Lords Sitting of 21 April 1969

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

PRISON SERVICE: APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNORS
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: 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 they propose to alter the established arrangements for the appointment of assistant governors and governors in the Prison Service.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFFICE (LORD STONIIAM): My Lords, assistant governors are at present recruited through an annual limited competition open only to serving members of the prison officer class, or by promotion from among prison officers who have reached the rank of chief officer; and, to the extent that insufficient recruits are obtained in these two ways, by open competition. Since 1948, it has been the aim of successive Governments that as many governors as possible should be appointed from within the ranks of the Prison Service, but progress has been slow, and in practice the majority of vacancies has been filled from outside the Prison Service by open competition. As my right honourable friend announced recently in another place, it is his aim that promotion from within the Service should be the normal method of filling governor vacancies, and for this purpose he has appointed a Working Party of officials and staff representatives to recommend what changes are necessary to secure that over a period a one-tier system is introduced into the Prison Service in England and Wales and that meanwhile an increasing proportion of the vacancies in the governor class is
296
filled from within the Service. It is already the practice to appoint prison governors by promotion from the assistant governor ranks. No change in this procedure is contemplated.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. While I cordially agree with him about the desirability of its being open to prison officers with the requisite abilities to rise to the highest positions in the Service, may I ask whether, bearing in mind the high quality of assistant governors and governors in the Prison Service generally, he will undertake not to make any substantial change in the existing arrangements for recruiting and appointing them without first publishing the Report of the Working Party which has been set up?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in his tribute to the quality of governors and assistant governors generally, and appreciate the importance of the point he has just raised. As he will know, three present governors and one former governor are members of the Working Party. I think that guarantees the quality of the advice that my right honourable friend will receive. I will certainly make representations to my right honourable friend with regard to the point of publication of the Report.

WELSH REGIMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENT SURPLUS
2.38 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 fact that 97 officers and 551 soldiers now in the South Wales Borderers and the Welch Regiment are surplus to the establishment of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales, they will on June 11, 1969, form a Second Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR
DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER BOTTOM): No, my Lords. Most of the

297
officers and soldiers surplus to the establishment of the Royal Regiment of Wales will serve in other regiments within the Prince of Wales's Division or be transferred into other Divisions or Corps.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the officers and men mentioned in my Question joined one of the Welsh regiments on the understanding that they would always serve in the Welsh regiments; and is this not a disgraceful breach of faith?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, circumstances impose unpopular decisions upon us, and to what extent a firm commitment was entered into that a Welshman should always serve in a Welsh regiment. I cannot say.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister how he thinks he is going to sustain, or even retain, recruiting in Wales if the Government play these shabby tricks on Welsh officers and soldiers?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I deny that this is a shabby trick. It is something forced upon us by necessity.
LORD MOLSCN: My Lords, do not the Government think that they ought to make quite certain what undertakings were given? And is it not rather unsatisfactory that the Minister replies that he does not know whether any undertakings were given?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will make such an inquiry, but I should imagine that officers and men recruited into Welsh regiments were recruited under exactly the same terms as those recruited into any other regiment in the British Army.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that that statement is not correct? All officers and soldiers recruited into a Welsh regiment were so recruited on the assumption that they would remain in a Welsh regiment in the Welsh Brigade. But may I ask him, further, whether his attention has been drawn to the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1959, and the Statement on Recruiting issued by the Minister
298
of Defence on March 26, 1969? If his attention has been drawn to these documents, would he not agree that they show a serious falling off in recruiting for the Army?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have undertaken to see whether an undertaking was given. There is a great difference between an assumption and an undertaking; but I will look into the matter and let the two noble Lords who have spoken know what the position is.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a Statement on the use of troops to guard certain key points in Northern Ireland.
FARMER AND COMPANY, LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BARCLAYS BANK BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

PARLIAMENT (No.6) BILL [H.L.]
2.44 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the composition and powers of the House of Lords; to make related provision as to the parliamentary franchise and qualification; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Alport.)
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 1a?
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 1a accordingly, and to be printed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (SUPERANNUATION, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, this is one of the general Orders which are made under the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932. I understand that no objections were received to the draft Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sun
The Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents 43.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Popplewell, L.

Addison, V.

Hacking, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Alport, L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Amulree, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Auckland, L.

Kennet, L.

Segal, L.

Bessborough, E.

Latham, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bowles, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shannon, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Listowel, E.

Shepherd, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

McLeavy, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Merrivale, L.

Stonham, L.

Byers, L.

Meston, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Carrington, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Molson, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor, L.

Crowther, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Thurlow, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ogmore, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grenfell, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Poltimore, L.

Balerno, L.

Guest, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brockway, L.

Hayter, L.

Sackville, L.

Burden, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Helens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cork and Orrery, E. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Daventry, V.

Lambert, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Loudoun, C.

Teynham, L.

Derby, Bp.

MacAndrew, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Ellenborough, L.

day Entertainments Act 1932 to the Rural District of Derwent be approved.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NURSES BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The constitution of the two Councils who carry the statutory responsibility for the training of nurses for England and Wales and for Scotland has remained substantially unchanged for twenty years, and the House will be only too well aware that there have been considerable advances in nurse training and in the practice of nursing during this period. In view of the vital part which nurses play in all aspects of the Health Service, I am sure your Lordships will welcome the

301
opportunity which this Bill presents to enhance the efficiency of the bodies responsible for their training, especially as it is being introduced at their own request after full consultation with all interested bodies concerned.
The changes now proposed streamline the Council's administrative processes by changing the committee structure by giving representation on the Council to enrolled nurses and increased representation to psychiatric nurses. As the election of nurses to the Council is due next year and the necessary preparations take several months, it is essential that the Bill is enacted this year if the 1970 elections are to take place under the proposed new constitution. Delay would involve the Council in the expense of an additional set of elections, from which I am sure we all wish to save them, or a five-year postponement of these desirable changes until the following elections. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will prove to be an uncontroversial one and will receive a swift passage through your Lordships' House.
The General Nursing Council for England and Wales has 36 members at present—18 are elected and 18 are appointed—and like most bodies of this size its main work is done through committees, two of which are affected by the changes proposed in this Bill. The first is the Mental Nurses Committee, which was established in 1949 when the training of mental nurses was brought wholly under the General Nursing Council, and at present elections to it are separate from those of the Council. This Bill, by giving greater representation to mental nurses on the Council, both enhances their status and enables the Committee to be made a standing committee of the Council, thereby avoiding the expense of separate elections. The second Committee which is affected is the Enrolled Nurses Committee, which was established in 1943 when the new qualification of State enrolled assistant nurse—now the State enrolled nurse—was introduced. I hope your Lordships who are familiar with the Health Service will agree that the enrolled nurse now has an established place in the nursing profession, and again it is felt that there is no need for a separate committee.
Turning now to the detail of the Bill, Clause 1 provides a new part of the register for nurses for the mentally sub
302
normal in England and Wales, where there are at present two separate qualification for psychiatric nurses: the registered mental nurse and the registered nurse for the mentally subnormal. Under present legislation nurses for the mentally subnormal are on a section of the mental part of the register. This Bill now gives them a completely separate part of the register, recognising in full the fact that they form a separate branch of the profession. Under the proposed constitution it will be possible for the first time for a registered nurse for the mentally subnormal to be elected to the Council itself, a proposal which I am sure your Lordships will welcome. Some of your Lordships will know that there is already separate registration in Scotland for nurses trained in the nursing of persons suffering from mental defect.Recent events have seemed to highlight the urgent need to increase the number of trained nurses in hospitals for the subnormal, as well as to introduce other improvements in this branch of the Service, and I hope that this change, which recognises the standing of this branch of the nursing profession, will help towards this general end.
At present nurses train for the roll either in general nursing, mental nursing or in nursing for the subnormal, but there is only the one qualification of enrolled nurse. Enrolled nurses who have trained in, say, a hospital for the mentally ill need further training when they move to a hospital for the subnormal, but there is no way in which they can be distinguished by their particular training and experience. Nor can an enrolled nurse acquire a double qualification. Clause 1 provides that in future the roll of nurses of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales will be divided into parts according to the kind of training given, and this will bring it into line with the register. The proposals in this Bill do not, however, divide the Scottish roll as the training arrangements in Scotland are somewhat different from those in England and Wales, and the General Nursing Council for Scotland wish to continue with a single roll.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2, which provides for the increase in the number of members on the General Nursing Council for England and Wales. These follow from the change in the committee structure which I mentioned earlier, and provide

303
for the election to the Council of an additional registered mental nurse, a registered nurse for the mentally subnormal and two enrolled nurses—one on the general part of the roll and one on either of the psychiatric parts of the roll. There are also changes in the appointed members which recognise the developments in nurse training, and the increase in the emphasis on community nursing. In addition, it is considered advisable to allow for possible future changes in training patterns, and for the need to add certain kinds of experience among the elected members. This is the reason for providing for four unspecified appointments to be made by the Secretary of State.
Changes in the General Nursing Council for Scotland are dealt with in Clause 3 of the Bill. These are more limited than those for England and Wales, because the Scottish Council is smaller; but here again there is an increase in the number of psychiatric nurses among the elected members to ensure the representation of registered nurses for mental defectives. Also, for the first time, two enrolled nurses will be elected to the Council. The number of members appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland has in this case been increased by one.
Clause 4 of the Bill changes the status of the Mental Nurses Committee of the two Councils from separate statutory committees to statutory standing committees of the Councils. The functions of these standing committees will be the same as those of the present committees, with the addition in England and Wales of responsibility for pupil and enrolled psychiatric nurses. The greater representation of psychiatric nurses should in our view ensure that there is an adequate width of experience on the committees, and, in addition, provision has been made in respect of both Councils for the Secretary of State to nominate up to four additional members for appointment by the Council to the Committee. They would not, however, become members of the Council.
The purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill is to abolish the Enrolled Nurses Committees, which are at present concerned with the training of pupil nurses and the discipline of enrolled nurses. Now that the importance of enrolled nurses
304
is clearly accepted by the provision in Clause 2 for the election of enrolled nurses to the Council, it is felt—and hope your Lordships will agree—that there is no longer any need to make special arrangements to protect their status. The current trend is towards combined training schools, training both student and pupil nurses, and it is felt that the educational function of the Enrolled Nurses Committee can be more effectively fulfilled by the Council's Education Committee and Mental Nurses Committee, both of which will in future include representatives of enrolled nurses. The present disciplinary function of the Enrolled Nurses Committee will pass to the Disciplinary Committee, thus avoiding the possible embarrassment of a double hearing when a case concerns a nurse who has the dual qualification of registered and enrolled nurse.
Opportunity is also being taken in Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of this Bill to deal with other minor matters which I will mention briefly. First, members of nurse-training committees and regional nurse-training committees are entitled to receive payment for loss of earnings or additional expenses. But every time there is a change in the rate of payment the Secretary of State is required to lay a Statutory Instrument. Clause 6 removes this requirement, and allows the Secretary of State, subject to the approval of my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Minister for the Civil Service, to determine any alteration in the rates payable. I hope the House will agree that this is a sensible and practical arrangement, and I can assure your Lordships that it will not lead to any increase in the frequency of change or any increase in expenditure. Clause 7 relates to the cost of recording details of student and pupil nurses in training, which is at present met from the fees for registration and enrolment, and to the cost of inquiries.
Clause 8 will remove from the Councils the duty to publish periodical lists of persons admitted to, removed from or restored to the register, the roll or the list. It is felt that these lists have little value and are wasteful of the Council's time and money. The information will still be readily available when needed, and the requirement that copies of the register, the roll and the list shall be kept at the

305
office of the Council, and shall be open to the inspection of any person without charge, will remain.
My Lords, I would only say in conclusion that this Bill is, I hope, one that deals with matters which are in no way controversial, and it has, I believe, been generally accepted by the nursing profession as meeting both the present and the foreseeable requirements of nurse training. Many of your Lordships may feel that these particular administrative proposals will not greatly affect the nurse at the bedside; but it is, after all, the nurse training schools which set the standards of nursing now and in the future, and they need the backing of an efficient and effective General Nursing Council. That is the object of the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the House will give its unanimous approval to its Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
—(Baroness Scrota.)
3.3 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD
FELLTE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for the pains she has taken to explain this Nurses Bill. I am glad that the Government have introduced it in your Lordships' House, where we have the Minister of State for Health to pilot it through. It is appropriate that it has been presented to Parliament in the Jubilee Year of the General Nursing Council. For 50 years people who have been appointed, and who have worked in a voluntary capacity, have sat on the General Nursing Council for long hours and for many days in order that the general standard of training of nurses shall be improved, and I think it most appropriate that on the Second Reading of the Bill one should pay tribute to those people who have served on the General Nursing Council, either as members or as officers; and this I do with great pleasure and gratitude.
This is a Bill about the constitution of the Council, but I cannot speak on it without reminding your Lordships of all the unhappiness that exists among nurses to-day as a result of the way in which they have been treated over their pay and emoluments. Perhaps this is not the time to go into details, but here is the
306
one and only case where the whole nation believes that the members of a profession are underpaid when one takes into account what they have to pay for hospital meals, for which they are now being charged. Although, so far, it is only the "Miss Veals" of the profession who are vociferous, a vast number of nurses all over the country would like to support Miss Veal if they were not embarrassed by her tactics. Perhaps her tactics are right. We have seen how airline pilots can extract big concessions by going on strike regardless of people's convenience or the national interest. Why should the nurses be held down simply because they have higher standards of conduct and duty than the pilots have?
I was in training myself as a nurse once, until I married my noble relative, and therefore became wastage from the profession. But my daughter is a trained nurse, and I know a number of her friends who are members of the nursing profession. It is only too obvious how often those girls—and the men, too—go the extra mile for the sake of their patients and get very little reward for what they do, compared with those working in less honourable and arduous walks of life.
My Lords, I am sure I have digressed, but I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, had she been in my place, would have seized the opportunity to make, the perhaps not altogether relevant intervention that I have made on this Bill, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the points I have raised. It is unfortunate that the Explanatory Memorandum on the Bill uses words about Clause 4 that are ambiguous, for the Explanatory Memorandum is often all that is seized upon by journalists and reproduced as a reliable précis. In this case, it has misled some people into supposing that elected members of the Council will no longer sit on the Mental Nurses Committee, which of course would be nonsense. There are three points of importance on which I hope the Minister of State will agree to improve the Bill. Clause 2 amends the numbers of persons to be appointed to the Council by the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and adds to the appointing bodies the Central Midwives Board and the Council for the Training of Health Visitors. Under Clause

307
2(3) the Secretary of State for Social Services is required to consult:
"with persons and bodies having special knowledge and experience of the work "
of each class of persons to be appointed by him before appointing the medical practitioners and registered nurses to the Council. Surely all appointing bodies should be required to have appropriate consultations before making any appointment to the Council. It is also essential that all appointed persons should be actively engaged in their special field at the time of appointment, and should not be retired people or people who have gone off to do something else.
The third point on which I should like to see the Bill improved is connected with the requirement in paragraph 2(2) of the First Schedule to the 1957 Act, that the 15 registered general nurses shall be employed as registered nurses at the time they stand for election. I think that this requirement should be extended to all types of nurses standing for election. Every enrolled nurse candidate should be employed in the capacity of an enrolled nurse at the time of standing for election. This is a matter of principle which I know the profession considers to be of the utmost importance. The State enrolled nurses are particularly anxious that they shall be represented on the Council by enrolled nurses who are working as enrolled nurses and not by enrolled nurses who also hold the qualification of registered nurse.
Could the Minister of State also reconsider the date when the Act is to come into force? Clause 11(1) says that it is to be January 1, 1970. Why not a month after the Bill receives the Royal Assent? That would facilitate the arrangements for next year's elections, I know. I am sure that the general purpose of this Bill is welcomed by the nursing profession. If the Minister of State will help over the points I have mentioned, she can be sure of our help in speeding it through all the stages in your Lordships' House.
3.10 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to join briefly in the general welcome given to this Bill which I think is a useful and valuable measure to come before your Lordships' House. I am sure that anything we can do at the present time to improve the status of the
308
nurses taking care of the mentally subnormal is greatly to be praised and encouraged. Therefore that alone makes this Bill worthwhile. At the risk of repeating what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, I cannot let the occasion pass without agreeing with her very fully indeed that it is essential that the people on the Council should be people working in the branch of nursing which they are there to represent. I trust that the Minister will be able to give us the assurance not only that they will be in the grade themselves but that they will be actively working in it at the time when they are appointed and shall continue to work in it during their time on the Council.
There are two further points I would briefly mention. I trust that the fact that we now have these different categories of nurses will not mean that it will not be possible for nurses to move quite easily from one category to another if they wish to do so and that the move may be permanent or temporary. An enormous amount of good can be done in that way. I was thinking particularly of the value which I used to find in having nurses with some kind of training in mental sickness working among geriatric patients. Patients of this kind sometimes do things that can be startling to a young girl but not so startling to a nurse from a mental hospital. They may take off all their clothes in the middle of the day and walk about the ward. This could be frightening to some young people. I trust that nurses will still be able to move freely from one branch of the profession to another.
I think this Bill will increase the status and stature of the State-enrolled nurse. I am delighted to see this. When the enrolled nurses first came into being they were looked upon with some degree of suspicion, but now I think we are all agreed that they have become an integral part of the nursing service. I should like to join in any tributes paid to the great work that they have done in their branches of the profession. I am pleased to give what support I can to this Bill at its Second Reading and through its future stages.
3.13 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, this is an innocuous little Bill that the House is debating to-day. I

309
am quite sure that both Houses will approve it and that my noble friend will be only too happy to get it on the Statute Book as soon as possible. It is concerned simply with the registration and enrolment of mental nurses and nurses for the subnormal, and, of course, could be regarded solely as an administrative measure calculated to improve the status of this category of nurses. But I think that the Bill has a greater significance which calls for some comment, for it is being debate at a time when attention is directed to the over-crowded and under-staffed conditions of the institutions which accommodate the mentally sick of all categories. Simultaneously, the nurses, whose patience is at last exhausted, are protesting against their gross exploitation.
I was pleased when the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said that she intended to break away from the Bill in its entirety because she felt incensed. I was glad to see in her these signs of revolution. She has been a nurse. I have watched nurses at close quarters and I feel as deeply as she does that the country takes the services of these wonderful women too lightly. Therefore it is relevant to ask how far this Bill will improve the terms of service and encourage the recruitment of young women for work which is physically and mentally arduous, often uncongenial and calling for qualities of unlimited patience, of kindness and compassion when you are weary and exhausted, beside the accepted qualifications of a nurse. I want to know—and I told my noble friend that I was going to digress—what else the Government intend to do to make this register of real significance, what incentive other than that of representation will be provided in order to attract girls to take up this work.
The Bill has come at a time when it is a question of a protest not merely by a few nurses but also by the Nursing Times, which is a very important organ in their life, and by the nursing authorities, who have felt that a protest should be made on nurses' behalf. The Nursing Times this week warns the country that unless of the wages of the nurses are improved there will soon be very few left. As I have reminded the House, we have at the moment to rely for the stalling of our hospitals in both
310
the medical and the nursing professions on men and women who come from countries where their services are desperately needed. The Nursing Times says:
"Adolescent devotion to an ideal of service is being grossly exploited by the nation. It is time that this was realised by everybody."
That seems to be no over-statement of the facts.
Let us take the case of a first year resident nurse—I do not say "student nurse". The word "student", of course, is a euphemism. A student in the world of nursing works as hard as any fully qualified nurse; she works day and night. A student in medicine or a student in any other profession more or less dictates his own pace of life, but a student nurse has no concessions whatever. She must work very hard. Therefore I say that the Nursing Times comment is riot an over-statement. A first year resident nurse under 25 gets £5 15s. 0d. a week, after deductions. A non-resident third year nurse under 25 gets £7 17s. 8d. A recent rise, described by the editor of the Nursing Times as "peanuts", was deducted because most nurses are now expected to pay for their own meals in hospitals. If a nurse has four meals a day in hospital—and I would remind your Lordships that nurses of 18, 19 and 20 years old are still growing—it will cost her £2 6s. 1d. a week. Hot drinks are extra. I hope that my noble friend will tell me that if a girl works all night she can take as many hot drinks as she wishes from the ward kitchen without feeling that she is cheating. I regard this new "pay as you eat" scheme as a. temptation to these girls to economise at the expense of their food. I was shocked to read in a newspaper this week that a nurse of 19 was charged with stealing bread from a supermarket. A girl of 19 does not steal bread unless she is hungry. She might steal stockings that she cannot afford and longs to have; but to steal a loaf of bread indicates hunger.
The Nursing Times said:
"This latest gambit endangers the whole future of nursing recruitment."
It warns that there are now fewer 18-year olds to recruit into nursing, and it goes on:
"These young men and women, mostly in their late teens, who are left in charge of

311
wards and are put on night duty or Sunday duty to meet exigencies of service are surely the most mobile labour force in the whole country. For them to suggest the withdrawal of their service while they are still nursing students is at the moment unthinkable. How long will it remain so? Only the future will show."
It goes on to say:
"This shameful exploitation of them must stop, because if it does not, then there will be no one to staff the hospitals of the future."
My Lords, student nurses are demanding only an extra £1 a week, and the Royal College of Nursing has said that it will press for the rise because there is the gravest concern at the inequitable treatment of student nurses. For years there have been individual nurses or small groups of nurses who have had the moral courage to make a protest—and protests of that kind are not encouraged in the nursing profession. But there has been a persistent failure to recognise the overwhelming justice of their case, and now the unrest has culminated in a collective demand to recognise their grievances.
I believe that the neglect of these kind, unselfish young women, who have a vocation which the nation is quite prepared to exploit, cannot be unrelated to the Government's industrial relations problems. The workers in all fields—the noble Lady opposite touched on this—have come to learn that only strike action, or the threat of it, will compel those in authority to recognise the justice of their claims, and this could be well illustrated by the treatment of the nurses who have allowed themselves to be exploited rather than even contemplate or threaten strike action. I believe that the Government have failed to demonstrate to the workers of the country that hard work and unswerving loyalty in itself will ensure a just reward. Every woman worker, whether in a hospital, shop or factory, provides an example of this willingness by the Government to exploit her underpaid labour. I believe that the Government are running into trouble because the workers have learned that only the strike threat works and that those who never use it are exploited. The case we are talking about to-day is glaringly apparent.
When a noble Lord, or anyone else, goes into hospital as a patient, he lies in bed and is served uncomplainingly, day and night, by physically attractive, ener
312
getic and intelligent young women who are prepared to do jobs that a man's wife or near relations would be reluctant to do. When patients come out of hospital they say how wonderful these young women are. But how long does that feeling last? All is forgotten in a few days or a week or two and everything is taken for granted. Every woman worker may be in the same position because she is modest and unassuming and accepts exploitation, and I feel that we must recognise that the attitude of the nurse to her work is reflected throughout the country.
I would say, finally, that the answer to the problems of the Labour Government is not that the Government should run away from them. The Labour Party would be the laughing stock of the world if, with a huge majority, they resigned because they could not handle their labour problems. I believe that the Government should think again, and not only in respect of those who get the headlines, the strongly entrenched trade unions with highly-paid and well-organised members who strike whenever they feel like it. There are also these hundreds of thousands of first-class workers whose conditions are ignored. I believe that the Government should do, and should appear to do, justice to the underpaid, exploited workers, among whom are the toiling nurses. If the Government beat a retreat without having fired a shot to relieve the exploited women workers of the country, they will be responsible for the greatest political landslide in our history.
3.26 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the curious thing about this Bill which, with other noble Lords, I warmly welcome is its Title. The limits of the Bill are extremely narrow in relation to the Title which, to the uninitiated, might indicate that the Bill is designed to cover the whole confines of nursing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and my noble friend Lady Brooke touched on in connection with the very important current problem regarding the pay of nurses and the extra charges for meals. This is something which, as has been said, has angered the nation as a whole; and it is not surprising.
I should like to say a few words about the Bill with particular reference to mental nursing. I live in an area where

313
there are seven mental hospitals very near to one another. I think that the provisions in Clause 2 will be particularly welcomed by them, if only for the reason that in the past the case of those who nurse in our mental hospitals has been put very inadequately. We have heard of the conditions in Ely Hospital, in Cardiff, and at Ockenden Hospital, in Essex. In the Evening Standard recently there was a picture profile about the fear of the people in the Epsom area because of the exploits of some of the patients in the hospitals there. I know of this fear, my Lords, and it is quite understandable because there are several thousands of patients in these hospitals. Some of the hospitals are overcrowded and some are understaffed. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the staffs of these hospitals. I serve on the house committee of one of them and I meet members of the staff quite regularly. This Bill will, I think, help to put the case of those engaged in this very distressing job of nursing the mentally ill and particularly the mentally subnormal.
Clause 2 of the Bill seems to me to contain an anomaly. In subsection (2)(b) it states that of the elected members of the Council:
"three shall be registered mental nurses elected by persons who, on the prescribed date, are registered mental nurses."
But in Clause 3, which deals with Scotland, there is the provision that at least one shall be a male nurse. I should like to know from the Government why such a provision does not apply to England, because there is a need for more male nurses, particularly in our mental hospitals. Much has been done to give male nurses more representation but, as I see it, there could be some strengthening of it in the Bill.
I hope that as a result of this Bill the enormously good work that is being done in our psychiatric hospitals and the great changes that have been made towards treating the mentally ill will be highlighted, as well as the unfortunate cases of which we have read in places such as Ely, because there is a great need, particularly when we are considering the recruitment of nurses, for the other side of the story to be told.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I am sure that, whether irregular or not, the whole House has welcomed the con
314
tributions which have been made by my noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte and by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, in regard to the financial conditions under which our nurses labour today. Having had some experience of this subject, I should like to support them in all they have said and to express the hope —a hope which I am sure will be justified —that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, will convey to her right honourable friend the Minister the feelings of the House and of these noble Ladies.
3.32 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I wonder whether it is purely a matter of coincidence that this Bill was issued on the same day as the report on the Ely Hospital in South Wales. Could it conceivably be possible that some of the changes suggested in this Bill, all of which I hope are warmly welcomed on every side of the House, could be consequent upon the revelations made in that report? May I, however, ask my noble friend why nurses trained in the special nursing of fevers in infectious diseases hospitals are no longer to be counted as a separate part of the register? Is it intended in future to include Clause 1(1) as a sort of generic clause, leaving it open to the Minister to add to the register "such other parts as may be prescribed"? If so, what other parts are also to be included in this clause?
Here I would earnestly urge my noble friend to consider whether a special part ought not to be included, either now or in the near future, not only of all nurses trained in the care of persons suffering from severe subnormality but also of nurses specifically trained in the care of severely subnormal children. I know that this matter is bound up with the shortage of training courses for teachers of subnormal children. At present the number of such courses is woefully inadequate. They do exist, I believe, in Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton, which is presided over by my noble friend Lord Grenfell, but in very few other areas.
Only recently, however, an exception has been made in the case of Leavesden Hospital, which I believe is the only hospital designated by the General Nursing Council as a training centre for a new type of student nurse. This is in conformity with the Government's

315
decision that teachers of mentally handicapped children should be not only qualified nurses, wherever possible, but also specially trained in teaching through the recognised courses of teaching required for dealing with this problem of mentally handicapped children. This course, now uniquely begun in this hospital, will involve two years' work in the hospital and two years of study at the Polytechnic for a diploma of the Central Training Council for Teachers of Mentally Handicapped Children. This requires a course of training of a minimum of four years and surely, after four years' training to obtain this diploma, nurses should be entitled to special inclusion in the new register under their own separate designation.
My plea for a special list of nurses trained in the nursing of severely subnormal children merely recognises that the distinction in the register to-day accepts special qualifications for the training of nurses of sick children. With severely subnormal children, however, extremes of patience, understanding and sympathy are called for. The duties of these nurses are far heavier and far more exacting, because these children cannot respond and co-operate in the way that severely subnormal adults are often able to do. Consequently, the period of training of these nurses has to be much longer and much more specialised, and such nurses ought to receive special recognition.
While on the subject, may I ask my noble friend when the last complete register of nurses and roll of nurses was issued? I believe that I am right in saying that the last register was published as far back as 1947, not less than 22 year ago. Even allowing for "13 years of Tory misrule ", surely in the time that has elapsed since then some effort should have been made to issue a nurses register in its complete form. The provision of publishing four monthly supplements is inadequate. It is a messy, time-wasting procedure. While I know that we cannot have an annual register in the same way as we have an annual medical register (I believe that when the last nurses' register appeared in 1947 it was out of date on the day it was published), I would ask: does the issue of a more up-to-date nurses' register have to be
316
ruled out on the ground of cost? If so, what would be the cost of printing a complete register and roll of nurses, not annually, but, say, once in every three, four or five years?
The other point in the Bill to which I should like briefly to refer is the appointment of members of the Council on the nomination of the Secretary of State. I would especially plead for greater representation for what one might call, rather inadequately perhaps, the consumer end of the mental hospitals. There is no lack of representation by professional bodies—doctors, nurses and teachers—but where are the voices of those who represent the parents and relatives of severely subnormal children and adults? It is very much to be hoped that their interests may be directly served in the newly constituted General Nursing Council. This would lead to greater consideration and far greater understanding of their needs in the many difficult cases that are bound to arise.
Finally, my Lords, while we must all recognise that this Bill is, unfortunately, very limited in scope, dealing only with Registration and Rolls and a new composition of the General Nursing Council, may one venture to express the hope that in the not too distant future the Government will introduce a much wider and more comprehensive Nurses Bill? I am thinking particularly of a new Bill dealing with the wider recruitment of nurses; an increase in the numbers of nurses; greatly improved conditions of service, of accommodation, of leisure and of pay; more courses especially for the training of nurses in the care and teaching of mentally handicapped children, and greater provision of facilities for the education and training of the children themselves. Vast new horizons have been opened up in these directions during the last few years. Many more of these children can now be trained in sheltered occupations in industry and agriculture to become self-supporting, to become fully self-respecting citizens, and to take their rightful place in the community.
I know only too painfully that such a Bill is tied up with the question of cost, and how little we can afford in these present days of economic stringency. But such a Bill, when it does come, can be assured of a far warmer welcome than

317
that which we must now afford to the rather limited, rather tepid, rather sad little Bill we are discussing in this House to-day, which utterly fails to deal with all those urgent problems now confronting the nursing profession and clamouring aloud for Government action.

VIOLENCE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
3.42 p.m.
LORDS
STONHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place about Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
" In the early hours of yesterday morning two serious attacks were made on important public utility installations in Northern Ireland. An electricity pylon was damaged by explosion, and trunk water mains were blown up seriously reducing the supply of water to many thousands of homes. Last evening the Northern Ireland Government requested the assistance of military units stationed in Northern Ireland for the specific purpose of supporting the local police in safeguarding certain key installations essential to the community. Her Majesty's Government immediately authorised the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to give such assistance, and troops are today being posted to safeguard certain installations in remote areas, mainly electricity and water supply installations.
"I am sure the House will join with me in condemning these outrages against the life of the community.
" As the House is aware, it has been intended to resume our discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland following the recent General Election there. Captain O'Neill today agreed to this, and I expect a meeting to take place at a very early date.
" I shall of course continue to keep the House informed on progress in these matters."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble
318
Lord for repeating the Statement on the disgraceful acts that have been perpetrated in Northern Ireland over the weekend. I have no doubt that your Lordships will all join in denouncing as inexcusable and unforgivable plots to blow up public utilities that exist to provide members of the public with the necessities of life. May I express satisfaction that the United Kingdom Government have at once met the request of the Northern Ireland Government for military protection for such installations? I do not quite understand the phrase in the Statement about Captain O'Neill "finalising an appointment". Is it not desirable that contact between him and United Kingdom Ministers should continue regularly? Is it not desirable also that Captain O'Neill should be given every opportunity to prove that policies of reason and firmness can in time defeat bigotry and violence on both wings?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches would join in condemning these outbreaks of violence and, indeed, these outrages which have taken place, and we should support any measures, such as have been outlined, to guard the key installations. But I take it that the Government will agree that it would be quite wrong if troops were used in any way against demonstrators in Ulster, and I take it that it will be their policy to avoid this. Also. I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will take the opportunity of Captain O'Neill's visit to this country (and perhaps we can be told roughly when this will be) to press on him once again the need to remedy the legitimate grievances of the civil rights supporters.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for their support in the prompt action that Her Majesty's Government have taken in this matter. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about "finalising an appointment", if he looks in Hansard to-morrow at the Statement that I made he will see that I did not use that phrase. I agree with him that it would have been an unwise phrase to use. As he is well aware from his experience as

319
Home Secretary, these consultations are continuous. But it is the case that at the meeting which Captain O'Neill had with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on November 4 he then and there agreed to recommend five major reforms (if I may use that expression), all of which have since been implemented. However, one major reform about which Captain O'Neill has so far made no announcement is the question of what is called" one man, one vote", in local authority elections. Doubtless that is one of the matters which will be discussed when the Prime Ministers meet again. I think that answers the point raised by the noble, Lord, Lord Byers, about matters which are of concern to many people, including the civil rights demonstrators.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, about the use of troops, they are only to be used, as it were, passively, to guard certain installations, which in the main will be water and electricity installations. At this stage, there is no question whatever of troops being used in any other capacity.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, while paying tribute to the great courage of Captain O'Neill, and deploring, I need hardly say, any violence or brutality from any quarter, may I take it that Her Majesty's Government will agree that there can be no real peace in Northern Ireland until longstanding disabilities are removed, and until civic rights are secured as firmly there as they are in this country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would entirely agree with my noble friend, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as any other part, that only the removal of any disabilities of that kind suffered by residents in Northern Ireland can form the basis for the removal of other difficulties. But I would add that it is for everyone to do their utmost in their individual capacities, whatever their religion and whatever their thought, to come together in tolerance, and work together for the formation of peaceful conditions in Northern Ireland.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all of us, strongly as we feel in these matters, deplore this violence, and take the view that it is a
320
disservice to the cause of liberty in Ireland? But does not this trouble arise from the denial of civil liberties, and as a result of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland? Will Her Majesty's Government take great care not to allow the use of troops to be regarded as support for one side in this conflict in Northern Ireland?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there can be no question of the use of troops on this occasion as supporting anything but law and order. It is quite unthinkable that Her Majesty's Government should have refused a request of this kind which is aimed at assisting to continue law and order.
With regard to the other part of my noble friend's question, I would say that present difficulties had their origins hundreds of years ago. It is about time that everywhere, including your Lordships' House, we should refrain from saying or doing anything which would exacerbate the position, but we should help all those of any shade of opinion who at least are willing to come together to heal the wounds and sores which are centuries old, and help these very worthy people to live in amity together.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while in every way endorsing the hope the noble Lord has just expressed, may I ask him whether he heard an announcement or statement on the" World at One" programme on the B.B.C. to-day by a leading member of the I.R.A., that in certain circumstances now in Northern Ireland the I.R.A. would come into this conflict in a big way for what they consider to be the protection of the interests of their fellow countrymen? Secondly, in view of the use of troops for the purposes the noble Lord has indicated, with which I entirely agree, may I ask him whether he does not regard this as one more indication of the folly of the Government in destroying so many wonderful infantry regiments which are needed constantly by the Government?
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before 1921, when Ulster was governed directly from Whitehall, there were occasions during disturbances in Belfast when troops were used to patrol the streets in the city and to keep order?

321
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of what the noble Lord has said, though not as well aware as he, because he was there. With regard to the point about the use of troops, I may say that the number of troops now in Northern Ireland is quite adequate for the tasks at present imposed on them. There is no question of sending additional troops. I would also tell the noble Lord that the numbers in the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland are not far short of the numbers of Regular troops, and as a result of the policies of this Government they are far better equipped than they would have been.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that this Government have destroyed the Territorial Army in this country, except (he Reserve? Furthermore, if there are Territorials in Northern Ireland, is it now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to use them in support of the civil power?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, they will of course be used in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government if they should be required; but I am sure it is the fervent hope of all your Lordships that their use in that capacity will not be needed.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that while it is probably necessary to guard with troops water supplies and other important utilities in Ireland, they might be attacked by people who try to blow up those water supplies, as they have already done? In that event, the troops would have to resist them, in which case some damage might be done to the attackers and that might be a match in a powder magazine.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if in the circumstances described by the noble Lord the troops are attacked, they will of course defend themselves, and if anyone is hurt in that process it will be most unfortunate.

NURSES BILL [H.L.]
3.54 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to give my warm support to the Motion before the House that this small but very useful Bill should be accorded a Second Reading. In doing so, I should, as a prelude, like to declare a threefold interest. In common, I suspect, with many of your Lordships, I owe much to the devoted care and attention that I and mine have received from the members of the highly honourable profession of nurses. Indeed, were it not for this, I could not be standing here to-day, and I certainly could not use my voice, even in the rotten way it sounds just now.
Secondly, I have close relatives and friends who are senior and distinguished ornaments of this profession, who have served it well both in peace and in war, and one at least is a member of the General Nursing Council. Further—although this point may be a little off the main issue it is relevant to my interest in this Bill—it was on July 6, 1908, nearly 61 years ago, that my noble father moved the Second Reading of a Nurses Registration Bill, which passed through all its stages in this House, including two Committee stages. I will not waste your Lordships' time by trying to explain how this House's flexible procedure managed to achieve that. Finally, the Bill, having passed all its stages in this House, was sent to the other place on November 10, 1908, but your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that it was lost there owing to lack of Parliamentary time.
After World War I the subject of nurses' registration came before this House again. In May, 1919, the then Lord Goschen moved the Second Reading of a Nurses' Registration Bill, which my father and his friends did not care for. So my father put to the House a Motion,
"That this Bill be read a second time this day six months",
and I am glad to say that their Lordships of that day accepted that Motion. Then, in December, 1919, the then Lord Sandhurst moved the Second Reading of the Nurses Registration (No. 2) Bill. This was an agreed measure which had Government support, including that of the

323
Minister of Health. My father, in speaking briefly immediately after the mover, gave that Bill his full support, and it eventually passed through all its stages in this House; it was sent to another place and subsequently became law.
It is tempting to take some of your Lordships' time—but I am not going to do so—in describing the stiff opposition which my father and his friends met, particularly in 1908, but I think this can be summarised by the views of Miss Florence Nightingale, expressed somewhat earlier in 1880, that she thought that registration would mean" stereotyped mediocrity". I do not think that our present position quite justifies that fear. I, in common with other noble Lords, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for her explanation of the Bill now before us, from which it is plain that it is hardly controversial in the sense of the 1908 measure. I am very glad of that, because this measure will be of great assistance to this hard-working profession.
My noble friend Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte has mentioned certain matters in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister in reply will give us some hope that these points will be attended to by means of Amendments when we come to the Committee stage. Finally, my noble friend Lady Brooke, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, mentioned a matter about which, in common with them and others in this House, I feel very deeply. That is the unsatisfactory state of nurses' remuneration, pay and general conditions. I know from my own personal contact that, quite apart from the humane aspects of these deficiencies (if that is the right expression), this is having a serious effect on recruiting. I am not surprised. I know in my own small circle of two or three girls who have had a feeling of vocation for the nursing profession, but they simply have not been able to go into it in the present conditions because their parents do not like the idea. One at least has tried it but found the going too hard, because these young girls do have to work desperately hard, and I do not think the present conditions of pay and in particular their having to pay for their food, is fair to them. Subject to those remarks, I welcome the Bill and will support the Second Reading.
4.1 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, as chairman of the group of hospitals, I feel that I should say just a few words in welcoming this Bill. I personally look forward to the day when those who nurse the subnormal and also the paediatric nurses will all be on one roll. They will train together and one then will be able to move them or, at their wish, they could move without any further training from one side to the other. In the wonders of medicine to-day the paediatric side is probably diminishing to quite a degree, but as yet we have not found an answer, although we are moving towards it, to the subnormal. Hence we shall need more subnormal nursing.
I should not like it to be thought that as one who works among nurses so much, I do not believe that they are the most wonderful, the most cheerful, the most patient and, if I may say so, the most goodlooking people in this country. They are always beautifully dressed and always charming. With regard to meals, I should not like to give a verdict on that question at this time. We are watching this matter very carefully and I am sure of one thing; namely, that the scheme needs careful administration. If that administration is there, my impression—and it is only an impression because I am having a further look into this—is that in the group of which I have the honour to be the chairman, the nurses find that they appreciate it. But that has to be seen over a longer period, so I will go no further than that.
Lastly, I should like to say that I, among many others, hope sincerely that in a short time a new Bill will come forward, dealing with all the situations which we know are lacking so much in the lives of our nurses, and especially that which we have always wanted and which is becoming more important as the cost of living goes up; namely, more money for these young girls. That is all I wish to say, but I felt that I should just say those few words in welcoming this small Bill, and in the hope that a much larger one will soon be on the way.
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate on the Second Reading of the Nurses Bill, and although I think that all noble Lords

325
have welcomed it, nevertheless at times during the debate they appear to have expressed a sense of disappointment. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, called it an "innocuous Bill"; the noble Lord, Lord Segal, went further and described it as" limited, tepid and sad". Therefore I was grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, reminded us of the early battles that were fought by the pioneers who wished to establish a trained, registered and qualified nursing profession, and of how much we owe to the early work they did in this field.
As I listened to the debate I came to believe that the expressions of disappointment were, apart from one or two points of clarification and detail, directed not at the Bill but at the fact that recent events had served to highlight our awareness of the difficulties under which nurses labour to-day. I would only say at this stage that although I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for some two and a half years now—and I recognise that it is a limited period—I cannot recall a general debate on this subject before. Perhaps it is because we have not directed our attention to these matters that some of the remarks have been made today with such feeling.
I should like to deal first with the particular points that have been made on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, made three points. On the question of the date of the Bill's coming into law, this is a matter where, if it assists the General Nursing Council, I am sure that my right honourable friend and I will be only too willing to help. The noble Baroness also made two points about consultation between the appropriate bodies and persons, one in relation to Clause 2 and another in relation to a later clause of the Bill; and here again I can assure her that we will look at the particular points she made. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, joined her in one or two of these remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked about the omission of the male nurse from the England and Wales part of the Bill. I can only say that I am advised that this was at the request of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, and that Scotland did not wish to change.
On the point relating to the fever nurses' register, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Segal, here again it
326
is felt that in view of the drop in the incidence of fevers in our population there is no longer need to maintain a fever register, and this has been closed. My noble friend raised the important question of the training of nurses who care for the subnormal, particularly the nursing of subnormal children in our mental and subnormality hospitals. He told us of the interesting experimental course that is being run at the Leavesden Hospital, where a combined nurse/teaching course is being evolved. This is something which we are watching with great interest and which may lead us to have further thoughts on the need to develop the training both of nurses and of teachers in their care of mentally subnormal children.
My noble friend Lord Segal also asked about consumer interest. He asked, I believe, whether in fact consumer interest —for example, parent's of subnormal children—should not be members of the General Nursing Council. I was hoping to have a talk with him in the near future about the question of the involvement of parents (who, after all, are representing their children as consumers of these services) in the day-to-day management of our hospitals. If he is agreeable I think we should get down to discussing this in the near future.
I will not weary the House by going in detail through all the other particular points that have been made. I can write to noble Lords, and I hope that we shall have a proper opportunity to explore them during the Committee stage of the Bill, which is due shortly. I would now turn for a few moments to what many noble Lords have stressed to-day; namely, the conditions under which nurses are working in our hospitals, and also in local authority services, and also the recent introduction of pay-as-you-eat for meals. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, for his (if' I may say so) practical approach to this question. It is a new scheme, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I will watch it carefully. I am not surprised—in fact I am glad—that noble Lords have raised this matter to-day: it gives me an opportunity to say one or two words in explanation of the present position.
The introduction of the scheme was, as many noble Lords will remember, part of the recommendations of the National

327
Board for Prices and Incomes in their Report on Nurses' Pay, 1968. I think that many of us here would agree that in general this is a change that should be welcomed, as it is in line with our general view that a student nurse is an adult person who should be allowed to decide how she spends her own money. I was surprised not to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, today about conditions in which nurses have to live and about some of the petty restrictions that were sometimes imposed on them in the past. But more and more nurses, as they are more adult and mature, are wanting to live their own independent lives, and this pay-as-you-eat scheme was conceived as part of the policy of giving them financial independence. Moreover, all the staff interests concerned were in favour of it. It was therefore introduced as part of the general pay agreement recommended by the Board and I have no doubt that they must have taken into account the financial effects of their recommendations.
Previously, there was a combined charge for board and lodging of £156 a year. The National Board for Prices and Incomes estimated that the cost of meals to the nurse as taken would be about £100, and the Whitley Council agreed to deduct £106 from the combined allowance. They took account of the fact that this sum reflects roughly the cost of the meals agreed by the Whitley Council for ancillary staffs. Under that agreement four meals a day are available at £2 6s. 1d. a week. I would remind your Lordships that at the same time the Board's recommendations for nurses provided for a pay increase of 9 per cent. all round (without a strike, I say to Lady Summerskill) with a higher increase for certain grades, including second and third-year students, and for a reduced lodging charge for first-year students of £25. The Secretary of State and I are very much concerned about the needs of students in training, and particularly the first-year students, and here a special arrangement was made in respect of their allowances.
I do not have to remind noble Lords that the Whitley Council, the staff side of which consists of representatives of the various nursing organisations and unions, concluded an agreement based on
328
these recommendations. I do not think any of us would have thought in advance that there was anything inherently unreasonable or oppressive about the agreement. On the contrary, it was intended to improve the lot of the student nurses. According to the information we have received, the scheme appears to beworking quite reasonably in some places, but in others it seems that student nurses are finding that the sort of meals they were getting for the previous fixed charge were worth appreciably more than £106, so that they have either to make do with meals of a lower standard or spend more than would have been thought necessary.
Now, as I understand it, as a result of articles in the Nursing' Times and Press generally, the Royal College of Nursing have indicated their intention to ask for a pay increase of £1 a week for student nurses. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I, as I have already indicated, sympathise very much with the needs of student nurses, and we are anxious to see that any defects in the working out of the agreement should be identified and, if possible, removed; and this we will seek to do. But I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to comment on the claim at this stage in advance of its consideration by the Council, who will be meeting very shortly. I am sure they will deal with it as rapidly as they can.
On the particular point raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill about the cups of tea and coffee, I have made inquiries about this, and I understand that the estimated cost of the meals to the nurses did not cover this item. As all of us who are familiar with hospitals know, cups of tea and coffee arc always on the go in hospitals—and very necessary that is, too. I do not think any of us would want to see a position where a nurse would feel she was acting inappropriately if she made herself a cup of tea from the kettle which, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill said, is always on the boil in the ward kitchen. We will bring this matter before the Whitley Council, and I have no doubt that they will consider the point, especially when they are looking at the staff side claim.
My Lords, I hope that the explanation I have given calms some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate. I do not think any of us would attempt to deny that the nurses in our hospitals, be

329
they student nurses or fully trained nurses, do a splendid job of work. We are all potential patients, and whether we have been patients or not we know very well what burden the nurses carry and what skills they need to develop in this field to assist patients to recovery.
I come back to the Bill itself. I realise that in the present state of public debate it seems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, said, an innocuous Bill. I am afraid that I cannot accept that analysis of it. This is an administrative measure, I admit, but it is one which I myself, and I think the General Nursing Council, too, regard as absolutely basic to the need to streamline the present arrangements for nurse training. I hope that at the Committee stage of the Bill, we shall have a full discussion of the various points of administrative change, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS BILL
4.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Nuclear installations Bill be read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to make three minor alterations to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. That Act deals, among other things, with the question of liability for third party damage in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear accident. The liability rules which it lays down are based on International Conventions, and the purpose of this Bill is to bring the Act completely into line with the provisions of those Conventions. The Bill, though a short one, is not in my view readily comprehensible—to put it at its most favourable—because it makes highly technical amendments to an Act which is in itself complex, as I well remember when dealing with it nearly four years ago. To make the Bill comprehensible, I must outline the system of third party liability which is involved, and this necessitates a rather more detailed exposition than is customary in a Second Reading.
Three International Conventions lie behind this legislation. One of them, the
330
Vienna Convention, was negotiated within the International Atomic Energy Agency and was signed at Vienna in May 1963. The two others were negotiated within the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development. One, known as the Paris Convention, was signed at Paris in July, 1960 The other was signed at Brussels in January, 1964, and is known—as you might suppose—as the Brussels (Supplementary) Convention. These two Conventions were amended in 1964 to make them compatible with the 'Vienna Convention. Together, the three, Conventions provide a uniform international code for dealing with third party damage which might arise from the peaceful use of atomic energy. This was an important achievement. Unlikely though nuclear accidents are, concern about the meeting of claims could well have hindered both the export of nuclear technology and the international movement of nuclear material. The United Kingdom, which is concerned with both these matters, took a leading part in the negotiation of the Conventions. We have signed and ratified the Paris and Brussels Conventions, though not as yet the Vienna one. The Paris Convention is in force between, so far, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. The other two Conventions are not yet in force.
Our law must clearly, therefore, he consistent with the Conventions, and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 was designed to set up the Convention system of liability. The principles of this system are fairly straightforward. Liability for nuclear injury and damage caused by a nuclear installation is to fall on the operator of the installation in which the accident occurred (or on whose behalf the nuclear material concerned was in course of shipment). Subject to minor exceptions, liability is to fall on no one else. The liability of the operator is absolute and is not to depend on proof of negligence; he is not, however, to be liable for certain types of damage specified in the Convention. His liability to meet claims is limited to an amount set by his State, but which must not be less than the equivalent of 5 million dollars per accident. He must insure, or make other financial provision, in order that funds up to this limit are always available to meet claims. These funds

331
must be used exclusively for meeting Convention claims. The Brussels Convention made supplementary provision for meeting claims arising from large accidents. Under these provisions, if claims exceed the insured provision the excess is met from public funds (partly by international contributions) up to the equivalent of 120 million dollars.
I now turn to the Bill itself. The first amendment which this Bill makes to the principal Act arises from the 1967 devaluation of the pound sterling. The Conventions, in specifying various compensation figures, use dollars or international money units, but in the Act the 1965 sterling equivalents of these sums were used. Devaluation has taken some of these sterling sums below the Convention requirements, and equivalence must be restored. Let me explain what is involved. The main limit set by the principal Act is that for the operator's liability, and this is £5 million sterling. This sum does not need to be changed, for despite devaluation it is still well above the equivalent of the Convention minimum of 5 million dollars. The Act also provides, however, the basis for operating the Brussels system for meeting claims which outrun the operator's liability. For this purpose it provides that claims above £5 million and up to £43 million shall be met from public funds. This figure of £43 million was the equivalent of 120 million dollars, but following devaluation it now needs to be increased to £50 million.
The Act also sets a limit for the liability of operators from other Convention countries. This is relevant, for example, in the case where nuclear matter is being transported inside the United Kingdom on behalf of such an operator. In accordance with the Conventions, this was set at the greater of the limit ruling in that other country, or £1¾ million. This £1¾ million was at the time the equivalent of the Convention figure of 5 million dollars, but it now needs to be corrected to £2,100,000. Again, in accordance with the Conventions, the Act contains a provision which requires a minimum sum to be set aside from the available compensation funds to meet the general run of claims if an accident involving nuclear matter in transit causes damage to the ship or other means of transport used to
332
convey the material. This provision is meant to prevent the compensation funds from being swamped by large claims for damage to the means of transport. This minimum was set at £1¾ million. This again was the equivalent of the Convention figure of 5 million dollars, and it, too, needs to be corrected to £2,100,000.
In addition to the effects of devaluation, we have found that in two respects the liability imposed by the Act does not quite match the Conventions. As I have mentioned, the Conventions intend that liability for injury and damage to property caused by a nuclear incident shall arise only within the terms of the Conventions and shall fall exclusively on the responsible operator. It appears, however, that the 1965 Act would permit a liability to be imposed in certain circumstances on a person other than that operator. For example, the operator might be able to make the supplier of a faulty component liable for damage to the reactor itself if negligence on the part of that supplier could be proved. Again property on the site of a nuclear installation, which is used in connection with the operation or the construction of the installation, is excluded by the Conventions from the liability of the operator. In its present form, however, the principal Act would allow the owner of such property to claim against the operator, or the supplier of a component, if negligence could be established. The amendments which the Government propose to make by this Bill would exclude these possibilities.
Secondly, the Conventions intend that so far as possible an operator shall not be liable for damage suffered in a country which is not a party to the Convention. They recognise, however, that in some circumstances a person other than the operator may find himself obliged to pay damages in such a country. For example, the owner of a ship carrying the nuclear material concerned in an accident might find himself obliged to do this. To cover such cases, the Conventions allow such a person to make a corresponding claim against the operator concerned. The right which the 1965 Act confers in this respect is not quite wide enough in the types of accident which it covers, and the Bill would extend it to make it consistent with the Conventions.
Although I have spoken about the arrangements that exist for compensating

333
damage caused by nuclear accidents, and have mentioned the formidable sum of £50 million, I would not like your Lordships to see in this any cause for alarm over safety. The chances of an accident on such a scale are exceedingly remote, as indeed are the chances of any nuclear accident of significance. It is highly unlikely that an accident would occur causing damage exceeding even the compulsory £5 million cover of the operator. During what now amounts to a very substantial total experience of the operation of nuclear power stations, no accident whatever has occurred that has had any effect outside the site of any commercial station. The only accident of consequence which has involved compensation claims was that which occurred at the Atomic Energy Authority's plant at Windscale in 1957, some 12 years ago, and which, incidentally, was of a kind which could not occur in a nuclear power station. This resulted in claims totalling less than £100,000.
I hope that in giving what I regard as necessary detail I have not over-wearied your Lordships, but I thought it was necessary in order to introduce the Bill adequately. Stripped of this detail, however, the proposition which I am putting forward is that our ratification of the Conventions relating to nuclear damage means that our domestic law must be consistent with their provisions. At present this is not quite so, and this Bill will remedy the defects. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stonhanz.)
4.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having described the purposes of this Bill so clearly. He is one of the most hard-worked Ministers in the Government. It is another small Bill but it is, as the noble Lord says, rather complicated. The heart of it seems to me to be the" correcting "—I think that was the word used in another place—of the sums which the Nuclear Installations Act requires should be set aside to meet the general run of claims for accidents involving nuclear material. As I understand from what the noble Lord has said, it involves the raising of the amount from £1¾ million to
334
£2,100,000 in the case of damage caused while materials are in transit, and from £43 million to £50 million to cover claims which outrun the operator's liability under the Conventions which the noble Lord mentioned.
Although the record has been very good to date, certainly the question of nuclear safety cannot be stressed too highly. But, my Lords, let us mike no bones about it: the reason for this Bill, for having to increase these sums, is due directly to devaluation because the limits are now too low in terms of dollars to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Convention. I do not propose to tease the noble Lord too much about that this afternoon. His honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, certainly had his fill of it during the Second Reading Committee debate in another place. Indeed, my honourable friends had something of a field day and had a kind of pre-Budget economic debate. They asked the Minister one pertinent question in particular; that is, whether every time the Government devalued a new Bill would have to be brought in. It was suggested that if instead of referring to the sums in terms of sterling they were specified in dollars—that is to say, if instead of £50 million sterling the sum of 120 million dollars was used—this would avoid having to amend the Bill again in the event of further devaluation. After all, France devalued nine times before stabilising the franc. I have always wondered how France managed to do this, but France's economy has always been something of a mystery to some of us. But although Labour Governments have devalued only twice, one has the unhappy feeling that if—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord, he said that in the plural and not the singular. This Government have devalued only once.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lord, Labour Governments, yes. Although they have devalued only twice, I have a slightly unhappy feeling that if they continue in office they may follow in the steps of our French friends. I only hope not. I will not puraie the noble Lord further on this point, but I think it is a valid comment to make.

335
Another suggestion which has been made is that in order to amend the sums made available as a result of devaluation, perhaps we should use European Monetary Agreement units of account. One of my honourable friends, moving a new clause on this point, maintained that it might save a lot of trouble in the future if these international units had been used instead of sterling to define the financial limits of the original Act. The Minister admitted that there was a point of a general kind at issue here, and I wondered whether the noble Lord would be so good as to comment further on this.
There are one or two other questions I should like to ask the noble Lord on which I do not think very complete replies were given elsewhere, and I gave the noble Lord warning of them. One concerns the reorganisation of the nuclear power industry. As the noble Lord knows, parts of the Atomic Energy Authority are being moved away from the Authority and into the control of industrial companies. This means that there will be new types of organisation in existence, some publicly and some largely privately owned. Clearly the Bill will have to apply to them. May we have a specific assurance—I think the noble Lord came very near to giving it to me at the beginning, but not per-haps precisely, in connection with the re-organisation of the industry—that this Bill will cover not only the A.E.A. but also the more or less independent industrial companies?
Also, I wonder whether the noble Lord could say something about the damage being caused to marine life by nuclear waste. In another place, the Minister said that he had no evidence of this, but he admitted that certain nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean had had unfortunate results. I realise that these were not caused by the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but none the less damage was done. It occurred to me that there is effluent from nuclear reactors near the coast, and I should think they must have some effect. Perhaps the noble Lord could say something about that. I was glad to read the Minister's assurances regarding recruitment to the Nuclear Inspectorate and that the Government are fully satisfied about this and about
336
the competence of the Inspectors. I think we should all congratulate them on the efficient way in which they go about their work.
The Second Reading Committee in another place was followed by a further debate in Standing Committee D. In parenthesis, and for the benefit of our own Printed Paper Office—and I think probably some noble Lords—I should like to ask the Government whether they could say something about the way the Reports of Committees in another place are now published. Sometimes they seem to appear in Hansard proper, and sometimes they are published separately; and I have just heard of a case where they have not been published at all in regard to a Bill which is on the Order Paper to-morrow. I will say a word about that later on.
I believe a new procedure has been adopted in another place regarding Second Reading Committees, and I am told by our own Printed Paper Office that it has complicated their work. Indeed, when I was looking into this Bill it took some time to get all the papers together, and I might have asked that the Second Reading be postponed, for it is taking place at exceptionally short notice. I think similar difficulties may arise over other Bills. The Bill I have just mentioned—which my noble friend Lord Sandford has drawn to my attention—is the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill. Although that is due to be debated to-morrow, the Report of the Committee stage in another place has not yet been printed. This seems to me to be the most amazing muddle, and I wonder whether that Bill can very well be taken to-morrow. It is another example of a somewhat confused conduct of Parliamentary business by the present Government.
I have just one other point to make. During the debate in Standing Committee D there was one point which the Minister did not seem to me to answer, and that was about the accelerator at the Centre for European Nuclear Research at Geneva. Can the noble Lord say whether the sum of £2,100,000 covers the possible contingent liability for a disaster at that nuclear accelerator? The Parliamentary Secretary in another place said he understood that the CERN accelerator was not covered by the Bill because

337
it was not classified as a nuclear installation and yet, as my honourable friend Mr. Price said, Section 26, the Interpretation Section, of the 1965 Act says that:
"'nuclear installation' means a nuclear reactor or an installation such as is mentioned in Section 1(b)(ii) of this Act",
which refers to:
"the carrying out of any process which is preparatory or ancillary to the production or use of atomic energy and which involves or is capable of causing the emission of ionising radiations".
As my honourable friend pointed out, if a linear accelerator is not capable of causing the emission of ionising radiations—and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is here to-day because he understands this—then he did not really know what it was capable of doing. Those who have had experience of these large and somewhat obscure machines know that there is a substantial radiation hazard, because they produce streams of high-energy ionised particles. While the Parliamentary Secretary said that the CERN accelerator did not come under this Bill, he admitted finally that there was an element of doubt and confessed that in his hurried consultation he did not have a clear answer to the question, but said that he would seek an opportunity to clear it up in the later stages. However, when I read through the Report of the final stages which took place on March 31 I found no further reference to the CERN accelerator. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us something about it.
Apart from those points, I assure the noble Lord that I accept the Minister's replies on other matters, and I agree that we must bring our rules up to date and in line with our obligations under previous Conventions. For that reason we support the measure and agree that it should be given a Second Reading, although it seems to us to be a clumsy way of dealing with the issue, particularly in regard to the financial aspects.
4.41 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, for the general welcome that he has given to the Bill and also for the questions that he has asked, of which he kindly gave me notice though in one or two instances the notice was so extremely short that I am not yet certain whether at the time I sit down I shall
338
have obtained authoritative answers. I will not disagree with what the noble Earl said about the main reason for the Bill being devaluation. He said that that was the real reason for it, though there were other points. He asked whether it would be the case that every time the Government devalued a new Bill would have to be brought in. It is true that in a period of some four-and-a-half years we have devalued once, but I am not going to say anything further about that except in regard to the alternative which the noble Earl suggested.
He reminded us that in another place they had what he called a " field day " on this subject, and it was certainly not a noticeably adult debate. But while I would not cast any aspersions in this matter, I remember reading financial articles which indicated, believe is or not, that there might at some stage have been a possibility of some change in the international value of the dollar. Therefore, in such circumstances—indeed, in almost any circumstances—I always have a prejudice, I think a rightful prejudice, in favour of British symbols, financial or otherwise, rather than foreign symbols.
What did Members suggest in another place? During the debate to which the noble Earl referred they actually moved an Amendment which suggested that instead of the £50 million provided for in this Bill we should say " 120 million European Monetary Agreement units of account ". There is sometimes a little doubt to-day about what the pound is worth, but if people were to read in a Bill passed by this Parliament that we were talking about " 120 million European Monetary Agreement units of account " they would rightly be in a position to say, possibly with expletives, that we did not know what we were talking about, because they certainly would not know. So I am quite prepared to run this risk and stick to the British pound as the accepted symbol for stating our monetary problems.
The noble Earl asked me about what I might call semi-private consortia, and whether the compensation provisions applied to them. The answer is: Yes, it is applied to anyone who operates a nuclear installation, and all the activities of the new design and construction companies will be covered. He also asked me whether the CERN accelerator was

339
covered. This apparatus, as I think he indicated, is not a nuclear installation within the meaning of either the Act or the underlying international conventions. I do not want to go through the definition of Section 1 of the 1965 Act to explain why, as a matter of law, this apparatus is not covered. I think your Lordships will be more interested in the practical reasons why this should be so.
Both the Act and the Conventions, with their special rules of absolute liability and their requirement for heavy insurance cover, were intended to deal only with the special hazard arising from the application of nuclear power; that is, the risk that there might be an accident involving the release of radioctivity from a reactor, from one of the supporting installations, such as fuel factories, from fuel in transit or from a fuel storage installation. Such an accident could have widespread consequences, not merely from the irradiation of persons at the site of the accident but as the result of the contamination of the site.
But the hazard from an accelerator is not comparable with this in scale; it is much less. Essentially, the apparatus is like an enormous X-ray tube. Atomic particles are speeded up by electric fields and used to bombard a target, and the resultant reactions between the accelerated particles and the atoms of the target are studied. The whole thing is essentially a research operation. The atomic reactions produce ionising radiation which can be of a very penetrating kind, and a certain amount of nuclear energy can be released. This nuclear energy appears, however, in minute quantities from the reactions of relatively few atoms, and the situation in no way compares with the use of energy on the practical scale with which the Act is concerned and which involves continuous nuclear reactions on a large scale.
This does not mean that the accelerators are not subject to control. In so far as such apparatus of this sort is situated in premises subject to the Factories Act, I understand that they are the subject of a code of regulations dealing with a number of kinds of irradiating apparatus and these are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment and
340
Productivity. Apparatus of this sort at research and teaching establishments can be dealt with under the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948, and a code of practice exists which has been drawn up for this purpose. In both cases, claims in respect of damages would be pursued like any other Common Law claim. I hope that that is a fuller explanation than the noble Earl has so far been given, and that it covers the point.
The noble Earl also asked me about the possible effect of an accident on marine life, and I believe that there have been some Russian allegations or suggestions about this. My information is that our methods of waste disposal—the problem arises, of course, from the disposal of waste—are accepted by the majority of countries concerned, and British scientific work published internationally has conclusively demonstrated that no trace of the effluence from Windscale is detectable outside coastal waters. Solid waste is also dumped into the Atlantic deeps in limited quantities and under supervised conditions, including joint disposal operations with several other E.N.E.A. countries, and such waste is dumped under conditions designed to ensure that any activity released will be rendered harmless by dispersal and dilution. The Russian allegations are thus quite unfounded and the proof of this may be derived from measurements reflecting residual fall-out of nuclear weapon testing. I think that is one that will not " run ".
My Lords, athough for some years I have been responsible on behalf of the Government for these subjects in your Lordships' House, I do not pretend to possess any considerable knowledge, and I know the noble Earl is much better informed than I am on them, but my own view is that over this whole field we have taken precautions—wise and incredibly careful precautions—and that they have worked. We must continue to take these major precautions, and they must continue to work. But when we have a discussion of this kind it is fair to acknowledge the success that there has been in this field.
As I had unhappily anticipated when I got up, I have not got the answer to the one important question which the noble

341
Earl put to me about the publication of the Reports of Committees in another place when 13ills are being dealt with by the Second Reading Committee procedure. I am not sure if my recollection is right, but I believe that earlier Second Reading Committee procedure Bills have started in your Lordships' House, and that this may be the first time that one has come to us from the other direction. That, perhaps, is why it has not been raised with us before. I noticed that the noble Earl mentioned the Redundant Churches and other Religious Buildings Bill, which comes up for Second Reading here to-morrow, I believe, is one in question. My first reaction was that this is not a Home Office responsibility; and therefore, if there is any blame to be apportioned, I can escape censure. But the noble Earl has raised an important point which must be resolved and I will make it my business to see that it is resolved. Perhaps, since it is important not just to the noble Earl but to the whole House, means can be found to make sure that the information becomes general. I would apologise for not being able to give him an answer now, but he will appreciate that it is not a matter which affects only my Department; it is matter which affects the working of the House.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, it affects another place, above all.
LORD STONHAM: Yes. Did the noble Earl wish to say something more?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Before the noble Lord sits down I should like to thank him for giving very much more detailed answers on all the important matters about which I asked than were given in another place. I am extremely grateful to him and I hope I shall get an equally satisfactory reply on this last matter.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I would assure him that it is not the first time that there have been fuller answers given here. But this last matter is one of business which must be resolved, and I will endeavour to find out the answers. Indeed, let us hope that not merely shall I be able to get the answers but that we shall be able to improve the procedure. With that, I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ANGUILLA AND SMALL BRITISH TERRITORIES: FUTURE POLICY
4.54 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a new appraisal of their policy towards Associated States and non-self-governing islands, in view of the difficulties which arose in Anguilla. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name. May I begin by an explanation? On the day when it was announced that British troops were to go to Anguilla, I expressed in this House my great sense of shock at that decision, and on that day I tabled a Question dealing directly with Anguilla, intending to make a very forthright speech. The Minister who would have been responsible for replying indicated to me that he did not expect to be present on that day, and I accordingly co-operated in postponing the discussion. I want to express my appreciation of the co-operation which I had from the Chief Whip in this matter; but the first date on which one could have the opportunity for debate was today.
My Lords, I believe that criticism and protest against the policy of the Government is justified when one can influence the course of events, and I should have had no hesitation on an earlier Occasion in expressing my disapproval of the policy which the Government have pursued. On the other hand, I think that criticism and protest are not justified if the effect is likely to be to prejudice the reaching of agreement on issues of this kind; and in view of the new situation in Anguilla I propose to-day, with some restraint, not to make the criticism of Government policy which I bad previously intended to make. This new atmosphere is a result of Mr. Webster's withdrawal of his proposal for an immediate referendum and his appeal to the population to refrain from demonstrations in order to avoid division and violence. To-morrow, Mr. Webster is

343
proceeding to New York, where he will again be meeting Lord Caradon; and, in view of the real possibility that a settlement of this unhappy situation can be secured, I do not propose to renew my criticism of the Government's policy in case that might exacerbate feelings. Therefore, my Lords, in my contribution to-night I shall try to be purely constructive.
First, may I make a series of suggestions regarding Anguilla itself? First of all, I think the time has come when Her Majesty's Government should indicate that they are prepared to withdraw the armed forces from that island, and that if the Royal Engineers are to remain they should be disarmed. I want to pay a tribute to the service which the Royal Engineers have given—their making of roads, their digging of wells and even the carrying out by their medical officers of surgical operations which were not previously possible on the island. Secondly, I want to suggest to the Government that they should co-operate in an early election of an enlarged Council, both to test opinion and to provide a reliable negotiating body regarding the future of the island.
Thirdly, my Lords—and this I want to emphasise—it is very important, if there is to be any settlement of this problem, that the Government should win the cooperation and the participation of the other Governments in the Caribbean. As I understand it, they agreed, in conference, to the retention of the territorial integrity of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, but they are divided regarding the Government's intervention with troops. They therefore have a balanced view of the situation. I suggest that the Government should at a very early point call a conference of all the Caribbean Governments to discuss this issue. The fourth suggestion which I make to the Government is that they should appoint a Caribbean as Commissioner upon the island. I could make a suggestion for such an appointment, but as it would be to the loss of this House I will not do so.
The fifth suggestion I make is that the police training establishments in the Caribbean territories should be open for the training of an Anguillan force. That police force is now reduced to the number of seven. Sixth, I want to sug-
344
gest that at the conference with the Caribbean Governments there should be a proposal for the appointment of a Corn-mission of Caribbean representatives to assist both in negotiating and in administering a settlement.
Seventh (and this arises from the last point) the co-operation of the Caribbean Governments is absolutely essential if we are to find a solution to the problem of the relationship of Anguilla to St. Kitts. The British Government have said:
"It is no part of cur purpose to put them "—
the Anguillans—
"under an administration under which they do not wish to live."
The difficulty is that under the West Indies Act it is not possible for Great Britain to dissolve the union of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla without the consent of its Government; and the influence of Caribbean Governments upon the administration in St. Kitts will be necessary if agreement is to be obtained.
Eighth, the Caribbean Commission (which I have suggested should be appointed by a conference of Caribbean Governments) should be responsible not only for co-operation in negotiation but also for continuing duties. I would suggest that not only should it be made responsible for helping to plan the economic, social, educational and medical development of Anguilla but that this would be an opportunity of making it responsible for development in other Caribbean Islands as well. I suggest that economic co-operation in the case of Anguilla should extend even to islands under the administration of other Powers —islands such as St. Martin, nearby, which is under the control of France and the Netherlands; and the American Virgin Islands, as well as the Leeward and Windward Islands, which are in the British Commonwealth.
Ninth, I would propose that the conference of the Caribbean Governments in the Commonwealth should consider the proposal of confederation. Most of us regretted it when the original sugges-tion of federation of the Caribbean territories was turned down. But the problem of Anguilla and the new issues which now arise indicate the need for a wider association among the Commonwealth Caribbean Governments. It may

345
be that the proposal of confederation, that is to say, the association of independent States with those which have not yet reached that stage, would be a solution of these problems.
My Lords, those are the constructive ideas that I submit to the Minister in regard to Anguilla. I turn now to the larger problems raised in my Question, the problems of the remaining colonial territories which are mostly small islands, the feasibility of associated status as a solution; and, particularly, the future of the small islands scattered in the different oceans. Since the end of the war the colonial revolution has been the greatest political transformation in the world. It has meant a reduction in the figure of population under the Colonial Office from 650 million people to 10 million people under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office today. An amazing transformation! The 10 million people who remain within colonial status are confined to 25 territories in all, and of the total of 10 million 8 million are in Rhodesia and Hong Kong. I do not propose to discuss Rhodesia, which is outside the terms of my Question. Except for Gibraltar, Brunei, British Honduras and Hong Kong (which has a hinterland on the mainland of China) these 25 territories are all small islands. They vary from Fiji, with a population of 483,000, to the Falkland Islands, with a population of 2,100—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to list them, perhaps I can give a little more accurate information. There is Pitcairn, with only 80.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I always admire the vigilance of the Minister. My next words were to be: "and the Pitcairn Islands, with a population of 88."
I do not propose tonight to suggest any blueprint for the solution of these problems: many of these islands have quite varied problems. I shall be content with making some suggestions for consideration by Her Majesty's Government. I was present some years ago at a weekend conference called at Oxford by the then Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, Mr. Anthony Greenwood. At
346
that conference there were the Governors of the continuing Colonies; there were civil servants, and there were experts and those who had shown an interest in these problems. I do not know whether the Minister has examined the large file of documents which arose from that conference. But I believe that from those documents many indications could he given of the way in which these problems might be tackled. I suggest to the Minister that it might be of value if a seminar of that kind could be repeated. On that occasion it was of great value. Indeed, it might be of help to the Minister if there were a permanent unofficial advisory committee of those who have knowledge of and interest in this question which might keep in contact with his Office.
My Lords, the principle that we have to resolve when we are discussing these problems has been well put by Mr. Colin Legum, to whom all of us who are interested in these issues owe such a great debt. He has put it in these words:
"How to arrange for the future of relatively small groups of people in our post-colonialist world in order to make a reality of the right to self-determination and to promote world order."
I am not sure that it would not be correct to say that this is the main political problem of today: how to harmonise the self-determination of groups of peoples with the wider association which is necessary in a shrinking world. This is particularly true of these small territories which are economically and politically non-viable.
May I make a passing reference to land-linked territories which may be made the subject of associated status? First, there is Hong Kong which, apart from Rhodesia, is the largest remaining Colony, with 3,785,000 population. Hong Kong is dependent upon a hinterland on the mainland of China our right to which is contained in a treaty that comes to an end in 1997. At the moment, Hong Kong is useful both to China and to Great Britain—to China, economically, to Great l3ritain not only economically but strategically as well; and any change of status immediately in Hong Kong might aggravate a conflict between this country and China. It would probably be best to leave the status of Hong Kong as it is, but with extended local govern

347
ment, with a tremendous extension of education and a minimum living wage and standard of working conditions to save its population from the appalling circumstances in which the workers now live.
The second land-linked territory which remains within the colonial sphere, and to which associated status has been proposed, is Gibraltar. I believe that we must accept self-determination for Gibraltar and the will of its people not to be joined with Spain. Perhaps it could be established as an Associated State with British collaboration in defence. I acknowledge that I should like in the long run to see all international waterways internationalised, including the control by Gibraltar of the entry to the Mediterranean.
The third territory in this category is Brunei, on the large island of Borneo, separating Sabah and Sarawak. It has declined to enter Malaysia. I hope that in this case there may be a reversion to the idea of a confederation, which was proposed before Malaysia was established and which would include Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia. The changes which have taken place in Indonesia make that proposal more realistic. Lastly, there is British Honduras, in Central America. I suggest that it might be made an Associated State with some direct contact with the Caribbean Council which I have already proposed.
My Lords, I turn now to the small islands. The majority of the small islands which are still within the British Colonial sphere do not claim independence: they are too small, and they are economically and politically non-viable. There are five which look forward to independence. They are the Bahamas, Bermuda, Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Tonga. Some of these, such as Fiji, have internal problems. I only express the hope that the racial conflict there will be solved by extending an inter-racial franchise to that territory.
But, my Lords, a very grave issue arises over the claim of these small territories to independence. It is their relationship to the United Nations. The populations vary in size from Fiji, with its 483,000, to Bermuda, with its popula
348
tion of only 45,900. Are they to have the same voting rights within the General Assembly of the United Nations as the United States and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics? U Thant has suggested that there should be a distinction between the right to independence and full membership of the United Nations. He raised this issue on the case of the grant of independence to Naura, which is only 8½ square miles in extent and the population of which numbers only 3,000. It is not merely that the small nations becoming independent would reflect an inequality within the General Assembly; membership of the United Nations would be a burden on them financially and in other ways.
U Thant has suggested a survey of the position of what he calls these micro-States by an appropriate organ of the United Nations. He has suggested that membership of the United Nations Special Agencies should be open to them, and the right to have observers at both the United Nations and its Office in Geneva. The Government of the United States has proposed that this problem should be referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. I should like to ask—because although I have tried to follow these documents I do not know—whether the British Government have sent a reply to this proposal made by U Thant. I want to make one further suggestion in this respect. It might be possible to establish a Council of the new micro-States, not only from the British Commonwealth but from other areas as well, which would have the right to appoint one of its delegates to the General Assembly.
I turn from the problem of the small islands which are claiming independence to those to which associated status has been extended. This solution arose from the precedent established by New Zealand in the case of the mandated territories of Samoa and Cook Islands. The definition of associated status is internal self-government, with defense and foreign affairs in the hands of the preceding colonial Power, but with the right to declare for independence if desired. I want to suggest to this House that what has happened in Anguilla indicates that we have no right to impose association on a territory which was an administrative unit under colonial rule if such

349
integration is opposed by a member of that unit. It is necessary that every part should agree to membership of such a union.
Nevertheless, we should encourage federation, or perhaps confederation, of the small islands which are non-viable, both in the Pacific and in the Caribbean. It might be that confederation—that is, the association of independent States—might prove more acceptable than federation. If wider confederation is established, I suggest that associated status may be with areas wider than just Great Britain. For example, the islands in the Pacific could become Associated States of Australia and New Zealand. In the Atlantic there might be a Caribbean Confederation, as I have suggested. Even in the case of Africa, the Islands of Seychelles might be associated with a confederation of East and Central Africa and Mauritius. The islands of Ascension, St. Helena and Tristan da Cunha, off the West Coast of Africa, might he associated in time with the West African Confederation.
I agree that these are distant prospects, but we should be forward looking in our thoughts. There are two alternatives that I want to mention before I conclude. Most of the proposals I have made have related to States in geographical proximity, to each other, but in the world today distances are of little importance and we can reach any part of the world by air in two days. Therefore, technically, there is no reason why associated status should not be with world-wide centres rather than between neighbouring countries.
There are two possibilities. The first is the Commonwealth itself. If these territories are to become associated with it, the Commonwealth would have to be more closely knit and the Commonwealth Secretariat would have to be strengthened. It would be helpful if a Commonwealth Conference could be called to consider this possibility and also some of the previous suggestions which I have made. The second alternative is the United Nations. The advantage of this would be that it would include small communities from other empires. A modernisation of the functions of the Trusteeship Council would be necessary. The United Nations would have to be responsible for security, which at least would exclude
350
these small islands from the strategy of the cold war, and from a possible confrontation in the future with China. But I recognise that the United Nations would have to become a much more efficient instrument.
My Lords, I do not apologise for raising this issue. These 2 million people are human beings, and they are our responsibility. They are very liable to exploitation, to be cheated of their rights to land, to the appropriation of hidden minerals, to the expropriation of their coasts for tourists' hotels or for casinos and gambling, or to their use for strategic purposes and nuclear explosions. Many of the peoples of these islands live without the mechanism and materialism of modern industrial societies. Many of these small islands are the last retreats of nature, of rare and beautiful birds, animals and plants. It may be that we should leave them and the humans of these islands to enjoy their easy sunlit retreats. But we certainly have the duty, in co-operation with them, to contribute to their place and their protection in the world of to-day.
5.28 p.m
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway was very right to raise this important question, and even more right to turn his back on the temptation to make an inquest into what has happened in Anguilla but rather to help us, with his great experience in and thought on these matters, to look forward to a more distant future when we may shape events instead of being the victim of them. I will not attempt to follow him round the world to all our small remaining colonial possessions but will concentrate my remarks on the Caribbean, with which I have more personal connection and of which I have had some experience.
We gave independence to our smaller Colonies because we considered that it was right that they should have it and because they wanted to become independent. Those, I believe, were our main reasons for that action. By giving those former Colonies independence, we relieved ourselves of a large measure of responsibility, but by no means of all responsibility, for what goes on now in those territories. Certainly we no longer have the same sort of responsibility that we used to have in the days when they

351
were dependent Colonies of the British Empire.
I would suggest that our responsibilities to these former Colonies, and in particular to those which are now associated territories, fall under three headings. First of all—and I am not ashamed to say this—our responsibility is towards our own people in this country. However we may be affected by what happens in those overseas territories, associated or independent, we are responsible for the safeguarding of our own people here, in the military sense and, in so far as we can, for safeguarding our economic interests. Secondly, we have the responsibility to fulfil such treaty obligations as we have entered into with those territories. Thirdly, we have the overriding moral obligation of helping, so far as we can, those areas of the world which are less fortunate than we are, and, in particular, those areas with which we have been associated as a Colonial Power for a very long time.
My Lords, what we have done in Anguilla (and I am not going to dwell to any extent on the past) fulfils none of those three criteria. Our own interests were in no way threatened in Anguilla. We had had no specific treaty obligations other than those contained in the West Indies Act 1967; and, incidentally, I must say that I think it is straining the interpretation of that Act to have entered Anguilla in the way that we did, on the ground that it was essential to fulfill our obligations for defence of those territories. Thirdly, it was not done primarily in order to help the less fortunate people living there. I mention that not to cast blame or to criticise, but to prevent our embarking on a similar course in the future.
The people in the Caribbean area—and this, as I have said, is the only area that I will concern myself with to-day—have many interests in common. They have largely a common history; they have an economy which is very similar one with the other; they have a similar language and culture. As your Lordships know, when independence for them was first talked about we felt that federation was the right answer: that they were too small to stand on their own feet and that it would be to their benefit if they were granted independence as
352
a federation. The attempt was, I believe,
right one, but unfortunately it failed. Whether its implementation was right is not to be discussed here.
But although federation failed, that is no reason why we should not use all our endeavors to bring all the islands of this area closer together, so that in the not too distant future, I should hope, they will accept the fact that their destiny lies one with the other, and will, of their own accord, co-ordinate their efforts and eventually even co-ordinate their systems of government. They have made an admirable start with CARIFTA. Perhaps some of us would like to see it going faster; perhaps some of us have a certain amount of doubt as to how well it is going to work. We know that it will have many teething troubles. But, for all that, it is an important move in the right direction. To this venture we are giving encouragement and help. And I hope that we shall continue to give increasing encouragement to the economic getting together of all the territories in the whole of the Caribbean area
But the problems of Anguilla have brought to light something else; that is to say, not only the economic aspects but the security aspects of the problem. I hope that we can give the strongest possible lead to the independent countries and the associated territories of the Caribbean to set up some form of joint security organisation among themselves. It should be something which is run by them, manned by them and directed by them: but I hope that we shall feel prepared, at any rate in the initial stages, to get it on its feet and give actual physical help in the way of training, manning and resources, and possibly in the way of aircraft, frigates or whatever it may be. I do not think we should provide this help in the way of independent units of the British Army, Navy and police force, but as units seconded to the Caribbean security forces. It is a force of this kind which should be looked on as being the guardian of the peace in the whole of this area, rather than a force coming from some entirely outside Power, whether it be the Canadians, the United States, ourselves, one of the larger countries of Latin America, or elsewhere. That is something we do not want. We want the Caribbean area increasingly responsible for its own security.

353
The second point I wish to make is that while we should give as much help as we can in this respect to encourage their own independence, we should not lose sight of the fact that the obligations we have entered into under the West Indies Act 1967 arc two-way obligations. We have undertaken obligations to look after the defence and the foreign affairs of those territories. But Section 10(2) of the Act lays down that:
"Her Majesty may at any time, by Order in Council made in respect of any associated state, terminate the status of association of that state with the United Kingdom as from such date as may be specified in the Order."
In other words (and this was one of the points brought out at the time when the Bill was debated and which recommended itself strongly to me) we were not entering into, as, for instance, in the case of Rhodesia, an obligation from which we could not escape, to represent them in the United Nations and to look after their external affairs while they had complete freedom to run their internal affairs in any way that they wished. We quite rightly reserved the right to say in effect: "If you do something that we do not like, we are perfectly free to leave you to carry on with it. We are not going to help you in the world at large to perpetuate policies that you are embarking on in your own territories of which we do not approve—or not necessarily because we disapprove, but for any other reason." I think that is something that must be borne in mind. If certain actions take place in some of these associated territories of which we disapprove and in respect of which we do not feel it right to use British forces to implement them, then we should have no hesitation in making it very clear that under Section 10 of the West Indies Act we will abrogate our responsibilities in due manner as has been prescribed.
The third point I want to suggest is a purely domestic one, in that it is something solely within the purview of Her Majesty's Government, and specifically of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is extremely important for us here, and for Her Majesty's Government in particular, to have the best possible relations with the associated territories and the whole of the Caribbean area, and also to have the best possible information, not only as to what is hap
354
pening in one specific territory but as to what is happening in the area as a whole.
As things are at present arranged, we have the High Commissioner in Barbados, Trinidad and Jamaica, we have a Governor in the Bahama s, and we have a British Government representative in the Windward Islands and the Leeward Islands. I am sure that all these gentlemen are admirable in their own particular ways, and I am not in any way criticising them as individuals. But if each of them reports individually for his own particular area back to the Foreign arid Commonwealth Office, all this information has to be correlated and weighed up there. That is putting a very great strain on the individuals responsible for doing that, because they have not the whole picture; and it depends on the personalities, the timing and all, the rest, how these reports come in and what weight is given to them. It is just as if Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington were responsible solely for Washington and the District of Columba and reported on that District only, while the Consul General in Chicago and in San Francisco and in New York, and the Consuls in Dallas and other places, wherever they may be, made their reports independently to the Foreign Office. We know that that system does not work and is not a good way of getting the right information and making the right decisions.
I believe that what we need for the Caribbean is to have somebody who might be designated "Commissioner General " or whatever one likes—we have had a Commissioner General in South-East Asia if a precedent is wanted—and the reports of the various British Government representatives, High Commissioners and so on, should all go to him. There would be direct personal contact, because communications there are relatively easy, and the information then would go as a combined Caribbean information to Whitehall, with each different territory, each different island, having the appropriate weight given to its point of view. I believe that it would be very much easier for the people in Whitehall who are responsible for assessing information and for deciding upon the correct policy for the Caribbean if they were able to obtain information

355
in that way, rather than in the present way.
What we must do in the Caribbean, my Lords, is to have a policy which is based on complete respect for the independence of these territories; which enables them, encourages them, as much as possible to settle their own disputes between themselves without interference from the former Colonial Power. We should intervene, with all the assistance we are able to give, only when requested by the Caribbean as a whole. At the same time, our policy must of course be aimed at helping them towards a higher standard of living, because without that it will be impossible for them to enjoy the full fruits of their new independence.
5.44 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords,
in an age when great Powers get greater there is a tendency on the part of many to overlook the smaller territories and their problems, until, I suspect, as in the case of Anguilla, something goes wrong. I am therefore very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for having raised this subject, and to have had it raised in the manner in which he spoke and in the way my noble friend Lord Walston spoke—full of constructive thoughts and ideas, to which I will certainly undertake to give most serious consideration after to-day's debate.
The formal Question is whether Her Majesty's Government:
"will make a new appraisal of their policy towards Associated States and non-selfgoverning islands in view of the difficulties which arose in Anguilla".
The short answer is that all these matters are kept under constant review, not only in the West Indies but wherever we have a direct responsibility; and not only in the political field, but in what I believe is in many cases of even greater importance, the economic field, the social and economic developments of those territories. It is often forgotten that scattered all over the world are a large number of small territories. Many are islands. Some are small enclaves carved out of a large country or continent, usually by the previous Colonial Power. Several remain
356
Colonies. Others, despite their smallness, and on some occasions despite their economic weakness, are now independent nations. Since the end of the Second World War many of the islands (Mauritius was the most recent) and enclaves—for example, the British High Commission territories in South Africa—have become politically independent. Who would have predicted this in 1945—or ten years later, for that matter? To-day their independence is a fact. Will they be followed by others? What sort of independence can such territories have? How can they defend themselves? How can they survive economically? How can they administer themselves? Can they hope to improve or even maintain their present standard of living? What political forms can they develop?
Over the past twenty to twenty-five years many experts in the Colonial field have given considerable thought to these and similar problems. But, such has been the complexity of many of these problems, and such is human nature, that it has been seldom possible to produce solutions which have satisfied everyone. As the decolonisation of the British Colonial Empire began to gain momentum it seemed possible—even until about ten years ago—that the number of Colonies which could gain full independence was limited to those which could fulfil fairly restricted criteria. Ideally there had to be some political expertise, an adequate administration and, above all. I think, a feeling of national unity to survive beyond the enthusiasms of the first few months after independence, and a reasonable economic framework. Therefore, it seemed that only the larger territories would qualify for independence. But those who thought that way failed to take into account one; important consideration; namely, that the demand for sovereignty or freedom could be as strong among the politically conscious in the smaller territories as in the larger. So we found that from 1959 many of the smaller territories were to achieve full independence: Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, Guyana, Nyasaland, Malta, The Gambia, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Mauritius and, last, Swaziland.
Yet while it was generally accepted in Britain that it was not for us to deny self-government and independent status

357
for a viable and definable community against the declared wishes of that community, there remained in many minds the question: Where was all this leading to? On how small a community of peoples can be set all the expensive trappings of government? Also, what would be the consequences of a small insecure State if it were created? Would its creation make a security problem for the whole region?
This particular question exercised the mind of my right honourable friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, who was then the last but one Colonial Secretary. He began to look for a new status for the smaller territories, with particular reference to the small island territories of the Caribbean whose future was in doubt following the break-up of the proposed Federation of the West Indies. The approach he proposed is, I think, well known to your Lordships. In 1965 he invited a small number of people who had expert knowledge of the smaller territories and the Colonies generally to a weekend conference at Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford. I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway played a significant role in that conference. It included private individuals, as well as officials from the territories and from Government Departments. No report was published, and no recommendations were made about the future of any one territory, and I can assure my noble friend that during the past week-end I went through the formidable number of papers that were prepared for that conference. Shortly afterwards Her Majesty's Government proposed that the islands of the Wind-wards and the Leewards, with the exception of Monserrat, should become States in association with Britain. Each should have control of its internal affairs and the right to amend its own Constitution, including the power to end unilaterally the association with Britain. The British Government, for their part, would accept responsibility for their external relations and defence.
Early in 1967, five of the six islands concerned—Antigua, Dominica, St. Lucia, Granada, and St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla— became Associated States. Because of electoral difficulties the sixth, St. Vincent, has not yet followed the others into Statehood, but provision for this remains under the West Indies Act 1967.
358
When my noble friend Lord Beswick introduced the Second Reading of the West Indies Bill in your Lordships' House in February 1967, he made three important observations. First, he made it clear that associated Statehood marked the end of the colonial era for these islands. Sometimes when I have heard criticisms of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Anguilla it has seemed that many of them have come from persons who have failed to remember—if they ever knew—that this granting of association was decolonisation and that it removed the responsibility of this country for its internal affairs. Secondly, Lord Beswick confirmed that we should be prepared to continue to provide budgetary aid, where the need for this was established, as well as to provide development capital. Thirdly, he emphasised that in setting these territories on their own feet we were not trying to shift our former responsibilities.
The internal problems, and a consequent implication in the field of defence and foreign relations within St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, have focused attention on the West Indian Associated States. The problems facing these States are formidable. Weak economies not only create internal pressures but also limit the capability of the Government of each State to maintain its own police force at a level where it is able to cope with internal security situations should they arise.
I will certainly look into the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Walston about a Caribbean regional police force. I think there is something in this. Certainly we shall have to get the co-operation of the Associated States, and I hope that if such a force were to be brought into being other independent Caribbean countries would participate because, as my noble friend knows, Barbados provides much of the manpower for the police forces in this area. However, I will look at this point with great care.
I think it would be wrong to suggest, because of the problems of Anguilla, that the Associated State experiment has failed. I do not think we need to consider the point made by my noble friend Lord Walston as to possible action under Section 10. The States have been in existence only a little more than two years, and in my view it is too soon to

359
judge. It will remain our policy to help these States in all possible ways.
I will not say a great deal about Anguilla at the present moment. I thought that my noble friend Lord Brockway put his finger on something that is a problem when we create a State that is made up of two, three or four different islands or peoples. We know from many past experiences that this is one of the great dangers in creating federations. But I think it would be wrong to say that the Government had any reason to believe, until the very last stages of the constitutional procedure, that there would be any difficulty. Anguilla-Nevis-St. Kitts had been an administrative unit for some 85 years, and during all the constitutional conferences in London the elected Member of Parliament for Anguilla attended. On no occasion, to the best of my knowledge, did he raise any question or doubt, or even reservation as to the proposals within the Constitution. It was only at the last moment that there were doubts in Anguilla. When one creates States like this there are naturally risks. I do not think we had any reason to believe that this State could not, with good will on all sides, remain in unity.
We will give most careful consideration to the eight or nine suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Brockway. I will only say to him, so far as the armed forces are concerned—and I am grateful to him for his kind references to the work that the Royal Engineers are now doing in Anguilla—that it is our desire that the armed forces should be withdrawn from Anguilla as soon as possible; but until there has been created a situation of calm, and a willingness to cooperate, clearly the forces must remain there. But I hope they will remain in a constructive role, such as building the road and hospitals and schools which they are now undertaking. It is our desire that the armed forces in a military role shall be withdrawn from Anguilla as soon as possible.
I agree with my noble friend that what we wish to see here is Caribbean consultation and participation. That is what I sought to obtain when I want out in 1967 for the first Barbados conference which was held as a result of the Anguilla dispute. Then I thought that we had achieved Caribbean participation, but, as
360
the House will know, in the end it failed to materialise. I believe my noble friend Lord Walston also amplified the need for Caribbean participation.
I agree that we should work towards greater economic co-operation between the States in the Caribbean. I know of one particular case where there are some three islands which have no ports whatsoever. Ail the goods have to be manhandled on to lighters and then out to the ships. Each island by itself is too small to obtain assistance from the major World Bank in New York. In some respects it is too rich to receive special grants from this country. But if these three islands were to come together and produce an agreed scheme, I believe they would then meet the criteria for going to the World Bank for assistance and would stand a good chance of getting that assistance. That is an indication of what can be done with co-operation. But if there is not that co-operation it is clearly going to delay the economic development of the Associated States and the smaller islands.
In regard to dependent territories, as my noble friend has said, we have some 20 to 23 (I think it is), but each has a variety of problems, and many of them are enormous. The largest, both in size and, I think, in challenge, is Hong Kong, with a population of some 4½million, and the smallest is Pitcairn, with a population of 80. I do not know what will be the future of Pitcairn. The indications are that the people are now leaving the island, and we must surely reach a stage clearly when to keep it in any way economically viable is going to be very difficult. Some of these territories consist of plural and multi-racial societies composed of people of different origins, cultures, religions, languages and traditions. That gives rise from time to time to tensions, where certain occupations become the exclusive province of one particular national origin.
With few exceptions their economies are weak. Reliance is on a single product or on a few primary products for export. This makes them particularly vulnerable to fluctuations of the world market. Another feature of their economies is the small internal markets forcing them to rely largely on imports. One sees the effect of the tourist industry in the Caribbean; the failure to meet

361
the natural requirements of the tourist industry, the vegetables and other forms of commodities, means that with American tourists coming in more and more has to be imported. Clearly the advantages of the tourist trade are not fully gained because of the inability of the countries to meet the demands.
A considerable part of the national income is eaten up by administrative costs. Often difficult and politically delicate decisions have to be taken over education, whether to stress universal primary education or technical and higher education for a few. Many territories, I fear, which send their best students abroad for further education find great difficulty in inducing them to return. These are just some of the general problems which have to be faced by the remaining dependent territories. I stress this because the problem of dependent territories is not purely one of political development; one needs to see how one can create an administrative machine and also develop the internal economy and welfare of the people.
For many it is far too early to see how their political future will work out. How many will yet achieve independence, either alone or in association with other States, is, I fear, mere conjecture at this stage. As my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio, when he was Commonwealth Secretary, said in London at the opening of the Bahamas Constitutional Conference in. September, 1968:
"There still remains a number of British dependent territories around the globe. We do not know what their ultimate constitutional future will be. We have not—and never have had—any detailed blueprint. A few of these territories may wish to proceed with independence. Others may not. It is always difficult to forecast. But whatever the future holds, we in Britain will adhere closely to the cardinal principle to which we have adhered in the past—that the wishes of the people concerned must be the main guide to action. It is not and has never been our desire or intention either to delay independence for those dependencies who want it or to force it upon those who do not."
I expressed those particular words the other day when I visited Montserrat.
We must recognise that people in many of the smaller dependent territories are themselves anxious that there should be no hasty decision about their future; and it is unlikely that developments in future years can be or should be as rapid
362
as they have been in the past. But this does not mean that we should not give attention and thought to the problems. As I have said, I will look at the suggestions my noble friend has given us this afternoon. Our concern will be to continue where necessary to deveop their political institutions to the point where they, the people, are in a position to make a genuine and meaningful decision about their own futures.
This is a continuing process, often attracting little or no publicity. Since I joined the Commonwealth Office (and subsequently the Foreign and Commonwealth Office), Mauritius and Swaziland have become independent. The Bahamas and Bermuda have seen significant advances in their constitutions. In addition, we are constantly in touch with the political leaders of the dependent territories by correspondence through the Governors or Administrators, by visits to the territories by British Ministers and officials, or visits to Britain by local political leaders. And two or three times a year, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, we are able to meet Back Bench members of these countries. So there is continued contact and process of discussion between ourselves and the smaller territories.
We shall, as we have in the past, continue to keep the changing circumstances of each territory under review, ready to respond when further constitutional developments are required. Each territory has, as I have said—and I think my noble friend Lord Brockway agreed with this—its own character and its own special needs. There is therefore no one solution, no one blueprint, but each of them from now on will call for its own particular solution.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, be fore the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would be good enough to let the House have an Answer to the Written Question I put down on March 27 on this subject? It is quite relevant.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord rather shakes me. I do not know why it has not been printed. I well remember signing it, as I was required to do. Therefore an Answer is on the way. I will find out why it has not been printed.