Lords Sitting of 29 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Manchester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD HELSBY
Sir Laurence Norman Helsby, G.C.B., K.B.E., having been created Baron Helsby, of Logmore in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Bridges and the Lord Plowden.

PASSPORTS AND OVERSEAS TRAVEL
2.40 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a British citizen is free to leave this country without a passport; and, if so, what documentary proof of identity and nationality is required; and, further, whether officials at points of departure for abroad are aware of of the position.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, any person leaving this country may be required to produce to an immigration officer proof of his identity and nationality, and a valid passport is the most satisfactory document for this purpose. But anyone who satisfies an immigration officer by other means that he is a British subject may travel without a passport at his own risk. Immigration officers are well aware of the position, and do what they can to facilitate a passenger's departure where he has inadvertently left his passport behind or there is a genuine emergency. But their difficult task at the ports would be made even more difficult if people with valid
1108
passports were deliberately to refrain from carrying them; and I trust that the noble Lord's Question, and my reply, will help to make this generally known.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister this question? Is he aware of the test case on May 20 at London Airport, and is he satisfied that the traveller on that occasion was correctly refused permission to leave the country?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am so satisfied. The traveller on that occasion was a well-known and distinguished journalist who candidly told the immigration officer that this was a test case, and the immigration officer, being tested, quite understandably worked according to the rule and strictly according to the letter of the rule; and as he was not satisfied that the document produced by Mr. Colvin established beyond any question that he was a British citizen he acted accordingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could the Minister tell me where the documents were deficient, in that Mr. Colvin, I understand, produced a copy of a birth certificate and various other documents?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, most certainly. Circumstances might have arisen since Mr. Colvin's birth which made him no longer a British citizen.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am afraid I have not given the noble Lord notice of this question, but can he say what is the number of the regulation which makes it essential to prove one's identity?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. It is subsection (1), Article 7, of the Aliens Order 1953, which requires every person over 16 who embarks to produce to an immigration officer on demand, and I quote:
"a valid passport or some other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality."
May I add that in cases of genuine emergency travellers who are British citizens and so satisfy the immigration officers can leave without a passport, and I confirm that the Government have no intention whatever of preventing British

1109
subjects as such from leaving the country without passports.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer to my question.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether holders of professional pilots' licences are entitled to leave or enter the country at will, as I understand—indeed I know—that these licences have a clause on them to that effect?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the holders of professional pilots' licences who are British citizens are subject to the same regulations as any other British citizen.

POLICE MANPOWER
2.45 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the continually increasing demands on police manpower in the large cities, they will reconsider the recent decision to limit the strength of these forces to numbers well under their approved establishments.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the extent to which police forces in England and Wales, whether county, county borough, or combined, are able to increase their strength during the current year is determined by quotas related to their deficiencies in establishments. Those with the highest percentage deficiencies are given the greatest margins of increase. It would be possible, within Her Majesty's Government's policy of restraining the growth of public expenditure in the national interest, to allow large city forces unrestricted recruiting only by making equivalent savings elsewhere in rural forces or in smaller boroughs, some of them with equally high percentage deficiencies.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Is is aware that only last week the Council of the Police
1110
Federation told the Home Secretary that they regarded this as a false economy? Is he further aware that there have recently been disturbing signs of further outbreaks pointing to what one might call mob rule, and that as the Glasgow police are nearly 1,000 under strength and London nearly 6,000 his Answer will not give much happiness to the people who have law and order at heart?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am aware that representations have been made by some forces, but forces; with the greatest deficiencies can recruit up to 2 per cent. of their strength, and so on down the scale. I am not aware of any situation in this country arising or likely to arise with which the police cannot cope. I am also aware that since 1963 the police forces have been increased by over 10,000; civilians employed by the police force have increased in the last three years by nearly 5,000, and cadets, traffic wardens and others have increased proportionately, or more than proportionately. It would seem, therefore, that the basis of the difficulty lies not within the last three and a half years but in the period before that.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the difficulty has of course existed for a long time. Would Her Majesty's Government reconsider whether any change is necessary in their present policy as regards the Metropolitan Police, because there are demonstrations virtually every Sunday. There were at least four last Sunday, which had to be kept apart because they were hostile to each other. It was known that one demonstration was going to be unruly, and it was unruly. Am I right in thinking that during the summer weekend leave for the Metropolitan Police is virtually non-existent?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, certainly the noble Lord is not right with regard to weekend leave of the Metropolitan Police as a whole. There are substantial deficiencies with regard to establishment in the Metropolitan Police, and they have almost 50 per cent. of the total increase in recruitment this, year. With regard to the incidents to which the noble Lord refers, and which he himself witnessed, I think he will agree with me that they were more than competently and adequately dealt with by the Metropolitan Police.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not want it to be thought that I took the view that the police were handling the demonstrators other than well. They did a superb job. What I was worried about was their weekend leave.

NIGERIA AND PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
LORD ROWLEY: 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 to what extent they would contribute to a Commonwealth peace-keeping force as part of a settlement of the Nigerian Civil War.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, a peace-keeping force could operate in Nigeria only with the full co-operation of both sides in the Nigerian dispute and on the basis of a request from the Nigerians themselves. The peace talks now going on at Kampala have reached a delicate stage, and it is too soon to say whether the two sides will be able to reach agreement on conditions in which the introduction of an outside presence would be possible. But, as my right honourable friend said in another place on 9 April
"If there were a general desire by the Nigerians for a Commonwealth Force we would be ready to consider very carefully whether we would participate in it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1064]
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while appreciating my noble friend's reply, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government would consider consulting with other Commonwealth Governments with a view to establishing a Commonwealth force of observers which could be available to supervise any cease-fire arrangements, which we hope will not be long delayed?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share my noble friend's hope that ceasefire arrangements can be arrived at in Kampala. As to how both sides would wish to see that cease-fire brought into being—because it is one thing to seek an arrangement and another to bring it into practice—we should of course be ready
1112
to listen to their views. Then we should be most ready to consult with our Commonwealth friends.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating my noble friend's statement that Her Majesty's Government would consider this proposal on its acceptance by the two sides, is he not aware that some time ago the Biafran Administration stated that they would accept an independent force and that yesterday, at Kampala, the Federal representative said the same? In view of the fact that both sides have now accepted this proposal, will the Government actively pursue it to bring it to fulfilment?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am well aware of those two statements, but I am bound to say that there is a divergence of conditions and understandings by both parties in this matter. However, we will do all we can to bring a ceasefire and final peace to Nigeria. As I have said to my noble friend, we place the greatest reliance upon Mr. Arnold Smith, who is showing tremendous resource and ingenuity in Kampala.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether we are still continuing to give arms to one side in this civil war?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that question could well be asked as a supplementary question to-morrow. It is rather wide of this Question.

IMPORT LEVELS
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether official estimates made at the time of the last Budget about imports are being realised; and, if not, what steps are being taken to deal with the situation.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, a substantial part of the high level of imports in the first four months of this year reflects the expected rise in prices consequent on devaluation; there have also been a number of special and temporary factors. The Government remains confident that its economic strategy will put

1113
our balance of payments on a sound footing.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that according to the estimates that were made at the time of the Budget we are importing now 16 per cent. too much?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should not like to comment on that figure. As my noble friend knows, the level of imports at this time has been rather higher than we had hoped it would be.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE CHURCHYARD BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BRISTOL SIDDELEY CONTRACTS: THE WILSON REPORT
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE rose to draw attention to certain aspects relating to the Wilson Report on Bristol Siddeley and action taken thereafter; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. There are one or two things I should like to say and to make quite clear at the outset. First of all, I did not table this Motion at the request or instigation of anyone connected with Bristol Siddeley. I hold no brief for any interested party. I believe I once met Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and Mr. Davidson many years ago, but I cannot claim to know them except by reputation, which was of the highest.
Since tabling this Motion I have received some information from Sir Reginald, for which I am grateful. I tabled the Motion on my own initiative for I feel a great deal of concern about the procedure followed by the Wilson Committee. So far as I am aware, they did not provide the individuals whose conduct was criticised, and who have been
1114
publicly condemned as a result of the publication of their Report, with proper opportunities for answering the charges made against them. So far as I can see, they did not provide those individuals with any of the safeguards which any accused person in this country has, or with any of the safeguards for the individual recommended by the Royal Commission on Tribunals. The result may be that injustice has been done and that some of these individuals have been found guilty of conduct when that would not have been the verdict had they had proper opportunity to defend themselves.
I do not want to advance any personal criticism of Sir Roy Wilson and his two colleagues. I have no doubt that they thought that the procedure that they followed was best suited for their task. The Minister of Technology said in another place:
"The Wilson Committee in its initial work in preparing this procedure had not expected that its findings would be as they were."
Although they did not expect that, it is, I think, clear that at the outset they realised that their Inquiry might disclose improper conduct, and I understand a memorandum was handed to each civil servant witness before he gave evidence in which the third paragraph read as follows:
"In the unlikely event of our coming across evidence which suggested that an individual had been guilty of improper conduct, this would be the subject of a separate report to the Permanent Secretary."
I must confess I find that a most curious paragraph. When I read the terms of reference of the Wilson Committee I was under the impression that the Report of that Committee contained all their conclusions. I did not appreciate that civil servants were to be treated differently from other individuals, and it strikes me as odd that the Wilson Committee which sent out this memorandum, knowing that reflections on individual civil servants would not be made public, took the course of making them public on those who were not civil servants.
I should be interested to know, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord, Lord-Shackleton, will be able to tell us, what was the reason for saying this in relation to civil servants. Was it because it was realised that it would be unfair to them to expose them to public

1115
condemnation by mentioning them and their conduct in the Report? And if that was the reason, why was a different course taken with those who were not civil servants?
My Lords, just as the Wilson Committee did not expect at the outset that their findings would be as they were, I do not suppose for one moment that Bristol Siddeley at the outset ever thought that the Inquiry would lead to the condemnation of individuals. The procedure adopted was to follow that followed by the Lang Committee in its Inquiry into the Ferranti affair. The Report of that Committee, although it may have contained references to individuals who might conceivably have been identified, did not single out a number of individuals clearly identifiable for blame as did the Wilson Committee's Report.
My criticism is not of the procedure originally adopted, but of the failure to adapt that procedure when they realised that individuals might be guilty of misconduct, and in some cases of very grave misconduct. Once they realised that, it was, in my opinion, incumbent on them to give the individuals concerned proper opportunities of defending themselves, and on the information in my possession I feel I must frankly say to the House they do not appear to have done that.
I do not propose in this debate to challenge their conclusions. The Committee were appointed on April 24, 1967, and they reported nine months later, on January 26, 1968. Sometimes in this House, and I think more frequently in another place, attempts have been made to retry a case decided in the courts. Indeed, I remember the Leader of the House, when in Opposition, initiating one of them, a court-martial case. I do not propose to follow the bad example that he set then.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If he is going to dig back into the past for some advantage, all my Motion asked for was an inquiry.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, those were the terms of the Motion, but the substance of it was to ask this House really to retry the case. But personally I do not think that it is one of the func-
1116
tions of this House, sitting as it is, to attempt to retry cases or to investigate in one day's debate, and without hearing any of the evidence, the conclusions of a Committee. I should regret it if to-day's debate turned into a debate of that character. I am not going to argue that the conclusions of the Wilson Committee as to individuals were right or that they were wrong. I realise that the terms of my Motion may have led some noble Lords to suppose that I might do so, and they may have prepared their speeches on that assumption. I hope, however, that as I am not taking that course they will not avail themselves of the opportunity to make personal reflections and criticisms of any individuals concerned with Bristol Siddeley. But if it be the case, as I think it is, that the individuals condemned were not given the opportunities of defending themselves that they should have had, then one must have, I submit, grave doubts as to whether justice has been done. There have been many instances in our courts of a conviction being quashed, not on the ground that the verdict was wrong, not on the ground that the convicted man was innocent, but because something went seriously wrong at the trial so that the trial was not fair.
From the findings of the Wilson Committee there is no appeal. The individuals concerned cannot, no matter the extent to which they were not given opportunities to defend themselves, get those findings and the public condemnation which followed quashed. This, unfortunately, is not the first time that an inquiry into what has gone wrong has led to the blaming of individuals, nor is this the first debate that has been initiated in this House pointing out how unfair the procedure can be to an accused man. Sometimes the inquiry is by a tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, sometimes by a Departmental Committee, and sometimes by a committee such as the Wilson Committee. But, my Lords, whatever be the form of the tribunal or committee, surely when it appears that the conduct of an individual is likely to be impugned the individual concerned should enjoy the same safeguards.
Only a few months before the Wilson Committee was appointed the Royal Commission on Tribunals reported. Its Report was presented to Parliament in November, 1966. Lord Justice Salmon

1117
was Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was a member, and one of the reasons for the appointment of this Royal Commission was the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere about the position of individuals blamed by tribunals and their opportunities for defending themselves. That Royal Commission recommended:
"… certain alterations to the present procedure to improve its efficiency and particularly to safeguard persons called to give evidence before the tribunals."
I have no doubt that they would have said that the same safeguards for individuals were just as necessary when the inquiry was before a committee, and that natural justice requires those safeguards. As I shall seek to show, those safeguards do not appear to have been observed by the Wilson Committee.
In paragraph 28 of their Report the Royal Commission said this:
"The inquisitorial procedure "—
and of course the Wilson Committee's procedure was inquisitorial—
"is alien to the concept of justice generally accepted in the United Kingdom."
The Royal Commission recognised that there were exceptional cases in which such procedure must be used, and I do not suggest that the Wilson Committee was not one of them. But when a procedure alien to the concept of justice generally accepted in this country is followed, it is surely most important that there should be adequate safeguards for the individual who is in peril.
Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Royal Commission is headed in black type:
"The six cardinal principles".
What they said is, I submit, just as applicable to investigations by Committees as it is to those conducted by tribunals. They said:
"The difficulty and injustice with which persons involved in an inquiry may be faced can however be largely removed if the following cardinal principles are strictly observed."
I will read the material parts of the principles they enunciated which apply to this inquiry before this Committee. Their second cardinal principle reads as follows:
"Before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed of any allegations against him and
1118
the substance of the evidence in support of them."
In the Vassall Inquiry the Royal Commission said, and again I am quoting from their Report:
"So far as possible the witnesses who appeared to be prejudicially affected by statements in the Press or by statements obtained by the Treasury Solicitor were informed before they gave evidence of the substance of the allegations which might be made against them."
In the Bank Rate Inquiry in 1957, in which I played a part, I took great pains to see that those who might be criicised were made fully aware of the case they had to meet. Were Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith, Mr. Brian Davidson and the others condemned by the Report of the Wilson Committee told of the allegations against them and of the substance of the evidence in support of those allegations? Were they told before they gave evidence the kind of case they had to meet? So far as I can learn, they were not.
In paragraph 8 of Chapter 2 of the Reply published by Bristol Siddeley, which perhaps some of your Lordships have received, this is said:
"No charges or accusations of criminal acts or other misconduct were ever framed or communicated to any witness."
In paragraph 10 of the same chapter they say:
"In many cases the persons against whom accusations of commercial misconduct or even deceit were levelled in the Report were not even invited to give evidence before the Committee; and, in the case of those who did give evidence, they were frequently not informed of the allegation, let alone given an opportunity to deal with it."
The facts on which those statements are based are given in Chapter 8 of their reply. It does not seem to me to be without significance that neither in paragraph 9 of their Report, in which the Wilson Committee state the procedure they followed, nor elsewhere in their Report is there any suggestion or indication that those they thought to criticise were informed before they gave their evidence of the allegations against them and the substance of the evidence in support of those allegations.
The other relevant principles enunciated by the Royal Commission, so far material, read as follows:
"(3) (a) He"—
that is the individual concerned—
"should be given an adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by legal advisers.

1119
"(4) He should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel.
"(5) Any material witnesses he wishes to call at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard."
The sixth and last, but not the least important, cardinal principle reads as follows:
"(6) He should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him."
Those are the material parts of the cardinal principles which the Royal Commission said should be strictly observed. I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agrees with them, and that he will agree that natural justice requires that they should be strictly observed in all inquiries in which the conduct of individuals comes into question. If he does not, I am sure that he will say so.
May I now turn to the Committee's own account of the procedure they followed and see to what extent, if at all, it shows that these cardinal principles were complied with? In fairness to the Committee, I hope that your Lordships will not mind my reading the whole of paragraph 9.
"As soon as possible after our appointment, with a view to deciding what would be the best method of conducting our inquiries, we held a preliminary meeting at which senior representatives of B.S.E. and of the Department were present, as also was the Treasury Solicitor. In the result we came to the conclusion that in conducting our inquiry we could not do better than follow the procedure which the Lang Committee had adopted in the Ferranti case. The main features of this procedure were that our hearings would be conducted informally and in private; that the Department and B.S.E. would each give to us, although not to each other, access to all their relevant documents, whether or not such access might otherwise have been withheld on the ground of privilege; that the names of witnesses would not be mentioned in our Report"—
If I may pause there, it does not seem to me to comply fully with the spirit of that statement if they are so identified in the Report as to be easily recognizable—
"that a verbatim record of the evidence would not be made, and that the notes taken of each witness's evidence would be sent to him for agreement; and that we would not publish the evidence of witnesses or disclose
1120
it to their superiors. We are satisfied, in retrospect, that this method has enabled us to investigate as thoroughly as possible the matters we have had to consider and that we could not have informed ourselves so well in any other way. From the outset we were given full access to any of the Department's staff whose evidence we wished to hear and to all their contemporary records and memoranda. B.S.E. have been equally cooperative and frank. They have made available to us, in private, any member of their staff whom we have wished to question on any aspect of the case, and have willingly supplied all the financial documents and information which we requested, together with their own internal memoranda: we are satisfied that nothing has been withheld from us. They also gave us, at one of the Coventry factories, a detailed and most useful exposition of the nature and operation of the relevant contracts and allowed us to see at first hand the work of overhaul."
There is nothing there to suggest that those involved in the Inquiry were informed before they gave their evidence of the allegations they had to meet and the substance of the evidence in support of the allegations. There is nothing to suggest that those involved were given an adequate opportunity of preparing their case in answer. If, as would seem, they were not informed of the case they had to meet before they gave evidence they cannot have had adequate opportunity to meet it. They were not assisted by counsel. Were they given the opportunity of calling witnesses in their defence? There is no indication that they were. But I submit that what is clear beyond all doubt from the paragraph I have just read is that the condemned individuals had no opportunity of testing by cross-examination by a solicitor or counsel any evidence that might affect them—for each witness, that paragraph makes plain, gave his evidence in private. Notes of his evidence were sent to him for agreement, but there was no shorthand note and evidence was not disclosed to a witness's superiors.
From that paragraph it would not seem to me that the Wilson Committee ever directed their minds to the safeguards the individual in peril before them should have, and that they were either not aware of or ignored the views of the Royal Commission. Some of the findings of that Committee were of a very serious character. In paragraph 59 they say that, in their opinion, the Chief Estimator's conduct in putting forward those figures, that is to say, the estimated man-hour

1121
figures, amounted to a representation by him that they constituted a fair and genuine estimate by him of the hours the work would take, and that he knew that those man-hours were far greater than the man-hours actually being spent. In the next paragraph they say that the Price Controller realised approximately by what extent the man-hour estimates which were being agreed with the Department and used in the negotiations exceeded the actual hours being worked.
In the next paragraph, paragraph 71, the Committee say that the Commercial Manager (Ministry) knew that the main source of B.S.E.'s excessive profits was the excessive estimate of man-hours, and in paragraph 72 they say that the representations by conduct about the man-hour estimates—
" … were grossly untrue to the knowledge of B.S.E.'s representatives who made them. In each case the falsehood started with the man-hour estimates put forward by the Chief Estimator …."
Then they say:
"In the result, the Department's representatives were utterly deceived."
Surely, here is a finding of fraud in the clearest of terms. Indeed, it may be said that really it amounted to a finding of criminal conduct, of obtaining or attempting to obtain money by false pretences. Were these three men—the Chief Estimator, the Price Controller and the Commercial Manager (Ministry)—told before they gave their evidence of these serious allegations; that they appeared to be guilty of fraud? Were they told the substance of the evidence? Were they given an opportunity of preparing their case in answer, and of obtaining legal assistance? Did they have the opportunity of being examined by their own counsel and of calling witnesses in their defence? Did they have the opportunity of testing the evidence on which the allegations were based by cross-examination by counsel or solicitor?
In paragraph 8 of Chapter 2 of the Bristol Siddeley Reply, it is stated that
"no witness was professionally represented; there was never any opportunity of cross-examination or contradiction of any witness's contentions face to face."
There is nothing in the Committee's account of their own procedure or elsewhere in their Report to indicate that those statements are untrue, and that was
1122
not, I think, suggested at all in the debate in another place. If the answers to the questions I have posed are what I think they must be in the light of these documents, then none of the cardinal principles laid down by the Royal Commission was observed.
In Chapter 4, paragraph 4, of the Bristol Siddeley Reply the following appears:
"The Coventry Chief Estimator has consistently and vigorously denied the D.T.C. (Directorate of Technical Costs) version of their exchanges."
He has been found guilty of fraud without any opportunity of testing the D.T.C. evidence by cross-examination. The same questions arise with regard to the finding of double charging. In paragraph 155 of the Report it is said:
"… the Price Controller knew, some time before August, 1964, that double charging on a large scale had taken and was taking place."
They say, too:
"… the Commercial Manager (Ministry) had information from which he should have realised, if he did not, that such double charging had taken and was taking place."
Both of those men were seen by the Committee on July 4, 1967. That is stated in paragraph 11 of Chapter 8 of the Bristol Siddeley reply. To neither was it suggested that he knew or ought to have known of the double charging.
The Committee saw the Price Controller again on December 6, 1967, and then no suggestion was made to him that he knew or ought to have known of the double charging. That is what is stated in the Reply; and if it be true, then, my Lords, there was—was there not?—a grave breach of a cardinal principle laid down by the Royal Commission. They were not even told of the allegation against them; and if they were not told, how could they have had an opportunity of defending themselves properly?
I turn from those three individuals to the Executive Directors. In paragraph 82 of the Report it is said:
"… the Executive Directors … planned in their budgets, from the earliest years … to obtain huge profits from the Department's overhauls".
That is a serious reflection on the Executive Directors and no doubt intended as such. Were the cardinal principles laid down by the Royal Commission observed in relation to them? Of the 12 Executive Directors nine were not invited to give

1123
evidence so they were condemned unheard, and in relation to them the cardinal principles cannot have been followed. Were the three who gave evidence informed, before they did so, of this allegation and of the substance of the evidence in support of it?
In paragraph 84 of the Report it is said:
"… the Board were made aware … that the profit rate on overhauls … was high and by 1960 was in fact nearly 55 per cent.".
Five out of 12 on the Board gave evidence, and the Bristol Siddeley Reply says that with none of those five was the nature and significance of the Managing Director's Monthly Reports on which that finding is based ever discussed. If that be right, here was another breach, and a grave breach, of one of the cardinal principles.
I know not, and it matters not in relation to the argument which I am addressing to your Lordships, whether the Wilson Committee's findings of fraud on the part of certain individuals and their conclusions with regard to the Executive Directors and the Board of the company are right. Of one thing I am certain, and that is this: that the conviction of a man for a fraudulent offence, for obtaining money by false pretences, would never be allowed to stand if it were shown that he had not been informed of the charge against him, had not had time to prepare his defence, had not been given the opportunity of calling witnesses in his defence and—I stress this in particular—had been convicted without hearing the evidence of the witnesses who testified against him and without having a chance to test their evidence by cross-examination. And as each witness was heard in private, all those men have been condemned on evidence which they have not even heard.
As I said, a convicted man can appeal. These men convicted by this Committee have no appeal. If the cardinal principles have not been observed in relation to them, should not these convictions by this Committee be wiped out? The question may be asked: "What ought the Wilson Committee to have done when they realised the course the inquiry was taking?". I think they had two courses open to them. One was to refrain from
1124
blaming individuals in their Report, as they were going to retrain from blaming individual civil servants. They might have followed the example of the Lang Committee and blamed the company and not singled out individuals for blame. The alternative was to comply with the cardinal principles. They should have changed their procedure to do so. And if they had complied with the cardinal principles and then blamed individuals, I should not be initiating this debate.
The Committee took neither of those courses. Perhaps, as I said, they were unaware of the Royal Commission's Report. Perhaps it was not brought to their attention. The Government accepted the Report of the Committee and its conclusions. The Government, at least, cannot have been unaware of the Report of the Royal Commission—a Royal Commission set up at the instance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before they accepted the Report of the Committee, did the Government ask whether the cardinal principles had been complied with, because there is nothing in the Report to show that they were? If they did not, it seems to me that the Government should have done so. If the answer was that they had not been complied with, then perhaps the Government should have said to the Wilson Committee, "Before you record these findings you should seek to comply with them". Or if it was thought too late to do that, then the Government should have said, "We cannot publish a Report containing these condemnations of individuals when they had no proper opportunities of defending themselves."
My Lords, in another place the Minister sought to defend the procedure followed by saying that they were eminent men conducting the inquiry who would not proceed contrary to natural justice. No matter how eminent the men on a tribunal appointed under the Act of 1921—and they are often Judges—the Royal Commission requires that the cardinal rules shall be strictly observed as safeguards for individuals. The main ground on which the Minister defended the procedure was that Bristol Siddeley representatives had agreed to it. My Lords, so they did. Like the Committee itself, they could not expect the Committee's findings to be as they were. They would have been mad, in my view, to agree to

1125
a procedure which deprived an individual of the safeguards laid down by the Royal Commission, if they had realised that individuals might be condemned. Their agreement to the procedure cannot amount to waiver on behalf of these individuals of the safeguards they should have had.
My mind goes back to the 'thirties and to the Budget leak which took place at that time. The Royal Commission had this to say about that inquiry in relation to Mr. J. H. Thomas:
"It was not until a late stage of the inquiry, however, that his name was first mentioned".
My Lords, it was certainly not at the commencement of this Committee's inquiry that impropriety of individuals was envisaged. The Commission's Report went on:
"It then appeared from the evidence which had come to light during the course of the hearing that it was he who had made the disclosure. Accordingly he was called as a witness at short notice and those representing him had very little time in which to prepare his case."
The Tribunal found that there had been unauthorised disclosure by him to Sir Alfred Butt, M.P., who had made use of the information. Sir Alfred had to resign his seat, and I should like to read to the House a passage from his resignation speech in another place. He said this:
"I would ask right honourable and honourable Members to visualise the position in which I find myself. I have been condemned, and apparently I must suffer for the rest of my life from a finding against which there is no appeal, upon evidence which does not justify a trial, and there is now no method open to me by which I can bring the true and full facts before a jury of my countrymen."
A little later he said:
"If any good may conic from this, the most miserable moment of my life, I can only hope that my position may do something to prevent any other person in this country being subject to the humiliation and wretchedness which I have suffered without trial, without appeal and without redress."
My Lords, those were moving words, bound to evoke sympathy from all who believe in justice and who believe that no man, however guilty, should be condemned without a fair trial. If what I have said is correct, may not Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith, Mr. Davidson and all the others condemned also say that they have
1126
suffered "without trial, without appeal and without redress"?
My Lords, I have nearly finished. I hope I have not taken too long. There are a number of other points which I could have raised; for instance, inregard to the interpretation placed on the terms of the contract by the Wilson Committee. Let it suffice for me to say that I think the correctness of their interpretation is open to considerable doubt. I have sought to keep my speech to what I consider to be the main issue. My argument is primarily based on the Report of the Wilson Committee and the Bristol Siddeley Reply. I have not sought to approach this matter in any Party spirit. I have raised it because consideration of these documents has led me to fear that considerable injustice may have been done—and I am sure that, no matter where we sit, we are all equally concerned to see that individuals do not suffer injustice.
If the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, or the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, can satisfy the House that the cardinal principles to which I have referred were in fact observed, then I think this debate will have served the useful purpose of making that clear. But if they cannot do that—and, if the parts of the Bristol Siddeley Reply to which I have referred are true, it cannot be done —what then? The conclusion must follow that injustice has been suffered and that these individuals have beer convicted of conduct and publicly condemned without their having had proper opportunities to defend themselves. And if the convictions were in the courts that could lead to the convictions being quashed, whether or not they were in fact guilty of such conduct.
My Lords, if that is the conclusion which has to be drawn at the end of this debate, will it suffice? is it too much to hope that even though the Government have committed themselves so deeply something can be done to remedy the position? If nothing can be done I hope that at least this debate will ensure that in future in such cases the six cardinal principles essential for the protection of individuals laid down by the Royal Commission will be strictly observed. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the Motion before the House is:
"To draw attention to certain aspects relating to the Wilson Report on Bristol Siddeley and action taken thereafter …."
The most interesting and carefully prepared speech which your Lordships have heard from the noble and learned Viscount has meant, of course, that as I had no idea from the extreme vagueness and width of the Motion what he was going to say, I have naturally been unable to prepare any reply.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give way to me for one moment? I know the Motion is extremely wide. It was extremely difficult to try to find a form of words fit for a Motion to raise these matters. But I had conversations (which I am sorry to hear cannot have reached the Lord Chancellor) indicating the line I was proposing to take.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I assure the noble and learned Viscount that what I was saying was in no way intended as any sort of criticism of him, but merely as an explanation of the fact that I had not been able to prepare any reply. What the noble and learned Viscount has said might, I think, be divided into two parts. First, he has made certain criticisms of the Wilson Committee, and particularly of its procedure; and, secondly, he has invited the House to consider how in future similar cases should be decided. I do not think that anybody has ever been absolutely happy as to what is the optimum way of dealing with a case of this kind; and although I am not for a moment saying that the noble and learned Viscount should not have raised the first point, this debate would have been well worth while, I think, if he had raised only the second.
As to the first point, I would propose to deal with the specific complaints against the Wilson Committee rather generally, leaving the details to my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who will have had at least a little time to hear what has been said. The substance of the matter, I think, is this. The terms of
1128
reference of the Wilson Committee were not terms of reference which contained any charge against anybody; any case against anybody; or any allegations against anybody. They were these:
"To investigate the circumstances of the pricing of certain contracts for the overhaul of aero-engines in the period 1959 to 1963, leading to the repayment in March 1967 by Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited to the Ministry of Technology; and matters related thereto …."
As your Lordships know, not long before there had been a similar Inquiry in relation to the Ferranti company. It was of almost precisely the same nature. The Chairman of that Committee was Sir John Lang. Not unnaturally, I think, there was a rather general impression that probably the procedure in the Bristol Siddeley case would follow the Lang procedure. No one, so far as I know, had ever made the slightest complaint about the Lang procedure; no one, so far as I know, had ever suggested that it was unfair or unsatisfactory, or had led to a wrong Report.
My noble friend Lord Beswick in this House, in dealing with this matter on April 24, 1967, told your Lordships that in relation to the Bristol Siddeley inquiry no procedure had been laid down but he anticipated that it might well be on the lines of the Lang procedure. Not one of your Lordships said anything to that. Nobody said, "We cannot have the Lang procedure; that is very unfair; that is the procedure under which nobody is told what he is charged with." That idea seemed to command general support.
I do not know whether Sir John Lang invented this procedure; but I would agree that it is a procedure wholly unknown to lawyers and one which I think would strike any lawyer as a very surprising one. Because what it comes to is this: a body which has no powers (because this Committee had no powers of any kind) invites the two groups who seem primarily concerned, the Ministries and the company, to provide witnesses and documents, on the footing that it will all be informal and private; that each witness will be seen separately; nobody will be told what he said. He will be given a summary of what his evidence was, I suppose so that if he thinks anything is wrong he can correct

1129
it or add to it. Nobody else is shown it. The documents which the Committee gets from each party are not shown to the other party; the evidence is never to be published. But they are warned, of course, that in the Report the positions held by people, both in the Ministries and in the company, may make those who know the personnel of the company clearly recognise who they in fact are.
This, as I say, is a procedure which is quite unknown to lawyers. It is really the essence of a lawyer's life that there is a lis; that one person is saying one thing, another person is saying the contrary; and everything is usually done in public. People are represented; they know where they are. It is not for me to say that the Lang procedure may not be satisfactory in doing what a Committee of Inquiry of this kind is seeking to do; namely, to find out what happened. When a Committee like that starts, when Sir John Lang started, he did not know whether it would turn out that the Ferranti Company was in any way to blame or whether it would turn out that the fault was entirely that of the civil servants of the Ministry concerned in being either grossly negligent or, perhaps, having been corrupted; or whether it would turn out that the overcharge was entirely due to a course of occurrences which were accidental and could not have been foreseen. You do not know where you are.
I have no experience—and I do not suppose any lawyer has such experience—which would enable him to say whether the Lang procedure is a sound one or not. All I do know—and this appears from paragraph 9 of the Report —is that at the first meeting, Sir Roy Wilson (and I must say this because, as a whole, I think the criticisms made of the Committee are both unjustified and, for a reason that I will explain, unfair)—who had seen Sir John Lang, naturally, to get his experience of the procedure which the Lang Committee had followed, asked representatives of the company and the Department whether or not they would like to follow the Lang procedure. There were present, apart from representatives of the company and of the Department, the Treasury solicitors, Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith, Mr. Davidson and the company solicitors.
1130
Sir Roy Wilson carefully explained to them what the Lang procedure was. He particularly explained that, while no names would be mentioned in the Report, the positions occupied might result in people knowing who was who, as had in fact occurred in the Ferranti case. He suggested only one alteration from the Lang procedure. This was, I think, after they had both agreed on the Lang procedure and had said, "Yes that is what we would like." He suggested to them that it might help the Committee if both the Department and the company, to start the thing off, would give the Committee a document summarising what they said had happened with any submissions that they wanted to make. They said, "No. We do not want that at all. We just want the Lang procedure." So that was agreed. In those circumstances it seemed to me unfair to criticise the Wilson Committee for doing exactly what the previous Committee had done, particularly when they had no idea of how the thing might turn out.
The reason why I said I thought it was unfair is this. If was of count part of the agreement throughout that, whatever happened, the evidence would not be published. What they found would be published; but not the evidence. Therefore, when you now get the Bristol Company saying that on a particular occasion when evidence was given Mr. So-and-So was or was not asked so-and-so, the Wilson Committee have their hands tied behind their backs. They cannot answer. They are under a pledge not to publish any of the evidence. That is what seems to me to put them a difficult position; and I think it right to say that because, no doubt like the noble and learned Viscount, I have known Sir Roy Wilson for many years. He is a man who, as President of the Industrial Court, has undoubtedly won the confidence of both sides of industry. I am certain—and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will agree—that he is the last man ever to want to do anything unfair.
This, however, does not affect the question: Is this really the sort of method that we ought to adopt in future? The Royal Commission on Tribunals were dealing with tribunals under the 1921 Act. I do not think that in the paragraph to which the noble and learned Viscount refers the Royal Commission intended to

1131
deal with any other kind of tribunal except those. If they did, they were making recommendations which were wholly outside their terms of reference. I do not think this is right on a true construction of the Report. Lord Justice Salmon, a distinguished Lord Justice, was the Chairman of the Commission. Their terms of reference were:
"To review the working of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and to consider whether it should be retained or replaced by some other procedure and if retained whether any changes are necessary or desirable and to make recommendations".
So the Commission's terms of reference were entirely limited to tribunals under the Act.
Of course, they had first to distinguish the tribunals. The first difficulty, I think, if we are thinking of the future, is to try to see where particular types of inquiry fail. The Royal Commission said:
"For these reasons we are strongly of the opinion that the inquisitorial machinery set up under the Act of 1921 should never be used for matters of local or minor public importance but always he confined to matters of vital public importance concerning which there is something in the nature of a nation-wide crisis of confidence."
They slightly altered the wording in a later passage, saying:
"The purpose of an inquiry under the 1921 Act, as we have already pointed out, is publicly to establish the truth when there is a nation-wide crisis of confidence about matters of urgent public importance."
The first difficulty is that it is quite obvious, is it not? that there are many matters of which it cannot be said they are merely matters of local or minor public importance, but at the same time do not qualify as being something in the nature of a nation-wide crisis of confidence; so that we could, I think, recognise the 1921 Tribunal type of case when we consider for what they have been employed. There was the Budget Leak Tribunal; the Lynskey Tribunal; the Bank Rate Tribunal and the Vassal Tribunal; and, of course, the Aberfan Inquiry—an obvious case for the 1921 Act procedure.
The Royal Commission considered what other types of tribunal there were. I do not think anyone would consider the Bristol Siddeley type of Inquiry suitable for a Royal Commission. Regarding a Select Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry the Royal Commission say:
1132
"The record of such committees appointed to investigate allegations of public misconduct is to say the least unfortunate as we have shown in Chapter 2."
They took a poor view of that. There is an inquiry of the type carried out by Lord Denning in the Profumo case, and the Royal Commission gave their reasons why they did not like that.
Then there is an inquiry of the type carried out by the Security Commission. This is obviously a specialised kind of case, something which has to be heard in camera and to which, no doubt, special procedure would apply. Then they divide into two what I should have been inclined to put together: first, a Departmental inquiry; and, secondly, an inquiry of the type carried out in the case of accidents to ships or aircraft. The latter are usually Departmental inquiries in the sense that they are appointed by a Minister. But there are these differences, as is pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission. The ordinary Departmental inquiry has no power of any kind at all. It cannot subpoena a witness or a document. Nor can a Department confer any such power; it has no power itself to confer any such power on a committee of inquiry. The distinction between that and the other type of Departmental inquiry is that they are under Acts. For example, the recent level crossing inquiry was a Committee which had power under the Railways Regulation Act 1871. The Stockport air disaster inquiry was held under the Civil Aviation Investigation of Accidents Regulations 1951. But an ordinary Committee like this has no power of any kind at all, and is entirely dependent on the people concerned.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, does not suggest (I do not know whether he is suggesting; I suppose he must inferentially be suggesting) that the Lang Committee was contrary to natural justice because the procedure there was exactly the same.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will permit me, I may be able to save time. Perhaps he did not hear me. I said that I did not criticise them for adopting the Lang procedure in the first place. My criticism was that when they found the inquiry leading them (inquiries very often take curious courses)

1133
to criticise individuals, they ought then to have adapted their procedure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an interesting suggestion, but I think that the noble and learned Viscount would agree that in no form of inquiry has any such course ever been followed. I see the very greatest practical difficulty about it. I think it is one form of procedure which we could, and perhaps should, consider, because I do not know that we have yet found any absolutely satisfactory form and it may well be worth consideration. What we should be clear about at once is that this has in fact never been done. Once an inquiry has started, it is no use saying: "Why were not these people warned of the case against them?" Here there was not any case against them. This was an inquiry to find out what had happened. If in such an inquiry you arrive at once at the position where (what shall I say?) one person out of a great number may have a finding against him of a criminal offence, or of any blame, it would be extremely difficult, it seems to me, and of course a very lengthy process, having started the inquiry on the Lang basis, then to say that you must stop and start again and do something else—I do not know what. Turn it into a public inquiry? Send the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Whatever form you use, in practice it is always found that you cannot prosecute.
The Salmon Royal Commission said:
"Of course there is a risk that the guilty man may escape prosecution. This would be unfortunate, but it is much more important that everything reasonably possible is done to enable a tribunal to establish and claim the truth about a matter which is causing a nation-wide crisis of confidence. Moreover the risk would be minimised by the fact that tribunals have in the past and no doubt will in the future wherever practicable forbear to investigate any side issues when it is known that a prosecution is in contemplation or maybe brought in respect of them. In any event, it has long been recognised that from the practical point of view it would be almost impossible to prosecute a witness in respect of anything which emerged against him in the course of a hearing before a tribunal of inquiry. The publicity which such hearings usually attract is so wide and so overwhelming that it would be virtually impossible for any person against whom an adverse finding was made to obtain a fair trial afterwards."
As your Lordships may know, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has decided that the evidence
1134
in this case is not such as ought to result in a prosecution. I do not know what animated my right honourable friend, but it is clearly obvious, I suppose, to most of us, that, first, the Director would have no evidence and that a promise that the evidence would not be published could not possibly justify the evidence being handed to the Director. Obviotsly that would be quite wrong. The Director would have the Report, but he would have to start again at the beginning. He would not have documents; he would riot have any evidence; he would not know the names of the many witnesses who had been seen. It would be quite impossible. The Report could not be published. You could not report a case like that and then prosecute, because how could a man get a fair trial? That is what the Royal Commission were saying of the Tribunals. Of course, you would do it in public and you cannot prosecute afterwards. I do not know how long the police would have taken to prepare a case. After all, this is all pretty old—it runs from 1959 to 1963.
So, my Lords, all I am saying, in short, leaving any detailed complaints against the Committee to be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, is this. It does not seem to me that this Committee can be criticised for following a form of procedure which was exactly the same as that adopted by the Lang Committee without any complaint by anybody and without any suggestion that anybody had been unfairly treated. I know of no distinction between the two cases at all, except that it may be said that in the Bristol Siddeley case it seemed to be rather more of a search for who actually knew what. But I think this may be explained by the fact that, as I understand it, Mr. Sebastian Ferranti said from the start: "If there is anything wrong, if you want to know who to blame, you do not have to bother about who knew what or who is to blame—I am to blame; I take complete responsibility for eveything that happened." Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith's attitude, judging by what he said to the Public Accounts Committee, was of a somewhat different character; but in substance the two cases were the same kind of case. Nobody has suggeste3 there was anything wrong in the first ease and nobody, I am told, at any time suggested during the Wilson Committee's prccedure that he had any complaint to make

1135
against the Committee, or that in any way at all the men were not receiving a fair trial. But I agree that the Lang procedure is a very odd one for a lawyer. The subject which the noble and learned Viscount has raised was well worth raising, if I may say so, because I am not sure that we have got it right yet.
The recommendations of the Royal Commission apply only to tribunals under the Act. I think I am right in saying that their Report was published a day or two before the Aberfan Tribunal first sat and that only some 7 out of 50 recommendations would require any legislation, and very minor legislation at that. Most of them are administrative, dealing with the procedure of tribunals under the 1921 Act, there being no procedure of any kind laid down in the Act. I was not surprised when on the first day of the Aberfan Inquiry Mr. Justice Edmund Davies referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission and said, in substance, that he proposed to conduct that Inquiry in accordance with the recommendations.
One of the difficulties is that cases will vary. I hope that we shall always be able to recognise—I think we have so far—which are suitable for a tribunal under the 1921 Act. There are many departmental inquiries of the simplest possible kind where there is no question of any blame arising or of any complaint against anybody. Then we have mixed cases of the present kind. I shall listen with care to any suggestions which any noble Lord has to make on what he considers would be a better form of inquiry in a case of this kind, remembering always that the company concerned might say that they were not going to supply a list of names of witnesses or any documents if they were going to be "bully-ragged" in public. If it were going to be an inquiry on the Lang lines, held in private and the evidence not to be published, then they might agree. Otherwise, we have no power to make them appear before an inquiry. These are grave difficulties and I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having raised the question. It is a subject which, so far as the future is concerned, deserves more careful consideration than perhaps it has had before.
4.4 p.m.
LORD BRIDGES: My Lords, it is right that I should start by declaring an interest, not a material or pecuniary interest, because I have never had any concern in the companies involved in this affair. It is a personal interest it is because I have known Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith for about 14 years, and during half that time we were both on the board of a company, not one of the companies in this business. I know him well and hold him in high regard, and I cannot reconcile his character and integrity as I know it with the aspersions cast upon him in this Bristol Siddeley affair. It is only right and candid that I should make that point clear.
My purpose to-day is to make some remarks, not from a legal point of view but from the point of view of someone who has spent many years in Whitehall, on some points that arise on the many and varying kinds of inquiry that take place. I will start with the obvious. There is the procedure in the Fighting Services when the conduct of an officer calls for inquiry and a court-martial is set up. That involves specific charges being laid, after a preliminary investigation. On the civil side of Government many such inquiries are carried out when necessary on the same broad principles as a court-martial but with much less formal procedure.
The trouble is that in the civil affairs of Government when something goes badly wrong, there is tremendous political and public interest and it is felt essential to set up at once an inquiry, primarily to find out what happened. It is necessary to start an inquiry before enough is known about a case to say whether there is any charge to be made against individual officers. It seems to me that if we set up an inquiry into what happened in a particular case, there is a corollary: that is that if in the course of the inquiry the conduct of certain individuals is called in question, there should be a halt and it should be made clear to them what the charges against them are and on what evidence they rest, and they should be given every opportunity of answering those charges. I had thought that this would be accepted as obvious and easy, but it seems that there may be legal difficulties which I had

1137
not thought of. All I can say is that this practice has been observed in a great many departmental inquiries. If the possibility of prosecution for a criminal offence is ruled out, I must admit that I should not have thought that it was wholly impossible to arrange some such procedure of this kind, even in an inquiry of great importance.
I do not wish to touch on some of the difficulties and important questions which have been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, but I wish to put a broad point of distinction between the Lang Inquiry and the Wilson Inquiry which I do not think has yet come out. I may not be wholly accurate, but I have the impression that in the Ferranti case the Lang Inquiry was set up to examine the level of profits and settle how much the company ought to repay. I imagine—or rather guess—that the reason why this procedure was accepted in the Bristol Siddeley case was because it was thought that this inquiry had the same objective, and it was only when the Inquiry broadened out that these difficulties showed themselves.
What I have been saying is based mainly on my experience in the public service, but it seems to me that when the actions of a public company are concerned and the conduct of responsible heads of the company is called in question, the position of the responsible heads of that company becomes very involved and difficult. Let us look for a moment at the various interests and considerations that have to be borne in mind when they are giving evidence. First of all, the inquiry is set up to deal with some points of public interest. Secondly, there are the interests of the company concerned, which they cannot ignore and which they have to try to see have fair consideration. Then there are the interests of their subordinate officers in the company whose actions may also be called in question. Finally, there is their own position as heads of the company. To keep all those different interests in mind and protect them through an inquiry, in this case by two Committees can obviously prove very difficult. It is all the more difficult to do—perhaps impossible to do—if there is not some clear point at which the Inquiry has begun to
1138
shift from the ascertainment of fact to the apportionment of blame. That seems to me to be the thing which has given so much trouble in this case.
I would quote one instance of this which I think is important. The last thing the head of any organisation will want to do is to do anything which will prevent a subordinate who is or may be in trouble from having the best opportunity of defending himself. To the extent he does that—and the better the head of a company he is, the more fully he will do it—he may well adopt attitudes which will make his own position difficult later on. I am bound to say that I cannot feel that these points were adequately taken into account in these two Inquiries.
I hope that 1 may be allowed to touch very lightly on one aspect of this affair —the Public Accounts Committee, who of course have the right to summon whoever they wish to give evidence before them. I have a great deal of experience of the Public Accounts Committee. I think I first appeared before them as a witness some thirty years ago, and have appeared on many subsequent occasions. I have great respect for this body as a financial watchdog. I have often been put through a tough and gruelling examination by them, but I am sure it was very salutary. I have always gone on public record as to the good influence of the Public Accounts Committee in deterring wasteful expenditure.
But, my Lords, it seems to me unfortunate that Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and his colleagues were subjected to giving evidence before two separate tribunals, whose inquiries overlapped in time, on the same matter: first before the Wilson Committee; and then, before the Wilson Committee had reported, before the Public Accounts Committee; and after the Wilson Committee had reported, again before the Public Accounts Committee. That seems to me to be putting the officers concerned in an extraordinarily difficult position. It is something to which I do not think people ought to be subjected.
I would add one rather personal impression. I have read Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith's evidence before the Public Accounts Committee on both occasions. It reads to me like the evidence of a man who is unfamiliar with the form

1139
of the Public Accounts Commitee. Those of us who have appeared before it very often perhaps get to know, not merely what the question is, but what lies behind it. I do not think he had that background. I also have the impression that he was doing his utmost throughout to give frank and informative answers to questions put to him, and I am greatly surprised that people should not have been convinced of this. My Lords, I hope that at least one result of this debate will be to lay down guide lines for the future which will ensure a more satisfactory procedure from the point of view of individuals than was adopted in this case.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has raised a most important matter. Like him, I have no brief for anyone concerned, though I know Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and Mr. Davidson fairly well. I do not want to repeat in any way what the noble and learned Viscount has already said, particularly as regards the points he made on the proceedings of the Wilson Committee. He has done this very ably and fully, and I thought that he made some extremely powerful points.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I did not feel that he in any way answered the points made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who initiated the debate. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to me to be saying that, because this was not a Committee set un under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921, the points made by the Royal Commission—the six cardinal points mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—were not applicable. But surely those points were put forward to ensure that justice was done in all cases to individuals in Inquiries. I should have thought that it was not realistic to pretend that they should not be applied, even in Inquiries of this kind.
The point to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships' House is not so much the procedure of the Wilson Committee, but rather the second part of the Motion moved by the noble and learned Viscount, the
1140
action taken by the Government after the Committee had reported. The action to which I particularly wish to draw attention is the dismissal of Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and Mr. Davidson from Government appointments. This seems to me to be a perfectly clear implication of condemnation of two honourable gentlemen who have served this country well over many years.
In an unlegal way (I have no legal experience), it seems to me that there are two types of inquiry. There is, broadly, what I would call the judicial inquiry, where there is full representation by counsel of those involved; where blame can be attributed; where there is opportunity for cross-examination and the like. And presumably it is possible, in cases like that, for prosecutions to result, because people have been properly warned in the normal way that is our practice in this country. Secondly, there is the less formal and less judicial type of inquiry, of the type conducted by Sir John Lang and Sir Roy Wilson. Here there is no representation information is given in evidence, is not to be repeated and is not published in any way. Clearly, whatever happens in an inquiry of that kind, no prosecution is possible, for the reasons indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Surely it follows that, in circumstances such as those, there cannot possibly be any penalty imposed on any of the individuals concerned. Why then was this action taken by the Government in dismissing Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and Mr. Davidson from their public appointments?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He will appreciate that if I am to answer these points I shall again have to deploy the case on behalf of the Government. I had hoped, and indeed the noble and learned Lord had clearly hoped, to avoid this. I think the noble Lord has gone wrong so far that we shall have to go over all the ground again, which will amount to a re-trial.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this moment to say that I hope we shall not have to do that because it is not the point of this debate. If I might suggest it to my noble friend, obviously the Government

1141
acted on the conclusions of the Wilson Committee Whether they were right to do so is perhaps another matter; but that is not really the point that I want to investigate in this debate.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I certainly should not wish anything to be brought up that is unnecessary. But the point of principle I was making was that it seems to me that an injustice has been done, in the sense that these gentlemen have been dismissed from their public appointments for reasons given by the Minister in another place, using words such as, "in all the circumstances of the case". And he also added that, "those who hold Government appointments must enjoy public confidence." Surely, my Lords, this begs the question. The point is that these gentlemen have been dismissed for that kind of reason, although the fact that they have lost public confidence has never been proved. This is the point at issue, and not the detailed reasons which led the Government to do it. In the normal course of events, people are removed from positions which they hold for one of two reasons: because they are bad at their job, or because they have been acting improperly in other areas. In this case, neither of these applies. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government did act somewhat unreasonably and unjustly in this case.
I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to go through all the details of this again, because I am raising a point of principle: that these gentlemen were dismissed on the ground given by the Minister in the other place, which relied on a view taken, and not on the result of a prosecution and conviction in a court of law. This is the point of principle to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships. I hope that the Government will be able to think again on this matter and, on reflection and in view of the points that I have made, make it clear that the action taken against these gentlemen was unwise; that in future they are again available for Government appointments, and that the country can, therefore, have the great benefit of their experience and their devotion to duty—qualities which characterise both of them.
4.20 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, the Motion which we are discussing, and which was moved by the noble
1142
and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, refers to certain aspects of the Wilson Report, and is drawn in fairly wide terms. I will not attempt to cover the ground that has already been covered by noble Lords who have so far spoken.
What I suppose we are really discussing arises from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, as well as the Wilson Report, and what is known as the Ferranti or Lang Report, which has been referred to by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Of course, what has a bearing on this is the Statement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on February 26 in another place, and the setting up of the new Review Board with its right of appeal.
As the Lord Chancellor suggested in his speech, this matter goes back almost to the Plowden Report of two years ago, which then criticised certain methods of procurement. I am not sure what powers the new Review Board is likely to have for the future to deal with cases between companies and the Department, or whether in fact those powers have already been settled. Apart from powers, concerning finance and prices appeal, I doubt very much whether this Board is likely to have any other powers. Therefore, presumably it would not have been able to deal with what is now known as the Bristol Siddeley case or any of the other cases which have been referred to.
It was suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and also advanced in another place by the spokesman for the Opposition, that this Inquiry and other inquiries provided the wrong method. Three points were suggested: that a man should be told clearly the charges against him; that he should be able to see and study the evidence, and that he should be able to cross-examine and call his own evidence in defence. But, having read all of these Reports, including the Public Accounts Committee's Report, it is my understanding that in fact the Chairman of Bristol Siddeley agreed with the Chairman of the Wilson Committee on the procedure to be followed, and that he appeared at that time to be completely satisfied with it. If this is a debate on the procedure of this Committee, I think, as the Lord Chancellor has said, that the main question we have to consider is: Was it fair? I think that, in the light of the Lord Chancellor's

1143
speech this afternoon, there can be little doubt that, with all the circumstances taken into consideration, it certainly was fair.
If I may make a reference to another aspect of this matter which has found its way into some of the Reports, we have to bear in mind that this relationship between large companies and the Ministries concerned is, and must be, a partnership in which trust in each other is absolutely essential. This has been so over a large number of years. It certainly applies so far as the supply of military aircraft is concerned. And the company officials who over the years, almost as a matter of routine, have to meet their opposite numbers on questions which in many cases are secret and involve security must enjoy the confidence of the Ministers concerned and their officials upon a very confidential basis. These two essentials are the main part of our procurement of aircraft and vital components.
This is a very difficult and very complicated matter and, as has been referred to, it has been extensively debated in another place. It concerns those individuals who are engaged in an industry whose main custom comes from Governments, from whom it receives substantial orders every year. It is an industry which is not nationalised; it is not under the control of a Ministry or the Government. But it has, by very reason of its relationship with Governments, to work in close technical and financial association with them; and in fact so close is this relationship between ministerial Departments and these large companies that it is quite common practice for Air Marshals and other distinguished civil servants to join the boards of these large companies.
Having said this, I should like to say that everyone who knows the Chairman of Bristol Siddeley knows that he has had a distinguished career, both in industry and in the public service. He is well known and greatly respected in the West of England and elsewhere. I am not attempting to "whitewash" him or his overall responsibility. As has been said, he is the chairman of this great company and, as the chairman, he must accept the responsibility for all these serious aspects. He and his business
1144
director or deputy chairman must, because of the very nature of this Inquiry and its findings, bear the brunt for the officials concerned in their own company.
But there is another aspect to this. Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith is the director of a large number of companies, the chairman of some and vice-chairman of others. He is Pro-Chancellor of Bristol University, and has a whole list of public appointments which I will not read out this afternoon. The point I wish to make to your Lordships' House is this. With all these varied and considerable responsibilities, how can he know what is going on in detail in a company such as this, and still carry out all those onerous public duties and responsibilities? In my view, he is very much a victim of the over-employment. I think, my Lords, that we must bear some responsibility for this. These large companies have to compete all over the world for their business, and probably no other country in the world with which we have to compete employs this practice of taking these senior industrial directors and putting them on these various public boards and asking them to do all this work efficiently and to know exactly what is happening in every case. I am not sure who makes the decisions regarding these appointments, but all Governments have been repeatedly warned about this situation, yet they do nothing and take the line of least resistance.
It is my experience that these company officials who are referred to in the various Reports are good and reliable people. It is also my experience that the Government Department administrators, public servants, dealing in millions of pounds, are the same. If anything, they may be underpaid, but their integrity is beyond doubt. These senior civil servants every year, as a matter of routine, have to deal with an annual review with these companies involving millions of pounds—indeed, scores of millions of pounds. 1 would suggest that perhaps what is needed to prevent this kind of situation from happening in the future, with its unfortunate consequences, is the introduction of more resident cost accountants representing the Ministry in these various departments handling large contracts on behalf of the Government. They are needed in addition to the technical officers, whose number I understand the

1145
Ministry are increasing at the present time. This was a practice enjoyed during the war, and we never then had a quarter of the trouble we have now.
This industry in the last twenty years, dealt with by Government Departments and senior executive industrial directors, has now reached the stage of being one of the largest industries in Europe. Since the Plowden Report was published, considerable changes have been made and there have been modifications in its structure, as a result of suggestions from the Government. It is a great exporting industry, and technically, in Europe and elsewhere, it leads the world; and while these Reports and this debate, and the debate held in another place, highlight mistakes which have been made, they should not cloud the achievements of this great industry and its very considerable future.
4.31 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, no doubt we are entitled to hold this debate and we should be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, for giving us the opportunity, but I wish to begin, if I may, by pointing out that this subject has been very well ventilated already. There were two Reports of the Lang Committee and one of them found that Ferranti's (who were concerned in that Report) were making exorbitant profits, to the knowledge of those concerned. That Report was made to a Tory Government, and nothing happened. As regards the present matter, there has, of course, been the Report which we are now discussing, which was the Report of a Committee appointed by the Treasury in the exercise of their functions of safeguarding the public purse, and there have also been two Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. No one can say that the other place has not investigated this matter thoroughly, apart from two debates.
With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I thought his observations at the beginning of this debate were completely off the mark. He seemed to me to be misconceiving the character of the Inquiry. This was an Inquiry into contracts, to find out what had happened in relation to very large sums of public money. It was not an Inquiry into the conduct of
1146
any particular person; it was an attempt to recover the cash, and it did recover the cash—quite a bit of it—and there may be other cases. That was indicated in the Report of the Lang Committee.
The noble and learned Viscount talked of people having been "convicted". He talked of their having had charges made against them, and this, that and the other. I prefer the view of the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, who was, after all, the responsible person, who said that he made no charges against anyone and the Committee had made no charges against anyone. I listened to hear what the charges were. I did not hear them. If I may, I will quote from the winding up speech of the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition in another place. This is usually out of order but I think I am justified in doing it in this case, and anyhow, like the well-known baby, it is very small. What he said was simply this—he referred to the company's "indefensible and dishonest behaviour". That has been said by almost every newspaper that has commented on the proceedings. I think it was Lord James of Hereford who said that the point about limited companies was that they had no body to be kicked or soul to be damned. That is surely true—and what has happened? Here is a legal entity which somehow or other has behaved in a culpable and dishonest manner, which would have been to the great detriment of the public purse unless they had been chased about it, and we are told that nobody can be held responsible and that nothing must be done about it, except as regards these individuals.
I want in the first place to deal with the two people concerned. They have suffered no penalty. Is it really suggested that after the conclusions reached in these Reports they should be retained as Government representatives in sundry positions which they occupied? I should have thought common sense indicated that one could not possibly expect good working between the Government—whichever Department it was—and these two gentlemen after that. That is all that has happened. For the rest of it, they have to thank some rather injudicious defences of their own arid some rather injudicious defences of their friends, who seem to have spent their

1147
time in defending them against things of which they were never accused.
Whatever may be said about the form of the Inquiry, it was not a criminal trial. The two gentlemen concerned are no doubt identifiable by their offices—and I may add that I know nothing whatever about either of them—but I should have thought that anyone of ordinary sense, having regard to the findings of the Committee, would have left it at that, and that their friends, in chasing so assiduously on what they thought was their behalf, were doing them no good at all. At the end I should have thought that it was not clear who knew what; I would have accepted their resignations from their Government posts, or their dismissal, and I am bound to say I should not have thought very much worse of them.
I want to take up for a moment the position of limited companies. They are always called "companies with limited liability"; they are becoming companies with limited morality nowadays. They can be as naughty as they like and nothing can happen to them. They have no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned; they cannot be imprisoned, or anything of that kind. So a public company is at liberty to do anything it likes, according to some of the arguments we have heard. Who will be responsible for them—anybody or nobody? When one gets as far as that one is bound to consider the motives of these company directors and company officers.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—and I am glad to see him here again—was quite right to point out that this was a relevant matter. We have had a little light on this subject lately. First of all, we had people talking about the "profit motive". Of course that motive exists, but it is nonsense to say that the profit motive justifies any means of getting profit. When it is put like that, nobody would really say it; yet I have heard remarks that got very close to it. We had a remarkable instance a day or two after Notice of this debate was put on the Order Paper. It concerned a company of merchant bankers called Hambros, and I will quote what the Chairman of Hambros said, because I think it bears on the motives of these companies. He said:
1148
"I believe we have the worst Prime Minister in this country since Lord North."
That was intended to get into the newspapers, and of course it did. It is rotten bad history and it forgets a good many of the pre-Reform Bill Governments.
But leaving that on one side, let us go to the next remark. This amused me. He said:
"I believe it is in the best interests of our shareholders and the country"—
and the country, my Lords—
"that we have a change of Government".
This is a merchant banker; this is one of the "Latter Day Saints" who manage to conduct a sort of curious double marriage between the interests of their shareholders and the interests of the country. But what happens supposing they disagree? Suppose he finds one thing is in the interests of his shareholders and the other in the interests of the country. I have heard people say that his first duty, his overriding duty, in that case is to the interests of his shareholders. There is a good deal to be said for it, because he is a better judge of that than of the interests of the country. It seems a little odd that a merchant banker, by way of contributing £10,000 to the Tory Party, should be taking upon himself to choose the right moment for the dissolution of Parliament.
These are the people one has to deal with. It is not only industrial companies—the bankers have caught it, too; and yesterday The Times unkindly pointed out that this is exactly what they had said when the Macmillan Government was in power and Selwyn Lloyd was administering a bit of a squeeze. At the end of this extract it says, "Squeeze will hit Hambro's".
Here are companies which are prepared to behave dishonestly and make exhorbitant profits of which, if those profits were known, Parliament would not approve, which are guilty of what the noble and learned Lord called fraud, and no one is to be held responsible—they are considered to be suitable parties to Government contracts. I earnestly hope that what my noble friend was saying just now may come to fruition. We had a very full statement, which at this hour I will not trouble your Lordships with, about the steps being

1149
taken to get contracts between the aircraft industry and the Government on to a basis of mutual trust; because you want nothing less than that if you are to deal with a matter of this complexity, and a matter where so much of the knowledge is in the hands of the company and not the Government Department concerned.
I hope it will happen, but I should like to point out most respectfully to your Lordships that there is an alternative—and, so far as I can see, only one alternative. You cannot abolish limited companies; they have dug themselves in too tight. You certainly cannot abolish merchant bankers; heaven knows! they have dug themselves in tight enough. What do you have to do?
LORD BOWLES: Dig them out!
LORD MITCHISON: My noble friend has anticipated what I was going to say; perhaps somebody else has. If this goes on, there is no alternative but to take over and make public the business of making these aircraft. After all, there is nothing strange in it; we have had ordnance factories before now; and during the war, we are told, there was very little trouble about these contracts. I understand that. At that time they had another motive. They were not obsessed by their duty to their shareholders, the profit motive; they had some regard to the public interest. If we find them falling short in that respect, there is no real alternative but to nationalise this part of the aircraft industry. That seems a shocking thing to say in a place like this. Looking around, I do not for a minute think I will persuade any one of your Lordships to agree with me. But I should like to be told what is the alternative. You are dealing, and you have to deal, with large companies. My heart bleeds for some of these directors. They have to consider their shareholders and the country and it must be extraordinarily painful and difficult for them. If they do not succeed in reconciling their two marriages, to profit on the one hand and patriotism on the other, and if they continue to regard patriotism, as Dr. Johnson called it, as the last refuge of scoundrels, clearly we must have somebody else to deal with. And who else but a public corporation or the public in some form or another? People must reconsider the
1150
morality of what they are doing and we must not have a whole collection of people refusing to admit any liability and saying that, though the company has been dishonest and discreditable, has been guilty of fraud, no individual is really responsible. What it comes to is this: if you spread the skulduggery widely enough, no one is going to have any moral indigestion.
4.47 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, my intervention, which will be brief, deals not with the political but with the personal and human aspect of this sad matter. I use the word "sad" because it is particularly apposite, so far as I am concerned, in that I find myself taking part in a debate which concerns inter alia the Minister of Technology and Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith. Both are friends of mine and for both I have the greatest regard.
For 19 years I was a parish priest in East Bristol, in a typical working-class parish which had known difficult days. Our Member of Parliament until his death was Sir Stafford Cripps, and he was succeeded by Mr. Wedgwood Benn; and of both I speak with the utmost affection and regard. Nothing was too much trouble, and whenever I referred a case to either of them they devoted themselves to it. In the interests of justice they were tremendous fighters, and I am sure there are dozens of people it East Bristol, or who used to live there, of all Parties and none, who, like me, have a great admiration for what the present Minister of Technology and his predecessor did, in their concern for justice and fair play.
During those 19 years there was another man who was as faithful a friend to many of my parishioners, Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith. As I think back to those difficult days, so many years ago, when people were harassed, unemployed and on the scrap-heap, I recall the letters that I wrote to Sir Reginald asking him to help to find employment for my parishioners. In those days, I was not a Bishop, but a back-street parish priest, and what I remember above all else is that every letter I sent to Sir Reginald was answered by himself. It did not stop at that. I recall his interest in a boy from a particularly poor home who had shown signs of ability. This was in

1151
the days before the generous L.E.A. grants to which we are accustomed. It was Sir Reginald who made it possible for this boy to go to Cambridge, where he had a distinguished career. Again, a young man fell sick and his doctor said that it was essential that he went abroad; and once more it was Sir Reginald who footed the bill. That is the man I know.
I mention these matters because I think it is only right that one should declare one's interest. Two of the men involved in the dispute have proved themselves, in my limited experience, as men of compassion and concern, and for both of them I have the utmost regard and respect for their integrity. Yet it is the integrity of Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and of Mr. Davidson (who is not known to me; I have never met him) that has been questioned, and I rise on their behalf, just as I should rise if it were the integrity of Mr. Wedgwood Benn that was in question. It has been suggested that Sir Reginald's integrity is not in question, that no charges have been levelled against him. If that is so, one wonders why Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith was approached to resign from his public appointments (surely this has the implication of a plea of guilty) and approached, I believe, before the matter had been finally determined by the Public Accounts Committee.
I raise these points, not because I think, as the noble and learned Viscount has suggested, that much can be done to bring about a redress, and certainly not because I want to repeat the debate, but rather that we may learn from what has happened and, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, suggested, perhaps find ways in the future of devising a better procedure.
I well remember when I was at university, reading constitutional history (most of which I have forgotten), being most impressed by a Member of another place who came to give us a course of lectures on the then development of the concept of justice and the rights of the individual. I remember him telling us how, although Magna Carta is far from being what it is often claimed to be, yet it was at least a step in the right direction in the development of that concept. This was a case of the King not being
1152
allowed to dispose of his lieutenants by summary jurisdiction; they had some rights of redress. Then, three or four centuries later, we see again how this concept has developed, when we come to the Star Chamber Government. There the Executive was being allowed to condemn without a fair hearing; and so people rose up against that particular form of Executive jurisdiction.
This problem still remains with us, and it is still not altogether solved. Your Lordships will remember that only a few months ago I rose to protest in the case of Court Lees. I did so not because I approve of corporal punishment, not because I questioned the ascertained facts in the Report of the Gibbens Committee, but because I thought that some of the persons involved were condemned without having had a full opportunity to defend themselves in accordance with the laws of natural justice. As I see it, we are in the same predicament in this particular case. I do not want to question the findings of the Wilson Report or to debate it again, but I do question a procedure which permits individuals to be condemned and to have their characters damaged by inquisitorial methods which preclude the right of legal representation, the right to call evidence on oath and the opportunity to face specific charges.
I speak from the Bishops' Bench, but your Lordships will know that in my private capacity I have much sympathy with the aims and intentions of this Government, and I have no wish whatsoever to embarrass them to-day. I think that the issue which we have had raised to-day cuts right across Party divisions. We are concerned with the rights of individuals. As I said, I have no desire whatsoever to further the sort of things which were a matter of criticism in regard to Court Lees. I am certainly, as I hope noble Lords will realise, no advocate of capitalist industry. But, like the noble and learned Viscount and others who have spoken, I am passionately concerned in the rights of the individual. This House has the privilege of protecting these rights. By all means let our Executive be efficient. I am sure that nobody on the Benches opposite wants to see any letting up in the efficiency of the present Executive. But, at the same time, coupled with

1153
efficiency, let us remember the things for which Magna Carta stands. Let us remember the battles put up by our predecessors in regard to the Star Chamber. May I just quote the final words of a great peroration which was made, I remember, on this sort of issue by Mr. Wedgwood Benn's distinguished predecessor, Sir Stafford Cripps:
"Let us in all things remember the dignity and the rights of the common man."
4.56 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, justice is one and indivisible; and what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has done to-day is to invite your Lordships to consider the processes for investigating complaints and to examine whether they are adequate at the same time for securing justice. At this moment, more strikingly than at other times, Parliament is under examination at the Bar of public opinion. To-day our procedures for securing justice are under examination at the Bar of Parliament. Your Lordships will have been deeply moved, I think, by the speech of the right reverend Prelate who, like me, was claiming no special or technical knowledge of the issues that have been under investigation by the Wilson Committee. I thought he did us an admirable service by comparing his concern over this matter with the deep and sincere concern he showed some time ago over Court Lees, a complaint in a quite different field but raising the same question as to whether an inquisitorial procedure can be relied on, as things are, to secure justice.
He spoke with personal knowledge of some of the principal people who have been mentioned to-day. I have perhaps an advantage over him in that I have no knowledge of them. To the best of my belief, I have never met Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith or anybody connected with the Bristol Siddeley Company. My only connection is that rather more than forty years ago, in our university days, he who is now Sir Roy Wilson was for a short time a pupil of mine. Despite that early handicap, he has since become a public servant of the highest repute. Nothing whatsoever that I have to say in my brief speech to-day is intended as any sort of criticism of Sir Roy Wilson.
But I have a personal and historical interest in this issue because, as my noble
1154
and learned friend will recollect, a Home Secretary has certain duties, in connection with the Tribunals Act 1921. During my term of office I felt concern about the working of that Act and I welcomed the decision of the present Government to set up a Royal Commission. I must say I was deeply impressed by the speed with which Lord Justice Salmon and his colleagues performed their onerous task. Nobody can read the Report of the Royal Commission without concluding that there are here questions of justice which are difficult to answer. Whatever our age or background, whatever our Party approach, we are concerned with safeguarding the liberty of the subject and ensuring that no one is put in peril without a fair trial, whether it is a trial before a court of law or elsewhere. I give the Government credit both for having set up that Inquiry and, so far as I am aware, for having accepted its recommendations, at any rate in principle.
But what gave me some anxiety was when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to make as an important point in this debate the fact that the Royal Commission did not intend to make recommendations regarding any other form of inquiry; they had referred to them only the problem of tribunals under the 1921 Act. Yet, my Lords, as I said at the beginning of my speech, justice is one and indivisible, and if the six principles stated by the Royal Commission to be cardinal principles are acceptable for application to an inquiry under the Tribunals Act 1921, they cannot be dismissed when some other, although subordinate, form of inquisitorial inquiry is under consideration.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me one minute? What happened to these gentlemen was that they were invited to resign or called upon to resign certain Government appointments. Do I gather that that ought never to be done without something in the nature of a legal inquiry, something conforming with the principles in the Royal Commission Report?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to get into controversy with me he is welcome, but I am not inviting it. I will remind him, however, that in his speech he

1155
began by saying that the Wilson Committee was not an inquiry into the conduct of any person, and concluded by implying that certain people had been found guilty under that inquiry.
LORD MITCHISON: No. With great respect, I did not say that.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am not going to be diverted from the main course of my speech into the detailed rights and wrongs of this particular case, because I say frankly that I am not in a position to pass judgment on the details any more than the right reverend Prelate would claim to be. I am concerned to-day solely with the procedures. As my noble and learned friend said, the Royal Commission laid down six cardinal principles. They said, in paragraph 32:
"The difficulty and injustice with which persons involved in an inquiry may be faced can, however, be largely removed if the following cardinal principles … are strictly observed."
And then they set out the six principles.
I grant to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that when they said in that paragraph "an inquiry" they were thinking first and foremost of the type of inquiry which they were asked to examine. Nothing else was within their terms of reference. But I find it hard to detect any grounds on which these six cardinal principles can be deemed irrelevant to other inquiries of an inquisitorial character. It is that which gives me concern. It is that, I think, which gave my noble and learned friend the greatest concern. I am thinking now of the future rather than of the past. I am thinking of the tasks which may fall to other Governments, whether this one or Governments of a different colour, faced with allegations which require investigation; and I think that all our experience up to now must show that we have not yet found the full answer.
I believe that the Royal Commission have made a very considerable advance in their Report, and that if these six cardinal principles are adhered to in future tribunal inquiries there will be less risk of injustice being done to individuals. What I am rising to suggest is that all concerned should consider carefully whether these principles, mutatis
1156
mutandis, cannot be applied to other investigations of an inquisitorial type. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said that he would be glad to hear any suggestions which might be made in the course of this debate. I would simply suggest that what the Royal Commission said in paragraphs 49 onwards should be carefully considered for application to any further inquisitorial investigations that may be set up, whatever form they may take.
For example, paragraph 50 states:
"Any potential witness from whom a statement is taken by the Treasury Solicitor should be told that, if he so wishes, his own solicitor may be present when the statement is taken … As soon as possible after he has given his statement, and certainly well in advance, usually not less than seven days before he gives evidence, he should be supplied with a document setting out the allegations against him and the substance of the evidence in support of those allegations."
And then paragraph 51:
"However thoroughly a case is prepared, fresh evidence may emerge during the course of an inquiry which may give rise to further material allegations. In such circumstances the witness concerned should be given a reasonable opportunity of meeting those allegations even if this means adjourning the inquiry for a few days."
I could go on through further paragraphs, but I do not wish to weary your Lordships; I simply want to establish the point that the safeguards which have been strongly and unanimously recommended by a Royal Commission in relation to inquiries under the Tribunals Act were not applied in the Bristol Siddeley Inquiry, and therefore I would urge your Lordships to be very cautious before you impute guilt, criminal guilt, to anybody who has been criticised under that Inquiry. I would most strongly urge future Governments, of whatever political colour, when they are setting up an inquisitorial investigation of this kind, to seek to ensure that the investigating tribunal pays proper heed to those six cardinal principles recommended by the Salmon Commission.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his speech, because he has brought us back to the theme which I believed it was the intention of the noble Viscount to bring before your Lordships' House; namely, the

1157
nature and type of these inquiries and their suitability for their purposes. I only regret that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, fell into the same sort of error as the noble and learned Viscount when he talked about criminal charges, and I should like to say a few words about the type of inquiry to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has referred, and perhaps consider briefly how we should now proceed on this. But it will also be necessary for me at a later stage to do what I know was certainly not the wish of either myself or the noble Viscount; namely, to make a defence both of the Wilson Committee and of the action of the Minister. I regret that this should be so, but I am left with no choice in this matter in the light of the speeches that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Caldecote, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
Turning to the particular type of inquiry, I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that there is a very great difference, as he will know very well, between a Departmental inquiry, which is what the Wilson Committee was, and an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921. There have been so many departmental inquiries of various kinds. It is quite a usual thing for Ministers, in certain circumstances, either to set up an inquiry like the Wilson inquiry, which was a rather heavyweight and formidable inquiry, or even light inquiries. I know that in the case of the Malta Dockyard distinguished accountants were appointed who produced a report on the conduct of the particular company involved (I will not mention the name now), which had a number of damning remarks in it, and no real concern was expressed on that occasion.
The important difference, as paragraph 43 of the Royal Commission makes clear, is that these inquiries
"have no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents and are not in our view suitable for dealing with the special type of case for which the Act of 1921 was framed."
Speaking as a layman, I naturally share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, as to the propriety of the six cardinal principles to which he referred, but I am not sure whether they are applicable in
1158
simple terms in that type of case. We are still left with a dilemma; we have not solved the problem. But what the noble Viscount has achieved by his Motion is to focus our attention on a problem to which I, personally, can see no easy solution.
Nobody in this debate, possibly with the exception of my noble friend Lord Mitchison, has taken the opportunity to say a word of thanks or of approval to Sir Roy Wilson and his two distinguished colleagues who are active in the City. They have been accused in another place, but not in this House to-day, of actual prejudice in this case. We have been warned that it is unfair to treat businessmen the way Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and Mr. Davidson have been treated; indeed, the C.B.I. suggested that one could not expect public service from people if they are given this sort of treatment. But what about the treatment of these completely impartial and distinguished men, Sir Roy Wilson, accompanied by a very distinguished accountant and another leading figure in the City? This debate has been less than fair in respect of the remarks about the procedure which Sir Roy Wilson and his colleagues followed.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor outlined right at the beginning of his speech the method which it was decided should be adopted for this inquiry, following the precedent of the Lang Report. I do not wish to delay the House, but I must emphasise that this procedure was adopted at the request both of the Government and of the Bristol Siddeley Engine Company. It would not have been possible, in my view, for Sir Roy Wilson and his colleagues, in view of the enthusiasm for, or at least the willing acceptance of, this type of inquiry, to have suggested some other kind of inquiry. There is no doubt that the Committee themselves were satisfied that this method enabled them to investigate as thoroughly as possible the matters which they had to consider, but it had the disadvantage, which ought also to be borne in mind, that the confidentiality of the evidence prevented replies to some of the baseless attacks the Committee's procedures and conclusions. I hope noble Lords who are inclined to be critical will bear in mind the position of the Committee. This may well help

1159
to strengthen the noble Viscount's argument that this is yet another disadvantage of this type of procedure.
It was suggested that this procedure was not fair and that as a result the basic requirements of natural justice have not been fulfilled. I would ask noble Lords to believe me when I say—and I have discussed this with Sir Roy Wilson—that the Committee took the greatest pains to avoid any unfairness to individuals or groups of individuals. They considered it imperative to give every witness or representative of the Department or company a full opportunity of dealing with any point as to which they thought they might arrive at conclusions adverse to them or their principals. They explained this method of approaching the matter repeatedly to witnesses or representatives of the company or the Department, and stuck to it throughout. Sometimes witnesses were asked to come before the Committee more than once to achieve this end. At a late stage in the evidence two top-level representatives of Bristol Siddeley Engines appeared before the Committee so that they might be given an opportunity of dealing with any point as to which they wished the Committee to reach a conclusion favourable to the company, or not to reach a conclusion unfavourable to it.
As paragraph 152 of the Report shows, when the Committee became worried about the matters referred to in paragraph 151, which deals with Viper engines, they drew the company's attention to them at a high level. They provided a written aide-memoire, and went so far as to urge them to consider this and be ready to give further evidence upon it. It is clear to me that justice was done, although it is also clear from the discussions that in the view of some people justice was not seen to be done. But I ask your Lordships to accept (and I speak as somebody who was very shocked when I read the Report; I know the two gentlemen concerned and it was something of a horror story to read the Report) that Sir Roy Wilson and his colleagues sought to achieve absolute fairness, and they made clear at every stage that they themselves had not come to definite views. They were not trying charges, which is a word that has been
1160
frequently used in this matter, and they said that before they came to conclusions they would give opportunities to those concerned as to the sort of case, as they saw it, which was being erected. I hope that your Lordships will accept this from me because some unfortunate language has been used, notably not in your Lordships' House, about this inquiry.
I will deal with one or two other points which have been raised. In regard to the differentiation which was made about procedure, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said that it was different in effect from the Lang Report, in that the Lang Report did not mention individuals. But in fact the Lang Report mentioned several individuals. The only difference was that the majority of individuals in this case were civil servants. Indeed, in the Lang Report there were far more names mentioned, or clear indication given of particular individuals, than was the case in the Wilson Report. In paragraph 34 of the first Lang Report the manager of the Estimating Department is specifically mentioned. I do not recall public protests, at least not on the same scale, being employed about the Lang Report and the unfairness of the identification.
There could be no suggestion at the beginning that the Inquiry would turn out as it did. There may have been those who were inclined to be somewhat suspicious because of the statements which were published in relation to the knowledge of senior members of the management. There was one statement in particular on which I commented in your Lordships' House at the time it was made. It was suggested that the senior management were not aware of some of the matters which were coming on. But the Wilson Inquiry set out without any certainty that quite as much—I do not know what word to find, but "dirt" is almost the word—would come out of it. Some of the accusations, if that is the word which the noble and learned Viscount wishes to use, were not of course directed in any way against the two gentlemen about whom the greatest concern has been expressed. Also it is noticeable that there was no hesitation on the part of the senior company representatives in recognising the responsibility of certain of their subordinates. Indeed, we know that one has been retired and others

1161
have been transferred. What the Committee said was that the conduct,
"amounted to intentional misrepresentation whereby the Department's representatives were deceived".
There was no charge of fraud. There was no actual criminal charge of any kind. I accept from the noble and learned Viscount and other noble Lords—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has indicated this—the limitations which confront any Law Officer faced with the possibility of circumstances being disclosed in which an offence might or might not have been committed, and the impossibility and indeed the unsuitability of instituting proceedings.
I want to make those points not because I wish to attack the noble and learned Viscount, but because it is important to acknowledge—as I do, and as I hope he will—that Sir Roy Wilson and his colleagues sought and achieved justice in their Report. The noble and learned Viscount very rightly said that it was not his object to attempt to re-try this particular subject, and I agree with him. But I have been forced to make those points because there has been criticism of the Wilson Report.
The more difficult subject for me to deal with briefly concerns whether the Government were right to terminate the public appointments of Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith and Mr. Davidson. The decision on that resulted from a review of all that has happened, and the earlier Report of the Public Accounts Committee (the later one was not published until after the two men had been invited to resign, though it was before the appointments were actually terminated) and the Wilson Report. The reason for the decision was this. This is not a question of punishment. This is not a question of conviction. The fact is that the Government, like any other person or body in a position of responsibility, felt that they could no longer have sufficient confidence in these men to continue their appointments to important public bodies. This is a situation which is familiar to all of us who have been in industry. There must have been times when the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who I know has held executive positions, has had to terminate the employment of a particular individual. He has not gone
1162
through a judicial process. He has come to the conclusion, as I have had to do in business, that circumstances were such that it was not possible to continue to employ an individual.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord has not taken in the point I was trying to make, which is that dismissal from one job because of action in another sphere imputes improper conduct in that sphere. Secondly, the gentlemen concerned were not convicted of any improper conduct in another sphere. Therefore the Government's action is unwise and unjust. It is quite different from the example the noble Lord gave, of a man being dismissed from a job for not doing that job well.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord understood what I was saying. I never said that they did not do a job well. I merely said that in certain circumstances one can lose confidence in somebody, which is what the Government did, and that is the dilemma which confronts us. There are times when you cannot continue to employ somebody. In view of what the noble Viscount has said—and he has insisted on this—I must now make the case here, because it has not been understood.
This is not a punishment. It is not the result of a conviction, and we have heard too much of this in the arguments. These men have not committed any crimes for which legal remedies are available It is certainly true that where a man's livelihood is at stake some organisations will find alternative employment in which such a man can adequately serve. But I wonder what the noble Viscount would have done in a case like this. Would he have transferred them to some other activity? I grant that the appointments were not directly related to what they were doing, but there are times when one finds, justly or unjustly, that a person's usefulness for a particular job has been diminished. I put it to noble Lords who have had experience, like the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, whether in the light of what I am about to say it would have been possible and in the public interest, and indeed in the interest of the individuals themselves, to have continued with the appointments.

1163
There is very little in the Wilson Report about them individually, but the Public Accounts Committee have been a good deal more explicit. When they reviewed these events they came to the conclusion that:
"In view of the size of these contracts it seems difficult to reconcile the Board's ignorance of these matters for over four years with that degree of efficiency in financial administration which would be expected of a firm of their standing, or indeed with the proper discharge of its responsibilities by the Board."
We know that in the course of the negotiations on these contracts there were arguments going on as to whether the rate of profit could be increased by one or, perhaps, one-half of one per cent. Indeed, the firm's negotiators, some of whom certainly were not the two gentlemen in question, but were of senior status, were arguing about whether they could continue to do the business unless they could "up" the profit rate by one or two per cent. Yet they knew the answer, because they had budgeted for 100 per cent. profit. I think it is necessary for those facts to be known.
The Public Accounts Committee also expressed a view on the cause of the double charging on Government contracts. They accepted that it was inadvertent, and concluded that it indicated considerable administrative weakness on the part of the company. It is worth emphasising that it was the company which had immediate responsibility, and that in the event it was the Ministry which eventually discovered that double charging was occurring. These are serious comments. The Public Accounts Committee, in their further review this year, came to the conclusion that these strictures were, if anything, under-stated; and in reaching that conclusion they took full account of the claim that the top management of the firm were wholly engaged with what they considered to be more important problems.
So far as Mr. Davidson and other members of the executive board are concerned, the Wilson Committee came to a different conclusion. They found that the firm had budgeted for and achieved exorbitant profits on their overhaul contracts, and that the exent of the profitability of those contracts was at the time known to the company at all management
1164
levels. There is a choice of explanations. Either there was inadequate financial awareness or the results were planned and achieved. Whatever the explanation, in the light of some of these criticisms it is at least understandable that there should be some loss of confidence. When we look at the events which took place between September and December, 1964, whatever the truth about the extent to which those facts were known at senior management level, there is no doubt that it was then made aware of what had happened. There have been conflicting accounts of the reactions at senior level, and the Public Accounts Committee have thrown rather interesting light on this.
After giving certain background information, the firm's own memorandum addressed itself to the question of the firm's obligation to alert the Ministry. It discussed various alternative courses, and concluded that a letter should be sent to the Director of Contracts making general points about profit policy in an attempt to disavow an obligation to alert the Ministry. In the firm's own words, in another letter, this was done in the full knowledge that they possibly faced a scandal of the greatest magnitude. This course was followed; and it is now clear that the approach which was made to the Ministry did not take place until after it had become clear that the correspondence with the Director of Contracts had not produced any conclusive result. It has been suggested that no blame should be attached to these men because the Public Accounts Committee, by the casting vote of the Chairman, decided that they did not seek to mislead that Committee when they gave evidence in 1967. But our main concern is the motives which lay behind the actions which were taken in 1964.
My Lords, this has been an unpleasant affair. I have a great deal more that I could say, but I think I should prefer not to. It is true—and I must say this—that the Public Accounts Committee said that the evidence given by the two gentlemen in question fell short of the accurate, complete and frank responses which the Committee were entitled to expect. Taking all this into account, would it really have been possible to allow these two gentlemen to continue to occupy public appointments? They

1165
were invited to resign. One understands that, if they feel they are innocent—and no doubt they do—they naturally refused, in that sense, to commit themselves to it. But I do not know what other action my right honourable friend, or any Minister concerned for the integrity of our public life, could do in circumstances where a loss of confidence was—I will not say justified, but was as strongly based as it was in these particular circumstances.
I regret very much having to go into this detail, and I hope your Lordships will accept—and the noble Viscount will know—that I did not myself wish to go into this. But the right reverend Prelate chose to stand up and defend his constituents, and it is not enough, in circumstances of this kind, just to leave it to the Government to brush a thing away. Admittedly there was no formal trial, but there was no question of there being a formal trial. Therefore, the Government have done the best they could. I must say that I resent that there have been elsewhere, but notably not in your Lordships' House, accusations against both the Wilson Committee and, indeed, the Government regarding matters which took place long before this Government came into office. I make little of this beyond saying that I think we are still confronted with a problem. It is difficult to know what the right answer is. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied that the problems have been aired, and I hope also that he will appreciate that on certain matters I think he was a little less than fair to the Wilson Committee.
5.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to begin my reply by thanking most sincerely those who have taken part in this debate and those who have stayed to listen to what has been said. I think it has been an interesting and valuable debate; and apart from, I think, three speeches, it kept within the framework within which I hoped it would be kept. I know that my noble friend Lord Caldecote went outside that framework; so did the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. I am sorry that that happened. I did not myself think that it was necessary again to repeat all that had been published and said in another
1166
place in seeking to justify the proposition that the Government can and ought to dismiss those in whom they no longer feel confidence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just interrupt the noble Viscount? He will recall that I urged him to frame his Motion in specific terms.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I know; and I explained to the noble Lord the difficulties about that. I also did my best at the outset of this debate to make clear what was the framework.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote called in question the decision of the Government with regard to two of the individuals dealt with in this business. My Lords, I am rather sorry that that happened; but I do not myself think that it was necessary again to go into the grounds on which the Government felt no confidence. I would not challenge the proposition that if the Government feel no confidence in a person they are entitled to dismiss him. Whether that feeling be justified or not is another matter; but that proposition does not justify the Government's merely reciting again what has appeared in these Reports and what has been said in another place. That is not in issue in this debate. Unfortunately, the Government are in a better position in that respect than many other people in the country, who cannot get rid of those in whom they have lost all confidence.
I must say that I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. He seemed to think that there were only two individuals reflected upon by the Wilson Committee. Of course, that is not so. He said there were no charges. My Lords, I do not think he can either have read the Report or heard my speech (or, if he heard it, he cannot have understood it; I will leave it at that), because if he will look at the Report—I will not give way to the noble Lord for the moment—and will read it, he will find that three individuals, the Chief Estimator, the Price Controller and the Commercial Manager (Ministry), were all found to have made representations which they knew to be false and to have made them to the Ministry Department's representatives, and that there is a finding that the Department's, representatives were utterly deceived. If that

1167
is not a clear finding by the Committee, in print in that Report, of fraud, and of fraud almost amounting to obtaining money by false pretences, I do not know what it is.
LORD MITCHISON: I quoted the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—and this was a Treasury Committee—who said they made no charges. I agree with him.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have no doubt the noble Lord, in his loyalty, will agree with anything said by the Chief Secretary or any other Minister, but I rely on what is said in print in the Report; and although the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, may shut his eyes to that print and prefer Hansard of another place, the fact is there, and that was the finding. My Lords, I did not confine my speech to concern for just two individuals: I covered the case of all of them. We are told by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that some of them have been dismissed. That may be. It may be right that they should be. But what I am concerned about is whether, before they were condemned—I will not use the word "convicted"—they had proper opportunities to defend themselves.
May I come now to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? I feel I owe an apology to the noble Lord for not making sure that he was aware of the line that I proposed to take, because my failure to do so obviously placed him in a very considerable difficulty in replying to me immediately. In the past, I have on occasions been faced with a somewhat similar position, and I know how difficult it is. Therefore, I will not want to appear to be saying anything unduly critical of the noble Lord's speech; but I think I cannot have made myself clear in moving this Motion, because I did not criticise the Wilson Committee for adopting the Lang procedure, curious as that is, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out. I made no criticism of that, because the Wilson Committee, like so many of these committees, did not envisage when they were appointed that there would be any case for condemning individuals or for finding them guilty of fraudulent conduct.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tried to draw a distinction
1168
between this Committee and a tribunal appointed under the Act of 1921, but the same applies to that kind of tribunal. Of course, there are some inquiries held to find out which particular individual is to blame; there are other inquiries to find out what has happened, what are the facts. The Bank Rate Tribunal was one of the latter kind, to find out whether there had been a leak about bank rate. When that inquiry started no one knew into what fields the inquiry would have to go. It went into some pretty odd fields in the course of that investigation. From time to time it appeared prima facie that some people might have been guilty of some degree of impropriety.
So here, in a Departmental Committee and in any other Committee investigating to find out what has gone wrong, it may look in the course of the inquiry as if some individuals are to blame. That can apply in an inquiry before a tribunal, in an inquiry before a Departmental Committee and before a Committee such as this. My criticism is—and I do not think it is unfair; the last thing I wish to be is unfair—that the Wilson Committee, when they realised that they were getting to that position, did not adapt their procedure. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the course of his speech asked. "What do you do?". I think he was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for whose contribution I am sure the whole House is indebted. I suggest that when that position arises, no matter what the form of the Committee, natural justice requires that you should adopt broadly the six cardinal principles formulated by the Royal Commission. You must stop; you must adjust your procedure; you must let the persons know the case they have to meet.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the course of his reply, said that the Committee took the greatest pains to avoid unfairness and gave the company and individuals the opportunity of dealing with any point on which the Committee wished to reach a conclusion, favourable or unfavourable. I am sorry if there should be any argument about the facts. I have here a copy sent to me of a letter to Sir Roy Wilson, dated September 20, 1967, signed by Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith. I think it desirable, in view of that statement by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton,

1169
that I should quote two passages from that letter. It says:
"Various specific questions have been put to individual witnesses separately, many of these questions being, as you yourself have said inquisitorial in character. They appear to arise from statements made by Ministry officials either in written papers or in oral evidence. But we do not know whether these amount in total to any specific allegations about the conduct or integrity of individuals or about the behaviour of the company generally."
it goes on:
"Apart from this, no discussion has taken place with us on a number of aspects of our original general submission which we feel to be important. You will, I feel sure, appreciate that since we have no knowledge or indication of the Committee's approach to the many matters arising and which of them seem to you to be either important or controversial it is difficult to put in a further written statement, some of which might be quite unnecessary while at the same time we might be omitting reference to points which the Committee regard as a great importance."
That does not look to me as if Sir Reginald Verdon-Smith on September 20 knew what allegations might be established against him or against members of the company.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount must be fair on this. He is quoting from a letter dated September 20 of which I also have a copy. I also have a copy, which I assume he has, of Sir Roy Wilson's reply, dated September 21. I would only suggest, if both sides agree, that both these letters should be tabled.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was just coming to that reply. I rather resent the suggestion that one is being unfair in making points about the procedure of this Committee. I am concerned with the unfairness that individuals may have suffered. That is my concern to-day. If the noble Lord likes to accuse me of being unfair, he can—it does not worry me in the least. If the noble Lord had retained his seat he would have known that I was going to refer next to the reply of September 21 from Sir Roy Wilson. I read the whole paragraph of Sir Roy Wilson's account of the procedure in fairness. I think it is somewhat unwarranted now to accuse me (and to do it more than once) of being unfair.
The letter of September 21—I think only one sentence is relevant to this point, but I will read whatever the noble Lord wishes of it—says:
1170
"Your letter of yesterday however makes it quite plain that you would like to have a further hearing at which you and other representatives of the company could deal orally with such matters as you might think appropriate."
That is all very well; but that does not tell the company what are the things that the Wilson Committee thought were appropriate for them to deal with in answer to the allegations made against them. That does not help at all. I find that that correspondence supports the Bristol Siddeley reply when they say—and I quoted the paragraphs—that they were not informed of the allegations made against them and not informed of the substance of the evidence in support of those charges.
It is for those reasons that I have thought it right—although I have the greatest respect and have never sought to criticise them personally—to criticize the procedure followed by the Wilson Committee; not initially, but when they realised that these men might be condemned by the verdict that they would feel bound to bring in. I was sorry the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not answer the question which I put to him. I put to him the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the application of the six principles where any individual was involved before any form of inquiry. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that he would agree that, broadly at least, those principles should apply in natural justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with respect, I pointed out that you simply cannot apply them when there is no allegation being made against anybody. There is no case against him; there are no allegations. But I should be very interested if the noble and learned Viscount would tell the House this. If you have this inquiry and to one out of twenty people it looks as though some blame may be attached, as I understand it you stop. What do you do then? Do you say: "In public you must be represented, and the evidence on both sides must proceed in pubic"? Supposing the man then says, "If his is the case, I am not going on. I am not going to give you any more documents. I am not going to give any further evidence." You have no power to make him give evidence. You cannot get

1171
another document out of him. The inquiry comes to an end.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not think those objections are very realistic. From my experience, things do not happen in that way. The noble Lord said that there were no charges, no accusations. There must have been a moment, to take the clearest case, when the Committee realised that the evidence they were receiving led them to the conclusion that there had been fraud. At that moment, I suggest, they ought to have realised that this procedure which they had agreed—and both sides agreed on the basis that no individual would be condemned—really was not suitable. Then they could have met the other side and said, "This is what it is pointing to." I am not talking about it being in public; I am not talking about compelling the attendance of witnesses or about the production of documents. I think that is irrelevant. What they ought to have done, in common fairness, is to have said to the persons concerned—and I put it in colloquial language—"Look here, what we have received points in this direction. We want you to know that this is the question. We want you to have every opportunity of meeting it, of calling witnesses if you desire, and of putting any material before us." That is giving them notice of the charge. I do not think that is difficult before any Committee, and I am confirmed in this view by what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said about departmental inquiries. If I may remind your Lordships, he said that when an inquiry shifts from ascertainment of fact to apportionment of blame there should be a halt, and every opportunity of answering should be given.
My Lords, that, I think, is a fairly simple proposition. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will, when he reflects on it, perhaps agree with me that that is desirable. And it is because it does not appear to have been followed in this case that I have felt it my duty, sad and troublesome though it has been to go into it all, to raise this question before your Lordships. I can only hope that this debate will lead to very great care being taken in all forms of inquiry in the future to see that those whom an inquiry may think
1172
fit ultimately to condemn, or, it may be, ultimately to acquit, at least have knowledge as soon as possible of the case they have to meet and also of the substance of the evidence that is going to be produced against them. I do not think that I can usefully proceed further with this matter. It has been a valuable debate. Again I express my thanks, not least to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor; to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton; to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and others for taking part, and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OVERSEAS AID
5.52 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to call attention to the amount and methods of allocation of Overseas Aid; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, no one will deny that anything which contributes to the expansion of world trade is an assistance to civilisation, and this question of aid has been raised with me in many quarters. I found that there was concern as to its character and volume, and therefore I was prompted to raise the matter in your Lordships' House. In a way it is hardly a partisan question, because the provision of aid has been going on since the termination of the Second World War and both political Parties have been participants in its distribution. I raise the matter now because it represents a substantial drain on our balance of payments. When a country is in the position of having to borrow short heavily overseas it is questionable whether it is wise to lend short as generously overseas. It is that, mainly, which has prompted me to raise this matter.
I will quickly dispose of any suggestion that the cutting of aid shows a lack of compassion, because such is not my intention at all. It may be alleged that the volume of aid involved is small in relation to our gross national product. I raised the matter after having asked a second Question, because I believe in private enterprise, and that so far as possible we should reduce the amount distributed by the Government. I should quickly add that when I say "private enterprise" I mean by banking operations, if necessary providing incentives to

1173
those involved, and also that we should make full use of the existing mechanism to allow the Export Credit Guarantee Department to supplement private activity. I prefer that trade should adjust the differences, and in that way we quickly remove any charge of a threat to world peace through an insufficiency of generosity. In other words, it is a question of trade, not aid.
Basically, of course, the difference in the character of aid is the difference between aid which is tied and aid which is not tied. More than half is tied aid and in that way contributes to the exports of a country. There is bilateral, multilateral, technical and volunteer aid. Here I should interject that I believe a fundamental fallacy has existed since the war that because Marshall Aid was so successful in Europe, the same principle could be applied equally well in other continents where we have distributed our generosity. But of course in Europe you had an old civilisation, a highly developed industrial organisation, and a great wealth of skilled artisans. This practice which succeeded so well in Europe is not necessarily applicable to Africa, for instance, and I feel it is a fallacy to suggest that richer nations should help poorer nations or otherwise a struggle will develop between the haves and have-nots.
My Lords, I should like to pay a tribute to the Department of Overseas Aid for the generous amount of literature which has been put out. It is well compiled and has been skilfully presented, and it is most helpfully informative. It contains a number of figures, but I will confine myself to quoting a minimum number of them because I wish so far as possible to deal with the principles which caused me to initiate this debate. I hope to be brief so that others who may take part in the debate can make a more effective contribution. I am convinced there has been a great misuse of funds, and basically that is a discouragement to self-help. There have been great prestige undertakings instead of practical expenditure; money has been squandered and pocketed in petty dictatorships which have then proceeded to betray constitutional Government. All these things can poison the relationship between the giver and the receiver. I believe it is craven to suggest that unless generous aid is
1174
given, Communism will spread more rapidly; that this is a kind of "Dane-geld" handed out so that we may suppress the oncoming and threatened wave of Communistic influence, and that by giving away this money we shall counter Communism and help democracy.
I wish to turn for a moment to the situation not only in Africa but in Asia and elsewhere. I refer to terrorism, the activities of trained infiltrators who cross from one country into another, armed with Communist arms and trained by instructors who have learned their nefarious trade in Russia, China or Cuba. They seek to destroy the peace of these countries and call themselves "freedom fighters", a contemptible indication of something they certainly are not.
I believe that there is a mood of disenchantment and a need to achieve greater discipline. What a curious thing it is that we are contemporaneously trying to assist the integration of Europe and yet we have been the greatest contributor to fragmentation in Africa. Africa is the continent which has received the greatest amount of aid. Decolonisation was followed by quick developments. These emergent countries catapulted into sovereignty. They sought instant civilisation, which prompted them to have aspirations above those they were really entitled to. Both political Parties in this country have been induced to give generously of this aid. Look at what has been given to Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya. I see that since the war Kenya has received £128 million and Nigeria some £78 million. What sort of security or balance has it brought to those countries? Some of those countries—for instance, Ghana—have received aid from China, which brought with it Chinese representatives to pursue their propaganda there.
There have been many instances of improper aid: a university in Abyssinia, where there is an insufficient foundation of primary education; a deep-water port where there is no effective railway system to carry merchandise to the port, and the Owen Falls instance. They make me feel strongly that there is a need to review the aid that is given. In Africa the situation is basically a cultural one. The need is to develop these communities from a subsistence economy to a cash crop, and to do that more ought to have been done

1175
to develop co-operative organisations, which in turn could have received the support of civilian finance. Incidentally, as I have mentioned so many emergent countries which have received aid, I should say that Rhodesia, which has had no assistance, has the highest degree of education, after the Republic of South Africa, and is an example of self-help. There is no point in raising educational standards in any emergent country unless the economy is contemporaneously raised to the point at which it can absorb the products of higher education.
There is the question of the unwisdom of continuing aid to countries that have broken off diplomatic relations with us or to countries which have applied nationalisation. It has been claimed that aid cannot be broken off in midstream. What about the example of our own aircraft carrier, which is to be broken up? It was to last for several years but it was decided suddenly that we should not continue it. I cannot introduce this subject without mentioning that over 20,000 Britons are distributed throughout the areas where aid is given, giving technical assistance. On the other hand, there are 73,000 foreign students in this country, many of whom come here as a result of aid given to their countries. And there is a volunteer movement which absorbs some 1,700 Britons. This is most meritorious.
Then there is the question of interest-free loans. I understand that in 1966 the majority of loans made were interest-free. It may be that that is the right solution, but I should much prefer to see an outright gift than a loan, which will only further poison the feelings of the receiver towards the giver. I want to throw out one suggestion. Surely we should be wiser, if aid is to be continued to Africa, to insist that that aid should be regional and so use the Government's money to bring concentration and integration in order to mitigate some of the fragmentation which exists. I realise that there are other organisations, like the Asian Development Bank, based on a South American mould, and the International Development Association, which is a World Bank affiliate. They are organised in a way which I might claim complies with what I suggest.
There are many other areas to which aid goes—the Caribbean, Asia, Aden and Cyprus—to which doubtless other speakers will refer. So far as I can gather from the figures put out, since the war £1,600 million of the taxpayers' money has been given away in this manner. I wonder why we should give so much? I regret that there has been this continuous lecherous importuning from these recipients, whose behaviour has often been culpable. There has been a much too generous bestowal of the golden handshake. Why has it been necessary for us, as administrators, to renounce our civilising mission and the burdens of world leadership with indecent haste? We have nothing to be ashamed of. We have brought a civilising influence to vast areas of primitive savagery and by our sacrifices and by deploying our knowledge and accumulated experience have set those areas on the road to progress. I prefer to see civilian agencies, which have such a wealth of value and experience, take up the civilian burden. I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for having given us an opportunity to discuss this extremely important subject, and also for giving us the opportunity, to which I know we are all looking forward, of listening to a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Trevelyan. With some of the things that the noble Lord has just said I find myself in agreement, but with some of his sentiments I find myself in profound disagreement. For instance, when he speaks of aid giving encouragement to certain countries for aspirations above those that they are entitled to, I cannot really believe that he means what he said. Surely we must all admire everybody who has aspirations of reaching to the stars. We are all entitled to have the highest possible aspirations. It should be our privilege, where we can, to help those people to their aspirations, and not to tell them that they have no right to have such aspirations. The people we should despise are those who have no aspirations at all but who are smugly content to sit on the ground where they happen to be at the moment.

1177
But when the noble Lord comes to speak of co-operative agriculture, regional aid and matters of that sort, then I find myself in complete agreement with him. I am certain that we must encourage—and encouragement, as the noble Lord said, has been given and is being given—aid for development and progress on a regional rather than on a more narrowly national basis; and the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, and a similar organisation in Latin America, are all organisations which we should, and do, quite properly support. Another fundamental point where I am in disagreement with the noble Lord is on the amount of aid. In the old days there was such a thing as tithes. It was considered right that those who were relatively well off should contribute one-tenth of their income to objects other than their own personal pleasure, advancement or wellbeing. Whether it was given to the church, which used it for good purposes (one hopes), or whether it was given in other more personal ways, that was, in the noble Lord's youth and in my youth considered to be the right thing for people of wealth to do.
We are in international terms a country of wealth. Just as in the earlier days there were individuals of wealth, so there are individual nations of wealth among the poor peoples. Surely our object should be to reach a stage where we are able to give a tithe—one-tenth of our national wealth—to help poorer countries, just as in the old days it was the object of all good citizens to give one-tenth of their personal wealth. That, I believe, should be our object. At the moment we are not anywhere near to achieving it. I am not suggesting that in realistic political terms we can do so at the present time. We are aiming at one per cent.; that is an interim measure. It is something which is of some help, and something for which I think the donor countries, including ourselves, deserve a modified amount of praise and credit.
One of the great advances made in the second half of this 20th century is that the rich countries of the world collectively have come to realise their responsibilities to the poorer countries. This great international movement of collectively contributing to the betterment of
1178
other countries not so well off has gained ground, and has now become an integral part of international policy. That is something in which we can take pride. But we must not take so much pride as to sit back and say: "Now we have done our job. We are approaching one per cent. Let us do no more." We must still go back to the old-fashioned belief in the duty of the rich man in the rich country to divest himself of a tithe of his wealth in order to help those less well off.
Let me turn now to the other point of the noble Lord's Motion. He first of all calls attention to the amount of aid and then to the methods of allocation. This is a more valuable and more realistic subject to discuss. It is a subject where decisions can be taken and actions can follow on those decisions. One can divide the methods of allocating in various ways. First of all, one should decide on one's criteria for aid: what is it that one wishes to achieve? 'Then, when one has made those decisions, it is somewhat easier to decide which countries are to be helped. I suggest that the obvious and first criterion of aid must be that of need. It must go to the countries where the need is greatest, where there is the greatest poverty and hardship. Unfortunately, there is so much poverty and hardship throughout large areas of the world that there are vastly more people and countries who measure up to that criterion than can possibly be satisfied by any amount of foreseeable aid in realistic terms. So we must sub-divide the criterion of need into others in order to help us to make our decision.
The second criterion that I suggest, therefore, is that of use: that aid should, so far as possible, go of course to those whose need is greatest, but at the same time go to those who are going to make the best use of it, who themselves have what is required to improve their own standard of living by the aid that we are able to give them, and, having raised their own standard, will themselves become a focus of a giving and a focus of improved methods—technological methods, economic methods and educational methods—in their own surrounding countries.
The third criterion, I suggest (here I may find rather less agreement), is friendship. If one has to select those to whom one is going to give aid, and whose heeds

1179
in all other respects are equally compelling, I do not think there is anything wrong in giving preference to those who are our friends, who believe in the same values as we do and who are, in general terms, on the same side as we are, rather than to those who have fundamentally different attitudes and who are opposed to what we stand for and to the type of world that we wish to see. So I would sum up the criteria by saying, first of all, need; secondly, ability to use; and thirdly, their friendship towards this country and what we stand for.
Now let me come to the forms of aid: how should the aid, whatever the amount may be that we are going to give, be given? Here, again, I would divide it into three sub-headings. First of all, there is the need for infrastructure: for the roads, the means of communication, schools, hospitals and all the things that we think so much about. Here, again, I am in agreement with the noble Lord. I believe that the aid for the buying of infrastructure should not be lent, even by interest free loans, but should be given: because it is economically impossible for countries, developing or developed, to pay back the amount of money that is necessary these days for infrastructure.
Do a quick and rough calculation for yourselves, my Lords. Work out the capital cost to-day of our own roads system; of our educational system, including the primary schools, the secondary schools, the comprehensive schools, universities and all the rest of them; of our hospitals and clinics and all those things, not to mention our airports and our harbours. Then depreciate them over fifty years, or whatever you think is the correct period; charge interest at to-day's commercial rates, or at the cheap rates that are often charged on international loans. You will find the figure comes to a stupendous one, in the neighbourhood of £12 to £15 per head of the population of the United Kingdom to-day. It is utterly unrealistic to think that a developing country in Africa or South-East Asia, or where you will, with an income per head in the neighbourhood of £19 or £20, can possibly hope to meet charges that amount to £12 or £15, or even half or a quarter of that. If we really want to help these countries, the aid for infrastructure must be given and not lent.
1180
The second form of aid is technical assistance: the actual training of individuals to do jobs at all levels, from the relatively low levels of the builder, the carpenter, the ploughman, the stockman, the bank clerk, and the shop assistant, all the way up to the doctors, scientists and economists. Fortunately, the cost of technical assistance of this type, though high, is not outrageous. It is something which can be shared equally, or at least equitably, between the donor country and the recipient country. The noble Lord referred to students who were in this country. I am proud that they are here. I hope there will be an increasing number of them, because that is the great way to improve the standard of the developing countries. And at the same time we can send, and do send, people out there to help them in their universities and at all levels—V.S.O., trained people, graduates and non-graduates.
Thirdly, there is the aid required for genuine economic ventures, whether they be steel mills, fertiliser plants, tractor assembly plants, or what-have-you. Those are commercial ventures; they are justified only if they are going to pay a commercial return; and for them, theoretically, there is no need for aid whatsoever. There should be a return there sufficient to encourage private capital to go in. But of course it does not go in. Therefore we must figure out means of helping the private capital, which needs and wants to earn a return, to go into these new fields. It is not so difficult as it sounds, because we have the example of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was set up, as your Lordships well know, first in the Colonies and then throughout the Commonwealth to do just this: to use, in the first instance, money provided by the Government to set up industries in partnership with local Governments, in partnership with local capital, in partnership with United Kingdom capital. And it has had a magnificent success.
Something on those lines is required, not simply for the Commonwealth but for the whole world, preferably on an international basis, not solely done by Her Majesty's Government, though I should like to see them take a lead in this. It should be done internationally, with the underwriting of the World Bank taking the initial risk and then, by

1181
degrees, hiving off the industry to local capital, to foreign capital, to private enterprise in general. In that way the capital would be recovered, and a revolving fund created. That, I believe, is the right way to deal with this third category of profitable enterprises which need some incentive to get them going.
My third suggestion, which I will put to your Lordships briefly, is this. We should have an all-embracing review of overseas expenditure. Our objectives overseas are all interrelated. Whether the expenditure is for defence, whether it is on the Foreign Office Vote, whether it is for trade promotion or for overseas development, our first objective, I suggest to your Lordships, is the maintenance of peace—or perhaps I should say, less complacently, the establishment of peace—throughout the world. Secondly, standards of living, especially in the poorer parts of the world, should rise. Thirdly, those values which we in the Western World consider to be important should have a chance of being understood and followed, and of being adopted more widely. Fourthly—and I do not think we need be ashamed of this—we should, while all this is happening, do our best to encourage our own national economic interests, not only for the wellbeing of our own people, but to enable us to have more economic strength with which to help other people.
Those are all things we are trying to do at the present time under our different Government Departments, and we are spending a very large amount of money on them. It would be a near-miracle if the proportions of that expenditure, as between defence, trade promotion and all the other things, happened in fact to be exactly the right mixture. I personally am convinced that at present it is very far from being the right mixture. I believe that we should have this comprehensive review of all expenditure, not with each Government Department fighting selfishly for its own Vote—the Ministry of Defence struggling to keep an overseas base, a certain number of frigates or whatever it may be; the Foreign Office fighting to keep its diplomatic representation at a certain level in a certain country; the Board of Trade fighting for trade missions here and there, and the Ministry of Overseas Development fighting for its own activities—but so that the relative
1182
values of (shall I say?) a frigate in the South China Seas, a feeder road in Thailand and a chemical factory in India, can be determined. The money should be allocated according to that reappraisal, and not according to the more or less foreordained departmental Votes in which we now find ourselves confined.
My Lords, I have tried to cover a lot of ground, probably too much, in a short time. However, this is a vast subject, and it is one that goes very much wider than simply removing the threat of poverty from so many people in the world. But, although it goes wider than that, that must always remain our primary objective in the whole of our international policy. I believe, my Lords, that the Ministry of Overseas Development, in its modest way has made great progress during its three, or now nearly four, years of life; and I believe that it will go on, as the years pass by making still greater progress in this great fight.
6.28 p.m.
THE EARL or BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, even if I, too, cannot go along altogether with my noble friend Lord Barnby in some of his arguments, I am grateful to him for having raised this matter in your Lordships' House. I think I should admit quite frankly that I am considerably closer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston—at any rate his earlier remarks. I agree with him about the criteria. As to some of the comparisons he made at the end of his speech, I think it would be wry difficult to work out the kind of system which he envisages. But I am grateful to Lord Barnby, for it seems to me that overseas aid is one of the most important things, if not the most important, that the developed countries are doing in the world to-day.
As my right honourable friend said in another place, it is one of the main problems which the human race simply must solve if we are to redress this imbalance between the richer and the poorer nations. This can be done, it seems to me, only by the means hat we follow at the present time, that is to say, by greater private investment in the developing countries, as well as by loans and grants, technical assistance and contributions to the multilateral agencies. Much capital can of course be raised in

1183
the developing countries themselves; but not enough. Even with the present annual inflow of, I think, something of the order of 6 billion dollars of aid, the gap is still growing. We must maintain, and in my view, if possible, increase, the flow of resources to these countries. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston. in that I doubt whether there is anything more important than that the "haves" should do everything within their means to see that the "have nots" become "haves" too. Only thus, in my view, can we achieve a stable and reasonably contented planet.
That, I judge, is one of the main reasons why most of us on these Benches#—if perhaps not my noble friend Lord Barnby and a few others like him#—warmly support the continuation of overseas aid, and indeed regretted its levelling off in 1966, in spite of the promises of increases made by the Labour Government before they came to power and in their subsequent White Paper, which we discussed at the time of the Overeas Aid Bill, two years ago. We all understood why overseas aid could not be increased. It was because the present Government's economic policies had brought them to the point where we simply could not afford to go on increasing our aid at the same rate. But there is certain aid on which we cannot cut down, even if a country does make rude noises at us, or, as others have said, "kicks us in the teeth". Having promised such aid it would be folly, for example, to cut down on the building of a new dam simply because of some—perhaps temporary—political disagreement. This is not to say that political stability should not be a factor in determining priorities for future aid—I repeat, future aid.
But the moral considerations which I mentioned at the beginning are not the only ones at stake, and I hope to show in these brief remarks that the moral issue and our own self-interest are at one in leading us to the conclusion that we should continue to help the developing countries in this way. Britain depends more on overseas trade than any other country. It is in our interests to see that these developing countries do not "go broke". To some extent trade follows aid—and I shall give a few
1184
figures later. It is important, too, that these countries should achieve political stability.
To take private investment first, I discovered a striking fact when I was working on this speech; namely, that the average return on private investment (I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite knows this; it is a figure given by the Board of Trade) in the developing countries was marginally higher, at 8.8 per cent., than in the developed countries, where in 1967 it was only 8·1 per cent. If we take our present gross aid of £205 million—again I am quoting 1967—it should have been some £225 million had it not been for the restraints which the Government felt obliged to impose. But of this £205 million we obtained £130 million worth of exports, plus an unspecified proportion of exports arising from untied aid from other countries, and although I cannot get an exact figure on this I think it must have been substantial. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give us a figure when he replies.
If, to those £130 million-plus, we add about £60 million which we have received in amortisation and interest on our loans, I would judge that we probably gain quite as much as we give. In regard to our contributions to the International Development Association, I think we get back some 30s. in every £1. Therefore, as I see it, aid does not represent any considerable drain on our balance of payments. That is why I believe that from every point of view, moral and economic, we should continue our efforts, and, if possible, increase them. There is much to be said for giving a high proportion of this aid in the form of loans, where appropriate, rather than in the form of grants—although I realise that in some cases a grant is more suitable—and we should provide certain of this aid through multilateral organisations in which there is no taint of so-called neo-colonialism. I realise, of course, that the administrative costs of such international organisations are higher, and that in some ways we can keep better control over our money, and use it more effectively, through bilateral arrangements.
However, the extent to which we should control our aid seams to be the real dilemma. If we apply excessive

1185
controls they may well be self-defeating. But above all I think that a policy of isolationism would be disastrous, both economically and politically. How disastrous it was in the United States of America we all know. The world is getting smaller and smaller, and it is quite impracticable nowadays, with our great need to export, to think solely in terms of wealth at home. If we cut down our aid and our private investment, which totals about 1–14 per cent. of our national income, other countries would no doubt do so, too—even the United States—and this would surely result in disaster.
I am sometimes worried about how our aid is used. Sometimes, I believe, the food does not reach the most needy consumers, but I am glad to see that even in India the predicted famine has not been nearly so severe as might have been expected. Indeed, I am not certain whether there has really been a serious famine at all. I was interested to learn from a recent Press hand-out by the Ministry of Overseas Development, which I think received no publicity at the time, that world hunger will probably not be the problem in the 1970s. I gather that this was the main conclusion of the Cambridge Conference on Overseas Development in April of this year, and that even in over-populated Southern Asia the small farmers are on the verge of a technological break-through in producing crops for their own country as well as for export.
With improved varieties of wheat, rice and maize, together with the latest fertilisers and pesticides and easier credit, I believe that the tide may be beginning to turn and that in the 1970s there may well be a problem of prospective agricultural surpluses instead of shortages. No doubt much can still go wrong, but the situation may not be as black as it has been painted. I shall be glad if the noble Lord can say something about this, for the conclusions of the Cambridge Conference certainly came as a surprise to those of us who have been greatly disturbed by the threat of world hunger as a result of the population explosion.
I am sure that distribution remains a key issue, and also the problem of using technically trained men in the right way. In some of my journeys, which have been extensive, I have noticed that when
1186
trained men return to their own overseas countries they do not necessarily do the job for which they were trained over here but may gravitate into some administrative job where their technical qualifications are wasted. I found this in various places in Southern Asia. In my opinion, so far as technical assistance is concerned, high-grade economic advice and advice on business management might be worth millions of pounds.
In India, for example, I have noticed that in their electronic industry, while there is no shortage either of labour, on the one hand, or of top scientists and engineers, on the other, there is a dearth of good people at managerial level, and also of foremen on the factory floor. It these deficiencies could be removed, I see no reason why, in those parts of India where the climate is dry, the country should not build up as effective an electronic industry as, say, Japan. This leads me to a conclusion which is entirely my own and which I have not seen put forward. It is that we should help these countries to set up business schools, as we are doing in this country, and schools of industrial management, so that this middle echelon of foremen and others could be strengthened.
Another problem is taxation, which has been dealt with in several reports on the subject. In these countries there is often a fiscal disincentive to invest in industry, and these disincentives should be removed as far as possible. The Stikker Report for UNCTAD dealt with this matter in a very interesting way, and I hope that the Governments concerned will study that Report carefully.
I will not thresh over all the points that were made in the admirable debate which was held in another place on May 7. Neither will I go into the overriding problems of the terms of trade—problems to which, I recognise, no solutions have so far been found. But there is one further point which I think has not recently been stressed and which I should like to make, and it concerns educational assistance, not only in what is described as intermediate technology, which we discussed in this House on two occasions in 1966, but also in the more basic kind of educational assistance provided by the Centre for Educational Television Overseas.

1187
I have said before, but some years ago, that I consider the work of this organisation to be of great value. I believe that their "do-it-yourself" kits, kits which are provided by this Centre, are proving most useful in a number of Asian and African countries. I will not go into the details of them. It involves the provision of a script, models, stills and filmstrips, which can be put together as is thought best in the country concerned. The script can be translated into, say, Swahili, and adapted to suit the particular needs on the spot. I certainly believe that there is a great future in these visual aids. This organization—I call it CETO for short—has recently completed the task of establishing educational television in Singapore, and this is considered by members of the Asian Broadcasting Union to be the most successful educational television service in the developing world.
I gather that the organisation is also at present engaged in helping the Hong Kong Government in the establishment of what will be the largest educational television service outside Europe. Other CETO officers are at present engaged in schools in Ghana on the production of science programmes, and even outside the British Commonwealth, English language programmes are being developed in Ethiopia. These are a few recent examples of the admirable work which is being done by this organisation and which I am glad to learn receives every consideration from the Ministry of Overseas Development and Quite substantial grants. I hope I can obtain an assurance from the noble Lord that this aid will not be cut.
It seems to become more and more evident that the speed of development in terms of educational technology in the developed countries is so great that unless the developing countries begin now to master some of these new techniques the credibility gap between the two societies will grow so wide that it may be unbridgeable. We are living in one world in which political and economic progress or failure cannot be confined within national frontiers. We are all in this together, and not to recognise this overwhelming fact would be to court disaster.
I would end by saying, as others have, how much we look forward to the speech
1188
by my noble friend Lord Trevelyan, who must have unrivalled knowledge of these problems, and personally I am grateful to him in more than one way in several parts of the world. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for having raised these matters. I hope he will agree, for the reasons I gave earlier, that those of us on both sides of the House who advocate a continuance of aid are not being wildly extravagant.
6.47 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, I request your Lordships' indulgence. This is a subject which should be of the greatest importance to anyone who looks beyond his own back door. I shall confine myself to presenting the problems in a general way from the point of view of one who has been for many years a representative of this country abroad, though recently generally in countries to which we did not give any aid. Overseas aid, as I see it, is a branch of foreign policy, and aid policy must therefore be based on our interests and must balance those interests when they conflict. Of course, we can only have a foreign policy which we can afford, and it must be the overriding consideration that the amount of our foreign expenditure, including aid, is limited to a figure which will not significantly increase our difficulties in balancing our payments or weaken our economy. I was very interested to hear the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, of having a review of our general foreign expenditure taken altogether, which suggestion is on the right lines, if I may say so.
Subject to this, what then are our interests in this field? It is obviously a British interest that the developing countries should, individually and regionally, develop their economies as rapidly as possible, and that we should be seen to be taking our fair share of the burden on the developed countries and, so far as is in our power, to be carrying out our obligations arising from the past. Our aid should have regard to our political interests. In the long term, I hope that the developed countries will aim to take politics out of aid and distribute it on a multilateral basis. This was always the hope and ideal of Hammarskjold when I was working with him. But this will not happen so long as the ideological struggle

1189
persists, and most international organisations are not in a position to administer the whole burden efficiently.
It is, of course, a proper concern of the Government that our aid should benefit our exports. Overseas aid is not and never will be pure philanthropy. It is an arm of British policy, and it should serve British interests in the widest sense, including, of course, real benefit to the developing country's economy. As to the methods of distribution, I suggest that the distribution of aid should be more diversified. I believe that only about 16 per cent. goes to non-Commonwealth countries, and I fear that allocation is to some extent distorted by existing commitments or old habits. Above all, we should not, I suggest, commit our funds for too long. We must not lose flexibility in the light of changing political and economic conditions, and we must be in a position to meet new situations at any time. We must be able to direct our aid to the places where it will be most effective, whether inside or outside the Commonwealth. Our financial techniques also should be as flexible as possible. The modern techniques for providing concessional rates of interest should, I suggest, be applied more generally. We should apply the sophisticated methods of mixed credit and aid as others do (the French credit mixte), and I believe we are now beginning to do so.
Technical assistance is a valuable form of aid, but it is completely ineffective unless the country receiving it has the will and the basic administration to make use of it. It can be like putting a very expensive super-structure on a leaky bottom. I remember a distinguished American agriculturalist remarking to me that many countries had been surveyed to death, and I have no doubt that the shelves of Government departments in a number of countries are full of files containing wise advice and admirable schemes which have never been and will never be put into force. At one time, this was not fully recognised, but I feel sure it is recognised now, and I hope that technical assistance is given to those who can use it effectively.
One can overdo the bilateral commercial approach. There is a limit beyond which it is not advisable to push tied loans, since you run the risk of pay-
1190
ing for exports which would be made anyway on payment. It has been calculated, or perhaps guessed, that about two-thirds of British direct aid now comes back to the British exporter. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has told us that our subscriptions to those admirable institutions, the International Bank, and the International Development Association, are balanced to the extent of one and a half times by the business obtained by British industry from their projects put out to international tender. However that may be, in our present fin uncial circumstances it would be foolish in our aid policy to be less concerned with our commercial interests than our competitors are with theirs.
One can also overdo the pc Utica] approach. The grant of aid in the hope of achieving a direct political result is rarely successful for more than a brief period, as many countries have found. A Soviet Ambassador in a developing country asked my advice on the line of approach that he should adopt in that country. Whatever his motive in doing so, I answered him sincerely that it was better not to push to hard, and that in the long run the Soviet Government would get the most benefit if their aid was genuinely directed towards improving the country's economy. That applies to us all. Our advice to the developing countries should be that they should take aid wherever they can get it, provided it does not carry hidden political conditions. The burden should be shared by everyone who can afford it. Though we should be foolish to try to attach political strings to aid, we must at least ensure that our aid makes political sense in the circumstances of the country where it is to be applied, and that it is generally in accord with our political interests
From sentimental reasons we car overdo our obligations arising from the past. But in one case, where the sentiment is on the other side, I fear we may not be meeting them. I trust your Lordships will forgive me if, without wishing to enter into any controversy on this occasion, I touch upon the present position of the Republic of South Yemen. Whatever the circumstances in which the country became independent, whatever our feelings about those who fought us in the past, I believe that in spite of our

1191
financial stringency we have some obligation to the many people who were under our Government or protection, arising from the fact that we were paying the greater part of the expenses of the Administration and have left the country unviable. We cannot support South Yemen permanently. Our aid must be gradually tapered off, and that country must find other sources of revenue within a reasonable time. We must also carefully watch political developments, of which now I am not well informed. But, given all that, if we cut off aid almost completely at one blow we risk creating the chaos which we only just avoided before independence with unfortunate results to the continuing British and other foreign interests in Aden, and to our former Colonial subjects who took no part in the fight against us, and to the profit of the extremists. I trust that this question will receive continuing consideration, and I can only hope that in the event my fears will not be justified.
It is an old question whether we should have a separate Ministry of Overseas Development, which has added point in these days when the necessity for economy in Government spending is paramount and the total amount of our aid must be severely restricted. To mention this matter is not to question in any way the devotion and efficiency with which the Ministry carries out its task. I shall doubtless be accused of undue partiality for my own old Department if I suggest that there would be some advantages if the new Overseas Department, whatever it is to be called, should in due course include those administering overseas aid. I think that this is much in line with the line of thought developed by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. But this is not a question for immediate decision. It will be some time before the combined Overseas Department can digest its greater responsibilities and it will not wish further to strain its digestion by taking on more at the present.
I believe it is agreed by all Parties that this is a subject of importance in which public opinion should be increasingly involved, if only because we have a responsibility to share in the world effort to overcome the problems of world hunger and poverty in this century if we want to avoid disaster in the next.
6.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, I should like at the outset to congratulate Lord Trevelyan on a most notable maiden speech, both realistic and informed with an experience which but few of us have. I am sorry that he has had such a sparsely filled House, but I hope that he may make many further contributions to the debates here. With much of what Lord Walston and the Earl of Bessborough said I would entirely agree. As for the opener of the debate, so far as I could understand his remarks I for the most part disagreed with them. In fact. I found it most difficult to understand how such sentiments could have been expressed in the House to-day.
Bishop Gore once defined a Christian as "one who can read statistics with compassion". Certainly it is necessary in this subject to be able to read statistics if one wishes to get to grips with it. But I find myself much more likely to reach confusion than compassion when one considers the enermous amount of statistics connected with this subject of overseas aid. The one point that I want to emphasise clearly is how deeply concerned are all the Christian Churches in this matter. After all, the Christian Churches were first in the field. The educational systems of Africa and India, such as they are, owe much, more than they can guess, to early Christian effort. Christians are not slackening in their work. Each year the Christian Churches in this country spend millions on servicing educational, medical and agricultural projects overseas, and on proclaiming the Faith by which men can live, for although it may not be relevant to this particular debate. "Man does not live by bread alone".
Last year the Christian Churches in this country raised, over and beyond their contributions to missionary societies, through Christian Aid £1½million for overseas relief. That was quite apart from the work of OXFAM and many other voluntary agencies which have been assisted. Of that £1½ I million, £60,000 was spent on the volunteers for Voluntary Service Overseas. There were 233 volunteers, of whom 113 were graduates who had their expenses largely underwritten. I said that the British Churches were deeply concerned in this subject. It was as a result of that concern that the British Council of Churches published in 1966

1193
a Report entitled World Poverty and British Responsibility. It is an admirable document, now into its second edition. It has as a supplement to it the Papal Encyclical Populorum Progessio. Since the publication of that document the Christian Churches in this country have been engaged on a continuing campaign to drive home to their members the responsibility of this country in relation to overseas aid.
The next action which was taken by the British Council of Churches was to submit proposals, drawn to some extent from the Report which I have mentioned, to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. These proposals, which were first submitted to the Prime Minister, were very sympathetically received by him, and he assured us that so far as he was concerned, and his Government, aid would not be turned off and on like a tap but that every effort would be made to keep overseas aid at its present figure, which is, I believe, £205 million for 1968–69 and also in 1969–70. I should like here to pay tribute to the wisdom and far-sightedness of the Government in agreeing to the continuance of that figure, though I know and realise that the pressures upon them to cut it must have been very considerable,
As regards the amount of aid, I would suggest that the size of the total international aid effort should be determined by how much the developing countries can effectively absorb rather than by the donor countries' deciding how much they will wish to give. The President of the World Bank said recently that the receiving countries could effectively absorb 50 to 60 per cent. more in the way of aid than they were at present receiving. This would mean that Britain would have to contribute, instead of £205 million per annum, £350 million. I hope that in future, as we emerge from our own economic difficulties, we may set that as our target.
As regards the method of aid—that is to say, grants or loans—I think that in many cases grants should be made, otherwise too heavy a burden is placed upon countries in the repayment of the interest. But at the same time it should he recognised that some countries will wish to repay a small-interest loan, and they should, if necessary, be allowed to do so. I understand that our aid is running at
1194
about 50 per cent. in loans and 50 per cent. in gifts, and that, of the loans, 90 per cent. are at present interest-free. So it seems to me that we are moving there in the right direction.
The second question is whether loans and grants should be multilateral or bilateral. I think it is increasingly recognised by those who are most experienced in this subject that we should try to make them multilateral, rather than bilateral. At the present time, of the total aid given, only 10 per cent., I think, is multilateral, and one would hope that it might be Government policy gradually to increase that sum. Thirdly, there is the question of what type of aid should be given, whether it should be tied or not tied. In 1965, which is one of the last years for which I have the figures, 43 per cent. of all aid was tied. Here again I think that experience proves that increasingly aid should not be tied. It leads to complications which are unfortunate, both politically and in other ways.
As the point has been made, I would say that I know that aid is sometimes misused, although no concrete illustrations of the misuse of aid have been given us to-day. I am quite sure that if overseas aid is not to be discredited in the public view the greatest care will need to be taken to see that that aid is used most economically, and that it goes to the right people at the right time. The President of the World Bank recently suggested that there should be a conference of richer countries to take stock of their experience in providing aid; and the Prime Minister has already expressed sympathy with such a project. It could be of immense value if donors and recipients were at such a conference and pooled their experience. My hope is that Her Majesty's Government will encourage actively the promotion of such a conference. I would only add that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, said about the urgency of the task. There is an old Jewish saying, "The hour is late, the time is short, the master of the house is urgent"; and this is a matter where that is certainly true. And so, despite our own difficulties in this country, I hope that we shall continue to press on with what has been done. Of what has been done already I think we may well be proud, although I hope that we shall not prove complacent.
7.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am glad that it falls to me to be the first to express from these Benches our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who speaks with immense experience and who has spent a whole lifetime in the public service, largely overseas. On a personal note may I say that it was a distant relative of his, Charles Trevelyan, who was the best man at my father's wedding, which takes us back over seventy years ago.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, on some of the points he raised. I quite agree that we must go over all expenditure with a fine comb, especially overseas expenditure which affects the balance of payments—diplomatic expenditure; defence expenditure; expenditure in connection with the export trade; propaganda expenditure; and aid. I also agree with him that as far as possible one should encourage trade, not aid. I agree, of course, that aid should not be sacrosanct, that one must eliminate waste and prevent breakdowns and the embarking on schemes which eventually prove to be abortive. Luckily, they are comparatively few. I also agree that if cuts must be made, they should be made. It is a painful process to decide whether to cut this or that, and it is a matter of judgment which one must leave to others. But what one must aim at is that the cuts should do the least damage to the United Kingdom and to other countries, especially to their economies, their social structure, their security, and their ties with Britain.
In Britain, of course, every cut is followed by great outcries and by political pressure, often justified. The trouble with foreign aid is that the recipients are a long way away and they do not make their objections felt at Westminster. Take India, for example, with which the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, was so closely connected; the cry of India's hungry millions is hardly heard in this Chamber. Britain has done a lot for India and for other Commonwealth countries, and I quite agree with Lord Trevelyan that we should consider many outside the Commonwealth.
I do not think that Britain has been particularly generous. If you look at the table of the flow of financial resources
1196
as a percentage of national income, if you take both official and private flow, the United Kingdom is only the fifth. The first is France; the second the Netherlands; the third Belgium; the fourth Italy; and then Britain in only fifth place.
If you take only the official flow, again Britain is fifth. France is first; the second, of all countries, is Portugal; the third is Australia; the fourth Belgium; and only then comes Britain. The British share is only 0·61 per cent. on the old scale, which is still much below the 1 per cent. standard that was aimed at. It should have been increased this year in view of the overwhelming needs of the poorer Commonwealth countries, who see the rich countries getting richer and the gap in the standards of living widening, but aid has been frozen for the next two years, which is a big disappointment. However, it should go some way to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. It is not just a matter of the ladling out of gifts, it is not a penny to the blind crossing-sweeper; actually aid from Britain works out at 1½d. in the pound). Much is given in the form of commercial loans, and much is repaid.
One might well follow up Lord Barnby's Motion by asking: why should aid not be given more largely through commercial channels? There are two answers. The first is that some countries just cannot afford the interest rates and therefore loans are either interest-free or made at reduced or deferred interest. I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, when he suggests that it is better to give these loans as gifts. I think there is just that little extra bit of difference between an interest-paying loan and an interest-free loan which enables a big project such as a dam to be got under way.
The second reason why it is difficult to rely entirely on commercial loans is that some countries are not good risks and the commercial world has no faith in them. I would cite the case of Palestine and Israel as a successful developing country. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who is to follow me in this debate, I was in the British Colonial Service. I spent fifty years in Palestine and Israel, 28 of them in the British Colonial Service. I suppose that I

1197
should declare an interest since my pension is paid by the Ministry of Overseas Development, but perhaps I am being over-particular. I went out to that country in 1917 as a young Artillery officer. I found that it was run down after 400 years of Turkish rule. There was practically nothing in the country. There were few roads, no ports and, above all, no electricity. My original intention was to be an electrical engineer, but, in the absence of electricity, I became a Colonial civil servant.
In those 28 years of British mandatory rule development was very slow, largely because of the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, namely, that there was no commercial capital available. Nobody had any faith in the future of Palestine. In those days there was no aid. British policy, even in countries in which there was mandatory rule, was that they should be self-sufficient. During the whole of the 28 years only one loan was raised on the market, and that was for only £4½ million sterling, part of which was used to buy out the railways which were built by the War Office in the Sinai Desert in the First World War. With that loan the Haifa harbour was also built.
Palestine in those days was a wholly agricultural country and was unable to diversify. This was not only through lack of capital but also because the mandatory Government was not prepared to give protective tariffs to new processing industries. For example, I remember attempts to establish a textile industry which never got under way because of objections from the British textile industry to competition from Palestine. So there is a certain weight on British conscience in this matter. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is shaking his head, but I am only giving the facts.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Then, my Lords, the noble Lord is shaking his head the right way. Because there is so much on the British conscience we should give aid a little more willingly than otherwise. After the independence of Israel in 1948, progress was much faster largely because of massive international aid. First of all, there was multilateral aid through the
1198
United Nations, including a British contribution; there were Congressional grants from the United States Government; reparations from Germany; and there was also a good deal of Jewish money, in the form both of gifts and of State bonds. Thanks to this aid, Israel is now on its feet. All the receiving and distributing agencies in Israel which were set up by the United States have been dismantled. Israel is now at the giving end of things.
The standard of living in Israel has risen by about 50 per cent., but it is still very low. For example, for every 20s. earned in the United States the equivalent in Britain is 10s. In Israel it used to be 5s.; and it has now gone up to 7s. 6d. But this is luxury compared to the position in India, where the level is still 9d. That is a terrible figure in relation to 470 million people. Israel has a population of 2½ million, and the problem there is much easier, and demands on capital are much less. The recent economic conference in Jerusalem did exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, suggested, since it was directed at encouraging private investment and relying less on State aid. Israel, of course, is not the only country which has blossomed under aid. Other countries have got off the ground, although at a lower level. Last year I visited Mexico, which seemed to be developing very happily, although the level there was only 2s. 10d. on the scale which I menioned earlier.
Some people may say that the developing countries themselves are largely to blame because of their improvidence and because of the population explosion which largely undoes the results of aid. India's Five-Year Plans have met with great difficulty. Although the cake has been enlarged, the number of mouths which have to feed from the cake have. multiplied very rapidly. By the time the High Dam at Aswan, in Egypt, is finished and the land has been brought under irrigation, the extra food which will be produced will long since have been literally swallowed up by the increase in population. The question of population growth is very complex. There is a great deal to be said for large families in agricultural countries, such as Egypt, where many sons are needed on the farms and teat is perhaps the origin of polygamy.

1199
The difficulty arises because in recent years there has been a double change. First of all, there has been urbanisation, which has meant that sons are no longer a blessing but a curse; and secondly, as a result of the impact of the West, the three great killers—war, famine, and disease—have been largely eliminated. The death rate has gone down but the birth rate remains high, and that margin which was always necessary to balance life and death has become the population explosion. The poorer countries realise this, and are themselves doing a great deal to reduce the population explosion, the most successful being Japan. But other countries are very suspicious of Western aid. They suspect that it is a plot by white countries to reduce the population of the red, black, brown and yellow countries and to maintain the lead which the white countries have. Britain helps to finance population studies overseas, but the initiative must always come from the countries themselves and must not be suggested from outside.
There is not only this question of loans and gifts; there is also the question of training in the United Kingdom and British technical aid overseas. I personally have been concerned with both. I have taught Africans in Israel, and I went to Kenya as an adviser, just before independence, on the speed-up of the Africanisation of the Kenya Civil Service, chiefly through their admirable training school at Lower Kabete. We have found in Israel that bringing Africans to Western countries, even to a country in the Middle East, is not easy. If they come alone they are homesick, and if they come with their wives it is found that because the wives know no English it is very difficult to keep them occupied. A student of mine came with his wife, but she could not speak any known language and spent her time knitting for her children whom she had left behind. By the end of her husband's six months of studying radio she had produced what she called pairs of dresses. I think that during that period she produced something like 50 which she took back for her daughters of varying ages, but all the dresses were the same size.
There has recently been published a comparison—in fact, I published it myself in an annual which I produce—of the
1200
results in two comparable countries, Israel and Jordan, of training in the United States. Those were United Nations analyses of results of sending students abroad, and I thought it would be interesting to compare them. Of course, the wastage is rather high. Quite a number of students who go abroad are "playboys" and do not study. A number study, but they do not grasp what they are supposed to be studying. Some grasp it but never return home. Others return home but cannot apply what they have learned, because the scale in America, or even in this country, is so vast compared to the small scale in their own home countries. Some can apply it, but are not allowed to do so by their rather elderly superiors who are very jealous of these young men when they come back after being trained abroad. There is, therefore, a heavy discount; but even so I think the effort is still worth while.
Personally, I think it is better to send technical advisers abroad. If you Lend one man to Africa for a class of 30, it is much cheaper than bringing 30 people to this country to be trained. But I would point out that students in Africa and Asia suffer from claustrophobia, and they must get abroad before they begin their training, otherwise it is impossible for them to visualise what the trainer is talking about. For example, a man may go out to Nairobi to discuss traffic control, but it is useless trying to teach African police officers traffic control if they have never seen London in the rush hour. It is also useless to try to teach a man how to do port control or airport control unless he has seen a busy port or airport at work and knows what it is all about. So there must be some combination of, as it were, a prospecting tour to the West and the actual training in the country where the students live.
The value of British experts abroad is enormous, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, must not underestimate it. One man can change a whole country. It is not a question of trade. As the noble Lord knows, some countries are dependent on single crops and the prices are very chancy—I would mention only two, sugar and copper—and such countries just cannot build up their economies through trade. They have to diversify, and if you are going to diversify through

1201
industry what you need are skilled artisans. But skilled artisans must be able to read, and if you want to teach them to read you need more primary schools. If you need more primary schools you need more teachers; and teachers need a teachers' seminary. If you get one British teacher going out to start a new seminary on the right lines, then 20 years later you will have all the skilled artisans who will be needed to diversify the economy and lead it to prosperity.
I should like here, my Lords, to pay tribute to all those men and women who are going out as technical advisers from this country, many of them with no security of tenure. I am glad to share with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, admiration for this spirit, now somewhat old-fashioned, of the white man's burden, suffering isolation and heat. Incidentally, I always assumed that the British Empire was merely a lot of Englishmen trying to get warm: perhaps it is because there is now no more Empire for them to go to that we are having central heating in this country. Or perhaps it is the other way round, that central heating has set in the rot, and that, once Englishmen could keep warm in this country, there was no reason for them to go overseas.
At all events—and here I come to my last point, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough—one must not be put off by destruction and rampage and sudden fits of anger among the beneficiaries. Americans are always upset when their Embassies are burned down in countries to which they have given massive aid. But in many countries burning down the American Embassy is the sole form of out-door sport. I think that we are a little wiser in Britain: we have had more experience. We are rather like the old English nanny whose charges bite and scratch but who have to be fed. The charges will not admit it, but deep down there is a deep love for the nanny, and that is what many countries, including Israel, feel for Britain—their old nanny. That, I think, is what Britain needs in its present hour of trial—love from all those it has helped, is helping and will help in the future.
7.29 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, there seems to have been such a general unani-
1202
mity pervading this debate on the subject of overseas aid that it has relieved me of making other than the very shortest speech. I think I can guarantee not to take more than four minutes.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD MILVERTON: I thought at least that that part of my speech would receive universal approval. I should like, first of all, to offer the warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who has succeeded so brilliantly in distilling the wisdom and experience of a lifetime into so extremely well-expressed a speech. We shall all look forward to hearing him delight us in this way as often as he is able to attend this House.
My Lords, as I have said, I bund myself in general agreement with most of the speakers in this debate. I am even in the unusual position of agreeing with nearly all that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. But there are one or two points that I should like to make, the first being to lay some emphasis on the locally-interlocked activities which must be associated with overseas aid, and which are in many cases its justification. Another point about which I should like to say a word is with regard to the population explosion and the low nutritional standards of underdeveloped countries. Even a local improvement in food production is not yet enough to deal with that difficult situation. This universal shortage of food means that the greatest emphasis must be laid on agriculture. This is not a case for charity: it is a case for helping the underdeveloped countries to help themselves. It is easy to talk about improving production, but at the back of it there must be a great deal of education and training in scientific agriculture, and so on; and, as we all know, the most conservative person in the world is the peasant farmer, in whatever country he may be. It takes time, but I believe the modern idea is what is called the industrialisation of agriculture, which means associating with the improvement in production everything in the country which they can produce in the way of fertilisers, transport and all the other technical things which could grow with it and make a sort of compact industry.

1203
Looking back a few years one remembers the Colombo Plan. When that Plan was produced it had the same hopes that we attach to overseas aid to-day, but at the end of several years the report of that organisation, which did wonderful work, was that the net result of their activities in India had probably been to conserve a few million more people on the margin of subsistence. That means that we must look at all these things in terms of modern conditions, otherwise, there will be the same result. It is no good producing more food for people if all they are going to do is to breed themselves into a state of starvation. With all the help of modern medical science, which is keeping alive people who would otherwise perish, we must associate education in control of population growth and in a number of other things which have to go with life if we are to help them to get a better standard of life. Lack of food is only one facet of the whole problem of underdevelopment. I personally hope that the third world war will shortly be upon us—that is, the war on poverty. It is a war which the United States intends to lead, and I think we should take an honourable part in it and keep as much control as we can over our own contributions to overseas aid, because we have a knowledge and experience which probably no other country possesses.
My Lords, one has also to face the fact that in many of the underdeveloped countries one of the difficulties in getting results from one's aid is the lack of good leaders and the existence of corruption. All of that we have to take into account in giving our aid, and I think that, distasteful though it may seem, through our representatives there—it should be done tactfully and unofficially—we have to keep some sort of, I will not say control but influence over their budgets. There is a tendency which we have all noticed, I suppose, to go in for what are called prestige products in a country which is short of food. We have seen it in Africa. We must endeavour to sell the lesson to them that you cannot sensibly have those things until you have provided the ordinary means of a happy life to the man without much means.
The partnership to deal with this poverty should in my opinion be international as much as possible. Perhaps
1204
praise for the United Nations comes strangely from me, but if only more of their activities could be diverted from the pernicious political projects with which they sometimes associate themselves, I think it would be a benefit to all mankind. Incidentally, in many cases overseas aid might be accepted with less reluctance if it came from an international body of that kind. I am not pretending to preach to the present Government, because they must be in touch with the sort of things which do not get publicised; but in many ways it is possible to help countries without making a great fuss about it. There is one thing which I would perhaps slightly modify in what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, and that is the rather too blatant suggestion (if I may use that expression) that overseas aid pays us. Of course it pays us, but I prefer to think that the way in which it pays us is in the creation of good will. I would prefer that to competing with, say, Russia, who comes along and says, "We will give you this if you do that, that and that". I should never like to see our Government acting in that way, and I do not think they do.
We are indebted to the noble Lord who raised this subject for debate. I can only say that I am a strong supporter of overseas aid, and I know that the present Government are in favour of it, as were the previous Govenment, also. I should like to conclude with one remark which is not very important. I noticed recently that it was suggested that one of the African countries now in receipt of aid was going to emphasise its independence by refusing to pay any longer the pensions of officers who had served it. I know that the Government will be able to deal happily with that, but I think that the then Government—and it was a Conservative Government—lost a great opportunity when they began to give these countries their independence. It would have been a gracious act, and a foundation of our overseas aid activities, if the British Government (I was going to say had been statesmanlike enough, but perhaps that sounds rather arrogant) had thought of saying to each country as it became independent, "Our first gift to you is to take over from you all responsibility for the payment of the pensions of officers who have served you in the past and who are still alive to receive it". I think that might have done a great deal

1205
to create good will, and would have been a very valuable contribution. My Lords, I can only say that all extensions of good will which we are able to make will, I am sure, meet with the approval of anyone who has any knowledge of the subject.
7.40 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has introduced this subject. For one thing, it has given us the opportunity to hear the authoritative maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Trevelyan. I am also glad for the perverse reason that it gives us all the opportunity to rebut the implicit criticism of overseas aid in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. The unanimity here has given me great satisfaction. There was practically nothing with which I would disagree, except the implication of the opener's speech. But there are certain aspects which I should like to emphasise, one of which is very important.
I believe, with all the reservations which have been applied about progress and means, that more and more should be diverted into multilateral aid. This is not merely a justification of internationalism. It is the practical way to do it. As has been demonstrated and as has been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and others, we do rather well out of multilateral aid. We take more in return out of technical assistance than we put into it. We take out more, as I pointed out last week, from UNICEF than we contribute to it. This is not a reflection; it is because Britain produces the kinds of things necessary in technical development. We earn a great deal through our 20,000 experts who are deployed through the multilateral agencies. This seems to me to be a perfectly justifiable and enlightened self-interest, with the enormous advantage that it does the job most effectively in the field. As Senator Fulbright once remarked to his compatriots, "I have never seen anywhere in the world scrawled on walls the slogan, 'World Bank go home! '."
It is true that by diversifying, through the activities of many nationalities, you avoid the opprobrium or odium which is liable to be built up if you insist upon sewing a national flag on the seat of your pants. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out, you are likely to
1206
invite the obvious; and, as he said, the burning of Embassies, the burning of information centres follows. It is very important that we should realise that multilateral aid must be the eventual form which all aid must take. I justify the present Government, and past Governments, in the emphasis laid on what were Commonwealth territories. Aid to the Commonwealth, I feel, is a liability that we are justified in accepting; for these were areas in which we had a great deal of experience.
But I would repeat what my noble friend Lord Samuel pointed out: that a great deal of what we are trying to redress to-day—and I say this not by way of indictment but in historical perspective—throughout the world is due to the shortcomings of the colonial empires, and not only our own. As the noble Viscount pointed out, we expected our Colonies to be self-sufficient. In the failure of the Colonies to develop, we saw the microcosm of the world to-day. We cannot expect countries or peoples to lift themselves up by their bootstraps when they have not even boots.
It seems to me that the greatest opportunity, and indeed the positive possibilities, of the immediate future lie in the reinforcement of those things which start countries on the upward escalator, instead of on the downward escalator on which they find themselves to-day. By that I mean that prosperity will not be achieved in these countries, there is no hope for these countries in industrial development, until we inject into their economies the things that we have called in the past "social services". I have said it before in your Lordships' House, and I repeat it to-night. If there is to be industrial prosperity in those countries, the emphasis must be on better education, on better health and on better nutrition, so that there is the human infrastructure on which prosperity can be built. Behind and beyond that, you must move in with the sharing of knowledge and skills, which is much more important than the book-keeping in terms of money. What is important are the people to whom you are going to lend money, the people who are to be lent money and educated; not the money, the balance sheet. Money is the book-keeping item which ought to express and reflect these things. What is important is the

1207
development of the sharing of knowledge and skills, and the increasing emphasis that we must lay on the follow-through.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that in fact I see no justification whatever for interest-bearing loans to those countries. It is feeding a tapeworm. I would remind your Lordships that in 1966, the year in which my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle changed the policy and insisted on non-interest-bearing loans, the total amount of aid from all the world to the developing countries was 9 billion dollars. Of that total, 5 billion dollars were to pay interest on the loans that had already been made. This is feeding the tapeworm, because to the receiving countries it means that if they do not take loans they die; and if they take interest-bearing loans they feed the tapeworm and still die.
7.47 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, the hour is late. I know that we all wish to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has to say at the end of this interesting debate, and therefore I do not intend to detain the House for more than a very few minutes. I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, on his very able speech. I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment; but I hope that there will be many occasions in the future when we shall hear him. If there is one aspect of this subject which I think has not received sufficient consideration, it is this. What we have to do is to convince our own British people outside this Chamber, in the country and beyond Parliament, that it is necessary for this country to continue its overseas aid. That I think is the most important aspect of this subject.
My Lord, we are considering in this debate the question of overseas aid at a time when our institutions are under attack. Many of us will have seen an article in the centre pages of The Times to-day in which it would appear that some of our students are under a form of psycho-analysis at the present time. Our students are of considerable interest to all of us; but I can only hope that the fact that they occupy the centre pages of The Times will not make them attribute to themselves an importance which obvi-
1208
ously they do not deserve. It was said in the debate in another place that our students are the greatest supporters of our overseas aid but—entering, if I may, a slightly controversial field—I feel that they support our overseas aid for the wrong reasons.
I suggest that the reasons why they support overseas aid are not very difficult to discover. They have lived in the era of the past twenty years, the post-1945 era of the "wind of change", when it was fashionable to challenge our great institutions and to find a great deal wrong with everything we stand for. Some of our students—I would not say all—see aid as an atonement for the exploitation by this country of our former overseas territories. Students therefore think it right that we should foot the bill to the extent of £205 million in support of overseas aid. They probably think that we should pay a great deal more, and particularly that your Lordships should pay more.
They have been ably abetted in their wrong-headed conclusions about the reasons for overseas aid by the silence of those of us who know better; by our failure to say what overseas aid is about and the moral obligations behind it. Our voice is not heard in the babble of disillusionment in the market place because it is very difficult to get across our point of view. They do not see, read or hear about the greatness of this country's colonial era. It does not appear in our history books, nor do the professors talk about it. It does not appear in television programmes or in the newspapers. This is a fact of life of the past 25 years. The dreadful theme of "exploitation" has been taken up by the leaders of Black Power who have been in evidence in this country and it is echoed by the Colonial Committee of 24 in the United Nations. All this angers the more level-headed among our population, who argue that if this is the way that people who receive overseas aid behave, they see no reason to continue providing it.
My Lords, if we were to discontinue the payment of overseas aid it would be unutterably wrong. I have discussed this subject with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and I know that she will confirm the views I have expressed about the Colonial Committee of 24 in the

1209
United Nations. The Committee hold the views which I have stated to your Lordships, and all this makes the situation extremely difficult when dealing with our own people. I do not speak from theory but from practical experience. Our Empire, now the Commonwealth, is one of the greatest inspirations that the world has seen. To put it in its proper context, we give aid not because we have ever exploited our friends to their disadvantage but because it is the logical follow-up of the Empire, the logical extension of our belief that we should help the people with whom we have been associated.
My last post was in Malaya, where I was Commissioner of Customs and Excise. I know for a fact that we ploughed back into the economy of that country every single dollar that we collected. It went to the revenues of the Federation. I saw the standard of living of the inhabitants go up year by year. We were dedicated to the welfare of the countries we served to the exclusion of everything else. We have continued to provide aid because it is morally right that we should do so. What we have to get across to the people in this country is the truth about our past, so that they may never be in doubt about the propriety of what we are doing. We have also to disabuse their minds of the false notions about why we give aid, and get rid of that word in the context of the canard of exploitation.
7.54 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for having arrived in the Chamber so late in this debate, and I must also apologise to the House. I shall not keep your Lordships for more than two minutes. I should have taken part in this debate although my work at the United Nations concerns the human rights aspect. All the same, we have a debate on what is called the world social situation, where aid is discussed although not very fully. When, in the United Nations, we speak of aid, it is no good our speaking as if we were representatives of one of the poor nations. It becomes absolutely ludicrous to our Afro-Asian friends when we talk about being hard up. We have talked ourselves into such a state of penury about the balance of payments, and into such a state of self-
1210
pity that it has been left to the Daily Express to come to our aid, as it did yesterday, to tell us how many things are right in this country and how well off we are in know-how an I in wealth of all kinds.
When the words "British taxpayer" are mentioned they are such emotive words that we have to stop speaking as if we are so poor, and point out to the British taxpayer that it is not only a moral duty for him or her to aid the developing and the poor countries but it is also in our interests, because we are helping future customers who will receive our exports. I mentioned in another debate that it was the delegate from the Philippines in the Human Rights Committee who said—and I thoroughly endorse his words—that there has to be a complete revolution in our thinking about aid and how much we ought to give to poor countries. It is not only for us to do this; it is for all the affluent countries, the Western European countries and America. We still could give more and we should give more aid. Unless we have a revolution in our way of thinking about this subject there is, I think, little hope for the future of the world.
7.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would join with all noble Loath in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for having initiated this debate and giving us an opportunity once again to consider this very important matter. Having expressed my thanks, I am bound to say that I share the view held, I think, by all those who have spoken, that we listened to the noble Lord but we did not agree. We disagreed not so much with what he said, at least so far as I am concerned, as with the tone of his speech. I will seek to put the noble Lord out of his misery during the few remarks I intend to make. I say that my remarks will be few because, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, there was a very full debate in another place and the Mir inter responsible for these matters made a very careful, well-prepared and documented speech. I think, therefore, it may be left there, at least so far as Government policy is concerned.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, spoke with regret about the fact

1211
that the figure we had hoped for in 1968–69 and 1969–70 would not be reached, and that we had had to keep it at £205 million. I share his regret, particularly as a Commonwealth Minister, but we must take account of the present economic circumstances. While I agree with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that we are not a a poor country and that in fact we could provide more, we must bear in mind that it is not purely a question of cash; there is also the effect upon the general resources of the country. As we see it, we must refurbish and develop our resources so as to be able to play a greater part in world trade and in providing aid for the poorer countries. Having mentioned the figure of £205 million, I think it fair also to point out that in the next year or so there will be further contributions over and above that sum, that we shall be giving in economic assistance to Malaysia and Singapore as a result of the new defence arrangements. There is also the Food Aid Convention where we shall be providing some £6 million in a year. There is the increased contribution that we intend to make to the International Development Association. We are very conscious of the need for increased aid and I can assure the House that we will do all we can to see that money is made available as soon as our economy makes this possible.
But I think that I should say that it is a question not just of the money we have available; it is also the manner in which we use it and the efficiency with which it is used. Many of the misconceptions in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, about the misuse of aid can be attributed to the efforts we made immediately after the war, when help to developing countries was an unknown task. We knew little about this subject and I agree with the noble Lord that large sums of money were wasted. Since then the work of the United Nations, of the World Bank and of the new Ministry under its own Minister has enabled us to make our contributions infinitely more efficient and certainly more effective than they were in the earlier days.
I believe, as I think most noble Lords feel, that we should move from bilateral aid into the multilateral field. If this
1212
can be achieved—and we are seeking to bring this about, though initially the movement must be slow, with the help of the World Bank and the various development banks in Asia and the Caribbean—we shall have an expertise and knowledge which will make the sums available more effective. However, we are still bound by a number of long-term agreements into which we have entered bilaterally and it is right that these should be continued. My noble friend Lord Walston spoke about using our aid particularly for our friends. I would not turn my back upon an enemy who was poor and starving.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I said that if needs and everything else were equal we ought not to be ashamed of helping our friends in preference to those who are not our friends.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have seen poverty throughout the world, in India, in Hong Kong and in the Caribbean, and I have never seen how I could equate one poverty with another. But what I want to stress is that 90 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to our Commonwealth partners. I think that that is right. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has in mind, because he has raised it in the past, countries like Tanzania. As he said to-day, we have temporary difficulties with Tanzania and it is true that we have not made further additional financial grants, but we have technical staff in the developments in that country and I am sure that it is right for this to continue so long as possible, rather than for us to stop it and have all we have done completely wasted. A country with whom we are not an enemy, but with whom we have a disagreement on one matter, we can well be friendly with in other ways. In all these things I would say that we should have patience.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that it would be better to give help as gifts, but there are circumstances when one must be a little more cautious. Much of our aid is given at a low rate of interest, and in many cases interest is not payable for some considerable time in order to allow the projects for which the loans are made to become productive and so make money available for the

1213
payment of interest. I agree with my noble friends who would prefer to see aid given without any tie and without interest, but at the present moment we need to have some degree of good housekeeping, even though it may seem rather hard on some of the friends we are seeking to help.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that trade is better than aid. But we must remember that the main difficulty of the countries we are seeking to help, which are mainly agricultural—I would instance Mauritius and Fiji and their difficulties with their sugar crop—is that they must have some form of industrialisation if they are to raise their standard of living. If we accept the view that trade is better than aid, we must see how we can arrive at diversification in production so that the impact of imports from the developing countries does not affect our own manufacturing capability, and so that the richer countries who are in a position to do so buy their share of the produce of the developing countries.
In regard to regional aid, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Walston said. I am sure that he is aware of the Ministry of Overseas Development's work in the Barbados, which has now been in operation for so long that it is no longer an experiment. There we have learned a great deal about how we can assist developing countries more effectively, and I would pay a great tribute to all our staff in Barbados. I am sure that this regional development is the right way to proceed.
Turning to the allegation of the misuse of funds, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that none of our aid is given for prestige purposes. The aid we give bilaterally to our friends, in the Commonwealth and outside, is for agreed projects—projects which have been put to us, which we have examined and approved. We also agree with the need for developing an infrastructure in these countries. Certainly co-operation is a good idea and we give all the help we can in this direction. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, spoke of private enterprise. There is a significant outflow of private capital into the developing countries, amounting to some £120 million a year, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, himself drew attention to the good return on these investments. The reason why it
1214
should be different from the return on investments in more developed areas may be that in the more developed areas there is greater competition, while in the developing areas there is a degree of protection.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his interesting speech, said he felt that we were not doing all we could and had failed to reach our objective of giving in aid 1 per cent. of the gross national product. This 1 per cent. was not regarded as the figure for official aid: it was to be a combination of official aid and private investment. In fact the 1 per cent. target about which I have spoken was adopted by the 1964 UNCTAD Conference. The 1968 Conference set a new target, and to-day our present official aid and our private investment brings us to 0·9 per cent. So we are within 0·1 per cent. of our target, and we are one of the foremost countries. We hope that one day we shall be able to reach this target that has been set by UNCTAD.
My Lords, we have had many debates on population, and I think we have a unanimity of view on the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, spoke about television education. We give great priority, as he knows, to education, and in particular to technical assistance. This represents a rising percentage of our total aid. The noble Earl asked for an assurance that this aid will not be cut. He will well understand that I cannot give him that assurance this evening—4 have not been able to make contact with the Department—but I will see that this is looked at, and perhaps I can communicate with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, called for an organisation for combining official and private funds. I can tell him that my right honourable friend is most interested in this matter. I will certainly see that what the noble Lord has said is brought to my right honourable friend's attention, and perhaps we might discuss it on another occasion. On the question of training, this is, of course, most important. I think one tends to oven tress the problem of training individuals for one job, only to find that they go to another country to do a different job. I think this is often exaggerated, perhaps merely because it seems so absurd that a man should come some 8,000 miles for training only to return to do something else. Clearly, at the end of the day men

1215
are free, and we cannot direct them to a particular job. But certainly this is very much in our minds.
I think I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised. I am glad that there is a unanimity of view—and I think at the end of the day even the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is willing to join us. In spite of the views he has expressed in your Lordships' House from time to time, the noble Lord has always been, in my view, a very charitable man. I believe he has travelled the world. I cannot believe that he has stayed only in the Hiltons and the great hotels of Africa, Asia and Australia. I am sure that at some time he has walked the streets of some of these countries and seen the poverty and hunger on young people's faces, and old people lost. I cannot believe that the noble Lord would feel that he could walk on the other side and turn his back. It may be that all we seek to do is not done as efficiently as he would like and as we should like: but I am sure it is right that we should go ahead—and I stress this—in partnership with many countries who give aid for the same reason as we wish to give aid that is, that we feel it to be morally right and that, in the end we can find peace only when there is contentment and happiness among all people.
THE EARL or BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him one question. With regard to the overall gross aid, he gave a figure of £205 million. Does he agree that we get £130 million back directly in exports (I quoted these figures, and I think they were quoted in another place), and that in addition we are getting another £60 million in interest and amortisation of loans, and also a certain amount back in exports from untied aid from other countries? I am rather confused about this. Why should we not increase our aid if we seem to be gaining as much as we are giving? I do not think that the noble Lord quite answered that point.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I deliberately avoided answering the point, because the noble Earl knows the problem of figures and statistics, and particularly of arguing them across the Floor of the Howe. First of all, we have to
1216
establish clearly on what our figures are based. Undoubtedly to-day we earn both by trade and by interest on the sums that we have given by direct aid, and certainly by way of investment. But I should find it difficult to put before the House how the balance lies to-day. With one figure I will agree: that on the sums that we invest and give in aid we earn about 30s. in the pound invested, which was the figure used by the noble Earl. This is a figure that is clear in my mind. However, I should not wish to go into the detailed figures, because it could only lead to a great deal of misunderstanding.
8.17 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the many contributions that have been made this afternoon. It has been a most informative debate, marked by significant contributions from so many noble Lords with long service abroad and great experience. I personally have learned a great deal, and I am indeed grateful. With regard to myself, perhaps I may add this note. I should perhaps be penitent for having attracted a reproof for an appearance of absence of compassion with regard to what aid is desired. I would say, in extenuation, that it is my strong conservatism and the preference for individual commercial action that has motivated my emphasis on the need for scrutiny of aid. It is in that sense that I appreciate the references that have been made by many.
I should like to make comment on several of the outstanding contributions. I like the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, with regard to a review of our overseas expenditure and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd in his reply went over the many points raised in the debate. I would add that I particularly appreciated the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I take note of his request for understanding with regard to any actions taken in anger by emerging countries I should like to convey my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who brought her long experience of the United Nations to bear in this debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (VAUXHALL CROSS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.