formula?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend is speaking with greater knowledge than I myself possess. He is a professional; I am an amateur. As regards the second part of his question, concerning a loss of 6d. per passenger mile, I will send him a written reply. As regards the first part of his question, I think he may be confusing the difference between the closure basis of costs and the grant basis, which are two different things.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord (he has just said that closures and grants are not related or are two different things) whether he could ascertain from his right honourable friend why it is that in the threatened or decided closure of the Waverley Line, in which I am particularly interested, the amount of money that was voted by the Ministry as being lost on the railway was £250,000 and then, when the railway closure was announced, it was stated that the figure was £700,000 a year? Since then nobody has been able to get an explanation from either the Railways Board or the Department as to the reason for the difference between the estimates of £250,000 a year and £700,000 a year.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is the point I made to my noble friend. It is the difference between the closure avoidable costs, and the grant basis, full long-term costs. To try to put it simply (and I hope that I shall be able to do so), if one takes a stretch of line and stops a single service from running along it, then one saves the costs of that single service. On the other hand, if in addition along a wider length of the line, of which that stretch is a section, you run other trains, then you have to decide what the full-term costs of running on that line are. That is to say, the trains that run along the full stretch of line must cover the overheads of the British Railways Board as a whole. The consultants whom the noble Earl mentioned in fact said that the full long-term costs would have to be covered by a grant-aided section of that line. That is the difference between the closure basis, representing short-term avoidable costs, and the grant basis, representing full long-term costs.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, in those circumstances may I ask the noble Lord whether he would be good enough to ask the Department or the Railways Board to supply to those of us who are particularly interested in the Waverley Line details of what the £700,000 includes? Is it the interest on a sinking fund, on a huge development of the railways, either in Scotland or in England—for instance, Euston Railway Station—or is it confined to the cunning costs of the section of the railway which it is proposed to close?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will undertake to give the noble Baroness a detailed reply.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, as a general principle, would my noble friend request the Railways Board to give the same information with regard to the figures they arrive at in connection with these closures? I am sure the Railways Board are absolutely right in the figures given, and if they would I give more information to the public generally when they adopt these closures it would prevent much of the uneasiness and unrest which now occurs.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend is going to

411
publish a detailed statement on these factors in the New Year.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I thank my noble friend.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord give an undertaking to ask his right honourable friend to publish details of the cost of running lines that are not grant-aided?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are getting into deep water, because this is a complex situation, but may I refer the noble Earl to a Written Answer given by my right honourable friend to Mr. Keith Stainton in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 7091 on Friday. November 15? That is a full reply and we can expect a following statement early in the New Year.

FIREARM CERTIFICATE FEES
LORD DERWENT: 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 their reasons for increasing the fees for a firearms certificate from 5s. to £2 10s. and for a shotgun certificate from 5s. to 15s.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the fee for a firearm certificate has remained unchanged since 1920, and that for a shot-gun certificate was prescribed temporarily at the same level to facilitate the introduction, on May 1 last, of the new controls over shot-guns. Both fees are now being raised in order to cover the actual cost to the police of dealing with applications for these certificates.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. As the procedure for obtaining both types of certificate is now virtually the same, how is it that one is to cost £2 10s. and the other 15s.? I ask this question particularly because the applications for firearms certificates are much easier for the police to deal with. Unless they know all about a person when he applies for a firearms certificate, the application is refused, whereas in the case of an
412
application for a shot-gun certificate if they do not know anything against a person they have to try to find it out. Therefore one would have thought that the charges for the two types of certificate would be exactly the opposite.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the work of the police in dealing with applications for firearms certificates has increased substantially in recent years, for the very good reason—which the noble Lord will support—that we have asked the chief officers of police to make more serious inquiries before granting an application. The justification for the two different charges is entirely the cost of the work to the police. We have asked every chief officer of police throughout the country, in the light of experience, to give us estimates of the respective costs involved in the two classes of certificate, and the charges now made reflect a weighted average of these costs.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, when making these increases, any consideration was given to an objective of the recent legislation on this matter, which was to get weapons licensed, on the ground that crime is committed with unlicensed rather than licensed weapons? Are not these increases a further obstacle to this objective?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not think so. I do not think either a £2 10s. 0d. licence fee for a firearm certificate or 15s. for a shot-gun will prevent anyone who really has a use for either from obtaining it. So far as the amnesty provisions are concerned, the amnesty ended before these new charges were made, and I cannot see how the noble Lord's question has any relevance.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I apologise for asking one more question, but if this figure represents the real cost and presumably the cost is due to finding out about a person—why should the renewal of a firearm certificate cost £1 5s. 0d.?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the police still have to make inquiries. I thought the noble Lord was going to say what a good thing it is that we are not charging £2 10s. 0d.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, am I right in thinking that both firearm certificates and shot-gun certificates are a form of licence? And am I right in thinking that the cost of licences to shoot game, and indeed licences to store petrol, have also been increased rather sharply owing to heavy administrative costs?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think I have made it clear, and I hope your Lordships will accept, that these two charges are precisely related to estimates of cost based on experience. I must confess I am surprised that these questions should be raised, since every possible authority having any kind of connection with firearms or shot-guns has been consulted about these changes, including the Long Room, and no one has made the slightest objection.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it would be improper to issue a licence for a sawn-off shot-gun, even at a fee of 15s.?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is prohibited under the Firearms Act, and of course a licence would not be issued.

IMPORTS OF ARGENTINE BEEF
LORD VIVIAN: 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 tonnage of Argentine beef was unloaded in England during the week commencing Monday, November 25, and what tonnage was unloaded for the week commencing Monday, December 2.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is understood from trade sources that 2,050 tons of Argentine beef were unloaded during the week commencing November 25, and 1,780 tons during the week commencing December 2.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the figures he has given, may I ask him what checks Her Majesty's Government are making to ensure that none of this beef is imported from anywhere near an area in the Argentine which is affected by foot-and-mouth disease?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, all beef from the Argentine is imported only under the Bledisloe Agreement, which means that the imports are restricted to beef from disease-free herds. There are inspectors acting on our behalf in the Argentine to see that this Agreement is complied with.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, in view of the continuing anxiety regarding imports of any beef from the Argentine, could the noble Lord tell us whether the Northumberland Committee are likely to make an early or interim Report as a result of their investigation into the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that the Committee will be making a first Report in the early spring. What will be in the Report is a matter for the Committee, but I shall be surprised if it does not cover this aspect of the matter.

ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 1968
2.54 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winterbottom I beg to move that the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (England and Wales) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before the House on November 20, 1968, be approved. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I also spoke to the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order 1968, dated November 13, which also was laid before the House also on

415
November 20. May I explain briefly what these Orders do and then the reasons for them? The Orders amend respectively the Fourth Schedule to the Highways Act 1959, and the Second Schedule to the Special Roads Act 1949, which were previously amended by Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Orders. These provisions lay down the different classes of traffic which may or may not be allowed to use the motorways in England and Wales, and Scotland respectively, their effect in all three countries being identical.
Of the different classes of traffic so laid down only traffic of Classes I and II is normally allowed to use the motorways at all times and for all journeys. Classes I and II consist of private cars, motor cycles, buses, lorries and vehicles used for carrying abnormal loads when they are specially authorised. Class II also includes a number of vehicles belonging to the Armed Services. The only breakdown vehicles now in Class I—and so allowed unlimited use of the motorways —are those with an unladen weight of up to 7¼ tons. Bigger breakdown vehicles may sometimes use the motorways, but only to recover vehicles that have actually broken down on the motorway itself. They may not, for example, be used to bring back along a motorway a vehicle that has broken down somewhere off the motorway. The effect of these Orders is to allow some of these larger breakdown vehicles—those of up to 11½ tons unladen weight—to use the motorways at any time, just like other breakdown vehicles. This is done by putting them into Class II.
We feel that there are very good reasons for making this change. In the first place, operators have claimed that the present situation causes them considerable inconvenience and substantially increases costs to an important sector of industry. Secondly, the alternative routes that they are compelled to use often pass through densely developed and highly industrialised areas. When they are on these other roads, these large vehicles cause considerable congestion and frustration and so increased costs for the community generally. We feel that it would be of general benefit if these vehicles were allowed to use the motorways freely. They have, in any case,
416
been widely used in the past on motorways to recover broken-down vehicles—and so far as we know this has been accomplished without any mishap at all. It seems an anomaly that, whilst they have been used so successfully already, their presence on the motorways is still legally restricted.
I am sure that before agreeing to this change the House will wish to be assured that there will be no ill-effects on motorway safety. We have, of course, thoroughly examined the performance and capabilities of these vehicles and we have drafted the Orders in such a way that the vehicle will have to be fully equipped with mudguards, springs and pneumatic tyres. It must also have a highly efficient braking system. The vehicles will therefore be safe in themselves. They are also no bigger, or slower, than many vehicles already using the motorways and they can maintain a speed of up to 45 m.p.h. when unloaded and about 35 m.p.h. when towing. They should, therefore, fit reasonably well into the stream of the other, slower sorts of commercial traffic. Obviously, we should not want to see large numbers of these vehicles on the motorways and I can assure your Lordships that the number of vehicles affected by this concession is small—probably not more than a few hundred. And, of course, they will not all be on the motorway at the same time. We do not think that they will cause any significant difficulties for other vehicles on the motorway.
We have consulted with interested organisations on this proposal and I am glad to say there has been no opposition at all, but it has been suggested that we should widen the concession and allow a number of other types of heavy vehicle to use the motorways freely. We are prepared to look into this suggestion, but I can see some dangers in allowing on the motorways vehicles which are usually
longer and heavier and slower than the vehicles we have in mind. The limited proposal we have made should endanger no one, but we should want to look further into any wider concession. For this reason, we intend next year to carry out a general review of the Classes of Traffic Order when the other vehicles will be considered. This is a complex and difficult subject and the review could take twelve months or

417
so to complete. Meanwhile there seems no reason to hold up this comparatively straightforward amendment, which, without causing danger to other road users, will remove an anomaly which is particularly tiresome and costly for industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (England and Wales) Order 1968 be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for explaining to us the purpose of this Order, and tell him that we welcome it as being an Order of practical value? There is clearly an element of balance of advantage here. These big breakdown vehicles towing other large vehicles behind them fill up an unduly large part of the highway at any time, and wherever they are going they are liable to cause obstruction. But whatever obstruction they may cause on the motorway, they cause a great deal more on an ordinary road where they fill up pretty well the whole roadway. I personally would accept that the Government have struck the right balance of advantage in deciding that these vehicles should be allowed to go on the motorway. My only point is that I hope the noble Lord, having observed the advantage of motorways, will be stimulated to see that more are built—but that is not a direct concern of this Order. May I therefore welcome the Order, which seems to me in every way sensible, and tell the noble Lord that we shall look forward with great interest to the general review which will be coming in the course of the next twelve months. We shall look at it fairly critically to see that we continue to strike the right balance of advantage for all traffic.
3.2 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I refer to the general review which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the classes of traffic, because when this review is completed, and if any changes are to be made, again presumably they will be presented to us in two separate Orders. I think I am right in saying that at the present time there is no special road which crosses the Border between England and Scotland. Shortly there will be a motorway going up to the West Coast. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will take
418
particular care to ensure that all the administrative details concerned with traffic on that motorway will be the same on both sides of the Border. I can see little historic reason here for having the differences which we often have and
respect in other fields. In this new field I hope that we shall be able to ensure that the Border between England and Scotland, at least so far as motorways are concerned, does not mean that one moves from a country with one type of administration into another with different rules.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I certainly give that undertaking. As I understand it at the moment, in England and Wales there are eleven classes of vehicles; in Scotland, with our natural economy, we have managed to compress them into nine classes. Whether we shall overcome our instinct and in the end have eleven, or whether we can persuade the Southerners to compress theirs into nine, I do not know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1968
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) (Scotland) Order 1968 be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
3.3 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be read a second time. This is the fifth year that I have moved this Motion, but it is no formal exercise, because the colour-blind, distortionist statements of Mr. Enoch Powell have made an exact statement of the facts of immigration, and an objective consideration of the Government's policy, more necessary than ever before. Not the least remarkable of Mr. Powell's observations was his complaint about
"a tiny minority"—
which presumably includes your Lordships—

419
"with almost a monopoly hold upon the channels of communication who seem determined not to know the facts and not to face the realities".
My Lords, the true position is the exact reverse. It is hard to recall any speech which has been so thoroughly deployed by B.B.C., I.T.V. and the Press as Mr. Powell's statement of non-facts. Our "monopoly hold" is a myth, and we must soldier on without it. Since, however, our object is to get the truth to the people, it is unfortunate that fact seems to have so much less publicity value than fiction.
On four previous occasions I have said that it is unsatisfactory that we must continue to seek annual renewal for such important legislation as this. I say it again, and repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that the Government still consider permanent legislation an ideal to be worked for. But the Home Office have, this Session, five substantial Bills, including the Immigration Appeals Bill, which provides for the establishment of an immigration appeals system, and I believe it will be generally agreed that we should have experience of its operation before introducing comprehensive legislation.
Meanwhile, and I think understandably, an ever-increasing number of other nationals want to live in this country, and fortunately for us a very much greater number want to visit here. In the twelve months to September 30, 1968, there were 21½ million arrivals and departures at our ports—7 per cent. more than in the previous year. Of this total 13½ million were movements of resident citizens like ourselves, but 3½ million aliens were given leave to land—a 12 per cent. increase—and some half a million Commonwealth citizens came here, the great majority for short visits. This total of 21½ million a year averages more than 400,000 a week—a colossal task for our immigration staffs. A significant measure of the exemplary manner in which they discharge their responsibilities is the fact that during the whole of last year the Home Office received only fourteen complaints about the conduct of immigration officers. very few of which were found to be justified. My Lords, is it too much to hope that these figures could
420
be made widely known, together with the fact that we will gladly consider any constructive suggestions further to improve or speed up our methods?
I have said that we still aim at permanent legislation, but we do not think to achieve this, as apparently Mr. Heath proposes, by the assimilation of Commonwealth legislation into aliens legislation. One strong argument against this, which I should have thought would have appealed to the Party opposite, is that it would greatly increase the flow of Commonwealth citizens coming here for employment. There is no ceiling on the entry of aliens, and no need to impose one, because their entry for employment is strictly related to the needs of the domestic labour market.
The Commonwealth pattern is very different. Although the number of Commonwealth citizens entering is only one seventh the number of aliens, the proportion wishing to stay here indefinitely is much higher. We are obliged, therefore, to maintain a ceiling through the limit on vouchers. Otherwise, if we used the work control methods applied to aliens the number of Commonwealth immigrants coming here to work would be much larger than it is. I find it surprising that Mr. Heath did not apparently appreciate the implications of his proposal.
My Lords, I hope I am stating a fact regarding the problem of Commonwealth immigration when I say that the main opposition Parties agree with the Government on two propositions: first, that we should keep a tight control on immigration; and, second, that we should treat all people who are lawfully in this country on the basis of absolute equality. Let us first consider the effectiveness of our control system, including the results achieved by the measures we took last February. By the end of 1967 twice as many Kenya Asians had come in as in previous years; 13,000 arrived during the year and the rate was rapidly growing. In January this year the flow became a flood. We stopped it. The flood is now a very small trickle. The whole matter has been carefully and humanely handled and all the tension has gone. Then there was the provision to exclude dependent children under 16 unless both parents, or the sole surviving

421
parent, were here. This was designed to deal with the large numbers of youths who were arriving and going straight into employment. In the last three months before the Act came into force 1,032 were admitted to join a single parent; in the first three months after the Act, only 39, and in the second three months, 14.
The other group whose conditions of entry were changed was the elderly dependants who came here to be cared for by their children, but many of whom took up employment. In the last three months before the Act 89 of such persons entered in the first three months after the Act, 6, and in the second three months none at all. It is difficult to imagine more effective control than that.
We appreciate that some unqualified people who strongly desire to live here will seek to evade the controls. Our immigration officers maintain a close and experienced scrutiny at the ports and we do not believe that many escape their vigilance on the basis of forged or lying papers. Any that do succeed in this way would be included in our figures of admissions. This would not apply to illicit entry, the extent of which we cannot measure because naturally such intruders do not appear in our figures at all. There is no evidence to suggest, however, that this has ever happened on a substantial scale. And the new powers we took in the 1968 Act have proved very effective. The only two cases detected since the Act was passed resulted in the prosecution of the boatmen concerned. One was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment.
My Lords, I believe your Lordships will agree, on the basis of these facts, that we are exercising a strict and efficient control over immigration, and we shall continue alert to deal with any new type of evasion we discover.
I turn now to the main problems arising from the 50,000 or so immigrants who are coming here each year for permanent settlement. Here may I warmly welcome three statements made by Mr. Heath last month. One, when following Mr. Powell's second speech, he said:
"I absolutely condemn the character assassination of any racial group in this country … that way lies tyranny and it must be fought wherever it raises its ugly presence."
422
Second, when he made it clear there was no question of Conservative policy accepting a ban on wives and children coming to join immigrants, adding:
"It is quite intolerable to say that a man already here must not be joined by his wife and children of school age."
The Government and, as a recent poll indicated, the majority of the people of this country agree with that. The third welcome statement was:
"To stop teachers, doctors, nurses and dentists coming would only make the problem very much worse because these immigrants are themselves looking after immigrants who are already here."
These are very clear and welcome statements. Unfortunately they do not square with Mr. Heath's declaration at York that
"the number of immigrants entering Britain, both under the voucher system, and as dependants, must be severely curtailed."
How are we severely to curtail the number of dependants if we must not say that a man is not to be joined by his wife and children? In what other way can numbers be substantially cut? Last year 57,648 immigrants were admitted for settlement from the new Commonwealth countries. Of these only 4,716 (just over 8 per cent.) were voucher holders. Of the remainder nearly 90 per cent. were entitled women and children who, Mr. Heath insists, and the Government agree, we must admit. Nor can the severe curtailment come from the 8 per cent. of voucher holders of whom rather more than half are doctors, teachers and other professional people whose exclusion, according to Mr. Heath,
"would only make the problem very much worse".
The plain fact is that, given the conditions which Mr. Heath has reaffirmed, and which the Government accept, there is no way of severely curtailing numbers.
My Lords, in all honesty, it is time this was acknowledged by the Party opposite. It is less than honest to proclaim the right sentiments—which we all share—and still pretend that we can make substantial cuts in the number of immigrants. We are always ready to consider suggestions for improvement and I would now comment on some suggestions that have been made. First, that we make entry certificates obligatory before dependants come here. There is no issue of principle involved here, because if every

423
person entitled to a certificate was given one it would not reduce the numbers coming in. In other words, if they are entitled, they are entitled with or without a certificate. Given that there would be no reduction in numbers, it is difficult to see what could be gained from what would be a considerable administrative task, and unless a convincing case for the value of such an operation can be made we shall not undertake it.
Secondly, there is the suggestion that we should require the heads of immigrant families now here to register the particulars of dependants still overseas. It is alleged that this would provide reliable information as to the numbers of dependants and also help to reduce the number of bogus entries. This proposal appears to me to be of doubtful value and, indeed, potentially dangerous, because, as we all know, records of birth, marriage, et cetera are scanty in some parts of the Commonwealth and if we invite people to supply this information we shall be quite unable to check its accuracy. Moreover, it is highly improbable that there is anyone in the country of origin who can check its accuracy. Indeed, it would be tantamount to an invitation to ill-disposed people to manufacture evidence of the existence of dependants who they would then bring into this country. A list of names will tell us nothing about future trends or the probable date of arrival of dependants. It will not supply reliable information about the admissibility of a dependant. The important thing is that it will not affect his entitlement, because if he is entitled he must be admitted even if he has not reistered; if he is not entitled, he must not be admitted even if he has registered. The proposal in fact would be just another expensive exercise in futility.
Then there is the even more remarkable proposal by Mr. Heath that all who visit these shores from overseas should register with the police—which is what his proposal appears to amount to. Last year nearly 3½ million aliens came here, the majority for short periods. Imagine what would happen, say, when France plays England at Twickenham if we asked every visiting French rugger enthusiast to go to the police station to sign on. Imagine what we should say if Continental countries asked British holidaymakers to do likewise. Yet that is the only con-
424
struction to be put on Mr. Heath's words, unless he is intending that his proposals should be directed at Commonwealth citizens but should not apply to aliens. I cannot believe that to be the case. Commonwealth visitors would be treated even more rigorously if we insisted on entry certificates as well as demanding that all our annual half million Commonwealth visitors, students and immigrants, including many thousands from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, should register with the police. It is surely unthinkable. Such a proposal would mean the breakdown of the service.
I come now to what Mr. Powell describes as the major issue, that of repatriation. He declares, I believe correctly, that a policy of assisting repatriation by payment of fares and grants is part of the official policy of the Conservative Party, and he describes it as a just, rational and humane policy. The Supplementary Benefits Commission already operates a policy of assisted repatriation in certain circumstances. That is going on now—voluntary repatriation with financial assistance. The numbers involved are small and obviously Mr. Powell envisages something much more Draconian. In the Government's view, large-scale repatriation would involve
either direction (which is deportment), harassment, or compensation on an unacceptable basis. The Government reject all three. The basic problem in a policy of repatriation is the vast difference in the standard of living. So long as the difference between this country and the Caribbean countries is twelve to one, and eight to one in the Asian countries, no one is likely to be induced by payment to return home.
May I quote what Mr. Quintin Hogg said in the debate in another place, as to what we should do if a man said he did not want compensation but wanted to stay here:
"…my belief is that that is the situation with which we would be faced in the majority of cases … I simply do not believe that there can be a future for this country … if we do not found our general policies for those who live within our boundaries upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 13/11/68; col. 509.]
I am confident that your Lordships endorse that statement, as I do, and I hope that in their speeches on this subject the leaders of great political Parties will be

425
careful not to appear to give support to alleged solutions which do not square with the principles we have agreed.
We are, of course, very much aware of the very proper anxiety which exists concerning our ability to absorb substantial additions to our immigrant population and of the desire for information about the number of persons now overseas who are entitled to come here. I am glad to inform your Lordships that the Home Office has been conducting surveys which might in time enable us to forecast the numbers of dependants likely to come here in the future. Taking children first, we find that half of those arriving are less than 10 years of age, so they have five or more years at school here. The other 50 per cent. are evenly spread through the age groups from 11 to 15 and there is no concentration in the 14 to 15 age group. This will be of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who has suggested that a reduction in the upper age limit for children could mean a substantial reduction in the numbers coming in. Our survey shows that in the groups I have mentioned this would not be the case. Action to reduce the age in the manner suggested could conceivably put us in breach of the Convention of Human Rights which enjoins respect for family life; and it might indeed temporarily increase the numbers of children entering because it is probable they would be brought in earlier. As for the admission of wives, I cannot imagine anyone suggesting that if the children are coming in, their mothers should not be allowed to accompany them.
Nevertheless, the numbers will, in time, decline. Our survey shows that of those now coming in—that is to say, in the last twelve months—only 16 per cent. are the dependants of men who arrived here before the 1962 Act and a little under 50 per cent. in all are related to men who arrived before we severely curtailed the number of vouchers in 1965. I have done some rough calculations. If we assume, as seems likely, that the number of dependants coming in this year is about 50,000 we can make some rough deductions: namely, that 8,000 are related to immigrants who came before June, 1962; 17,000 to the three-year period 1963 to 1965 and 25,000 to the 24-year period from 1966 onwards.
426
The migration of large numbers of Commonwealth citizens to this country dates from about 1952, but we only started a rough count of numbers arriving from the new Commonwealth countries from 1955. From this we are able to say that in 7½years from the beginning of 1955 to June 30, 1962, some 472,000 men, women and children were received here for settlement. The present entry of 8,000 dependants against this very large pre-1962 total is, therefore, only a small percentage (less than 2 per cent.), and it may be that we are coming: to the end of the commitment for the pre-1962 period. Seventeen thousand more dependants who arrived this year can be related to the years 1963 to 1965, during which there continued to be a high rate of immigration, because more than 162,000 men, women and children were admitted for settlement in those three years. The relationship is just over 10 per cent. As might be expected, the proportion related to new immigrants in the last two and three quarter years is higher still, as 25,000 dependants this year are related to total admissions of 140,000 men, women and children in that period —nearly 18 per cent.
On these figures we believe it is a reasonable assumption that we have already reached a plateau in the number of dependants entering and a decline in numbers may already have begun, because, excluding Asians from East Africa, the numbers entering in the first nine months of this year were about 11 per cent. less than in the corresponding period last year. We should therefore see a steady decline from the present level over the next six or seven years, and then expect to reach a level closely related to the size of the small voucher issue. I strongly deprecate the practice followed by some, of numbering categories of people which include those born in this country, and then, on their own conditions, making forecasts of the likely numbers decades hence. If we are to include the children
of immigrants why not their grandchildren? They will be just as black. By the year 2,000 our white population is expected to increase by 20 million anyway.
My Lords, I have tried to give the statistical facts, but figures are relatively unimportant compared with the one overriding fact that we have a sizeable

427
coloured population which will continue in our midst whatever measures are adopted, short of measures which are unthinkable in a civilised society. We must recognise this and work together to ensure that we win the battle, for it is a battle, the battle for men's minds; and that we, in this House and in the country, with our reputation for tolerance, succeed in creating an atmosphere of tolerance and in establishing an environment where the emotional tensions are eased. It has been alleged that our children's heritage is being destroyed. There is high authority for the view that homo sapiens did not evolve in the British Isles. It must follow that everyone living here is either himself an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant. That applies to all of us in this Chamber.
This country, either by conquest or immigration, has experienced successive invasions or incursions by Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Poles and others. All were resisted at the time; all are part of our heritage and there are few, if any, of your Lordships who are not descended from the peoples I have mentioned. My Huguenot ancestors came here three hundred years ago. My other grandparents were respectively Scottish, Welsh and Irish. I was born in the City of London and am just about as English as a man can be. But if my immigrant forbear had been black, I should have been as black as he, and no less English than I am now. Of course, immigrants do not automatically become Englishmen, and many, quite understandably, prefer to maintain their separate characteristics, as do many Welsh, Irish and Scots when they live in England. Immigrants do not have to be integrated culturally, but they do become integrated in other respects. A large proportion of our coloured people have not known and will probably never know any other country. This is their country. It is for us to ensure that they become part of us. Parliament can pass Statutes making discrimination unlawful. The Government can, and do, provide special assistance in housing, education, welfare and many other things. But only the people can perform the most important task of all, and it is for us to give them a lead in doing so. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. (Lord Stonham.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that he was introducing this Bill for the fifth time, but in fact he made no reference to two-thirds of the proposals in the Bill. The first question which I should like to ask him is: how soon are the Government going to take steps to get rid of this annual Bill altogether? We constantly hear about pressure on Parliamentary time, particularly in another place, and here is a Bill which could be eliminated. I suggest that it should be a matter of priority so to deal with each of the six Acts which we are proposing to prolong by this Bill, that an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is no longer needed.
For example, the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953, for which my noble friend Lord Ilford was originally responsible, has been in operation and has been needed for 15 years. I can see no prospect that it will cease to be needed, and I should have thought it was obvious by now that it should be converted into permanent legislation. What about the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955? That is an Act expiring annually, that deals with what are known as "horror comics". Do the Government suppose that sometime the importation of horror comics may no longer threaten? Do they not see by now that it is desirable that that Act, of which we have 13 years' experience, should be made permanent? To make both those Acts permanent would be very simple items of legislation.
Then what about licensing planning? Some four or five years ago I set up a strong Committee under Mr. Ramsay Willis to report on this subject, as a means—this was definitely in my mind —of getting this Act out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. When I say "this Act", I should more correctly refer to Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964, dealing with licensing planning, which we are still continuing annually. The Ramsay Willis Committee reported, I think, some two years ago, but we have heard nothing further from the Government about legislation to take that part

429
of the Licensing Act out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, dealing with it either on the lines recommended by the Committee or in some other way, but at any rate enshrining it in permanent legislation.
The noble Lord has spoken almost exclusively to-day about Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Last year, in the corresponding debate, he led us to hope that there would be permanent legislation dealing both with Commonwealth immigrants and with aliens, so that this long farce of continuing the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 by year-to-year legislation should be brought to an end, and at the same time we should make permanent, either in amended or unamended form, the control of Commonwealth immigrants. Now the noble Lord says that the Government cannot find time for it. I am sorry that the Government give a low priority to these matters. I can think of other Bills which appear to me to be of less public value than measures to put on the Statute Book, in definitive and permanent form, arrangements for the control of the immigration both of Commonwealth citizens and of aliens. I must say that I was not impressed by the additional argument used by the Home Secretary in another place, though not, I think, repeated by the noble Lord to-day, that it would be a good thing to try out under existing legislation the new appeals procedure which is to be embodied in the Immigration Appeals Bill. I should have thought it was far better to bring that in at the same time as we brought in definitive and permanent legislation.
Having said that, I want to join with the noble Lord in the tribute that he paid to the work of immigration officers. They are too frequently criticised, in the Press and elsewhere, usually because they have handled some difficult case with strict regard to the rules laid down for them; and frequently the full facts have not become known to the Press. I remember a number of cases like that when I was responsible. The immigration officers get the first blame. No doubt the Home Secretary gets the second blame, but these officers tend to be held up to obloquy for doing a very difficult duty, as I think, uncommonly well, and I hope that from
430
all parts of your Lordships' House we shall endorse that tribute to them.
It is inevitable that the greater part of this debate should be concentrated on the working of the control over Commonwealth immigration. The Government say that the public does not realise how strict that control is. That is a matter of opinion; but what is a fact is that the control admitted more permanent immigrants from the new Commonwealth last year than entered in any year except 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, the years immediately affected by the passing of the 1962 Act. As the noble Lord told us, some 4,700 of those who came in during 1967 were voucher-holders, and some 49,300 were dependants. As to the voucher-holders, I understand that about 20 per cent. were doctors, 15 per cent. scientists and engineers, and over 10 per cent. teachers. Altogether, those who have professional qualifications of one kind or another add up to over 50 per cent.
The noble Lord seemed to think that this was unreservedly a good thing. But it appears to me to represent a "brain-drain" from underdeveloped countries where these professionally trained people are more urgently needed than they are here. I question whether we should accept this bringing of trained professional people from underdeveloped countries into this country as a good thing in itself, simply because it is convenient for us. In any case, I judge that the strongest reason for any of them to come here is to acquire more experience, which they can then take back and put at the disposal of their fellow citizens in their own countries; that is surely an argument for welcoming them on a limited-term basis, not for offering them vouchers that will entitle them to settle here permanently.
As your Lordships may be aware, the Royal Commission on Medical Education had something to say on this aspect. The Royal Commission suggested (I quote from paragraph 358) that:
"medical demands in Britain ought not to be met by permanent or semi-permanent immigration from developing countries whose own needs are enormous".
I am sure that is true. Elsewhere in that Report your Lordships will find the fact that some 50 per cent. of junior doctors in hospitals come from overseas. This is not a debate on medical education, but

431
I should like to be sure that the Government were taking much more seriously the future supply of our own doctors, so that we shall not need these vast numbers of doctors from overseas to keep our hospitals going. I am not endorsing yesterday's leading article in The Times, but I would say that, on a narrow front, there must be something seriously wrong with us and with our arrangements for the National Health Service if we are not succeeding in attracting into the medical profession—one of the finest professions in the world—a sufficient number of our own people to keep our own medical and hospital services going.
My Lords, it is of course well established that the vast majority of the Commonwealth citizens coming here for permanent residence are dependants of those who are already here, and the Home Secretary said the other day in another place:
"…it seems as though we are now on a plateau concerning the number of dependants".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 13/11/68, col. 430.]
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, appeared to me to suggest that we were off the plateau and that the numbers were now falling, but I must take seriously the Home Secretary's statement. When he spoke on the Committee stage of this Bill in another place, he was not forecasting that we could look forward to an early decline. I grant, of course, that the figures are down this year, and I listened with all the care I could to the ingenious calculations that the noble Lord put before us. But if the Home Secretary, the Minister principally responsible, says that we are "on a plateau concerning the number of dependants", I must accept that as meaning that the person in the best position to judge expects the number of dependants coming into this country to continue at something like 40,000 or 50,000 a year for a number of years.
My Lords, unless something can be done to mitigate the concentration of immigrants in certain areas I am driven to the conclusion that we cannot contemplate 40,000 or more dependants continuing to come in each year for a number of years. The absorptive capacity of some of these areas is now at bursting point. This is the situation that I want
432
to present to the Government, for I am bound to say that the noble Lord's very earnest speech would have been listened to in a somewhat different atmosphere if it had been delivered in Bradford, Huddersfield, Southall or elsewhere. I accept that the problem is mainly a problem of dependants, though for the reason I have indicated I think that we could and should cut down still further the number of vouchers that are given, and that all vouchers should now be for a limited period.
Perhaps I may add, in passing, that the noble Lord, in seeking to pooh-pooh the arguments of Mr. Heath, appeared to me to be overlooking the fact that one of the fundamental items in his proposals is that entry on vouchers should in future be for a limited term, as entry for aliens on work permits is already. The figure that matters most of all is not the number of people who come in during a certain year, but the number who stay here permanently. It is that figure which builds up the numbers—the numbers which, as I say, have already in certain areas reached bursting point. If only somebody could wave a wand and show us how to help the immigrants to distribute themselves more evenly over the country, there would be no problem at all. As I have repeatedly said, this is a problem of numbers, and it is the excessive numbers in certain areas which give rise to the strain.
One possible way of reducing in the long term, though not instantly, the number of dependants entering would be to withdraw unconditional entry—and I stress "unconditional" entry—for sons or daughters over 13 years of age. This would of course require legislation. I believe that this would diminish the number of young dependants coming in by 20 to 25 per cent. according to the figures that the noble Lord gave us. He told us that half of the child dependants coming in were under 10, and the other half are presumably between 10 and 16.
LORD STONHAM: Fifteen.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: They are aged 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, and the noble Lord said they are evenly spread over that age range. If, then, you exclude those aged 13, 14 and 15, you are left with those aged 10, 11 and 12; and presumably, on the noble

433
Lord's figures, you have then excluded something like 25 per cent. of the total child dependants. If I have misinformed myself in any way, or have misunderstood the argument which the noble Lord was putting before the House, no doubt he will tell us what the correct percentage is. I would point out that everybody with children of 13 or 14 or 15 would already have had ample opportunity to bring them in. The justification in principle for a course like this is that all the young people who are coming here for unconditional, permanent residence should rightly come at an age when they will have at least a year or two of British schooling, and will not pass straight into the labour market, perhaps with hardly any knowledge of English.
An alternative course—I do not know whether the Government have considered it—would be to do what the Government themselves did in the case of the Kenya Asians; that is, to fix an annual quota of entry. In the 1968 Act the Government took power to fix an annual entry quota for the Kenya Asians and others in a similar position; and a similar course could he adopted with regard to dependants. That 1968 Act is working well, as the noble Lord was entitled to say, and I give the Government credit for that legislation. I know that neither of the alternatives that I have mentioned is easy; but, my Lords, surely the decision to introduce the 1968 Bill was not an easy one for the Government. In that case the Government were convinced that something had to be done.
The plain fact is that we cannot drift on as we are, and yet I fear that that seems to be Government policy: accepting that we can add 40,000 to 50,000 more immigrants each year for permanent residence here, while offering no suggestions as to how they can be induced to settle elsewhere than in those areas which, as I say, are now full to bursting point. Those are the areas where the strains exist. Mr. Enoch Powell, whom the noble Lord mentioned, represents one of those areas in Parliament. I am not going to follow up Mr. Enoch Powell's speech except to say to the noble Lord that if he wishes to challenge Mr. Powell on this or any other subject I would advise him not to dismiss a speech of his as containing non-facts while entirely failing in his own speech to indicate any of those non-facts that he alleges.
434
But, my Lords, to come back to my main argument, this is a problem of numbers; and the numbers still pouring in to certain parts of the country are outrunning the capacity of those areas to absorb them. Do the Government agree with that, or do they deny it? I believe that the Government agree. Yet they propose to do nothing to tackle it—except in the shape of another Bill which is now before Parliament to give larger grants to help the areas I haw mentioned and certain other areas to solve problems which, in the places that I have mentioned, the growth of numbers has already rendered insoluble and will be daily rendering worse, unless some further brake on numbers is applied.
This is the simple reason why masses of people by now believe—and I am very sorry to say this—that the situation is out of hand; and this is why they are prepared to welcome the views of anybody who says firmly that something effective must be done about it. All my sympathies are with the ordinary people of this country, those of them who feel like that. Reading the speeches by Ministers in another place on the Committee stage of this Bill I see little sign of their recognising the intensefeeling of the native inhabitants in towns and cities particularly affected, the intense feeling that what they have been suffering from is government without the consent of the governed, and that Parliament has been anæsthetising itself with comfortable phrases while their whole circumstances locally have been transformed.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, knows that racial harmony in Britain is what I am seeking above all, and that if I urge new thinking on these questions it is because I believe that racial harmony will be unattainable otherwise. As for people who have not settled down happily here and have not found in England all that they hoped to find—the English weather included—I can see nothing wrong or foolish in making it easier for them to return to their own countries if they wish to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, dismissed this suggestion as a Draconian one. It seems to me to be a perfectly obvious one. He says that there are powers already to pay return fares in cases of destitution. I do not think he will deny it when I say that those powers are used

435
in fewer than a hundred cases a year; and a recent opinion poll certainly indicated that there were large numbers of immigrants who were disappointed with life in this country as it had turned out to be for them, and who would be seriously interested in going home if they could afford to do so. I am in favour of no Draconian policy; but do let us examine these questions in an atmosphere of reality as well as compassion. At the same time let us never forget all the children who are being born in this country to parents born overseas, but lawfully here. Their parents may be Polish or Pakistanis or what you will; but the children will have known no other country but this. It is imperative that we give those children not only British citizenship but confidence in British fair play and equality. And because of the concentrations of numbers locally we have not made that easy for ourselves.
My Lords, I dare to say that up to the present all Governments have been handicapped through lack of sufficiently accurate foresight or, if I may put that another way, sufficiently thorough forecasting. I was not quite sure whether I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, aright when he said that he would strongly deprecate detailed forecasting in these matters. I believe there has not been enough of it. This is partly the reason why millions of people feel that their political leaders have not been candid enough in telling them what was coming to them.
What is coming to this country, regardless of whatever immigration policy we pursue, appears likely to be a vast increase in population which is going desperately to exacerbate the problems of town and country and a great deal else. We ought to have an independent body, which the Government will accept as authoritative, continuously studying long-term population prospects, reassessing them from year to year, and providing a foundation more trustworthy and more trusted than exists at present. We need that foundation on which to erect our future policies for Commonwealth and foreign immigration, and much else too. Whenever there is a suspicion afoot that matters are out of hand, whether it has to do with immigration or with anything else in the world, the best way to allay
436
suspicions, and to help reason to conquer wild emotion, is to help people to move off sand and mud on to firm ground. Of course, forecasts of population must be based on assumptions, and assumptions may be falsified by developments; but at least the assumptions can be public and the forecasts can be reasoned and dispassionate—and fully publicised, too.
In another place the Government hinted that the new Select Committee on the working of the Race Relations Acts can do all that is necessary so far as immigration facts and figures are concerned. If indeed that Committee is to be an immigration committee—which it was not announced to be—it seems to me something of a pity that it is not a Joint Select Committee of both Houses; for these matters tend to be discussed in your Lordships' House very objectively, very knowledgeably and with less heat than elsewhere. But what I am urging is a continuing study of population trends and implications—with immigration and emigration as two important elements therein—a study more systematic and more far-reaching than I would say any Select Committee is appropriate to undertake.
Why should the people of this country, whether British-born or otherwise, not be helped to appreciate here and now what lies in store for the next generation? This is my plea: to combat emotional surges by hard thinking—to try to overcome for the future the failure of communication between Parliament and the public over all this—and to ensure that British citizens, whatever their colour, will not again be justified in saying, as many are saying now, "You never warned us; you never prepared us."
4.0 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, it is not quite clear to me whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when opening his speech was endeavouring to censure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having confined himself entirely to the matter of immigration. If it was intended as a rebuke I am afraid that the rebuke administered to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would be even more considerable, because I wish to confine my few remarks this afternoon simply to one part of the problem of immigration and that is in Section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act

437
1962 as it was amended by the Act of 1968.
I daresay that many of your Lordships will remember, as I do, and will have a very vivid recollection of the hectic and highly charged atmosphere in which we debated the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill on February 29 of this year. For my part, it is not a night on which I look back with any sort of satisfaction. Noble Lords will remember that we debated that Bill and were invited to pass it through all its stages over the span of only 18 hours; and we did so and we carried through a Bill which on any sort of showing was of momentous importance. It involved constitutional and racial considerations and deep human considerations. All that was shovelled through in the course of half-a-day and a night. Both the other political Parties, my own only excepted, were divided down the middle, and we had to deal with that Bill with only the shortest possible notice of what it involved and what it contained.
I do not want this afternoon to recall any of the animosities of that time, but I think it proper that we should take a brief look on this occasion—when we are in effect renewing that 1968 measure—at how Section I of the Act has worked out, particularly in relation to the Kenya Asians. I am relying for what I have to say on two sources of information; first, on some figures given by the Home Secretary in the debate in another place on November 13 and, secondly, on some information contained in a survey of which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will no doubt be aware, which was made back in May and June of this year in Kenya. It was a survey to find out the facts about people who were affected, the Kenya Asians who were affected by Section 1 of the 1968 Act. After that Act went through, an inter-Party Committee was set up on which there were sitting Members of this and of the other House under the Chairmanship of the Member of Parliament for Bromley, Mr. John Hunt. The Committee was set up to try to see how the Act would work in Kenya; to keep it under review and to try to deal with the hardships and difficulties that might arise.
The survey made by Mr. Martin Ennals back in June was made under the auspices of this inter-Party Committee. It was, nevertheless, an entirely indepen-
438
dent fact-finding survey because it was not commissioned or paid for in any way. I believe I am right in saying that the information contained in the survey, and the survey itself, have been given to the noble Lord and to the Home Office. The object of the survey was in the main to do three things. First, it sought to find out how many people there were in Kenya who were United Kingdom citizens and qualified as such to come into this country. Secondly, it was directed to trying to find out where those people, however many they might be, would want to go to this country or elsewhere if they had the chance. Thirdly, it was directed to finding out when these people, if they intended to leave Kenya, might be expected to leave, so that we might find out what numbers of people might be expected to attempt to get into this country if there were no voucher system and if there had been no Act of 1968. In other words, the object was to find out the magnitude, the size and the shape of the problem.
When this matter was debated on February 29 one of the matters in issue between the Government and those who took the contrary view was whether the Bill was necessary at all. The Government argument—I scarcely need to remind your Lordships; it has been repeated in no small measure here to-day—was that by the end of 1967 there had been such an upsurge in the number of Kenya Asians seeking admittance to this country that the entry was running at the rate of 13,000 in the year. Then in January and February the upsurge continued, and the argument of the Government was that it was only by imposing some measure of control that that inflow could be brought within a reasonable compass.
The argument of the Government was right, provided that what was motivating these people to come into this country was something external to the country —possibly the Kenyanisation programme that was going on in Kenya. If it was a natural phenomenon, if these people were coming to this country because it suited them to do so, and because this was the time when they wanted to come; if these people were coming because they wanted to get out of Kenya, with the Kenyanisation programme being brought into effect, then of course it was reasonable, or it might have been reasonable, to say, "We must control this by putting

439
on controls similar to those already applying to Commonwealth immigrants". But the argument we addressed to the House at that time was that this was not the reason these people were coming to this country in those numbers; that was not the explanation of the upsurge in the figures; that it was in fact an artificial argument. The reason why there had been an upsurge and an increasing flood of applications was the alarmist speeches made in this country, and the talk then going on about the possibility of our imposing controls and slamming the door. The result of all this was that these people came in at that time, not because they wanted to come then—possibly they did not want to come at all—but because they feared that, unless they got in in time, before the door was shut, they would not be able to get in at all and might have nowhere else to go.
If that was the cause of the flood, then what was the way in which it ought to have been dealt with? Surely what could have been done, instead of imposing control and taking away the rights of these people to enter, was to reaffirm in an unqualified way, without any sort of reservation, that we in this country were not going to impose controls on them. We could have told them that there was no need to worry; that we were never going to kick them out; we were going to uphold their vested right as United Kingdom citizens. If the Government of the day had given that assurance, is there not every reason to believe that the flow would then have been brought quickly within reasonable proportions?
If we were right in the view we took, that this phenomenon was artificially created by panic, fear and apprehension, and if we were right in thinking that if these applications had been allowed that would have solved the problem, surely it is only right to say that the Act of 1968 was an unmitigated disaster. At that time it was agreed that it was an evil. It was agreed on all sides of the House that it was a bad thing. I remember the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying that he did not like the Bill and that he doubted whether there was anybody who liked it. The only difference between us was that the Government
440
and those supporting the Government said that it was a necessary evil while we said that it was unnecessary. But everybody agreed that it was an evil, an evil which lay in the fact that for the first time in our history—and we were doing it overnight, as I have said—we were denying to United Kingdom citizens the right to come into this country when they wished to come. We were denying this right to people who were coloured and to people who might have nowhere else to go.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that assurances on this and other matters given by the present Government would have given very much comfort to these people?
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I do not know whether that question is directed to me or to the Government, but I would say that if the Tory Party at that time had been prepared, through their leaders, to back any declaration or assurance given by the Government, that might have assisted to give confidence to these people that they were not going to be kept out. But I doubt very much whether the Tory leadership at that time, with the splendid exception of Mr. Macleod, would have been prepared to give that assurance.
May I come back to the figures given by the Home Secretary the other day in another place? Your Lordships will remember that when we passed the Bill in February of this year, it was provided that in any given year the Government would be prepared to issue 1,500 vouchers to heads of families, taking into account those in greatest need. Mr. Callaghan said that in the first six months after the passage of the Act 684 vouchers had been issued out of the year's total of 1,500 and all of these had not been taken up. The number of appeals against refusal to issue vouchers had been far less than anybody had expected. Your Lordships will remember that two lawyers were sent out to Nairobi to hear appeals. Mr. Callaghan reported that there had been only 40 appeals, with the result that one of the lawyers had been brought back because there was nothing for him to do. The Home Secretary concluded in the same way as the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to-day, by saying that the Act has worked satisfactorily. The inflow has been cut down,

441
without causing any hardship to anybody, because there has not been any flood of applications for vouchers and the authorities have not had to turn anybody down.
Do the figures which I have quoted really support this view? Do they not rather support what we have contended throughout, that there never was any genuine requirement of any size for these people to come into this country? Do they not show that the flood of entrants in January and February was a highly artificial phenomenon? If it were otherwise, if the flood was not created by the panic and apprehension, then we would have expected that after the passage of the Act, in March and April and in the succeeding months of the year, there would have been a great flood of applicants for vouchers in Nairobi. But this has not materialised.
May I go on to the figures contained in the survey of Mr. Ennals, because I would suggest to your Lordships that they support what I have been arguing in a remarkable way. Mr. Ennals was trying to do three things. He was trying to establish how many Kenyan natives were qualified as United Kingdom citizens and who might want to come in to this country. Secondly, he wanted to find out which countries they would prefer to go to, if they had a free choice, and, thirdly, he wanted to find out when these people anticipated that they might want to leave Kenya and come here or go elsewhere.
With regard to the number of heads of families who were qualified to come into this country, Mr. Ennals arrived at the figure of 67,000. When that figure was quoted in another place a few days ago, it was challenged to some extent by the
Government spokesman. He said that it was on the low side, but he conceded that the Government figure of 167,000, which had been put forward at the time the Bill was before another place, was far too high. But he did not estimate what the true figure was. In the absence of any detailed criticism by the Government of Mr. Ennal's figures, which, as the noble Lord will know, have been worked out in considerable detail, I think it is a workable hypothesis to accept them. I do not think it can be very far out, because I understand that the figure is put by
the High Commis-
442
sioner in Nairobi at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000.
Working upon that assumption, Mr. Ennals went on to the other two questions. What he did was to circulate a questionnaire to a sample section of Kenya Asians in order to try to find out what the answers were. Admittedly, he could not take anything like a census of these people; all he could do was to take samples of opinions in different sections of the community. He asked two questions. I will not burden your Lordships with the details, but perhaps I may just refer to two of the questions which were asked and give an indication of the replies received. The first question was:
"If you were to leave Kenya in the near future, where would you prefer to settle?"
Of the people who answered that question, 18 per cent. said the United Kingdom, 67 per cent. said India, and the figures given for other countries were apparently small, perhaps the most significant of them being Canada at 6 per cent.
The first conclusion which I draw therefore is this. Less than one-fifth of the people who could qualify to come into this country as United Kingdom citizens said that they wanted to come here. So we are not talking about 67,000 people as being potential entrants to this country; we are talking about something like 13,000 people who would want to come into this country if they were free to do so. But the problem is not even as big as that, because the second question
which was addressed in the questionnaire was this:
"All things considered, what do you think is the most likely length of time that you will remain in Kenya?"
Nine per cent. said the rest of their lives; 17 per cent. said less than one year; 35 per cent. said two to three years; 11 per cent. said 4 to 5 years; 21 per cent. said more than five years; and 4 per cent. were not ascertained.
If I may put those figures together in another way, just over 50 per cent. of the people asked said that they were likely to leave Kenya within three years. The conclusion which I would draw from that is that, going back to my figure of 13,000 people who might want to come here, or who indeed have expressed a desire to come here when they leave Kenya, only half of them would want to

443
come within the next three years. The result is that you get a figure of about 2,000 people per annum, heads of families, who would want to come into this country over the next three years if everything was free and there were no restrictions. That is not very different from the number of vouchers —that is, 1,500—which the Government are prepared to issue. I suggest that those figures (no doubt they are open to criticism, and are wrong in some particulars) provide a remarkable confirmation of the figures given by Mr. Callaghan and, indeed, the reason why we have not had a great flood of applications for vouchers.
If this argument has any validity, what are the conclusions that we should draw? I suggest that they are these. The reason why there has been no flood of demand for vouchers by these people in Kenya is that there are comparatively few of them who want to come here, and, in any case, those who want to come here do not want to come all at once: and as regards about 50 per cent. of them, they do not want to come until more than three years' time. The second conclusion I suggest to your Lordships is this. If only in February of this year, instead of passing this Act, the fears had been allayed, then the inflow which we should have seen after the fears had been allayed would not have been very different from the actual entry that we are seeing to-day under this voucher system.
The third conclusion to which I should like to invite your Lordships' attention is that, due to the alarm which was set up in January and February among these people, many thousands of them came into this country who might never otherwise have come here at all. There is here a disaster within a disaster. During the last two weeks of February of this year nearly 10,000 of these people came to this country. Almost all of them had to abandon their families, their homes and their jobs, in order to beat the Bill and get through the door before it was shut in their faces. And many of those people, if they had been allowed to remain where they were, might never have come in. The panic into which the Government got at that time may have been the cause of bringing into this country people who would never have wanted to come.
444
The gloomiest conclusion to be drawn from these facts, I would suggest, is that if in February we had kept our nerve—and also, incidentally, kept our word—these people might well have presented no serious problem. If we had had some regard for our moral obligations, it might well have been that we should have served our practical interests at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke just now about Section 1 of the Act. I think he devoted only a sentence to it, but he seemed to suggest that the Act was working splendidly and that all was going well. I suggest that the price we paid for this Act was a very high price indeed. We paid the price in reputation; we paid the price in the harm which we did to the cause of inter-racial harmony abroad, in the Commonwealth and here at home. The British Government engaged in a massive act of discrimination against coloured people at the same time as they were preparing their own Act to make discrimination by individuals a criminal offence. We paid all that. What did we get for it? We thought that we got a temporary easement. I suggest that possibly the most lamentable but inescapable conclusion is that we paid all that price, and if we had kept our word we need never have paid it at all.
My Lords, to conclude upon what I hope will be a somewhat more constructive point, what reparation can we make to undo the harm that was done at that time? There is, of course, a distinguishing characteristic about the Kenya Asians which differentiates them from those million people who we were told were also in possession of United Kingdom passports and might possibly come into this country without let or hindrance, and that is that the Kenya Asians have no other citizenship than United Kingdom citizenship. What reason is there why reparation should not be done by a simple amendment of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act whereby the exclusion and the control which it imposes would not be imposed upon United Kingdom citizens who have no other citizenship? They are the people chiefly affected, and that is a reparation which it would be within the power of this country and within the power of this Government to give.
The other plea I would make is this—and I am sorry to have occupied your Lordships' time for so long. There are

445
two lessons, I suggest, to be learnt from what happened in February with the passage of that Act, disastrous as I think it was. The two lessons are these. First, in this delicate field of racial relations—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, understands this all too well—we ought first of all as a country to try to cease to act unilaterally. In any immigration problem there are at least three parties involved: the receiving country, the country from which the people are coming, and the people themselves. I think that one of the worst features of this Act was that we were acting unilaterally, without any opportunity in advance for consultation with the people concerned or with the country from which they were to come. I would urge that in any future legislation if we are going to have a permanent piece of legislation, instead of this temporary legislation, we should consult with all the parties who are concerned—the people of the Commonwealth generally, and the countries of the Commonwealth generally —before we legislate and before we come to any settled conclusion.
My final point is this. The other lesson which I suggest we learn from what
happened in February is that in this field, of all fields, it is terribly dangerous to act precipitously. I myself am satisfied that we could have overcome the difficulties of January and February, and we could have done justice to these people, without any need for this legislation whatever. I may be right about that or I may be wrong, but I cannot help thinking that it is always wrong to deal with these matters of human rights, human decency and human respect in the sort of way in which we dealt with them in a period of 18 hours on February 29.
4.33 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the special question of the Kenya Asians. I remember the important part he played in dealing with the Bill when it came before the House. I did not agree with his views then, and in fact we were on opposite sides, but I listened to what he had to say with the greatest interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, reminded us, this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill contains several Bills,
446
but I suspected when this rather innocent sounding Bill appeared again on the Order Paper that the Second Reading would develop into a debate on immigration; and that of course has been proved so. It is perfectly right that it should because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, this is surely the most important social question of our time.
I am sure we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Stonham for introducing this Bill, and I agree with everything he said in his speech. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend because I believe that this is the fifth time that he has introduced the Bill; and if we must have legislation in this form—and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, that it should possibly be looked at again to see in what other statutory form it could be introduced—I, for my part, should like to have no one better than my noble friend Lord Stonham to introduce it.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned the matter of the concentration of immigrants, and of course this is one of the great roots of the problem. I was interested in what he said about the setting up of an all-Party commission to study the whole question of race relations in depth. I feel sure that the Government will look at this suggestion, and I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it. I should also like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for the great moderation and constructive attitude he has always adopted over race relations in this House. I wish that
this were shared by certain other members of his Party. I will not follow what I may perhaps describe as the eccentric and rather emotional fringe in the Conservative Party, although I should like to examine some of the official Conservative proposals as put out in speeches this autumn.
Their policy seems to me to be confused and in some cases contradictory, and even to raise additional difficulties, although I realise that the Opposition have put forward these suggestions in a sincere attempt to try to help over this very difficult and explosive problem. One of their proposals is that the number of immigrants entering Britain, both under the voucher system and as dependants,

447
must be curtailed. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that again this afternoon. But under the "A" and "B" voucher system over half the voucher-holders are professionally qualified people. They are doctors, trained nurses and teachers, for whom there is a need. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, thought that we had rather too many doctors here. But over half the doctors in the National Health Service are coloured, and I believe that one-fifth of the trained nurses and midwives are. If there were any large curtailment of further immigration, I should have thought that that would have a great effect on the National Health Service. It would be something that would have to be considered very carefully. Indeed, I have heard people say that many of our hospitals would not be able to carry on at all unless they were helped in this way by the coloured professional staffs.
Therefore, I should have thought that any limitation would have to come from the category "A" holders; that is, those who come here to fill specific vacancies in industry. But there are only about 2,500 in all. There are 5,000 altogether, counting "A" and "B" voucher-holders together. Half that number are category "A" holders. The Conservatives say that this number should be cut down. But by how many—by 500, 1,000, 2,000, 2,500? Even so, the amounts are very small. It would not solve the problem at all.
Of course, the main immigration is of dependants of people already here. But all Parties agree that we must allow families to be united, and to prevent this would lead to more serious social problems. The Government have already restricted dependants so far as possible. How is it proposed to have further restrictions and yet to allow families to be united? The Opposition say—and Mr. Heath said this in York on September 1 —that every dependant must be justified on humanitarian grounds. But how do we provide further justification for a wife or a widowed mother or a dependant father over 65? The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested, I think, that the age for children should be lowered to 1?. But I should have thought that that would not affect the numbers very greatly. After all, as my noble friend Lord Stonham
448
said, half the children who come in are under 10 and the remainder are spread evenly over the ages from 11 to 15. So although I am sure this is a suggestion which should be considered, I doubt whether it will affect the numbers by very many. It sounds good, and I am sure that when it is put over by Conservative speakers it sounds good to audiences. Of course, I acquit the Conservatives in any way of trying to "vote-catch" on this; I know that they are constructive and sincere suggestions, but when one looks into them there is really nothing in them at all.
There is also the question that permits should be limited to 12 months at a time, for a specific job, with a specific employer, at a specific place. This is another of the Conservative suggestions. Again, how will this operate in the case of professional people with the category "B" vouchers? In those cases a preliminary interview is essential; in fact it is inherent in the skilled nature of the job. It is impossible to take on a doctor in a hospital unless he has had an interview. One half of the numbers admitted are in this category.
There is also the really astonishing Conservative suggestion that Commonwealth immigrants should be treated more like aliens. My noble friend Lord Stonham alluded to this, and of course quite rightly said that it was unacceptable. If one did this one would have to do one of two things. First, one would have to reduce the number of alien Workers to the immigrant ceiling for the "A" and "B" vouchers, which would mean a severe restriction on foreign workers admitted for necessary work and with considerable effects on industry, in particular the huge catering industry. Also, clearly this will be forbidden when we enter the E.E.C. Secondly we should have to allow the numbers from the Commonwealth to increase substantially, since in alien control there is no limitation, the numbers being regulated by the demands of the labour market.
The Opposition have also suggested that the immigrants in this alien control should register. I should have thought that this would require considerably more civil servants. The Opposition are always saying that there are too many civil servants already. It would also place an undue burden on the police, who already

449
have considerable responsibilities. What would be gained? Most immigrants are law-abiding people, and for those who are not there is already provision for deportation under the 1962 Act.
We then come to the question of repatriation. Here the Opposition say that those immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin will be eligible to receive assisted passages from public funds, although of course they emphasise that those who wish to stay here have the right to do so. The numbers applying for repatriation would obviously depend on the size of the grant, but I doubt whether the numbers would be very great. These immigrants have come here because they cannot get jobs in their own countries. I should imagine that substantial aid would be required to help those countries if they are to re-absorb any large number of returning immigrants.
I do not know whether the cost to the taxpayer of this repatriation programme has been worked out. Probably it has, because the Conservatives always pride themselves on being rather good about money matters. So I think in fairness to themselves they should say what it will cost. They should give the voter and the taxpayer at least an idea of what it will cost the country, and then we could consider it for what it was worth. In my view, it is clearly a non-starter and provides no real solution to the problem. The only practicable policy is that adopted by the Government, and I am certain that if the Conservatives were in power they would do the same.
4.45 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I take part briefly in this debate, year by year, in order to ask a question about the Accommodation Agencies Act, to which I have never yet received a satisfactory answer. This little Act is a modest piece of legislation which was introduced by myself when I was in another place. I remember that it was a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, so it has the distinction not often attaching to Ten-Minute Rule Bills of having got on to the Statute Book. The Act aims at combating a rather mean and contemptible type of fraud which is practised upon members of the public by persons holding themselves out as estate agents. The original period for which the Act was to remain operative
450
was five years. That period expired in 1958 and for ten years we have continued it, year by year, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
The question I want to put to the noble Lord this afternoon is this. Why is it, if this Act has been found useful for more than ten years, that it cannot be made part of our permanent law? It is apparently still a piece of legislation which has its uses, and I should have thought it might well now be rewarded for its long service by being made a part of our permanent law. I hope that the noble Lord, in his reply, will tell me that that is the intention of the Government.
4.47 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I return to the main subject of the debate we have had this afternoon? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will not be surprised when I say how much I agree with almost everything he said, and the way in which he said it. I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will be surprised when I say that there was a great deal in his speech, to which I listened with interest, with which I did not agree.
The first point on which I did not agree with him was in his disappointment that these general control of immigration Acts have not become a permanent part of our legislation 'but are dealt with annually in this manner. I very much hope that they will never become a permanent part of our legislation, because I hope that it will be possible in the not too distant future to abolish every form of restriction on immigration into this country. I accept fully that at the moment this is not possible, and I am not in any way suggesting that the Government are doing wrong in most (but not all) of their forms of restriction on immigration. But I should be unhappy to see any of these matters we are discussing today looked upon as something which is an inevitable and permanent part of our society.
I cannot help feeling that this view must be held very strongly by all those in this country who take pride in our old and great tradition of "the open door", welcoming into our midst strangers from other countries; people with different cultures, with different backgrounds, who for

451
one reason or another find that life here offers to them personally attractions which life in their own countries does not offer. After all, my Lords, as a result of that "open door" policy we have had in our midst such people as Karl Marx, Garibaldi; or, going further back, Erasmus; we have had the Flemish weavers, the Huguenot craftsmen, the French emigrés from the French Revolution—a whole mass of people who have enriched our society and our economy. Anybody who has any sense of history must surely deplore a state of affairs where we have, for unfortunately good reasons, to put an end to that. Therefore, I hope that this is only a temporary ending of this free "open door" entry that we have so long cherished and been proud of.
I think not only those who share the views I have expressed but those who have any real feeling for the Commonwealth must deplore any legislation on our part which makes it harder for people of the Commonwealth to come here. All of us who speak on these matters pay lip service to the Commonwealth. Many of us, I know, pay far more than lip service. But we cannot deny that the Commonwealth immigration Acts of different kinds that we have had recently have put a greater strain on the real meaning of the Commonwealth than has almost anything else that has happened since the Commonwealth first made its appearance.
The third reason for deploring this, I repeat, necessary legislation must be felt by all those who believe that it is the duty of any individual and any collection of individuals forming a community, forming a country, those who are relatively rich, to help in such ways as they can those who do not enjoy such a high material or high cultural standard of living. The best contribution that we can make from this country is to welcome those who come from overseas, and particularly from Commonwealth countries with lower standards of living than ours, and share with them the things we enjoy, without question, rather than jealously guarding them to ourselves and saying: "No, keep out; if you come in there will be less for me". For all these reasons we must all feel hope that any legislation which restricts entry into this
452
country must never be of a permanent kind.
I give credit to the Government for much that they are doing now to improve the position of immigrants in this country. But they are not doing enough. They are doing more than has ever been done before, and for that I am grateful, but far more is needed, and far more would have been needed even if it had not been for the violent expressions of abhorrent racialism which we hear from apparently responsible people in this country to-day. Many of those who give vent to these expressions of opinion cannot possibly realise the feelings of those about whom they are speaking, the effect it must have on those strangers who come into this country, nervous, frightened, not knowing what they are going to find, when they read about these things and hear about these things on the radio. I do not believe that the people who use these expressions and make these speeches can possibly realise how infinitely harder their words are making the task of those whose job it is and whose desire it is to integrate these newcomers into our society in a way that I think everyone in this Chamber feels must be done, for the newcomers' sake and for our own sake too. Therefore I hope that the Government will increase their efforts, and increase their realisation of the urgent need to do more along the path on which they have already started and for which, as I say, I give them credit and thanks.
Basically, what we need is to know more about this problem, to know what are the reasons for racial tension, for mistrust, for misunderstanding leading to fear and hatred. We must have more research into these causes. I declare my interest here. I am Chairman of the Institute of Race Relations, a body which for the last ten years has been working, on restricted but generously provided funds, to try to provide some of the answers; and we have some of the answers, and we are going to find more. But there must be more research, not only through such institutes as I have described but also through the universities and places of learning. The Government, I know, are making funds available. I will not go into the arguments we have had in the past as to how those funds should be spent, but I press my noble friend, when he replies, to give

453
some indication how it is his Department's intention to spend such money as is available for research, how soon we can expect to see this money being used positively so that we can get some results from it rather than just promises that one day it will be there and somebody will make some use of it.
In addition to finding out more about the causes, we can make greater efforts than we do at present to promulgate the knowledge which already exists. A lot of knowledge exists already; and it is extraordinary and very saddening to see how, in spite of it, there is so much ignorance—one might almost say in certain quarters wilful ignorance—of the true facts of the case. For instance, many people still believe that immigrants contribute a larger proportion of their number to the criminal population than does the native population. That is quite untrue; statistics disprove it. There are many people who think that the children of immigrants are intellectually inferior to the native children, that their scholastic record is lower. That is quite untrue. There are many people who think that the immigrant population takes more out of the social services than they contribute by way of taxes. That is also completely untrue.
LORD BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I think he really should not draw attention to that without equally drawing attention to the fact that the age grouping of immigrants is wholly different from the age grouping of the native population. If the immigrants included as many old people as the native population, then clearly the figures would be radically different.
LORD WALSTON: Of course, my Lords, if there were different proportions of different people the figures would be absolutely different. All I am saying is that, given to-day's proportions, given the number of immigrants there are in the country to-day, it is manifestly untrue and misleading to suggest—and I am not for a moment suggesting that the noble Lord does such things—that the immigrant population take more out of the social services than they put in. It is purely a statement of fact. If they all happened to be over 65 or under 15 the picture would be very different. I am dealing with the facts as they are, not as
454
they might be in an entirely non-existent, hypothetical situation, and these are the facts which I hope the Government will help to promulgate among the people who at the moment are entirely ignorant of them.
But, above all, I hope that the Government will give help, as they are already doing, but increased help, to all those engaged in social work in the areas where the immigrant population is the most difficult and presents the greatest challenge, the people who are struggling with inadequate housing, slum conditions, schools which are too small and too badly equipped for the needs of the population, concentrations into black ghettoes of the immigrant population. These are very difficult problems, and much very good work is being done, but far more help is needed, and can only come from the Government, to help those local authorities and those individuals and private organisations that are making such a fine contribution to this problem.
Finally, I hope that people increasingly will realise that those who come into this country from outside, ever though we have for the moment to restrict their numbers and their entry, when they do come here are regarded by the great majority of the British people in the same way as we have always regarded those who come to our shores, as welcome, as people whom we are glad to see, as people who play their part in the economy of the country; who help, whether it be in the National Health Service hospitals, whether it be as bus conductors, whether it be in skilled, semiskilled or unskilled jobs, in the economy of the country and in the life of the country. And I believe that the voices of those who are raised against them, who wish to push them out and send them home against their will, or to keep them out, are the voices of a quite small minority which the great mass of the people of this country despise.
5.2 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, when I came into the Chamber this afternoon I had no intention of participating in this debate. As a Member of another place and of your Lordships' House for some years now I have participated in this kind of debate on many occasions, and I am drawn to my feet this afternoon largely because some of the things that have

455
already been said to-day have attracted my attention. May I say straight away that in my opinion the House has just listened to a remarkable speech from my noble friend Lord Walston, with every word of which I am in complete agreement. I could not possibly have expressed it as well as he has.
On a subject such as Commonwealth immigration, into which this debate has developed this afternoon, I suppose that the question is not so much one of political thought as of an attitude of mind. Of course it happens that attitudes of mind often dictate our political thought, and it may well be that because, in the main noble Lords on the other side, and Conservatives generally, have a different attitude of mind from those who sit on these Benches we find ourselves at cross-purposes in these matters. I am not going to try to repeat what my noble friend Lord Walston has said, because I feel that he has been completely convincing, and I am certain that what he has said is shared completely by the best and the deepest thinkers among our people.
My noble friend Lord Stonham opened this debate with a most moving and, I thought, convincing speech. And I am not going to try to raise temperatures, because I feel that the debate has been conducted in the right mood and the right spirit. I regret it when temperatures are raised in this matter. The temptation is great, particularly remembering some of the things that have been expressed, not so much in either House but in the country during this autumn. I get "hot under the collar" about this subject, but I will not be tempted this afternoon.
With some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said I am in complete disagreement; but I have some sympathy with one thing that he said, on the question of doctors from the Commonwealth engaged in practice in this country. He said, and I think rightly, that many of them could be rendering a much greater service in the countries from whence they came. I remember an African doctor who had a large practice in my old constituency where he was well respected. One day he came to visit me at the House of Commons. It so happened that my noble friend Lady Summerskill (as she is now)
456
met us over a cup of tea. I remember her putting to him this point that he could be of greater service in Nigeria than he was in Britain at that time. I supported her in this. In due course he accepted what we had said and he went back. At the moment he would be doing a much bigger and better job in Nigeria than he could possibly do in this country.
But so far as the general question of doctors and nurses who come to this country from the Commonwealth is concerned, the trouble is that at the moment we in Britain could not do without them. I was told a few weeks ago that in one hospital in Greater London 65 per cent. of the nursing staff come from the Commonwealth. If this is so, how could we possibly replace them if they were all to go back, or if we were to impose such restrictions as to prevent nurses, training and trained, from coming to this country? And what applies to the medical services applies equally, of course, to transport services and the like. Therefore I am with my noble friend Lord Walston in sincerely hoping that, although this is not the time for permanent legislation, and that we should continue treating this measure as being within the terms of the present Bill, as something temporary, we might look upon it in a quite different light in the days to come.
I have one other matter to raise which does not concern this country but has reference to this great problem. Quite recently I was in Australia. I am worried that Australia, a part of the white Commonwealth, as we call it, takes no part in helping to solve what is a great problem and a burden on our shoulders at the present time. The Commonwealth country of Australia is screaming for immigrants, and wherever one goes one finds there immigrants from every country on the Continent of Europe, in all kinds of jobs. Yet, to all intents and purposes, the bar is up against coloured immigrants; and the Australians do not hesitate to say so. This is a kind of prejudice that I, for one, cannot understand. I hope that it may be possible for this matter to be on the agenda at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference, to see whether our friends in the Commonwealth, in countries like Australia, cannot assist in regard to this vast problem. Surely, it is possible to convince countries like Australia that our

457
friends from the coloured Commonwealth can be a tremendous asset to them.
I have only one other point to make. It is one that I have made in debate in both Houses and that I tried to make, many years ago, to successive Home Secretaries. It has always been of grave concern to many of us that our coloured Commonwealth friends settle in certain areas of the country. It comes about very largely because originally they settled, and friends and relatives come and join people they know are in homes and in employment in certain parts of the country. My mind goes back to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary, on more than one occasion and suggesting that big thinking was needed with regard to dispersal and integration. The immigrants from the Commonwealth are seen because of the colour of their skin. The mass of aliens that have come into our country, and people from the white Commonwealth, are not seen because they look like us.
Therefore, not only do great masses of people in one area create a problem, but people begin to get very concerned about it. I should have thought that big thinking, long-term thinking, is necessary on this matter. I should have envisaged—and this is what I said to the Home Secretary at that time—that if there could be consultation between the Government (the now Ministry of Employment and Productivity should be brought into it) and the local authorities, some assurance could be given that accommodation and employment could be found in certain areas for many Commonwealth immigrants. Then, when they arrived at the ports, the immigration officers could say to them, "Where do you intend to go?". The reply might be, "Wolverhampton", or "Notting Hill". The immigrant would be asked why. "Well, I have a cousin there, and he has promised to look after me." And if he were then asked, "If we were able to show you a town or village in Britain that has not many coloured immigrants, would you be prepared to go there?", I am sure that hundreds would accept that invitation. I am sure of another thing: that there are very many people already in these huge ghettoes who would be prepared to go to other parts of the country.
458
As I drive about the country there are counties in which I never see a black face in days—the Eastern counties, the Southern counties, many parts of my native Lancashire even—and I believe they would be accepted in those places if they could be properly integrated and dispersed. This is a matter which no Government has yet got down to, and if we could get down to it it would relieve a great deal of our anxieties. I have spoken longer than I thought I would. Because it would be repetition I do not think I have anything else to say, but I hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham may consider some of these things as possibilities in relieving the burden which is upon us.
5.14 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, without prolonging this debate more than is absolutely essential I would, with great diffidence, say one word on this subject. I have been rather shocked at the impression which has got about—I hope it is false—that the immigration of these many people from the Commonwealth has largely taken place without any manpower planning. It does not seem to me— and I hope I am wrong and I ask to be corrected—that any adequate thought has been given to what sort of jobs we are going to train them for, if they are not already trained; where they are going to be found jobs; where they are going to be found houses; where there are going to be schools for the children. There does not
seem to me to have been the sociological and manpower planning which is
necessary for a huge operation of this sort. When that sort of planning falls down—and even if it has taken place it does not seem to have been very successful—then inevitably perhaps with the local population but certainly with the immigrants, is created.
I should like to say how warmly I share a great many of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. It is very important that if we have so many newcomers to our country they should be welcomed into our midst. But it is hard to welcome them when they find it difficult to get jobs and to get themselves adequately housed. I agree with what noble Lords have said in this debate about the splendid contribution many of these people are making, notably in the medical professions, the hospitals and other places, to social work and to the working of our

459
economy; but I think that more is necessary.
My Lords, I want to draw attention to one feature which has been only lightly mentioned in this debate, and that is the problem of the concentration of these immigrants in certain places. Having served in the Diplomatic Service in a great many posts abroad in Europe and the Middle East, I cannot help looking at this subject and recalling the difficulties about minorities which have arisen in other countries. For the moment we look at our immigrants as immigrants, but very soon these people will be minorities. If I look at what has happened on the Continent of Europe and in the Middle East, I find, on the whole —and this is a generalisation which is probably not exactly true anywhere—that as soon as a minority attains about 10 per cent. of the population in any one area—and I repeat in any one area— somehow it begins to cause ill-will. This is not a matter of colour; it is not a matter of race— though it can be a matter of either—or of religion. It is a matter of "differentness": I do not know how else to express it.
That is true about Austrians in Italy; about Germans in Rumania; about Jews or Germans in Poland. It is true of Slovaks in Hungary and of Hungarians in Yugoslavia. It is true of the Greeks in Egypt. It does not matter where you look, you find the same sort of phenomena beginning to appear when any large concentration of a minority appears. It is as it there were a sort of "social rejection symptom", such as heart doctors have to deal with. The minority begins to bond itself together and the body sociological all round it begins a sort of rejection symptom. It is terribly important that we should not allow this to happen in our country. I do not quite know what the answer is, because, so far as I know, we have no legal means of ensuring that these immigrants do not band themselves into huge communities. In fact, the idea of any departure from the sort of freedom that we have in our country in order to make that impossible is rather repugnant.
I have always felt that we ought to be treating this matter in a rather large way, such as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, mentioned. Perhaps there ought to be
460
some consultation with the local authorities. Perhaps there ought to be local committees set up who will make it their duty to assist the integration of the immigrants and the spreading of personal friendships between them and the populations among whom they are going to live. Then perhaps they will not find it necessary to band themselves together in the sort of ghettoes which it seems are almost bound to lead to trouble in the long run, and which we do not like to see in our country. I have tried to deal with the question in as uncontroversial a way as possible because I believe that we have not yet reached the end of the sociological studies which are necessary to deal successfully with this problem. I was most interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, of the studies which are being undertaken under his ægis; I should like to see them carried a good deal further. I hope that we shall succeed in arranging a satisfactory relationship with the immigrants and that they may be made to feel completely at home.
5.21 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Royle that this debate has been conducted in the right mood and spirit. It has taken its expected form. For example, predictably the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mildly reproved me for not dealing in my speech with three-fifths of the Bill. I say "predictably" because I felt it best to concentrate on what I regarded as the most important subject, knowing that I should be asked to deal in winding up with the other points. Predictably also, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, asked his usual question, and has then wisely departed to read the answer in Hansard to-morrow morning.
I can now give the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, the assurance in regard to his very valuable Act that there is still a need for the legislation and that the need will almost certainly continue to exist for the foreseeable future; and certainly when opportunity arises we shall embody it in permanent legislation. As for the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, there again we have the same danger to meet, the flood of horror comics from abroad. I understand that the American industry is still churning them out and this Act has been

461
completely successful in keeping them from young people in this country. If it were removed, they would flood in again. The only question which arises is whether we should consider a longer extension of the Act or make it permanent, but the Home Secretary certainly is satisfied that the Act will be needed indefinitely.
With regard to the Licensing Act, the position is not quite the same because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, knows, we have dealt with part of it by excluding off-licences in a Private Member's Act which was put on the Statute Book in 1967. With regard to the rest of the licensing planning areas, we are not yet in a position to bring in a Bill for permanent legislation. The only thing I can say at this stage is that all the planning areas wish to continue, except possibly one at Sheffield where there may be some change. As the noble Lord is aware, the Committee which he set up recommended that there should be planning areas not only in the former bombed areas, and this matter is under consideration.
On the general subject of the continued delays in making this legislation permanent, I can only say that I regret it. There are difficulties, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, as he himself has experienced them, and no doubt he shared the same views. I cannot promise that we shall be putting all or any of these matters in permanent legislation in the next Session. Certainly it will not be done in this Session, but I can assure your Lordships that we have these matters very much in mind.
When I set out in my speech to deal with immigration, in the main Commonwealth immigration, I was trying to establish what I regarded, and still regard, as indisputable facts. I think that above all else we ought to accept certain common denominators. After all, there is going to be a Select all-Party Committee, and therefore we ought to come to agreement, not only on the facts and figures, but on what is possible. I was therefore somewhat disappointed with Lord Brooke's reaction to many things. Although by no means challenging anything I said, he did not accept what I regard as the main need in this matter. He also misunderstood, or misquoted, me in one or two cases, as he will realise when he
462
reads my speech in Hansard. I know that it is always difficult to get the exact words, but certainly I did not, and do not, regard it as unreservedly a good thing to bring in doctors and other professional people from Commonwealth countries. I am well aware how desperately they are needed in countries where the number of patients to a doctor may be as many as one hundred times the figure in this country.
My only reference then was to quote what Mr. Heath had said, indicating that one cannot get rid of this type of voucher-holder because he is far more important in taking care of the immigrants in this country. As a matter of principle I do not accept that, but I was dealing, and I was on a fair point, with the position where one expresses noble sentiments and at the same time demands great reductions in the number of immigrants. That is not honest. This is the point I was then making, and shall certainly, if necessary, make again since it is a true point. So far as doctors and other professional people are concerned, my own view is that there are disadvantages in bringing doctors over here, but it is doubtful whether there is not also a balance of advantage because they get post-graduate training here which otherwise they most probably would never get in any other country. If they stay here, I agree that they are lost to their own country, but I believe that most of them come for a short period, maybe two, three or four years, and then go back, much better equipped to deal with the problems of health in their own countries.
There is another point on which I should like to set the record straight. I did riot say, as the noble Lord appeared to think, that we could look forward to an early decline in the numbers of immigrants. What I said was that on the basis of the figures I had given, which are the facts, and in view of the deductions I drew from them, we could look forward to a steady decline over the next six or seven years. That is a somewhat different thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke made some positive proposals. First of all, he said that we should cut down the number of vouchers, and all vouchers should be for a limited period and that it was Mr. Heath's proposal that they should be on

463
a year-to-year basis. It is a totally different thing for an alien coming over here from Belgium, Holland or Italy, for perhaps a year or less, as compared to a Commonwealth citizen from India, Pakistan or the Caribbean, coming thousands of miles to this country. He cannot possibly come that distance with the idea of being employed for only a year or two. The fare is an enormous cost to him, which in some countries often involves perhaps the whole family or village "chipping in" in order that he may come over. The main objection to this idea is that it is quite impracticable. The two terms of entry are not comparable when Commonwealth citizens come here for permanent settlement. This suggestion of a year-to-year entitlement up to a total of four years would be ineffective in reducing the numbers, at the expense of keeping these workers on probation, as it were. I do not think anyone would suggest that they should stay in that condition of suspense for years. I really do not think that that proposal is a starter at all.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has agreed that some 20 per cent. of the voucher holders now coming in are doctors. He said that they must come in with a right to stay here permanently. Yet the Royal Commission said:
"We recognised that this country has a continuing duty to provide postgraduate training for a substantial number of doctors from overseas, but we thought that the current excessive reliance on the services provided by young doctors from overseas was bad for them and for their countries and was tending to distort the staffing pattern of British hospitals."
Unless the noble Lord rejects that finding of the Royal Commission, he must accept that it would be reasonable that these doctors should come over here for a limited period.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not reject what the Royal Commission on Medical Education have said. This is certainly a matter for concern and there is no question about that. The Secretary of State for Social Services is studying this matter carefully. Of course, a considerable number of these doctors go back after a period. But I submit that the position of 500 or 600 doctors who come over in this way is very different from the position of the majority of
464
voucher holders, and certainly from the position of the majority of immigrants.
I now come on to what I regard as the crux of the matter—the difference of opinion which appears to exist between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and Mr. Heath, the Leader of the Conservative Party. I am not saying that this is surprising; indeed I think it is very healthy. But it becomes a little confusing when you try to get some kind of common standard of measurement in these matters. Mr. Heath said, without any kind of equivocation at all, that it would be utterly wrong—I am not actually quoting now, but this is the sense of his words—not to allow a man's wife and children of school age to join him here. That is a statement which I accept, with which the majority of the people in this country agree, and certainly with which the Government agree.
Having accepted that, I say that it is not possible, therefore, to make
substantial cuts in the number of immigrants, because 90 per cent. of the total are already dependent wives and children and they are entitled to come.
While I should have thought the noble Lord accepted that, he then suggested, first of all that there should be a withdrawal of unconditional entry for sons and daughters over 13, which he alleged would lead to a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of children; and, secondly, that we should also put dependants on quota. Both of those suggestions are in diametric and direct opposition to what Mr. Heath said, because in both cases—
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, do not the Government already restrict the age at which children can come? This is exactly the same. My noble friend is only suggesting that the age should be lowered slightly.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I know that the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, needs a little help on this, but the noble Lord must have misheard me because I was quoting Mr. Heath. Children of school age must include children up to 15, but the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was to exclude children over 13. That is a proposal
which I think would be contrary to the Declaration of

465
Human Rights, because it would add to the break-up of the family. The other proposal, of putting a quota on dependants, would mean depriving the father of the company of his wife and children. You really cannot get away from that.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not very much like the idea of putting on a quota. I mentioned that as a second alternative. But when the 1968 Bill was going through Parliament, the Government repeatedly said that they were not preventing Kenya Asians from coming to this country; they were only delaying their coming. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not want it both ways. I merely want to keep to the one point, which apparently the noble Lord does not want to keep to. I am talking about a man's wife and his children of school age. I say that these proposals would mean, in the first case, depriving a man of his children, and, in the second case, depriving him of his wife, perhaps, and of his children as well, unless he happened to be on the quota. I think that is wrong and, since these proposals are contrary to what I understood was the policy of the Conservative Party, they ought not to be put forward.
If there is a quota, what is it going to be? At present we are admitting something over 40,000 dependants. Is it going to be a 20,000 quota or a 5,000 quota? In any case, it will mean either deprivation or hardship, and how long is it to take? By the time some people came on to the quota the children would be over age and might not be admitted. The more you look at this the more impracticable it is. As I indicated, we are of course watching these figures very carefully and are keeping the situation under continuous review. But our plans at present certainly do not contemplate providing for a quota system.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is criticising me, as he is of course entirely at liberty to do in debate. But he has not answered one question of mine. I said that the numbers still pouring into certain parts of the country are outrunning the capacity of those areas to absorb them. Do the Government agree with that or do they deny it? If the Government agree, then what are they proposing to do?—ap-
466
parently nothing. I was suggesting courses which they might consider taking.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is a very old device, when I am really on to a point, to try to get me on to another one. But I am sticking to my point. Of course I am going to answer the question—I have it in my notes here—but I am going to answer it in the right order, and I am, first of all, going to finish with this point.
The noble Lord made the suggestion that withdrawal of unconditional entry for sons and daughters over 13 would mean 25 per cent. less children. My information is that some 6 per cent. of the children coming in now are aged 14, and 7 per cent. are aged 15. So the two combined would mean a reduction of 13 per cent. which, with some 25,000 children, would amount to just over 3,000. This is a proposal that we reject on the grounds which I thought the noble Lord supported, that it would be wrong, as Mr. Heath said, to deprive a father of the company of his children of school age.
I now come on to my next point. The noble Lord said that the numbers pouring into some parts of the country are greater than the capacity of those areas to absorb them, and that the Government are doing nothing about it. My Lords, I do not agree that the Government are doing nothing about it. We are already doing a very great deal to help the areas where immigrants are concentrated in these greater numbers; and, of course, the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Bill, which the noble Lord somewhat airily dismissed, will give them a great deal of help—£3 million in the current year, and £6 million in the next. Added to what the local authorities will themselves contribute, that is no mean sum when it is concentrated. It will go on for four years or so, to which we are committed. If it is very much longer than that it will have to be expanded. I do not deny; but certainly we are doing what we can about it now.
Now I come to the point which was raised, if not directly in this context by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and by my noble friend Lord Royle. My noble friend Lord Royle said that if we were able to suggest areas and towns Which had few immigrants and in which houses

467
and jobs were available he felt that many would go there as they came in. My noble friend also said that when they come in and are asked, "Where are you going?" they say, "Wolverhampton" or "Notting Hill". Then, when asked, "Why?", they say, "Because I have a cousin or another relative there. They are going to look after me, and perhaps there is a job there". This is very true; and I think the first step, if we are going to be practical about this, is to try to create conditions in which immigrants at present here will move from dense areas to areas of lesser density, because then "Cousin Fred" will be in the place of lesser density. I think it is going to be an intensely difficult job.
The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said there had been no planning for jobs. At least two-thirds of the immigrants now here came here during the ten years between 1952 and 1962. They have been here from 6 to 16 years; and in the years 1952 to 1962 planning for almost anything was anathema.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I was not criticising Her Majesty's Government: I was criticising the general way in which this had been handled.
LORD STONHAM: I will go with the noble Lord as far as 1964 on that one. I am not trying to make a strictly Party point on this. I am emphasising the difficulties, that we have quite a big backlog on which to work. The noble Lord mentioned that there had been no sociological planning. Really, sociological planning is intensely difficult when you have the problem virtually up to your shoulders, and this is the position that we are in.
But, my Lords, as far as concerns the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—and I think that this is the most important point of all—as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said, in any area where immigrants have quickly become a minority and the minority is over 10 per cent., difficulties are created. This is the extraordinary thing. We hear so much about Wolverhampton. I think that in relation to the entire population of Wolverhampton the number of coloured immigrants is no more than 6 per cent. This is over the whole population of the town; and that is less than 10 per
468
cent. The noble Lord might argue, "But that is not an area. I am talking about the area of streets where they are concentrated"—and this emphasises the difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, devoted his speech to the 1968 Act and the position of the Kenya Asians. The noble Lord referred to the figures, and spoke of "the flood". He said that the flood was created by panic, and he seemed to think that it was a Government panic or a Parliament panic. My Lords, it was nothing of the kind. For years—I am quite sure that this was so when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was Home Secretary—something between 6,000 and 7,000 Kenya Asians were coming here each year for permanent settlement. There was no panic: we knew it was going on. There was even no panic, so far as the Government were concerned, in 1967, when in the latter part of the year the numbers escalated. The panic occurred in Kenya, and was a direct result of certain irresponsible speeches which were made in this country by, in the main, prominent Members in another place. The Press printed them and, of course, there was a panic. It did become a flood; but the point was that, however it was created, it was a flood that Parliament at that time, or the great majority of Members of Parliament, agreed had to be stopped. That is really the situation. The noble Lord said—
LORD FOOT: My Lords—
LORD STONHAM: May I just finish what I have to say on this subject? The noble Lord said that if we had kept our nerve the Kenya Asians' difficulties would never have arisen. I think we kept our nerve, but we really could not go on contemplating the situation which had then arisen, which the noble Lord well knows was an entirely false one and did not properly represent what we now know to be the true views of the Kenya Asians.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I must have failed to express myself on this point, because the noble Lord has clearly misunderstood me. I entirely agree that the panic was in Kenya. The panic was among these people. The point I was making was that it was a panic, that they were coming to this country in these

469
numbers because of their fears and apprehensions that they would be locked out, and that the way to have answered their fears and their apprehensions was to have removed those fears by giving them the assurance that they were never going to be locked out.
LORD STONHAM: My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and, in Committee in this House, even I myself explained all the difficulties and the actions taken that were thought right and proper at the time—and I am quite sure that events have proved that they were right and proper at the time.
The noble Lord has relied a great deal on a report which was made by Mr. Martin Ennals. That was made by Mr. Ennals on a visit to Kenya between May 26 and June 8. I agree it was a very conscientious report, but I doubt very much that less than two weeks is sufficient time to be quite certain that there should be placed on it such reliability as the noble Lord placed on it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in debates on the Bill, made the position perfectly clear with regard to numbers. He said:
"It is not possible to make an exact account, but, having looked at many figures, I am for the purpose of this Bill taking the figure of at least 200,000 in East Africa as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 27/2/68, col. 1246.]
My Lords, it is not only Kenya. So far as figures are concerned, we now believe that 167,000 was somewhat of an overestimate, but we are certain that the figure of 67,000 given by Mr. Ennals is far too low, and in our view fails to have regard to the fact that of course a good many of the children have Kenya citizenship, but if they were to leave they would almost certainly leave with their parents. In our view the correct number may be about 120,000. This is the view of the High Commission.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord to be good enough to say whether the Government will publish the way in which their figure is arrived at, because Mr. Ennals has, has he not, explained how he arrives
470
at his figure. Are the Government prepared to tell us how they arrive at theirs?
LORD STONHAM: That is a matter which I will certainly consider.
My Lords, this debate is, as It were, reviewing the past; and the only object in reviewing the past is to see whether we can improve for the future. I do not think we grossly overestimated the size of the problem. It is not necessarily rue, as Mr. Ennals said, that the great majority would in any case prefer to go to India. I think that the Government relied on the best information we could get at the time and I do not think there is any need seriously to question it now. We did not want to exaggerate the true figures. The crucial consideration at the time was the number arriving here. We had to act. In fact we sent two distinguished lawyers over there to make inquiries. After a comparatively short time one came back: there was not enough work for two, because there was so little trouble. We must also consider the fact that vouchers that had been made available were not wholly taken up. We do not know now of any real troubles and tension there.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi asked, rightly, on the question of repatriation, how much voluntary repatriation would cost. I do not doubt that there are quite a few immigrants here who, if conditions were made sufficiently favourable, and if they were paid sufficient money, would consent to go. I do not know how much a head it would cost, but no doubt the total would be a considerable amount—and we should have to be careful that we were not paying for a holiday at home after which they came back again. I have no idea what Mr. Heath or the Conservative Party have in mind in this respect. I saw one suggestion (I think it was from Mr. Duncan Sandys) of £15,000 a head. Now, £15,000 each for one thousand people is £15 million. If we are
talking about something like 30 per cent. of the immigrant population returning home, we are talking about 300,000 people or more. That would be £450 million or £500 million. So I do not think it is "on". Even if it made sense ethically, it certainly does not make sense financially. I must say to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi that I have done my best to answer his question—but with most inadequate information. perhaps

471
the information may come from the other side on another occasion.
My Lords, I come now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Walston. Like my noble friend Lord Royle, I agree in my heart with everything he said. His heart was speaking, and his words, I hope, found an echo in many parts of the House: certainly they did on this side. I noted that he did not want immigration law to become permanent because he hoped that the days might return—and as he said, anyone with a sense of history would long for them to return—when the doors were always open. He deplored the fact that we have had to shut the door to people of other countries, people who have made a great contribution to our heritage. I know that what he said is true; but as he admitted—at any rate by implication—although it is not practicable at present, it may be something still to enshrine in our hearts. But he agreed that in the prevailing circumstances the Government had acted rightly.
As my noble friend said, it is possible that our Commonwealth legislation has put a greater strain on Commonwealth relations than almost anything else. If that is so, it is very regrettable; but I know that Her Majesty's Government have done their utmost to hold the balance between the rights of the Commonwealth citizens, and our duties to them, and our responsibilities to our citizens at home, our duties to them and, indeed, to the immigrants here. I am quite sure that my noble friend's appeal for increased realisation of the urgent need will not fall on deaf ears; neither will his call for research into the causes of unrest and the promulgation of the knowledge that exists. Here we are up against difficulties. The kind of facts that my noble friend gave are not the kind that make news, news that people want to print and promulgate. It is the repeated lie which stands a better chance of getting spread. I know that that means we must redouble our efforts to tell the truth; but I mention these things because they are the difficulties.
My Lords, I have not covered every point but if, when I read the debate, I find that there are matters about which I ought to write to noble Lords, I shall do
472
so. Meanwhile I would thank all who have contributed for their helpful and constructive remarks.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.57 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BURTON LORD BURTON moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Contravention of planning regulations
". If any person undertakes development in contravention of the planning regulations he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of such amount as may be prescribed by regulations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for putting down this Amendment so late; but this Bill has been making such rapid progress since it first appeared that it is only this morning that the Inverness County Council have had the opportunity of discussing it, and it is through the County Council that the need for this Amendment came to my attention. The Amendment probably lends itself to be torn to shreds by the draftsmen owing to the rush with which I have put it down: nevertheless I think the meaning must be clear, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept something upon these lines.
I suspect that the noble Lord may be girding himself to say that the Amendment is not necessary. He will no doubt say that the principal Act of 1947
has been strengthened by the provisions for stop notices. I shall anticipate such comment by saying that we do not much like the provision of stop notices. They are rather cumbersome and cannot have the effect I am seeking. If a person starts to construct a building or to deposit litter—although I think the word used in the Bill is "refuse"—he can be stopped from proceeding with such

473
action. However, he has already committed a breach of the planning regulations and nothing can be done about it except to stop him or to tell him to take down the building.
Section 30(3) of the principal Act lays down that contravention of the advertising regulations is an offence. Why should it be an offence to contravene the advertising regulations and yet no offence to contravene the building or dumping regulations? The Building (Scotland) Act 1959, in Section 6(1), makes provision for anyone contravening the building regulations to be guilty of an offence. If this is the case with the building regulations, to be consistent, similar action should apply to the planning regulations. Only last month we had a case before the Inverness Council. A building speculator who was perfectly aware of the regulations started work on a housing scheme without prior planning consent, and without building authority approval. The chairman of the planning committee came to see me as chairman of the building authority and said: "We on the planning committee can take no action against this man, even though it is not the first infringement committed by him. All that we can do is to give him a 'rocket' and tell him not to do it again. You on the building authority, on the other hand, have teeth, and while we can only bark you can bite." What in fact happened was that the building authority issued a very severe final warning. My Lords, I hope that this example shows the need for giving teeth to the planning authorities also. Accordingly I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in some of his assumptions the noble Lord, Lord Burton, is correct; in others he is not. He is correct in assuming that we could destroy the Amendment on drafting grounds alone. I do not propose to do that, because even had the Amendment been drafted in perfectly proper form I should still have been against it, since it is the principle of the Amendment that I dislike and not the words in which it is wrapped up.
With the object lying behind the Amendment, that it is desirable that the planning law should be held in respect, and that people should be discouraged
474
from attempting to disobey it, I am of course in agreement. But it has never been part of the planning law to make it a penal offence to carry out a development without planning permission. Unauthorised development leads to offences only after enforcement action has been successfully taken, and we believe that it would be both impracticable and undesirable to make development without planning permission automatically an offence.
The existing provision is that enforcement action is at the discretion of the local planning authorities. They have a variety of actions which they may take. They may decide that a matter is too trivial to be worth bothering about—and that sometimes happens. Or they may decide that, despite the lack of planning permission, there is no conflict with good planning standards, and on an application being made they grant it without any difficulty. In these circumstances it is open to them either to take no action at all or to require the developer to regularise the position by applying for permission; and when it is granted that is an end of the matter. If, however, they decide that the development is undesirable, they can initiate enforcement procedure which contains provision for penalties if the developer does not respond. In the course of the enforcement the full case for and against the development can be argued out, and the usual rights of appeal, public inquiry and so forth can be exercised. There is no need for planning appeal where the planning factors are favourable or where they are undecided. Nor is there any loss of control if, after due consideration, the planning merits are found to be against the development.
My Lords, if we accepted the Amendment, one of the difficulties would be that, theoretically at any rate, the procurators fiscal in various parts of the country would be obliged to take action in every case brought to their notice where development had gone ahead without planning permission; and in many cases the procurators fiscal would be burdened with prosecuting large numbers of unimportant cases, or alternatively with the responsibility of deciding whether an offence had been committed. In many cases a procurator fiscal could not do so without having regard to a substantial expertise in planning law. If the Amendment were accepted it would

475
be an offence and consequently there could be a penalty in all cases, even if the development was trifling, and even if it was obviously consistent with good planning. Even if, on appeal, the developer won his case, he would still be liable to a penalty. To enact this would, I submit, be to elevate the formalities of planning control above common sense. We are satisfied with the law as it is and as it will be amended. All that is necessary is to require that planning permission is sought and is then complied with.
It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that sometimes a developer or an individual goes ahead knowing that he is committing a breach of the law. These are the circumstances in which, if the development was not sound planning development, the planning authority would proceed rigorously against the developer. There may be other cases where an individual proceeds in ignorance and where the only thing the authority could do eventually would be to require the building to be taken down. The authority might say, "Well, if this had come to us in the first instance it is touch-and-go whether we would have agreed to it; but it would be a terrible hardship to the individual, simply because he had acted in ignorance, to require him to take down the development". They might, in fact, give planning permission in that sense. That is the sort of common-sense way in which we expect local authorities to act. But I should not object if, when someone who knew better put up something which was not good planning, the authorities said, "It does not matter how much it is going to cost; you must pay the penalty for your own wrongdoing. We would not have granted permission for this if you had applied in the first instance, and we are not going to grant permission now just because you have 'jumped the gun' and committed yourself to expenditure."
The remedies in the hands of the authorities are adequate, and we think it would be wrong to subject any possible infringers of planning applications to penalties, as this Amendment would do; or alternatively, to require procurators fiscal to sift through all the infringements and to say, "That one I will not prosecute, although the law has been
476
broken; that one I will prosecute". Procurators fiscal would be placed in an impossible position if this Amendment were accepted.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the procurators fiscal. If you put up a bed-and-breakfast sign, you are committing a criminal offence for which you can be prosecuted. That is already in the 1947 Act. But if you build a garage or a factory or an office, nothing can be done about it except that you may be told to take it down. To me this seems quite illogical. If you infringe quite minor regulations, as happened in the case I mentioned, there would be no need for a procurator fiscal to take action. We issued a warning. In respect of minor infringements, where there is no need for a case to be taken, there would be no need for a procurator fiscal to go through all the procedure referred to by the noble Lord. I think that a great deal of unnecessary emphasis has been put on to that. All I am asking is that where there is a flagrant infringement, or someone infringes the law on a number of occasions—as has happened—there should be some power to deal with it. I think that the proposal is perfectly reasonable. The noble bard, Lord Hughes, is opposing it, but I hope that he will have a further look at the matter. Meanwhile I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 63 [Delegation of planning functions to officers of local authorities]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 58, line 24, after ("believed") insert ("both").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to remove a possible ambiguity in Clause 63(5) of the Bill. That clause provides that where an action has been brought against an officer of a local planning authority in respect of an act done by him in the discharge, or purported discharge, of functions delegated to him under Clause 63 the authority may indemnify him against the whole or part of any damages or expenses which he may have been ordered to pay or may

477
have incurred. Before doing so the authority must be satisfied that the officer believed that the act complained of was done by him in the discharge of the delegated functions, and that he believe that his duty required or entitled him to do it. This wording would make it possible to argue that the local authority and not the officer had to be satisfied that his duty required or entitled him to do the act in respect of which an action had been brought. This, my Lords, was not the intention, and it is important that this ambiguity be removed.
I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for enabling us to discover it, because it was as a consequence of looking at an Amendment which he put forward on Committee stage, and which the Government were unable to accept, that we found this mistake. It would be unfair both to the officers and to the persons claiming damages to leave unnecessary doubt, and consequently scope for litigation, about the conditions under which indemnification can operate. The purpose of the Opposition's earlier Amendment was to clarify those conditions and although the Government were unable to accept that Amendment the present Amendment does improve the position, from the point of view both of officers and of possible claimants. Perhaps it is an unexpected dividend from the noble Lord's attempt at the last stage, but I hope he will find it welcome. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, even though my effort to improve this clause did not commend itself to the Government, I am glad that at any rate it had the effect of drawing the Government's attention to this ambiguity. I must confess that I had not spotted it. The reason was that I read it the wrong way. Therefore, I am all the more glad that the Amendment has been moved, and we are glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106 [Short title, citation and extent]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 87, line 17, leave out ("1959") and insert ("1966")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must say that history has been made. This is the first time that there has been anything in a Scottish Bill with which the noble Lord opposite has been concerned which he has not noticed. He has found every other error up to the present. This Amendment is purely drafting. Clause 106(2) provides that the Bill may be cited with the existing corpus of Scottish planning legislation as "The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1968". The present group citation is wrongly given in Clause 106(2) as the "Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 1947 to 1959". It is true that the last Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act was that of 1959 but there are three subsequent Acts, extending to Great Britain as a whole, which form part of the body of Scottish planning law and which are cited with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. These three Acts are the Town and Country Planning Act 1963, the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act 1965, and the Industrial Development Act 1966. This Amendment corrects the drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 108, line 24, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. The effect of Amendment No. 4 is to ensure that any person named in an Order under Clause 91(2)(d) shall be served with a notice. Clause 91 provides that a local planning authority may by order authorise the stopping up or diversion of any footpath or bridleway, if they are satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to enable development to be carried out. Subsection (2)(d) authorises the local planning authority to name in the order persons who are required to pay or make contributions in respect of the cost of the carrying out of works in connection wits the stopping up or diversion.
When an order has been made, a notice stating its effect and giving other particulars must, in accordance with Schedule 6,

479
paragraph 1, be both published and served on various parties. These do not include persons named in the order, and there is therefore a theoretical possibility that a person might be named in an order under Clause 91(2)(d) and not be informed of the fact. The effect of the Amendment will be to prevent this possibility. If I remember rightly, it was in discussing another Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved that I drew attention to this and undertook to put down an Amendment at Report stage which would correct this situation. The Amendment goes a certain way along the road which the noble Lord wanted us to travel in any event.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what the noble Lord says makes me wish that I had put down many more Amendments because, even though the Government could not have accepted them, they might have found something else wrong. However, I remain an optimist and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 108, line 28, at end insert—
("(iv) any person named in the order by virtue of section 91(2)(d) of this Act; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that probably the comparatively large measure of success he has achieved is because he was so reasonable and modest at the beginning. If he had gone further he might have tried his luck too far.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 127, line 39, at end insert—
("In section 16(1), the words ' by the Minister'").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to delete the reference in Section 16(1) of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 to the Secretary of State. Section 16(1) provides that a local planning authority may include in a tree preservation order a direction that the order should take effect at once, without prior confirmation of the Secretary of
480
State. When such a direction is included, the order comes into force provisionally on the date specified by the local authority and remains in force for six months or until the order is decided on, whichever is the earlier. The object is to give a breathing space by preventing the destruction of the trees during the period in which the order is under consideration. Under Clause 80 of the Bill, tree preservation orders are now to be confirmed by the local authority and not by the Secretary of State, if they are unopposed. The reference, therefore, to the Secretary of State, who is "the Minister", in Section 16 of the Civic Amenities Act, is now inappropriate in these unopposed cases. The Amendment will therefore leave unqualified the reference to confirmation so that it can mean confirmation by the Secretary of State or the local authority, as the case may be. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 127, line 42, leave out ("67(b) and 72(c)") and insert ("66(b) and 71(c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple Amendment which corrects two printing errors. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PRAYER BOOK (FURTHER PROVISIONS) MEASURE
6.18 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Prayer Book (Further Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I do not think that I need detain your Lordships with a speech in explanation because a Motion in identical terms was passed by your Lordships' House on October 22. On that occasion, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Worcester explained the content and purpose of the Measure. It did not, however, prove possible to get the appropriate Motion passed in another place before the end of last Session. For that reason, this Motion has to come before your Lordships' House again, and I therefore move it formally.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England

481
Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Prayer Book (Further Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Derby.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure the House will be only too ready to accept the Motion of the right reverend Prelate and I should like to thank him for his explanation. I should like to raise one one small point that arises from the explanation he gave. It is this. I believe that we are at a moment which is significant in the development of the relations bewteen Church and State, occasioned by the fact that the denominations are drawing together. Those who are not Anglicans are finding that some of the
difficulties and dangers which they had thought the Church of England laboured
under as an established Church are proving to be less than they feared, and some of the advantages and opportunities are proving to be greater. I think it would be a pity, if I may say so, if the relatively minor faults in procedure, and the one or two (I do not think it is too strong an expression to use) instances of mismanagement which have led to this Motion appearing no fewer than three times on our Order Paper, were allowed to act as an irritant in this rather significant stage in the development of relations between Church and State.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATLANTIC SALMON STOCKS
6.21 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to draw attention to the urgent need for international agreement to limit the taking of Atlantic salmon by drift-netting on the high seas; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to stress the economic value of salmon to Great Britain, and indeed to other countries throughout the world, as food, as giving direct and indirect employment, as giving enjoyment, and as giving a strong fillip to tourism. One has only to look at the Report of the Highland Development Board to see that great importance is placed by that body upon the preservation and development of salmon.
On July 5, 1965, I raised in your Lordships' House the dangers to Atlantic
482
salmon from the growth of in-shore fishing off Greenland, and I said that the fishing had risen in catch from 2 metric tons in 1957 to more than 1,000 metric tons in 1966. That menace continues, but now it has been overtaken by a second and greater menace; namely, drift-net fishing on the high seas in international waters. This deadly trapping of salmon near their feeding grounds is an increasing danger. I think that tribute should be paid to the last Conservative Government and to the present Administration for their courage in continuing the prohibition of drift-net fishing off our own shores in our own national waters. But that does not remove the menace which is growing in international waters, and mainly in the Davis Strait, off the West coast of Greenland.
The expansion of that fishing is rapid. In 1965 two experimental boats commenced this drift-net fishing. Those two boats jumped in 1967 to 11, belonging to three different nations. If this expansion continues, as seems likely, there will be more boats in 1968, possibly up to a total of 30, as more nations come into this drift-net fishing business. These fleets are already packed with cold-storage ships and are thoroughly well organised. The catch in 1967 from this drift-netting in international waters off the Davis Strait is likely to be 100,000 fish.
That is a grim position, but there is yet a further explosive factor to which I must draw the attention of your Lordships, and that is the introduction of what are called "mono-filament" Japanese nets. The effective proof of these nets is to be seen on the Pacific coast of Canada, where they have been used in estuaries and bays. The catch of salmon would increase by 50 per cent. over previous years through the use of this mono-filament net. In open sea the catch would increase by 30 per cent. The captain of one of the drift-net ships off the Davis Strait has said that he expects the mono-filament net to be in use in the Davis Strait in 1968. I calculate that an escalated fleet of 22 boats using mono-filament nets may well extract from the high seas no fewer than 750,000 salmon in a year.
My Lords, this is a grim story, but there is yet one more factor which makes it even grimmer. In this drift-net fishing

483
there is no close season; there is no respite for breeding time, and no limitation on the size of the fish that are taken. The result will be catches for 12 months of both mature and immature fish. This grim outlook can be checked, I believe, only in one way, and that is by international action. But, so far, international action has not succeeded in getting off the ground. I am not here to belabour in any way Her Majesty's Government, provided they take the common-sense view that of course grave damage is being done to stocks—damage which will show in four years' time—and provided they do not take refuge behind such statements as: "There is not sufficient scientific proof as yet." Scientists—the boffins—rarely come to positive conclusions, and when they do it is usually after the events they have been investigating have occurred. The experts have been tagging a few hundred fish off Greenland. I am informed that directly a tagged fish is caught in one of the drift-net ships it goes overboard. Anyhow, only seven of the Greenland tagged fish have been recovered.
The Government's replies in the past in your Lordships' House to Questions and to debate have been rather on the lines that there is not enough scientific proof yet; but I am glad to say that at the International Commission on North Atlantic Fisheries this view was not put forward by Her Majesty's Government's representative, who put up a stout plea in support of a Canadian proposal for stabilising driftnet fishing at its present level. Our representative said that the United Kingdom would prefer prohibition on the high seas, but that if prohibition was not possible temporary stabilisation was justified while further research continued.
The Canadian proposal was supported by Her Majesty's Government, the United States and Soviet Russia. The Danes stalled, and Norway and Iceland likewise, taking refuge in that position which I have just mentioned of saying that there is not at this stage enough scientific proof. It is a very easy position for anybody to take, and an excuse for doing nothing. The necessary two-thirds majority could not be obtained at the Commission for proposals for stabilisation. Instead, a rather weak, wishy-washy resolution was
484
agreed to, without dissent, which was to draw the attention of member Governments to the serious concern expressed by the International Commission on North Atlantic Fisheries and requiring priority to be given to further studies. We have all been present at many conferences when that kind of rather futile resolution is a conclusion when differences which are highly irreconcilable exist.
I venture to put the view to Her Majesty's Government that one cause of the inability to obtain a two-thirds majority for the proposal for limitation, for stabilisation to present levels, was that there was rather inadequate preparatory work for that Conference, and there was lack of communication between the various Governments concerned. I will not weary your Lordships with a list of the countries concerned, but most of the countries in Europe were represented. I am informed that afterwards several countries—Spain for one; I believe France for another—said that had they had preparatory information and knowledge and background education as to what the resolution was going to do, and why it was being moved, they would have certainly supported it. I am told that the Canadian proposal reached the Canadian Ministry of Fisheries only a few days before the Conference. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to tell me whether my information is corect, that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here had only two or three days to give consideration to the proposal which was going to be put forward at the Conference.
Meanwhile, my Lords, the tide flows strongly towards a final extinction of Atlantic salmon in a few years. When that happens, those in charge of our affairs at that time will say: "How did this ever occur? Why was it not stopped before?". But it will be too late then, as we have seen with other birds, beasts and fish throughout many countries of the world. I ask the Government tonight not to look at this problem through scientific lenses, but to start a political approach based on a common-sense view that grave damage is being done and must be checked before it is too late. As I said earlier in my remarks, the scientists, the boffins, must be respected but they must not rule policy. They must be

485
our servants and not our masters. I urge a new political effort, starting with high-level private exchanges, to educate and persuade all the countries which are members of ICNAF, this preparatory work to lead to an international commission, after proper preparatory groundwork, to consider, with all the commercial and scientific information available, the evidence from all angles and to try to work out proposals for limiting and controlling salmon catches on the high seas on an international basis and, I believe, for the benefit of the whole of mankind. My Lords, I beg to move.
6.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I am very glad that he should have brought it up again and drawn our attention to this new danger, which I believe, like him, is even more severe than the danger of the inshore drift netting which was the subject of a previous debate. I think I should declare an interest. I am the proprietor of certain fishing in Scotland and also director of a salmon netting company. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has drawn our attention to some very alarming figures. These are all figures that I know well, too, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is very familiar with them also. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, would not object to my adding a little to what he has already said.
On this question of the mono-filament net, which has been invented by the very ingenious Japanese, it is a fact that catches have been enormously increased—by 50 per cent., as Lord Balfour told us, off the coast of Canada and the bays and estuaries, and by 30 per cent. on the high seas. These mono-filament nets have so far been used by only a very limited number of netsmen and they are now in production. They are expensive, but very effective, and I do not doubt for one moment that the efficiency of these high-sea netsmen will increase very rapidly indeed. I believe at a rate even more rapid than the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has suggested.
There is no reason at all why any country should not participate in this, what I might call the bonanza of salmon. It is not in any way limited to the Danes,
486
the Faroese, the Norwegians, the Greenlanders. Any country engaged in fishing on the high seas can take part in it too, and so far there is absolutely no control, nothing to prevent a scramble for these fish. The members of ICNAF are nearly all what I might call producing countries. In other words, they are countries where salmon spawn and breed. As your Lordships know, all salmon have to breed and do breed in fresh water; they return to fresh water. Canada has been very alarmed by the fishing off the West coast of Greenland. The Canadians have evidence supplied to them by the scientists (the boffins, as Lord Balfour calls them), who have, I think Lord Balfour would agree, given an enormous amount or help to this fishing industry.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Oh, yes.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we should be grateful to them. But there is clear evidence that something like 60 per cent. of the fish which are being caught off Greenland are it fact fish which are born in Canadian waters. This is of course a very serious situation for the Canadians. This was the reason why they were the prime movers in the Conference in June this year in London for the stabilisation or the abolition of netting on the high seas.
I would entirely endorse everything that Lord Balfour has said about this Conference. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give us reassuring information about what is proposed for the next Conference, which I understand is due to take place in Warsaw in June of next year. It seems to me that if Lord Balfour's advice could be followed, and if careful preparatory work were done, it would not be too difficult to convince the representatives of the producer countries that it must be—I repeat, must be—in their interests to limit this netting of salmon o a the high seas.
The techniques are improving very fast, not only the techniques for catching fish but the techniques for locating them. I believe it will not be very long before marine biologists and scientists in other departments will be able to discover the breeding grounds of salmon far more easily than they have already. If this is exploited, as the noble Lord, Lord

487
Balfour of Inchrye, has told us, it will mean that immature fish will be caught, and of course many of these fish are not in good condition. We have proved that a number of the fish caught off the coast of Greenland were immature; they were long and thin and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will know quite well, were rather like a kelt. They were poor, and I am glad to say that when sold in the Danish market they fetched rather a low price. This does not apply to all fish caught with drift-nets but it does apply to fish in certain cycles of their lives. I will not bore your Lordships with scientific data, but I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has said, that Her Majesty's Government should follow up the good start that was made at the last Conference, to get together with the representatives of other interested countries and ensure that a strong resolution is passed.
I cannot entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, on the question of research and perhaps I have misunderstood him a little. I do not believe that in the long run it will be possible to have a lasting agreement unless it is based on scientific data which directly relates the catches on the high seas to the
countries of origin. This idea has been accepted by the International Pacific
Convention, and surely the principle should be accepted by ICNAF also. In other words, those countries which produce should have a larger say and a larger right to stocks in the high seas than countries that do not. This may be a difficult thing to bring about but if the countries that produce are so discouraged—in other words if their fish are taken in this manner—they will cease to take trouble over the protection of their fisheries inland. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows, a great deal is being done to improve our fisheries. The Norwegians have improved their fisheries enormously and Canada and other countries also, but if all their fish are caught on the high seas by other countries that effort will cease. So I beg the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to bring to the notice of Her Majesty's Government the serious situation that exists and to use all the persuasion at his command to see that real steps are taken to bring about a satisfactory resolution in June of next year.
488
In addition, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, what steps are being taken to increase the study of the salmon by means of tagging. The tagging which has been done so far has been on a very small scale indeed—in hundreds, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, reminded us. Surely it should be done in thousands before an adequate result can be produced. This will cost money, and also it will be necessary for our own people to see the thing right through, because naturally if you were a Danish fisherman and you caught a fish with a tag on it you would not produce the evidence against yourself. So it will be necessary for those countries which are anxious to limit—or to abolish, as I hope—this fishing on the high seas, to make a far greater effort than they have up to now in the matter of tagging. I simply wish to add my entire approval and support to this Motion, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to give us a reassuring answer to how he hopes our representative will behave at the next ICNAF Conference.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, before the noble Marquess sits down, will he tell us ignorant ones what a mono-filament net is?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will understand that there are many different meshes. The mono-filament net is one that is virtually invisible and has a very small mesh, so that it is possible to catch a salmon as small as 2 lb. and up to 30 lb. This is absolutely revolutionary in the history of netting. I am not of a very scientific turn of mind, but I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble and learned Lord.
6.48 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I feel that I ought first to declare an interest as I am myself the owner of a beat on the
Wye. Considerable concern has been expressed by fishery owners on that river about the extent to which this drift-netting on the high seas could affect our catches. Many rivers in this country have already had a very bad time during the last couple of seasons, due to the salmon disease. That is a serious thing in itself but it is a natural phenomenon, and the salmon population has suffered

489
from it before and has recovered. This matter of fishing off the Greenland coast and on the high seas is very much more serious and is by far the greater potential danger. The catches off Greenland, although serious in themselves and a considerable drain on stocks, seem to be relatively stable. During the past four years they have fluctuated between about 860 and 1,400 metric tons. Drift-netting is by far the greater danger, and it will become even more so as the fishing fleets of more and more countries climb on the bandwaggon, particularly with the improvements which are being made (as we have already heard) in fishing equipment and fish locating equipment.
As my noble friend Lord Balfour has said, in 1965 two boats, one Faroese and one Norwegian, caught between them 40 metric tons. In 1966 the same two boats caught between them 70 metric tons, and in 1967, as my noble friend said, the number of those boats was increased to 11 and their catch was 315 metric tons. I do not think any information is yet available for this year. As my noble friend said, there is nothing that can be called a "season" in deep sea fishing, so one will have to wait for such figures as are available at the end of the year. However, after the success achieved last year it is reasonable to assume that the catch will have increased considerably this year. If the fishing fleets start using the Japanese mono-filament net the increase in the catches may be considerable. I believe I am right in saying that after the extraordinary catches which they produced on the Pacific coast of Canada, those nets were banned in that area, and I hope that it is not too late even now to nip in the bud the use of the nets before it starts.
A lot of salmon are also being caught by long lining, even closer to our shores off the Faroes, and the Danish and Swedish fishermen are believed to have found one of the migration routes of Greenland salmon and to be catching them in large quantities. Although some of the figures for catches off Greenland are available, it is clear, I think, that we are not getting news of all the salmon which are being caught on the high seas, and it is very unlikely that we shall ever do so.
year at the meeting of the International The resolution which was passed last
490
Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries is no really satisfactory solution, but it is easy to understand that to obtain complete agreement to ban this drift-net fishing is likely to be very difficult when several members of the Commission have no direct interest in salmon rivers but do, of course, have a direct interest in the success of their not inconsiderable fishing fleets. So far as Greenland is concerned, the Danes have always asked for proof that our rivers are affected before they will agree to take any action themselves, and it is perhaps rather difficult to reconcile a drain of our stocks with the fact that many rivers in this country seem to have had exceptional runs of salmon during the last two or three years. Certainly up to 1967 there must have been what we might call a cycle of plenty at sea, which seems to be borne out by Billingsgate returns, and these presumably would consist mainly of net-caught fish. However, the years of the salmon disease in the last century also coincided with one of these cycles of plenty. It is possible that in some mysterious way the extra number is provided by nature to compensate for losses from disease, so it is very serious if these reserves are going to be decimated before they ever reach the rivers from which they first came.
Game fishing in our rivers is a very important source of revenue from overseas visitors, and the nations who carry on this drift-netting on the high seas must be made to realise that they are killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. I hope Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power to persuade these countries to agree either to limit their catches or to prohibit this drift-netting altogether, and also to impose restrictions on the equipment used. If this is not done at once, in a few years' time, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, we shall feel the effect very severely and we shall bitterly regret that something was not done before it was too late.
6.54 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am not a salmon fisher. Angling, so far as it is an addiction with me, is angling for the wily trout. But no countryman, indeed no thinking man, countryman or not, can be indifferent to the danger which is now threatening the Atlantic salmon and all the economic factors that

491
surround its survival. These apply especially to Scotland. I would emphasise the employment which stems from the salmon's visits to our rivers, not only commercially but in terms of sport. This is a point which has been made in your Lordships' House before, and will doubtless be made again, by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard.
The noble Marquess made reference to Canada's efforts in the direction of controlling this massacre of salmon. I have in my hand a Canadian publication, a 1968 number of Atlantic Salmon Journal, from which, with your Lordships' permission, I would quote a few lines. They apply to Canada, but in my view they apply with equal force, if not more so, to this country and to Scotland. The lines are:
"A national resource is slipping away quietly and rapidly, and only when it is too late will the cry be raised by the people Why was not something done about it?'"
I feel certain it is to remedy this situation that my noble friend has put this Motion before your Lordships' House. One point that has not been raised is to inquire whether the public and private interests who have invested in hatcheries producing fish to improve our rivers are to be allowed to suffer their produce to be massacred in the oceans by the exploiters, apparently "on" for a quick kill regardless of the consequences.
To return to the question of the economic problems, I would quote again from this journal, in which a reference is made to the matter of employment and the like. It says:
"God placed the salmon in our countries long before man came. Surely he did not send us here to destroy His handiwork. What will our netters turn to for a living? What will the gillies, bailiffs and guardians do? What will the hotels and lodges and their help do for a living?"
Perhaps, too, we may include the Atlantic salmon in the consideration to-morrow of Lord Aldington's Motion on invisible exports. Be that as it may, I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply to my noble friend's Motion will be able to indicate that this country will take early and emphatic steps to continue their efforts to repair the situation, if indeed repair is possible at this late stage.
6.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words on this Motion. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for bringing up this question. I must also declare a small interest as I have salmon and salmon-trout fishing on the West coast of Scotland, chiefly rod and line, but I have also certain salmon rights in the sea. I do not use them—or I rarely use them—as I prefer my tenants to catch salmon with their rods, which is on the whole more remunerative, because every fish caught by the angler in the fresh water is, I reckon, if one adds in the rent, worth about four or five times the value of the salmon caught in the sea; because if it is caught in the sea you get only its food value.
I understand that the average annual world catch of Atlantic salmon is about 4,000 tons. I do not, of course, know the figures for this year—I know them only up to the end of 1966—but we are told that of that total catch the inshore fishing off Greenland accounts for between 20 and 30 per cent. We are further told that as a result of tagging experiments, which, as I think my noble friend Lord Lansdowne pointed out, have not been done to any great extent yet, it has been found that of the total of the world catch, 30 per cent. of the salmon caught off Greenland by the in-shore fishing method come from England, Wales and Scotland and 2 per cent. from Ireland. I should have mentioned that 60 per cent. come from Canada, and 2 per cent. from Norway and Sweden. The point is that hardly any come from Greenland.
As my noble friend below me pointed out, the British Isles are producing something like 30 per cent. of the salmon caught off Greenland—I am referring now to in-shore salmon caught off Greenland. We have not any reliable figures for drift-net fishing. Of course, this has only just commenced. I heard my noble friend Lord Swansea say that the Faroes boats caught 60 tons in 1966. But the point I want to make is that if they can catch 30 per cent. of the world catch of Atlantic salmon off Greenland by in-shore netting, and if, by this drift-netting when it really gets organised and gets going they are going to catch

493
another 30 to 40 per cent. or even more—it may go up to 50 per cent.—the Atlantic salmon will disappear. I would refer your Lordships to the predicament of the Blue Whale. We have tried by international agreement to preserve the blue whale—it is also called the Greenland whale. It is the largest whale in the ocean. Now the Greenland, or blue, whale is nearly extinct. We do not want the same thing to happen to the Atlantic salmon.
As the noble Marquess mentioned, we in this country are producing a large amount of salmon which is caught by these methods in the Atlantic Ocean. Private fishery owners will become most disheartened, because if the situation becomes too bad, if our return becomes too low and we cannot let our fishings, we are not going to bother to protect the spawning beds. It is not just a matter of chance that we protect the spawning beds. I have good spawning beds in my fisheries. I supply a great deal of fish for other people to catch, for bag nets all round the coast. But these spawning beds have to protected. You have to destroy the birds that eat the salmon parr, and you also try to protect the spawning beds from undue flooding. Spawn is now introduced in quite a number of rivers. If, as I say, drift-netting really gets going all over the Atlantic, there will be no point in private owners in this country or, for that matter, those in any other country, producing spawning beds for the Atlantic salmon and using our resources to create more salmon. If when they leave our rivers and go out into the sea, the salmon are going to be caught by other nations who have not produced them, it will be quite hopeless.
I am quite convinced that drift-netting ought to be prohibited. It is far easier to prohibit it than to say, "You must use a certain mesh" or, "You must only fish in a certain area". If you say, "You may only use a certain type of net or mesh" it is easily evaded, and is a difficult matter to police. But if you say that drift-netting is prohibited it makes it easier to police. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can give some hope that Her Majesty's Government realise the seriousness of this question, and that they will do everything in their power in international circles to try to
494
cure or control this propensity to catch salmon by drift-netting.
7.6 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I would say that he made one point in his speech which interested me greatly. He said that the Norwegians were not "playing ball", or were "holding back" in this matter. About fifteen years ago a friend of mine, who is in the Board of Fisheries in Norway, and I had a long discussion about where salmon went to in the sea. He told me that not long previously a Norwegian trawler or drift-netter had been right up North—I think somewhere near Bear Island—and that those aboard suddenly saw a lot of fish splashing about in the sea. So they took a drift-net round them and towed it in. The fish were salmon.
When the crew landed their catch of salmon, I think at Trondheim, they were prosecuted for catching salmon in the sea. The prosecution was brought under some law that existed in Norway to protect, I suppose, the fishing of the rod fishers and also the net fishing which goes on round all the fjords. Most noble Lords have been to Norway and have seen the method they adopt, of fishing from towers. They look down and see the salmon, and shoot out their nets when the salmon come in in shoals. It rather interested me, therefore, why they should be holding hack because, obviously to Norway of all places, protection against salmon being caught in the sea by other people is of great importance. We discussed this question of salmon. I think that possibly the Norwegians themselves are not certain that the salmon we are discussing are going to the Davis Strait: it may be mostly American salmon that go there. The Norwegians may have something up their sleeve that makes them hesitate.
I remember that before the war (I think it was in 1938) I happened to go out for a night's fishing on a trawler; I could not get ashore again, and I ended up fishing with the men at Rockall. We had a great time. I had on my sea boots and jersey, and I was enjoying myself. In one trawl we caught a salmon. The crew said that it was a bad slip for the weather, because when a salmon is caught it was always followed by bad

495
weather—presumably because salmon are surface fish they go down away from the bad weather. I was struck with the appearance of this salmon. I had never seen a salmon so far out at sea. It struck me that it looked like ice on top, with a silvery-blue top in colouring and silvery-white below. I have an idea that the salmon go under the ice.
As your Lordships will realise, the serious part of this matter is if the salmon
swim across the Northern Ridge between the two parts of the Atlantic to the Davis Strait and are all caught by these new nets. But the nets may not be quite so deadly as they are believed to be. As the noble Marquess was explaining, they are single-filament nets, made of nylon, like a fishing line. The single-filament nets are joined together and meshed in a peculiar way, whereas the nets used around the coast of Britain were, of course, woven nylon nets that could be seen a mile off. The single-filament nets are pretty well invisible, if not entirely so, to the salmon, but they tangle very badly; and they are expensive. The tangling may make these nets not quite so effective as may be thought, but the noble Lord should remember the Fraser River.
As your Lordships will know, the most commercial fish anywhere is the Pacific king salmon, which has the red flesh and is particularly valuable in America. The whole run of king salmon was stopped by the big dam that is being put up on the Fraser river, and (as the noble Viscount. Lord Massereene and Ferrard was telling us of the blue whale) the stocks there were pretty well extinguished overnight. Personally, I think the situation with these salmon is rather like that with the blue whale. That the largest mammal that has ever lived in the history of our world should be exterminated is a pity, and that the best eating fish we have ever had in the history of the world should not be left alive to provide some labour and some enjoyment by fishermen, and should be suddenly extinguished by a couple of years' fishing, would be a pity. Perhaps before I sit down I should declare an interest. I have caught salmon. I like fishing for salmon, but with a dry fly and a very light rod. I am also interested in seals.
7.12 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that I was absent for a few minutes while he was speaking. I had previously told the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, why I was to be absent because I rather thought he would still be speaking at 7 o'clock; but he made a very short speech, as he said he would be doing. May I explain that I am host at a gathering that is taking place in the Cholmondeley Room at this moment, and if I had not gone out at 7 o'clock they could not have started. I did not wish to miss any more than a few minutes of the debate, because this is a subject in which I share the interest which has been shown by all those noble Lords who have spoken. For that reason I, like all the others who have followed the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, wish to express to him my appreciation of his raising this matter once again.
I wish I could dispel the gloom with which all of us have looked to the future if the present situation is allowed to continue. My Lords, I cannot. I must agree with each of the noble Lords who have spoken that a continuation of this situation will have very serious consequences for all those who are interested in the continuation of salmon fishing, or in the existence of salmon. I hope, therefore, that I do not have to persuade noble Lords of the serious concern with which Her Majesty's Government view the recent developments. I hope that I shall be able to show that we are aware of the dangers, and that I can convince your Lordships of our intention to try to obtain a sensible solution to the problem before irreparable damage is done.
At one stage in his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said that, those who are in charge of our affairs some time in the future will ask, "Why was this not stopped before?" If this were a matter entirely within the control of Her Majesty's Government, or entirely within the control of the Canadian Government, the trouble would have been stopped now. Unfortunately, it is not a matter within the control of any one Government. Unfortunately, it is not a matter which rests on the agreement even of a number of Governments whose interest is a common one. If all

497
of those concerned were producing countries it might be easier, although not necessarily easy, to reach agreement.
It would be tedious if I were to recapitulate all that was said in the last debate, which was in April, 1967, when we were discussing, also on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the Green land and drift-net fisheries. I shall endeavour not to do so, but as the principles I outlined then remain true to-day I may have to refer back to them from time to time. On this occasion, however, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has been concerned principally with the offshore drift-netting at sea, the development of which over the past three years has perhaps been even more spectacular, and potentially even more disastrous, than the earlier developments of the fixed-net fishery in West Greenland and coastal waters.
The noble Lord has referred to the fishing which is mainly in the Davis Strait, and he has given figures for 1965 and 1967, from which I do not dissent. He made a guess at the 1968 figure, and this is all that he could do. In fact, the Government themselves are not in a very much better position, because we do not yet have detailed information about the boats operating in 1968. It is thought that the number has been about 17. I hope this is right and that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who estimated that it might have reached 30, will prove to be wrong; and I am quite certain he will join me in that hope, because the fewer involved the less damage will have been done during this year.
We do not have details of the catch either, but we think that it may be in excess of 500 tons. That compares with 300 tons last year. This is a very large increase, but we understand that the overall position is no worse because the inshore catch is likely to be reduced this year, so that the total toll on the salmon which go to feed in that area may not be any higher than last year's figure of about 1,600 tons. For that we must be grateful, because that was a very high and alarming figure indeed. So it is at least a negative satisfaction that the two of them together are not likely to he worse.
I think that the noble Lords who have spoken—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—recognise that this is an international problem. I think
498
it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who pointed out that it is increasingly so. More nations are taking part. Vessels from Denmark, the Faroes and Norway are participating in the offshore fishery, and there is evidence that salmon from the United States of America, Canada, Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom have been caught off Greenland. As an international problem it calls for international action. This requires international agreement, particularly on the part of the countries whose nationals are profiting from these new fisheries.
My Lords, this is not a problem which this country, or any like-minded group of countries, can solve unless agreement from the others can be obtained. We are now talking about fishing on the high seas, which are open to everyone and which it is to our interest to keep so. Those who cry, "Something should be done about it", or who appear to think that plaintive representations alone will somehow be enough to cause other Governments to forbid their nationals from reaping benefit from the high seas, are simply blind to the realities. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, is not among those. He does not just say that something should be done. He suggested before, and has suggested to-day, as have other noble Lords, what he thinks might be done to help the situation. But some people outside think that all we have to do is to make either threatening or bleating noises and something will happen. That is why we place such importance on proceeding through the established machinery at Government level for dealing with the problem of conservation of the sea's resources.
The organisation responsible for considering such problems in the North-West Atlantic and for recommending measures needed for conservation is the International Commission for Nora-West Atlantic Fisheries, or to use the initials only I.C.N.A.F. It is true that the Commission invariably require scientific evidence of damage to stocks before they will recommend additional conservation matters. This is one point on which I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. He said that the scientists or the boffins must not rule policy—that they must be our servants, not our masters. There is no question in

499
this matter of the scientists not being our masters. It is the fact that other Governments say, "Unless you can produce scientific evidence of harm being done, we will not act".
We, the Canadians and, I believe, the Russians are satisfied that this position has been established, but it may be that those who wish to continue need an even higher degree of satisfaction than those who in the first instance are willing to be persuaded. But the requirement that there should be scientific evidence before fishing is restricted is important to us. We have been very resolute in adhering to this principle because, if we are not resolute, we ourselves might be unable to resist unfounded claims to impose restrictions which would then be damaging to our own fishing industry. Unfortunately, in spite of the most strenuous efforts on the part of our scientists, we have not been able to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is either danger or damage to our stocks.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there are enormous practical problems involved in this scientific work, especially as regards the offshore fishery. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and others have said, we are concerned about the serious damage which could be done to stocks by escalation of this fishery while the evidence is being accumulated. It will be no satisfaction to anybody if, at the end of the day, the scientific evidence is proved to convince even the most doubting and by that time there is nothing left to take action about. We accepted, therefore, that it would be wise to call a halt to the expansion of the drift-net fishery before it went too far, and we have been doing our utmost to persuade all the countries concerned to agree to take action now. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has shortened my reply to a certain extent since he has listed what is taking place in the international conferences. He correctly set it out and I need not repeat it.
What happened afterwards? We followed up the 1965 Conference through diplomatic channels in Copenhagen, but the Danes made it clear that they considered there was only a slight possibility that the Greenland fishery, even though substantially increased, would
500
have any appreciable impact on European or American stocks of salmon, and that they were therefore unable to accede to the request for limitation in the fishery. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, referred to what took place in 1968, and even though the United States and the Soviet Union joined with us in supporting Canada, the Danes still reiterated the arguments about the absence of scientific evidence and said that Denmark could not accept the proposal; and a number of other countries made it plain that they would not vote for a standstill. Therefore, in the circumstances it was impossible to get the requisite two-thirds majority which was necessary and the Canadians abandoned their proposal.
They then nut forward the compromise resolution which ultimately was unanimously accepted by the member countries. Lord Balfour called this a weak resolution, and I do not dissent from that in comparison with what was wanted. The resolution read as follows:
"The Commission calls the attention of member Governments to the serious concern expressed by several delegations who considered that the high seas fishing for salmon should either be prohibited or stabilised at its present level in view of the potential danger which it represents to the Atlantic salmon resources, and recommends to member Governments that they consider urgently the desirability of preventing increase in high seas fishing for salmon by their nationals in the I.C.N.A.F. area for the time being, and that high priority be given to studies of the effects of such high seas fishing on the resources."
Even though I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that it is a weak resolution, it is at least a small step forward because it invites all the Governments concerned to consider this proposition. It did not get that far on any previous occasion. It therefore provides a firmer basis than there has been hitherto for bringing pressure to bear upon the countries taking part in this fishery.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, suggested that the next conference might be helped if there were ad hoc meetings of interested countries or special conferences outside the governmental framework or in some way or other to prepare for the next conference, but I should not like to lay too much stress on what can be accomplished in that way. After all, the 1968 Conference was preceded by a year during which it was common knowledge among the countries concerned that the matter was to be pursued

501
by Canada again in 1968. It was therefore difficult to accept that it was really a matter of surprise to them that it was coming up again. As the decisions have to be taken by Governments, it is difficult to believe that any ad hoc discussions, or a conference of individuals, is likely to be any more fruitful than intergovernmental talks through the usual channels.
I wish to emphasise that we do not just take a beating at one conference and then wait until the next one before something else is done. Between the two Conferences, the 1968 and the 1969 Conferences, the Government will continue, through diplomatic channels, to take up these matters, as we have been doing. The latest information I have as a result of our inquiries abroad shows how difficult it is to make progress in this matter. After all, we are now, in December, almost half-way between Conferences. The information which we have is that the Danish Government are still considering the resolution passed at the I.C.N.A.F. meeting and they are not yet able to say when they will be likely to reach a conclusion upon it. It has not yet been possible to obtain a reaction from Norway.
I was interested to learn in this debate how many of your Lordships shared my reading matter, because I also read the article in Field on November 7. One would have thought from that article that if there was anybody who was as interested as ourselves in getting a quick decision, it was Norway, and yet we have been unable to get a reaction from them. Therefore, while I have readily admitted the seriousness of the situation and the fact that it could get very much worse if we were unable to get some form of international action, I hope I have at the same time persuaded your Lordships that if nothing has happened up to the present it is not because of any lack of knowledge or any lack of willingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and that we are progressing, although much too slowly.
There are one or two points other than the general principle to which I think I should refer. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, referred to the use of monofilament nets. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord
502
Chancellor is now satisfied with the two explanations—the explanation of general principle from the noble Marquess, and then of the details of actual manufacture from the noble Lord, Lord Strange. The unfortunate point about it is that the use of these nets is, of course, perfectly legal. But it has been part of the United Kingdom's case for control that the improved and more efficient methods of catching which are now available are an added reason for taking one or other of the steps which have been suggested, because, as the noble Marquess has said, they intensify the danger by their very efficiency.
The noble Marquess also said that tagging should be increased. The tagging of adult fish caught in Greenland waters is very difficult indeed. The fish caught in the nets are often not in any condition to survive after being tagged and set free. Various methods have been tried, using gill nets and Northumberland T-nets, and so far 1,337 salmon have been caught of which nine have been recovered in home waters. I must agree with noble Lords who say that every time the Danes or the Faroese, or whoever else is doing it, catch salmon with a tag on it, they are not going to send it to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or to the Department of Fisheries in Scotland. They will throw it—
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOVVNE: My Lords, what about the tagging of smolts? I do not think we want to limit ourselves to the tagging of adult salmon.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I will come to that. Before leaving this question, I just want to say that I agree that obviously there may well be a considerable number of adult fish which are tagged and which then subsequently land in somebody's catch. The fish remains with them, but the tag goes back into the sea or is otherwise disposed of. But this is not the only factor. There is a very extensive programme of tagging smolts in the United Kingdom, and this continues. I am sorry that I do not have by me the actual numbers that have been tagged, but I will write to the noble Marquess and will let him know what the figures have been over, say, the last year or two.
The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, referred to the large catches up to 1967, and raised the rather interesting theory

503
that perhaps that was nature's way of compensating for the salmon disease which, as the noble Lords will know, is again prevalent over a fairly wide number of rivers. I am told that, although the disease is more widespread, it is not necessarily worse. I hope the noble Lord is right, but at the moment my information is that the catch in 1968 is going to be very much less than it was in 1967. That is not surprising, because 1967 was an exceptionally high figure. What is disappointing is that the 1968 catch is likely to be less than the average of recent years, so that we do not have the apparent satisfaction that there are big numbers as a compensation for the disease. This is another reason why we have such an intense interest in being able to control the high seas fisheries.
I think in my general remarks I have taken account of the points put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and with all those other noble Lords who urged Her Majesty's Government to press as strongly as possible for international action, that the consequences not only for ourselves but for the producing countries concerned could be extremely serious. We hope that by the time the next conference comes round we shall have been able, through the usual channels and by any other means which may appear to be helpful, to impress sufficient of the countries with the need for this action. I hope, therefore, that after the 1969 Conference noble Lords will become aware, probably as quickly as I shall, if a more satisfactory solution is arrived at. That is the best I can offer your Lordships because, as I said some little time ago, the matter is not one which is within our sole control.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question? He has implied that this is an international matter. I wonder whether he agrees that there is something which the Government can do. Can they not, as they are doing at the moment, continue to prevent drift-net caught salmon being landed in this country? Also, can the noble Lord assure us that drift-netting around our coast will continue to be prevented?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid that that would be only a very partial solution, as the noble Marquess said when he talked about the poor condition of some of the fish which are being caught. They are not being landed here; they are going to their own home market. By the way, I hope I did more than imply that it was a matter for international agreement. I thought I made it a bit more definite than that.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord seemed surprised that Denmark was not co-operative. But surely he realises that in Denmark there is only one very small river. They are not interested in the preservation of salmon; they are interested in catching them on the high seas. Surely the noble Lord is aware of that. So far as Norway is concerned, the noble Lord surely knows as well as I do that there are two different and conflicting interests there. One is fishing on the high seas and the other is inland fishing, and it is just possible that those who conduct the fishing on the high seas command more votes than those who conduct inland fishing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I also read that in Field. If the article is correct, the Norwegian Minister of Agriculture is apparently responsible for inshore fishing, and the Minister of Fisheries is responsible for that on the high seas. But I was not expressing surprise that the Danes had not co-operated. I was expressing sorrow.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, that is only two countries out of the 14 members of ICNAF. What about the others'?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the position was as I have stated, that apart from the four I have named—Canada, the United States, the U.S.S.R. and ourselves—Denmark was against and the others said that they would not vote. It needs ten votes for it to be carried. So what has to be done for the next conference is to ensure that sufficient of those who refrained from voting on this occasion will vote the next time.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the question I keep asking the noble Lord is what in fact they are doing to ensure this, and the noble Lord has not given us an answer.
LORD HUGHES: I think the noble Marquess cannot have been listening. We can only seek to persuade people in negotiations. That is what we have been doing. We have beeen bringing pressure on the Danes, saying that it is in their long-term interests, as well as everybody else's, that they should co-operate, even though they are catchers of fish and not producers of fish. But it would be quite against any prospects of success if I were to detail publicly here what we have done and what we propose to do with individual countries. The noble Marquess must know from his past experience in Government that there are some things which can be helped by public statements and some things which can be very much hindered by them. I can assure the noble Marquess that in this case the second is very much what would happen.
If we attempt to set out that we are going to say this to Denmark, or are going to do this to Norway, or are going to say or do this to Spain, it will be self-defeating. We must carry on with what we are doing and as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has suggested. He has suggested, however, that there may be other methods of preparing for the next conference, other than just the inter-governmental contacts which have been made. I have said, and my advice is, that obviously intergovernmental persuasion is the method which is most likely to bring about results, but we do not discard the possibility that if other things can be done which will be helpful we shall follow them up. But if one Government cannot persuade another, it is very unlikely that any group of individuals will persuade that Government.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I point out one thing? As we are such great importers of Danish bacon and butter and produce generally, I should have thought we rather "had it over" the Danes regarding this Greenland netting. I should have thought we could be extremely persuasive.
LORD HUGHES: It is a very interesting thought that we should be able to say to the Danes, "Right; for every salmon you take, ten tons off your bacon
506
quota and five tons off your butter quota!". But, after all, we are members of EFTA, arid it is not quite as easy as all that.
7.43 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in detaining your Lordships for only a moment before asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I should like to thank the Minister for his speech, which showed that all our fears are shared by Her Majesty's Government. The debate to-day can give little comfort to the poor salmon in the seas. It is very rare that we have a debate in which the Minister's speech could well be that of the mover and the speech of the mover of the Motion could well be that of the Minister. I am grateful, too, to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have but one request. It is that this debate, recorded in Hansard—and it has been a wide and valuable debate—should be conveyed through the usual channels to the various Embassies and other media of distribution and publicity throughout all the countries which are members of the International Convention and to any other interested country. I believe that very considerable use could be made not of my speech but of the Minister's speech in the education of those whom we yet have to persuade.
My Lords, there is a big difference between salmon and the Government. We must remember that a Government can defend themselves against attack, against snares and against traps, but the poor salmon is vulnerable to all those. Therefore, irrespective of Party, irrespective of where we sit in this House, we send out our sympathy to the salmon and hope that their survival will be helped by our debate to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SAINT MARY, HORNSEY BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments; a Special Report made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.