Sitting of 4 July 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at Seven o'clock.
    ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
    HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Telephone Communications (Interception)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions since 1945 he or his predecessors have given permission for Members of Parliament's telephone conversations to be tapped: and whether he will publish in HANSARD a list of the names of the Members whose telephones have been so tapped;
    (2) on what date since 1945 he or his predecessors gave permission for the telephone of the hon. Member for West Ham, North, to be tapped; and for what purpose;
    (3) the types of cases in which, in the interest of public order, he grants permission for telephone calls to be intercepted; and why telephone calls of trade unionists connected with industrial disputes are included among such cases.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 25th June to a Question by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton).
    Mr. Lewis: The Minister has answered three Questions together dealing with three entirely different points which were not dealt with in the Question and Answer to which he referred. May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm or deny whether the telephone of the hon. Member for West Ham, North was tapped and how many Members of Parliament have had their telephone calls intercepted, and for what reason?
    Mr. Butler: I can only give exactly the same Answer as I gave to the hon Member for Brixton on 25th June and the answer I gave to supplementary questions on 27th June, namely, that I am not prepared to disclose the number of warrants, nor am I prepared to disclose any particular class of persons and nor should it be surmised by certain persons that their telephones have been tapped.
    Mr. Paget: May we take it that this information will be available to the Committee?
    Mr. Butler: I do not know. I am not running the Committee. All I know is that some very able, distinguished and learned gentlemen are engaged on this Committee, and as far as I am concerned the more information they can have the better.
    Mr. Shinwell: If I have a suspicion, however unwarranted, that my telephone has been tapped, could the right hon. Gentleman remove that suspicion by making a declaration which would satisfy me?
    Mr. Butler: It is very difficult to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman at any time.

    Mock Auctions
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1), as mock auction activity is again on the increase doing harm to our tourist trade, and as overseas visitors with confidence of getting a square deal in this country are easy victims of the technique involved in purchasing at exorbitant prices specially produced shoddy goods

    1277
    for mock auctions, at times with guarantees that are worthless, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation;
    (2) what action he is taking in respect of complaints of unlawful practices at mock auctions in the Metropolitan Police area made in a letter and sent to him by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am having inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member when they have been completed.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the latest thorough investigation into the activities at mock auctions was undertaken; what was the extent of the investigation; and how many offences were detected under Section 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916, of obtaining money under false pretences with intent to defraud.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The investigation of alleged offences is a matter for the police. The Metropolitan Police has given this matter much attention since 1953, but has not been able to find any evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that every one of these sales is bare-faced robbery? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my offer to send plain clothes men along to such sales where the present law is being broken at every sale.
    Mr. Butler: I understand that the hon. Gentleman rightly takes an interest in what are called "mock auctions," but we have no been able so far, despite the investigations which I and the Metropolitan Police have made, to find the evidence to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman can give me or the police any help, we shall be glad.

    Benedict Obibine (Imprisonment)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the advisability of transferring Benedict Obibine, who was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment at the Old Bailey on 21st June, to Nigeria to serve his sentence.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: This man has applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against his conviction and I cannot therefore comment on the case; but, in any event, I have no power to adopt the course which the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Hughes: Are there not extraordinary circumstances surrounding this case, and is it not the fact that this man appears to be suffering from very strange delusions? Whatever the result of the appeal may be, could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the man to be properly examined by psychiatrists with a view to his transfer to Nigeria which, on the face of it at least, would appear to be the humane thing to do in this case?
    Mr. Butler: As to the merits of the case, I cannot comment because the man has applied for leave to appeal. In the case of the powers given me by Parliament, I have only the Colonial Prisoners' Removal Act, 1884, and that gives power to transfer a prisoner from a Colony to the United Kingdom or from one colony to another, but not from the United Kingdom to a Colony.

    Young Persons (Convictions for Drunkenness)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the increase of convictions for drunkenness last year, whether he will obtain the figures of convictions for drunkenness for each of the ages between 14 and 21 years; and what evidence there is as to the places from which the persons convicted obtained the drink immediately prior to their conviction.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The information immediately available shows that 933 persons aged 14 and under 18 were convicted of drunkenness during 1956 and indicates that nearly 70 per cent. of these were aged 17 and about 25 per cent. aged 16. The number of convictions of persons aged 18 and under 21 was 4,452.
    Chief constables were again asked for available information about the source of the liquor in cases of offences by persons under 18. In 57 per cent. of the cases the source was not known and in 33 per cent. it was stated to be public houses.
    Mr. Gibson: In view of the large number of convictions and the serious public

    1279
    apprehensions about them, will the right hon. Gentleman follow up this investigation to try to get to know in more detail what are the sources of supply of the liquor, because there is illegal drinking which has resulted in convictions for drunkenness?
    Mr. Butler: We shall certainly do our best, but it is very difficult to cure social evils solely by the making of inquiries or even by legislation. We have ascertained that licensees on the whole do their best. From our inquiries I find that it is very difficult for them to be sure, for example in a crowded bar, that they are not serving drinks to people under age, but they do their best.
    Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Is it not also very difficult for licensees or others who serve drinks to know whether an individual is 17, 18 or 21?
    Mr. Butler: That is confirmation, for which I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, of what I was trying to make clear, that it is extraordinarily difficult to find out someone's age.
    Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the fact that there is an alarming increase in the rate of drinking and drunkenness among young people, is it not, whatever the difficulty, the Secretary of State's responsibility [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the responsibility of us all—to tackle this problem to see that these figures are reduced?
    Mr. Butler: Clearly there is an increase in drunkenness. There are, however, about 4 million persons under 21. The number of convictions for drunkenness is comparatively small, 5,385. While I agree that they are disquieting, I do not think the matter is completely out of hand. I will do my best within the powers available to me to follow this up.

    Probation Officer Posts, London (Vacancies)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officer posts in the London area are unfilled, showing adult and juvenile courts and male and female posts separately; what percentage of the establishment for London these vacancies represent in aggregate; and what steps he is taking to remedy the position.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: In the metropolitan magistrates' courts area, for which I am the probation authority, there are now vacancies for three men at adult courts and two at juvenile courts. There are also vacancies for a man and a woman for relief duties. These vacancies represent in the aggregate 4·5 per cent. of the establishment. The vacancies were recently advertised and, in so far as they cannot at once be filled by permanent staff, I shall endeavour to make temporary appointments.
    Mr. Robinson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that any vacancies in this extremely important social work are to be deplored? Does not he agree that the true figures are to some extent masked by the use of untrained and relatively inexperienced probation officers in the past?
    Mr. Butler: Yes. That to some extent is the fact. It is true that the establishment—that is the number—has been increased by about 35 per cent. from 114 to 154 to meet the increase in probation work. I am ready to consult the Probation Advisory and Training Board on how to deal with the problem the hon. Member has brought before us.
    Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many probation officers try to do their very difficult jobs without the assistance of motor vehicles? If there is a shortage of manpower in this service would not providing the officers with motor cars double the extent of the work they can do? We provide them with many facilities. The provision of motor vehicles would be a great help.
    Mr. Butler: There is a great tradition in the probation service of service as such. If we can supplement it, we will, but it is rather difficult to do it in the way the hon. Member suggests.

    Prostitution, Stepney
    Mr. W. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the serious increase of solicitation in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am aware that the number of arrests of women in the Borough of Stepney for soliciting was 449 in 1956 compared with 123 in 1954

    1281
    and 255 in 1955. These figures reflect a serious increase in prostitution and offences allied to it, which gives ground for concern, though I must add that the rise in the number of arrests may be due to a number of different causes and it should not be inferred that the number of women engaged in these activities has increased in the same proportion.
    I have consulted the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who shares my concern, and I am satisfied that the police are, within the limits of their resources, doing all that they can to enforce the law. The responsible citizens of the area can give valuable help to the police in dealing with this problem, and the police will be grateful for any such assistance.
    Mr. Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a serious increase in prostitution in this area, and in what is termed the East End of London, a residential area, and that what is happening is completely different from anything that has ever taken place in that part of Stepney, certainly since I was born there, and indeed long before that? Is this matter simply to be left? Is this traffic to go on increasing and increasing without the Home Department doing anything at all? Up to now it has done nothing to stop the increase, and the people in that area have no alternative, unless the Home Office does something about it, to accepting this increase in prostitution.
    Mr. Butler: The police have done their best, as is shown by the increased number of arrests made. I think the police should be supported in what they have done. We should like to get the help of local residents in giving the police more power. The matter under discussion has been referred to the Wolfenden Committee. That shows that the Home Office is not unaware of this very severe problem, in Stepney, as elsewhere.
    Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how local residents can help in this matter, unless he means local residents are the cause of the trouble?
    Mr. Butler: I only wanted to say that the police would be glad if the people who complain of the activities of prostitutes would give them specific information and be prepared to appear in court to give evidence. Such co-operation by
    1282
    the public has been very useful and made a very considerable difference to the police.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Wolfenden Committee's Report will now be published?
    Mr. Butler: I should be awfully sorry to forestall a Question to be put by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). However, as we have already passed it, I would say that I am expecting the Report some time next month.
    Mr. Edwards: In view of the apparent complacency of the Home Secretary in this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Borstal Allocation Centres (Admission)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the persons awaiting admission to a Borstal Allocation Centre were under the age of 17 years when committed for sentence; and how many of these are detained in remand homes and how many in prison.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On a recent date, six boys who were under the age of 17 when committed for sentence and who were sentenced to borstal training were awaiting admission to a borstal allocation centre. All were detained in prison.
    Mr. MacColl: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a most unfortunate preliminary to the constructive training of Borstal that boys have to be kept in prison? In view of the shortage of places at allocation centres, will he press on with the supply of remand centres as he promised?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly, I want to press on with the provision of allocation centres, and I am glad to say that there has been a considerable reduction in the number detained in this way over the past month alone. I should like to make progress, and the pressure put upon me by the hon. Member is very welcome to me.
    Mr. Stewartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boys are now at Wormwood Scrubs

    1283
    prison awaiting a period of Borstal training; and what is the average length of time that they have been there.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: On 28th June, 1957, there were 295 boys in the Borstal reception centre at Wormwood Scrubs. The process of allocation lasts from six to eight weeks. At present, owing to the shortage of vacancies in the training Borstals caused by the increase in committals to Borstal, the average time spent in awaiting transfer after allocation is 22 days.
    Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the time spent at Wormwood Scrubs awaiting Borstal training affects the period for which a boy may be lawfully detained at Borstal thereafter?
    Mr. Butler: I should like to have notice of that. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that we have been trying to locate this centre elsewhere, and we have found suitable alternative premises which we propose to acquire if we receive planning permission. We hope that that will help to get over the difficulty.

    British Subjects (Passport Examination)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority and for what purpose British subjects leaving the United Kingdom by sea are asked to produce passports for examination by officials of his Department.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Adult persons leaving this country, whether British subjects or not, are required by the Aliens Order, 1953, to produce adequate evidence of identity and nationality; and the most readily available evidence is a valid passport.
    Mr. Bell: What is the object of their being required to do this, inasmuch as any British subject obviously has an inherent right to leave this country whenever he wants to? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Order?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is simply a case of identification. The hon. Member is correct in saying that there is no power to refuse a British subject leave to embark. Therefore, it is simply a case of establishing identity.

    Colonial Immigrants (Deportation)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the large number of convictions at magistrates' courts, and in particular the Thames Magistrates' Court, in 1956, for living on immoral earnings, involving Maltese, he will consider the introduction of legislation to permit the deportation of this type of offender coming from Commonwealth and colonial countries.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: These figures give cause for concern, but I do not find in them sufficient justification for departing from the view I expressed on 28th February last to my hon. Friend's Question.
    Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of 35 persons convicted at Thames Magistrates' Court in 1956 of living on immoral earnings, no fewer than 27 were Maltese? Is he aware that colonial immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate number of these crimes all over the country and that the most effective means of combating this most serious social menace is to introduce deportation?
    Mr. Butler: We are aware of the position in respect of Maltese at the Thames Magistrates' Court, but we are also aware of the long-standing British tradition in regard to the deportation of British subjects. As at present advised, although I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, I am not prepared to depart from that long tradition.

    Schoolchildren (Purchase of Tobacco)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the evidence which has satisfied him that the present powers to prevent the purchase of tobacco by schoolchildren are adequate.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir; but equally I have no evidence to the contrary. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 9th May, Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, makes it an offence to sell tobacco to anyone apparently under the age of 16 years; and I have no reason to think that the provisions of the Section are not adequately observed.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather unfortunate that he should give this opinion when, as he now says, he has no evidence on which to base an opinion? If he requires evidence, will he turn to the Answer given to me by the Minister of Education, who said on 6th June that in his view:
    "there is sufficient evidence in common experience for the statement that cigarettes are not so difficult for children to obtain…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1957; Vol. 571, c. 128.]?
    In view of the Medical Research Council's Report, will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the matter to see whether the provisions are sufficient for him to take action? If they are not, will he ask for extra power?
    Mr. Butler: For the same reason as I gave in connection with drink for young persons, it is very difficult to ascertain absolutely the age of a person to whom sales are made. That is why I said "apparently" under the age of 16. There can be no absolute rule in this matter. I suggest that the course for those who are very worried about it is to put evidence to the Ingleby Committee which is still sitting and which may be able to make some recommendations.

    British Nationality (Claims through Descent)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of a recent court decision in favour of a claimant to British nationality through descent from a woman, he will now introduce legislation giving British women the same right as British men to transmit their nationality to their children.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.
    Mr. Parkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a resident in Paddington did not know until he had finished his National Service and applied for a passport that he was a stateless person? He was born of a British mother in France and no record of her marriage can be found. The result is that he has two small daughters of different nationality, as one of them happened to be born abroad. If the Electress Sophia can give nationality to the occupiers of the benches in another place, surely an ordinary electress of this country ought to be able to give her own nationality to her own child.
    Mr. Butler: I sympathise very much but the facts are that the legislation in respect of the Electress Sophia was repealed in 1948 in respect of the 1st January, 1949, and therefore we start all square. In relation to the hon. Member's point, I realise the difficulty about illegitimate children born abroad, but the Secretary of State has power, under Section 7 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, to register such children as citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies whilst they are minors.
    Mr. Parkinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has reached in regard to the recent court decision which enables British nationality to be claimed through descent from the Electress Sophia; and whether he will now introduce legislation to enable him to resist such claims in cases where the claimants have borne arms against this country.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: This matter has received careful consideration and I do not think that any action is called for on my part.
    Mr. Parkin: While agreeing that this is not as important as it sounds, may I ask the Home Secretary if there is any hope of its being a sufficient irritant in his Department to cause a review of the entire question of the naturalisation of aliens?
    Mr. Butler: The latter point is rather a broader one than is that of the descendants of the Electress Sophia, who appear to be of the order of 400 persons. Whilst I should be glad to answer questions on the broader issue, I think it is as well to leave these 400 alone.

    Home Safety
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider introducing legislation empowering local authorities to spend money for the promotion of home safety and the dissemination of information and advice relating thereto.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I sympathise with the object which my hon. Friend has in mind and will consider his suggestion.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that a local

    1287
    authority now has to obtain the Minister's permission before it can set up a home safety committee? Would not it be a good thing if it could set up a home safety committee on the same lines as the road safety committees and be able to draw on and use its funds for that purpose?
    Mr. Butler: That is why I want to look into the subject.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in civil defence policy he has under consideration in the light of the implications of the White Paper on Defence.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The review of civil defence plans is a continuing process, but no changes were called for by the conclusions announced in the Defence White Paper, which confirmed that civil defence must play an essential part in the defence plan.
    Mr. Robinson: Without going into the question whether civil defence is of any value at all in a thermo-nuclear age, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the possibility of transferring responsibilities and making them either regional or national instead of local?
    Mr. Butler: One of the great features of civil defence is that we should enlist the co-operation of the local authorities, otherwise volunteers do not feel that they are attached to their own localities. While I am ready to entertain any ideas, I believe that it is important to retain the local connection.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for some years now military appreciation of the problem of civil defence has recognised that in the first period this will be the main responsibility of the military, and should not this be recognised in its organisation?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, but I think there are limits to what the military can do compared with a local authority in connection with its own local force and its training, and I attach great importance to the latter.
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    1288
    whether, in view of the knowledge now available about the effects of nuclear warfare, he will introduce legislation to revise the Civil Defence Act accordingly.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Civil Defence Act, 1948, provides a broad statutory framework for civil defence administration. There is ample scope to revise plans and policies, as necessary, without amending legislation.
    Mrs. Jeger: In view of the fact that paragraph 12 of the Defence White Paper states that there is no adequate protection for the people of this country in the event of nuclear war, surely the Home Secretary should consult other members of the Government with a view to revising the whole question?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am in constant communication with my colleagues, hourly and daily. I am fully aware of all their points of view, and I am not prepared to alter my answer on the strength of such consultation.

    Prisoners (Disciplinary Awards)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the procedure and practice relating to the case of a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons who is dissatisfied with a finding of a disciplinary committee and with the report of a visiting committee; and if he will indicate what right and opportunity such a prisoner has by way of appeal or otherwise to an outside tribunal.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: A prisoner who is dissatisfied with a disciplinary award may petition the Secretary of State, who has power under the Prison Rules to mitigate or remit the award. A visiting committee or board of visitors is itself an outside tribunal independent of the prison administration. No appeal lies from a decision of the committee or the board to any other outside tribunal.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Home Secretary aware that certain prisoners allege that they do not get fair hearings by internal committees, and will he provide a means whereby such prisoners can bring their grievances before external committees, at which they can be represented either by counsel or next friend, so that their cases may be fully and fairly put?
    Mr. Butler: As far as I am aware, with the reserve powers of the Secretary of State, the position is satisfactory, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to put to me any individual points with which he has found dissatisfaction, I shall be glad to look into them.

    Prisoners (Evidence Before Tribunals)
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances, and upon what authority, prisoners who are serving sentences in Her Majesty's prisons are brought to give evidence which is not on oath before tribunals which are neither statutory not judicial; and to what extent the costs of transferring such prisoners and their close escort while away from prison are borne by the authorities convening the tribunals.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the attendance of a prisoner at any place in Great Britain is desirable in the interests of justice or for the purposes of any public inquiry, he has power under Section 22 (2, a) of the. Prison Act, 1952, to direct the prisoner to be taken to that place. The question who pays the cost of the production depends on the circumstances of the particular case, but where the attendance is for the purpose of giving evidence before a professional disciplinary body, the production is normally at public expense.

    Cypriot Prisoners (Wormwood Scrubs)
    Miss Leeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will send an independent panel of doctors to Wormwood Scrubs to examine the Cypriot prisoners.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir, I regret not. I have every confidence in the competence and integrity of the medical officers at Wormwood Scrubs prison.
    Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that the integrity of those representatives is not in dispute, but that what is in dispute is that they have put out a statement which is in absolute contradiction to the statement put out by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and myself? Will the right
    1290
    hon. Gentleman say that he also has complete confidence in our integrity, and will he, therefore, if dealing with two groups of people whose integrity he respects, which I must assume, find out where the truth lies?
    Mr. Butler: I am in no doubt about the integrity of the hon. Lady or of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I have seen them both on this matter, and I accept absolutely what their impression is, but I have to give the medical opinion as given me by medical persons, and whilst the hon. Members may have many talents, I am not aware that they are of the medical profession.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the report which he has received from the medical officer at Wormwood Scrubs bears out the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the medical officer did not find any sign of bruises or injuries upon these prisoners?
    Mr. Butler: I should prefer to answer that question after it has been put on the Order Paper. I have also been making inquiries in Cyprus through my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, and I should prefer to give an answer to that matter, which is a full one, on a special Question, rather than to give a chance answer now, because I want to be accurate.

    Sir Roger Casement
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the nature of the communication he has received from Dr. Herbert Mackey, Chairman of the Casement Repatriation Committee, Dublin, on the question of the remains of Sir Roger Casement, and the books, documents and papers, the property of Sir Roger Casement and now in the possession of Her Majesty's Government; and what was the nature of his reply.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The letter from Dr. Mackey contains a request that the remains of Roger Casement should be removed from Pentonville Prison and that certain documents should be returned to Casement's legal representatives. The letter is under consideration, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to reply to it.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give consideration to the fact that this controversy is still raging in Ireland, and will continue to do so until the British Government hand over these documents? Does he not think it is time that we followed the example of historical documents respecting Scotland being returned there? Why should not these be returned to Ireland?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot go further today than to say that the letter from Dr. Mackey is under consideration and that I am not ready to give an answer today.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the Home Secretary say whether or not the alleged diaries are still in existence?
    Mr. Butler: I am not prepared to go any further today.

    Alfred George Hinds (Forcible Feeding)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the forcible feeding of Alfred George Hinds, a prisoner at Pentonville.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Hinds refused all food after his return to Pentonville on Tuesday, 25th June. He was placed under medical observation and on 1st July the prison medical officer decided that Hinds should be fed by tube. The prisoner did not resist and two more meals of this type have since been administered without incident.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Home Secretary aware that the public is beginning to get a bit uneasy about this case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is he aware that the public is a little bit uneasy about the case despite the jeers of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Will the Home Secretary, in the exceptional circumstances, have some further investigation made into the reason this man is apparently willing to starve to death rather than accept the justice of the verdict that has been imposed upon him?
    Mr. Butler: It so happens that I personally have not had an opportunity of considering this case in detail. If there is any fresh aspect of it which any hon. Member or any other person wishes me to consider, naturally I will do so.

  POLICE

    Rent Allowances
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the rent allowances of policemen not living in police houses when their rent is increased consequent upon the Rent Bill becoming law.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Any increase in the rent paid by a policeman entitled to a rent allowance is automatically reflected in the allowance, subject to the operation of the maximum limit approved for his force.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Since the maximum at present obtaining will not be sufficient to meet many of the rents which people will have to pay as a result of the Rent Act, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he himself will approve any increase which may be negotiated by the appropriate bodies?
    Mr. Butler: So long as it is realised that the matter is primarily one for the Police Council for Great Britain, I shall be in a stronger position.

    Metropolitan Police (Summer Dress)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will authorise hot weather relaxation of dress regulations in the Metropolitan Police, to give at least the same degree of comfort as those operating in many county police forces.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Metropolitan Police are not allowed some relaxation in dress in hot weather.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: A lightweight uniform jacket was introduced a few years ago for wear by the uniformed sergeants and constables of the Metropolitan Police in the summer, and I am not aware of a need for any further change.
    Mr. Parkin: Will the Home Secretary take the opportunity to get around a bit and see how in other police forces tasks are carried out with great dignity and surely greater efficiency by police constables who are allowed more relaxation of dress in this sort of weather? Is it not rather terrible when the Metropolitan Police have the greatest difficulty in

    1293
    enforcing parking regulations, speed limits and the laws on betting, and in combating prostitution, and the only regulations they have to enforce are these out-of-date dress regulations?
    Mr. Butler: A constable on traffic duty may wear a white linen coat in place of the jacket. It is, however, possible for the Commissioner to make further relaxations and to give instructions that duty may be performed in shirtsleeves. Furthermore, a number of provincial forces may also be allowed to do duty in shirtsleeves. A working party of the Police Council is at present considering certain aspects of police uniform, including summer dress, and therefore, the hon. Member is pushing at an open door.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ayrshire the police have been operating for the last three weeks in shirtsleeves, which adds greatly to their dignity?
    Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend come to Newcastle-on-Tyne, where he will see a very effective and smart police force in pale blue shirts, looking extremely nice? In view of the fact that to almost every supplementary question my right hon. Friend has said how glad he is that we are pushing at an open door, could he come up to Newcastle? Perhaps then he 'will be able to take action instead of making semi-promises.
    Mr. Butler: If I can be assured that my hon. Friend will show me round, I shall be glad to come.

    Buckingham Palace
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the numbers of police regularly on duty in the vicinity of Buckingham Palace have been strengthened in recent months; and for what reason.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The number of constables employed at Buckingham Palace has been increased to avoid the need to call on Cannon Row Police Station to provide reliefs. There has, however, been no increase in the number of officers on duty at any one time.
    Mr. Robinson: Will the Home Secretary assure himself that there is not an excessive number of police doing this
    1294
    work? Is he aware that the inactivity associated with this type of guard work is apt to lead to frustration amongst the police when there are so many active jobs to be done?
    Mr. Butler: I gather that the number at Buckingham Palace was increased only in order to avoid the need to call on the police station whose name I gave. I do not think there is any reason for me to re-examine the position.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Swaziland (Education and Health Services)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if, in view of the surplus in the national budget of Swaziland for the year 1955–56, he will authorise increased expenditure on educational and health services.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The Swaziland accounts for the financial year 1955–56 do not show a surplus. On the contrary, they showed a small deficit. The Swaziland Government does however possess an accumulated surplus as an assurance against future needs.
    Expenditure on educational and health services in Swaziland are steadily increasing and it is estimated that expenditure on education in the current financial year will be approximately four times the amount spent in the financial year 1950–51 and expenditure on medical services about two and one-half times the 1950–51 figure.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not that reply a little misleading? Was there not in fact a surplus of £442,235 in March, 1956? As there are only 19 Government schools, and aid is given to 111, and there are only 25 doctors, some of whom serve mostly Europeans, are not the Government prepared to do more for education and health?
    Mr. Alport: The Government are anxious to do all possible to advance education and health in the Protectorate, but the existence of a deficit for the financial year 1955–56 shows how prudent the Government have been in maintaining an accumulated surplus over previous years.

    Basutoland (Caledon River Area)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what facilities exist for the purchasing of consumer commodities in the area situated along the Caledon river in Basutoland; and the number of shopping centres and the types of goods available.
    Mr. Alport: There are five major shopping centres situated in Basutoland along the Caledon River. They provide facilities for the purchase of all necessary consumer commodities. In addition there are 144 shops selling most basic articles and food and clothing, as well as agricultural and domestic necessities. There are also numerous cafes, bakers' and butchers' shops in this area.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the Basutos go to the town of Ficksburg in the South African Union to buy their necessities, and that the Government of South Africa have now indicated that they will prohibit Africans from going to those European shops? In view of that fact, will the hon. Gentleman consider the necessity of meeting the needs of the Africans in Basutoland itself?
    Mr. Alport: I think my reply has shown that there are adequate shopping facilities in the area. The entry of Africans into Ficksburg is a matter for the South African Government.

    Roma College, Basutoland (Disturbances)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations the cause of the disturbances on 19th May at Roma College, in Basutoland, when police were called in to restore order.
    Mr. Alport: About 100 students of the high school, which forms part of the college, attacked the director of the college with sticks and stones. Order was restored before the police arrived to investigate the assault. A Commission has been appointed to inquire into the causes of the disturbance and to recommend measures necessary to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
    Mr. Brockway: Can the hon. Member give any indication when the report of the Commission is likely to be published?
    Mr. Alport: The Commission is composed of three members, one to be nominated by the resident commissioner, one by the paramount chief and the third by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Maseru. I cannot tell the hon. Member exactly when the report will be received, but I assure the hon. Member that there will be no unnecessary delay.

    Farmers, Swaziland (Loans)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what assistance is given to African and non-African farmers, respectively, in Swaziland from the Land Bank, State subsidies and other Government sources.
    Mr. Alport: Over the five years 1st April, 1952, to 31st March, 1957, African farmers in Swaziland have received loans both from Swaziland Government sources and from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. Non-African farmers have received loans from Swaziland Government sources or, if they are land owners, from the Swaziland Land and Agricultural Loan Fund. Total sums borrowed in the five-year period were in round figures: Africans, £136,000; non-Africans, £30,000.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is public feeling in Swaziland that the amount of assistance for land development is not sufficient? Will he have another look at this mattes to see what can be done?
    Mr. Alport: I will certainly note the point the hon. Member has made.

    Commonwealth Economic Committee (Report)
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when the Report from the Commonwealth Economic Committee on raw material development may be expected.
    Mr. Alport: The Commonwealth Economic Committee has informed me that the drafting of its Report is at an advanced stage. When it is completed, the Committee, in accordance with its established practice, will send the Report to all Commonwealth Governments for their approval and for their agreement

    1297
    to publication. The right hon. Member will appreciate that these Governments will wish to give close examination to a Report of this importance. We are most anxious that there should be no undue delay in its publication, but the Commonwealth Economic Committee cannot, as yet, estimate the date.

    Ghana (Volta River Project)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what assistance has been offered by the United Kingdom Government to the Government of Ghana for the development of the Volta River project.
    Mr. Alpert: The general position is still as stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in his written reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) on 27th July last.
    Mr. Mallalieu: In view of the vast difference which the realisation of this project could make to Ghana, do not Her Majesty's Government think that they would be well advised to offer a proportion of the financial cost of undertaking the scheme, say one-third?
    Mr. Alport: My right hon. Friend's reply to which I referred said that the United Kingdom and the Ghana Government and the aluminium companies have each reaffirmed their interest in the project. The Ghana Government have given a group of United States companies until 18th July to survey the project and to enter into negotiations to undertake it. The matter therefore rests at the moment with the Ghana Government.

    COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister what discussions took place at the Commonwealth conference with regard to the need for the maximum mutuality in trade and the need to maintain international standards; and what action he proposes to take in these matters.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The discussions are not yet complete. I would ask the bon. Gentleman to await the communiqué.
    Mr. Shinwell: On the completion of the discussions of this very important matter affecting the whole Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister make a report to the House to enable hon. Members to debate the issue? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in all quarters of the House there is great anxiety about the future of Commonwealth trade?
    The Prime Minister: It would be best to wait until the discussions are complete. The conference has been very important and very valuable and I hope that the House will feel that the work done has been useful, and, more than that, constructive. Perhaps the best way of discussing a debate would be through the usual channels, which could also discuss an appropriate method.
    Mr. Russellasked the Prime Minister if he will support the proposal of the Prime Minister of Canada that a Commonwealth trade conference should be held with a view to increasing inter-Commonwealth trade.
    The Prime Minister: This proposal is now being discussed with the Prime Minister of Canada and my other Commonwealth colleagues now gathered in London. I would ask my hon. Friend to wait until the present discussions have been completed.
    Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, will he agree that in principle such a conference is highly desirable and will he do whatever he can to bring it about?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but my hon. Friend will realise that I have two duties, to represent the United Kingdom and to preside over the conference. I hope that we shall reach useful conclusions on this, as on other matters.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that an increasing number of our fellow countrymen are inclined to the view put forward by the Prime Ministers of Canada and India? If the right hon. Gentleman is favourably inclined towards it, is it his intention to take the initiative for an early Commonwealth conference with a view to considering these matters?
    The Prime Minister: All this is very helpful to us, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.

    HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to announce legislative proposals for the reform of the House of Lords.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer to the reply given by me on 11th April last.
    Mr. Hamilton: Did not that reply promise legislation during the Session? Does not the Prime Minister agree that by this time the tension among their Lordships must be well-nigh unbearable?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This Session is not yet ended, of course; nor did I refer to legislation, but to proposals.

    SPECIAL HOSPITALS (DONORS' DIRECTIONS)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that appointments to regional hospital boards and hospital management committees in England, Scotland, and Wales, are continually changing, thus jeopardising the preservation of special hospitals as donors directed and as was implicit in the original negotiations for the take over, he will appoint a Select Committee to examine this problem and advise on a continuity of policy, thus safeguarding the interests of those whose expressed and agreed desires are now being disregarded through changing circumstances.
    The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health who have statutory obligations in this matter, and the hospital authorities which act on their behalf, are fully aware of these considerations.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Regional Hospital Board has gone back on the undertaking originally made about the Elsie Inglis Hospital and the regional hospital board responsible for a special hospital for children in Kensington? How is the ordinary public to know what arrangements were made at the time of the establishment of the National Health Service unless there is some machinery to which people can apply? Am Ito understand that the Ministers of State
    1300
    responsible can override the unnecessary disregard by the present regional hospital boards of matters settled many years ago?
    The Prime Minister: These are complicated matters. They are governed by Statute and the Ministers concerned have statutory obligations which I am sure they will carry out. I am particularly anxious not to be drawn into discussion of the details of the statutory requirement in the matter since I am told that the interpretation of the relevant provision in the Scottish case is at present before the Court of Session.

    HYDROGEN BOMBS
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what progress British scientists have made towards the production of clean hydrogen bombs; and if he will make a detailed statement on the subject.
    The Prime Minister: Our examination of this subject shows that progress is being made, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose details.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that this is a very urgent matter which affects the peace, health and happiness of mankind, and is not the public entitled to some information about it? Will the right hon. Gentleman revise that non-committal statement and give a better answer?
    The Prime Minister: I must point out that any progress towards the production of "clean" bombs would not have taken place at all if I had yielded to what the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends wanted, which was not to test them.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not the Prime Minister also agree that the happiness of the human race would not be at all advanced if it were blown off the earth by a "clean" hydrogen bomb? Is not the use of the adjective in this connection itself a pollution of the English language?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) are contiguous in their positions. They must try to adapt their policies.

    EUROPEAN FREE TRADE AREA (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if the statement made in Rome by the President of the Board of Trade about the European Free Trade Area and economic relations with Commonwealth countries represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer to the reply given on 2nd July.

    COMMANDER CRABB
    Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister is he is now in a position to make a statement on the circumstances in which Commander Crabb disappeared in Portsmouth Harbour.
    The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make on this subject.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware that after the inquest the solicitor representing the Crabb family stated that Commander Crabb had died in the service of his country? Does the Prime Minister accept that view and, if he does, will he take steps to see that an appropriate pension is issued to the widow in addition to the solitary ex gratia payment of £10 which has so far been made?
    The Prime Minister: I will look into the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. I am not informed about it. As to making a further statement on the circumstances. I am afraid that I must stand on the position taken by my predecessor in the debate on 14th May last year.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Prime Minister reply to my question? Does he believe that the statement by the solicitor that Commander Crabb died in the service of his country was correct?
    The Prime Minister: It would be wrong for me to add anything to the statements made by my predecessor in this matter.

  EDUCATION

    Primary School, Millfields Estate, Wednesbury
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether, in view of pressing
    1302
    need for a primary school to serve the Millfields Estate in the borough of Wednesbury, immediate priority can be given to the building of this school.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 6th June.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that priority for the building of this school was given by his right hon. Friend the former Minister of Education some years ago and that there is a pressing need for this school to be built, as there is a large young school population which otherwise may have to go some miles to attend school?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of the hon. Member's concern in this matter. My noble Friend has approved the inclusion of this school in the reserve list for the 1958–59 building programme, so it definitely has priority for the 1959–60 main programme.

    Technical College, Sunderland (Building Plans)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he is now in a position to announce the further plans for the Sunderland Technical College.
    Sir E. Boyle: The building programme approved by my noble Friend for the current year includes a hostel for about fifty students and a project costing some £200,000 for accommodation on a separate site which will remove the lower level engineering and commercial courses from the main buildings. The programme approved for 1958–59 includes a £350,000 extension to the teaching accommodation of the main college, which should enable all departments to expand.
    Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware of the dissatisfaction about the Minister's decision on the naming of the College of Advanced Technology for the North-East and will he give me three assurances: first, that the Sunderland Technical College will be able to carry on the advanced work which has already been approved by the Minister secondly, that the Sunderland Technical College will be able in the near future to qualify as a second College of Advanced Technology in the North-East; and thirdly,

    1303
    that if the governors of this college wish to see the Minister, he will be available to see them?
    Sir E. Boyle: On the last of those points, I will refer to my noble Friend what my hon. Friend has said. I can, however, assure him that the Northern Advisory Council is to consider at an early meeting the whole question of the pattern of advanced technological education in the North-East in the light of my noble Friend's decision to designate a College of Advanced Technology there.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the grave disappointment that the noble Lord's decision has caused in Sunderland, will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that this is one of the matters that will be discussed when he receives the deputation from Sunderland?
    Sir E. Boyle: There is no question of the decision being altered, but I can promise the hon. Member that there will be full discussion and consideration by the Northern Advisory Council of the whole pattern of advanced technological education in the area.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the unsatisfactory reply by the Parliamentary Secretary, I give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

    Books (Expenditure)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he is aware that more than one-quarter of all local education authorities spend less than 10s. per head of school population per year on books; and what steps he will take to remedy this situation.
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend recently emphasised the great importance of an adequate supply of suitable books and other reading material, especially for school libraries. He hopes that as a result of the further publicity which has been given to this matter, local education authorities will take steps to see that their schools do get enough books, and he will continue to take a keen interest in this.
    Mr. Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend feel that he can do anything further beyond exhortation in this matter?
    Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend cannot lay down how much local education authorities should spend. What he can do—and I am doing it again this afternoon—is to emphasise very strongly that money spent on school books is money well spent. I think that anybody going round new schools today must be encouraged by the growing signs of improvement in school libraries.
    Mr. Jennings: Is my hon. Friend aware that last year his Department issued figures showing that for every £1 of expenditure on education, only 2d. was spent on school books? Is he aware that these are the real tools of a teacher's trade and will he try in practical terms to persuade every local authority to spend a larger proportion of that £1 on school books?
    Sir E. Boyle: There has been a great improvement in school libraries in recent years. They are one of the most encouraging departments of nearly all new schools. I would only reiterate that my noble Friend most warmly agrees that this is a part of local education revenue which is extremely well spent.

    Youth Leaders (Training)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education how many prospective full-time youth leaders are now in training at Swansea University College and Westhill Training College, respectively; and, of these, how many intend to take up youth leadership posts in the United Kingdom.
    Sir E. Boyle: Fifteen students are following a one-year course at Swansea University College and twenty others a two-year course at Westhill Training College. All except two overseas students at Swansea are expected to take posts in England and Wales.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Trade With China
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to complete the determination of export quotas for goods on the quantitative control list for China; and whether the quotas now being established will apply

    1305
    only to exports from this country or will be part of larger quotas shared with other members of the Paris Consultative Group.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): Recommendations as to these quotas are due to be made by the Paris Consultative Group to member Governments in the near future. Sonic of the agreed quotas will probably operate globally; the rest will be allocated as between the countries concerned, but there will be some room for adjustment.
    Mr. Rankin: May I take it from the Minister's answer that the allocation is to come from Cocom in Paris? Does that mean that, having broken with Cocom on a matter of principle, we are now to become tied up with that organisation on matters of detail and, perhaps, suffer the frustrations of the last five years?
    Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. It is very important that we should work with Cocom within our new arrangements and we hope to get these quotas by the end of the month. I think they will be subject to adjustment and I hope that our industry will know its position by the end of this month.

    Protective Tariffs
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the twenty biggest, in percentage, of the tariffs or protections to British industry that will be lost as a result of the adoption by the United Kingdom of the European Free Trade proposals.
    Sir D. Eccles: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) on 19th February, in which a list of goods bearing ad valorem duties of more than 33⅓ per cent. was given. With permission, I will also circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the main classes of goods which are subject to ad valorem duties of 33⅓ per cent.
    Mr. Osborne: Have the trades affected made any protest to my right hon. Friend? Has he been in contact with them?
    Sir D. Eccles: I am not sure about protests but, of course, I have been in contact with them. There is appropriate machinery in the Board of Trade whereby
    1306
    any trade which desires to know what its future may be under these proposals can seek advice, and trades are so doing.
    Following is the list—
    The following are the main classes of goods subject to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem when imported into the United Kingdom, if they do not qualify for Imperial Preference:

    A few iron and steel manufactures.

    Scientific and lamp-blown glassware, and laboratory porcelain.

    Scientific instruments (most types).

    Cinematograph projectors and some cameras.

    Wireless valves and vacuum tubes.

    A wide range of chemicals, including most synthetic organic and fine chemicals.

    Watches and most clocks.

    Pianos and certain other musical instruments.

    Certain apparel containing silk and artificial silk.

  Exports to O.E.E.C. Countries
  Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of United Kingdom exports to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries at present enter those countries free of Customs duty; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the proportion admitted free in each country.
  Sir D. Eccles: I regret that this information is not available, and could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time.
  Mr. Russell: Does not my right hon. Friend think it essential to have this information before deciding whether there are advantages or disadvantages in entering the Free Trade Area? Does he not feel that he ought to get this information?
  Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion. If, however, there are any trades which think that they are prejudiced in any way, I should be glad to discuss their position either with my hon. Friend or with the trades concerned.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that Commonwealth countries which export goods to Europe have tariff protection of an average percentage in the twenties, whereas the European countries have something less than 10 per cent.? Is it not vital that we should know the other side of the picture too?
  Sir D. Eccles: We are examining with the Commonwealth representatives next week the question of manufactured goods which come both from the Commonwealth and from Europe.

  Hire-Purchase Finance
  Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the credit squeeze could be maintained more efficiently and more cheaply by increasing the initial deposit and reducing the number of payments than by keeping a high Bank rate; and if he will appoint a committee to investigate this proposal with responsible hire-purchase finance companies, in view of their wide experience in this matter.
  Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. Hire purchase does not play a large enough part in the economy for the Government to base its financial and credit policy on the hire-purchase restrictions.
  Mr. Osborne: Why is my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade answering a Question concerning the credit squeeze which was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does it now come under my right hon. Friend's Department? Secondly, in view of the fact that the excessive hire-purchase charges tend to put up the cost of living, will my right hon. Friend discuss the matter with responsible hire-purchase people?
  Sir D. Eccles: The answer to the first part of that question is that the Board of Trade has been responsible for the conditions of hire purchase for some time. Secondly, I am always ready to talk to any of the hire-purchase people about their particular difficulties.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Tobacco Duty (Revenue)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that the tobacco revenue was estimated at £707 millions for 1956–57 and only £701,946,000 was received, what margin of error he anticipates will be necessary in the estimate of £698 millions for the year 1957–58.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The figure of £698 million for 1957–58 represents the closest practicable estimate. My
    1308
    right hon. Friend does not regard the difference of 0·7 per cent. between estimate and outturn in 1956–57 as unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Osborne: As the cancer scare was not effective in the previous financial year and as, if the Minister of Health has his way, it will be very effective this year, surely some estimate must be made of the effect on the tobacco duty?
    Mr. Powell: As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend two days ago, he cannot yet forecast the effect on the Revenue of any reduction in smoking consequent upon the Government's announcement.

MEMBERS AND MINISTERS (REMUNERATION)
Mr. Gaitskell (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the remuneration of Members of Parliament and Ministers.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir. The House will recall that the Select Committee appointed in 1953 found that in modern conditions a Member of Parliament had to lay out, on the average, some £750 a year to meet expenses necessarily incurred in the course of carrying out his duties to his constituents and to the House. The Government recognise that the introduction of a sessional allowance was only a partial and temporary remedy; since, even at its maximum of about £280 a year, it leaves the total amount substantially below the figure recommended by the Select Committee.
Since the Select Committee reported, there have been exchanges between the Leaders of the three parties; and the Government have decided to propose to the House that the total emoluments of hon. Members of this House should be increased to £1,750 a year. The basic salary would remain unchanged at its present level of £1,000. But, in view of the Select Committee's findings, the Government consider it appropriate to add to it a sum of £750 which will take the place of the present sessional allowance.
Like the basic salary, this sum will be liable to tax. Hon. Members will be entitled, as hitherto, to claim that, before assessment of tax, the expenses incurred in the discharge of their Parliamentary

1309
duties shall be deducted from their gross emoluments of £1,750. The Resolution necessary to give effect to these proposals will be moved in the near future.
The Government propose, also, to deal with the reimbursement of expenses incurred by noble Lords other than Ministers in their attendance in another place. The Government accepted in principle, in debate in another place on 7th November last, that there ought to be some such reimbursement. It will be generally agreed that it is not right that attendance in another place should be limited to those who can not only afford to give their service without any remuneration, but who can meet out of their own resources the expenses inseparable from such service. The only assistance which Members of the other House at present receive is free rail travel to Westminster.
The Government now propose to allow Members of the other House to claim reimbursement up to a maximum of £3 3s. for each day of attendance. This payment will be a reimbursement of actual expenses arising out of unpaid service and will not, therefore, be liable to tax. The House will be asked to agree to a Resolution authorising this new payment.
The Government have also decided to increase the emoluments of certain Ministers. The Government propose that the salaries of Parliamentary Secretaries at £1,500 should be increased to £2,500 and that salaries of £3,000 should be increased to £3,750. The Government are taking this opportunity to propose that the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury should be remunerated on the level of Ministers of State.
There are, as the House knows, a number of salaries of less than £1,500, and these will be raised by £1,000. Salaries of £5,000 or above will not be increased. At present, Ministers in the House of Commons whose salaries are less than £5,000 are entitled to draw £500 of their Parliamentary salary. It is proposed that in future all Ministers in the House of Commons shall, whatever their salary, draw £750 of the total Parliamentary remuneration in addition to their Ministerial salaries. Since these changes generally will require legislation a Bill will be introduced as soon as possible.
1310
The Government propose to take the opportunity presented by a Bill dealing with Ministerial salaries to include in it a Clause applying the terms of the Injury Warrant to Ministers while on duty. At present, Ministers are the only servants of the Crown for whom, or for whose dependants, there is no provision in the event of their death or injury on duty. The House will no doubt feel that provision should be made for hon. Members travelling on the business of the House. It would not be appropriate to apply the terms of the Injury Warrant to them, but arrangements will be made to cover them by insurance.
It is proposed to increase the salaries of the Chairman of Ways and Means in this House and the Chairman of Committees in another place to £3,250, and that of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means to £2,500; and also, by agreement, to increase the salary of the Leader of the Opposition to £3,000. The Government also propose that the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means and the Leader of the Opposition should be entitled to draw £750 of the gross Parliamentary remuneration instead of £500 as at present. A similar provision would seem to be appropriate in your case, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, the Government have decided that the long-deferred adjustment of the salaries of members of the boards of nationalised industries should now take place. A plan has been worked out. Without going into all the details now, I will give two figures to illustrate the order of the adjustments. The maximum salary of the chairman of a major board will be raised from £8,500 to £10,000, while that of a member of such a board will be raised from £5,000 to £7,000. In accordance with precedent—and, in some cases, with statutory requirements—the changes will be reported to Parliament in detail in due course.
A convenient date for these changes in emoluments and salaries would seem to be 1st July. The extension of the Injury Warrant will, of course, have to wait until the proposed Bill is law.
Mr. Gaitskell: Hon. Members will, no doubt, wish to study the details of the statement made by the Prime Minister, but I believe that there will be general -satisfaction that, after some considerable

1311
delay, these adjustments are now to be made. The case for an increase in the remuneration of hon. Members is generally recognised as being a very powerful one—indeed, was conceded in the last debate we had on this subject.
The same applies to junior Ministers. I have always felt it unreasonable that senior Ministers should be treated as if they were not Members of Parliament and unable, because they were not drawing a Parliamentary salary, to claim Parliamentary expenses. That is a matter which is now to be put right.
I regard the amount for the provision of subsistence allowances for noble Lords as reasonable and, indeed, necessary, and it has my full support.
As the Prime Minister has said, these matters—I mean the matters relating to the pay of Members and Ministers—were discussed between the Government and we on this side of the House and I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my personal appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Leader of the House for having reached this decision now.
Sir T. Moore: Is there not one omission in the admirable statement of the Prime Minister—the question of substantive pensions for hon. Members who are no longer able to fulfil their functions in this House or does that fall under another Statute?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will remember that under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act, 1957, which, I think, became law only a few weeks ago, the Members' Fund is to receive a subvention of £10,000 in the current financial year from the Exchequer. I should have thought it better to wait and see how this works out before making any addition.
Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Prime Minister explain why there is the difference in the new figure for Members of Parliament between £1,000 and £750? Under the daily allowance arrangement there was a provision whereby hon. Members could draw the £2 and they were expected to declare that the expenditure was actually and necessarily incurred—if I remember rightly that was so—even if they were not here every day. If
1312
I am wrong, I have no doubt that I shall be corrected, but I thought that it was not particularly honest. Can the Prime Minister explain why it is necessary to make a distinction between the £1,000 element in the figure of £1,750 and the £750?
The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked that question. I felt that there were two reasons. Of course, the whole of the £1,750 is subject to Income Tax, and claims must be made in the ordinary way, as with any other person in the whole community. There is no privileged position for Members of Parliament.
On the other hand, I think that the people of the country should recognise that this method of doing it, as it were, by adding £750 to the £1,000, is not an increase in salary in the sense of benefits accruing to Members, because so much of this, as the Select Committee showed, is for carrying on work of a rather special kind, living perhaps in two places and having to employ secretaries, which, in ordinary business or employment, would be paid by somebody else on their behalf. Therefore, I thought that it would be an advantage for all our sakes to make that as clear as possible to the nation.
On the second point, it has this advantage. While we think that it would be wrong for Ministers to draw their Parliamentary salaries—the whole of the £1,750—in addition to their salaries as Ministers, we think it reasonable, since they are not allowed to claim any expenditure which they have to spend as Members of Parliament, and since, by tradition, and rightly so, they may not use the Civil Service for private Parliamentary functions, to make the £750 available to them. I think that equity is met and convenience, also.
Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask what I think is one question, though I hope I may be forgiven if I put it in three paragraphs? First, when my right hon. Friend spoke of these changes necessitating a Bill, was it right to assume that these changes refer only to the changes about Ministerial remuneration? Secondly, can he tell us whether the arrangements for the House of Lords can be legally and constitutionally accomplished by the procedure that was used when remuneration was introduced for this House, that is to say, by

1313
Resolution, followed by an assumption that the words in the Appropriation Act mean something which they did not mean before? Thirdly, if the intention is, as I presume, that as far as this House goes the matter shall be settled by Resolution, can we be told when we shall have the debate upon that Resolution?
The Prime Minister: I think that the three questions really merge into two. The answer to the first and third is that I used the phrase—
"Since these changes generally will require legislation a Bill will be introduced."
It is a little complicated. Some of these Ministerial changes, the great majority, require legislation; others, in fact, curiously enough, do not. We think that it is preferable to have everything to do with that put into the Bill, so that we have it clear that for anything to do with Ministers, officers, and so forth. There will then be a Resolution of this House dealing with the remuneration and emoluments of Members of the House of Commons. There will also be a Resolution and estimate in relation to Members of another place.
Mr. Holt: May I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, warmly welcome the comprehensive nature of the review which has taken place, including the increases in the salaries of the chairmen and other directors of the nationalised industries? May I ask the Prime Minister, particularly with reference to the increase in the pay of Members of Parliament, which is obviously a complete review—one where a Member is getting a more appropriate salary, and not just to make up for the loss in the value of money—whether he would not agree that in the House itself and in the country generally it would be better accepted, and would safeguard our own interests and the interests of the country, if, in future, the right hon. Gentleman does not support policies which lead to a further depreciation in the value of money?
The Prime Minister: That is a moral which we can perhaps all take to ourselves, but I have noted in various proposals of the Liberal Party suggestions for enormous increases of national expenditure on a great variety of subjects.
Perhaps I may be allowed to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the very kind things he said about the way this
1314
has been handled, and say that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think it amiss if I add the hope that he will live to enjoy this slight addition to his salary for very many years to come.
Mr. Gaitskell: This exchange of compliments must at some time come to an end, but I cannot forbear reminding the Prime Minister of his great interest in the salary of the Leader of the Opposition.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 8TH JULY—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency.
TUESDAY, 9TH JULY—Second Reading of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Bill, the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Bill, and of the Ministerial Salaries Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Consideration of a Motion relating to Remuneration of Members of this House, and Expenses of Peers.
Committee and remaining stages of the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Bill.
Committee stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1955–56.
WEDNESDAY, 10TH JULY—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee, which it is proposed to take formally.
A debate will take place on the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission for 1956.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, and the Draft Ancillary Dental Workers Regulations.
THURSDAY, 11TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Bill, the Judicial

1315
Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Bill and of the Ministerial Salaries Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Electricity Bill.
Report stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1955–56.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Cinematograph Films Regulations, and the Draft Wool Textile Industry Orders.
FRIDAY, 12TH JULY—Second Reading of the Federation of Malaya Independence Bill, and of the Geneva Conventions Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation Bill.
Mr. Gaitskell: As there is a rather long list of Bills for Tuesday's and Thursday's business, would the Leader of the House confirm that, although the list is long, the business is not, in fact, likely to take such a lengthy time as might be supposed?
Mr. Butler: We do not anticipate that, with the good will of the House, and as we are making these Bills available, two of them now, and the Ministerial Salaries Bill tomorrow, there should necessarily be very long sittings. We think that we can manage to get the business in good time.
Mr. Hamilton: Can the Leader of the House say what is the result of his consideration of the question I asked him last week, whether we could have, before the summer Recess, a debate on the United Nations Report on the events in Hungary?
Mr. Butler: It will be difficult to do that before the Recess. I have been giving the hon. Gentleman's request consideration. It is a matter which he ought also to discuss with his hon. Friends.
Sir I. Fraser: On the question of the announcement of the Prime Minister today on Members' and Ministers' remuneration, having regard to the fact that all the changes proposed will take effect as from 1st July—[An HON. MEMBER: "If they are passed."]—yes, if they are passed, the date upon which they are debated will not make any difference to anyone's private interest. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not in the
1316
public interest that the discussion on Members' pay should take place at the same time as those other discussions, and as quickly as possible?
Mr. Butler: We have so arranged the business that on two days next week these general discussions will take place. I hope that after proper consideration the matter will be able to be regulated.
Sir I. Fraser: I thought that my right hon. Friend did not mention that a Resolution would be taken.
Hon. Members: He did.
Mr. Butler: Actually, I used the word "Motion" instead of "Resolution." Technically, the word "Motion" is right.
Mr. Beswick: Is the Leader of the House aware that last week the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation made a statement in answer to a non-Oral Question relating to important changes in the licensing of independent airline operators? Will there be time to debate that statement?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that we can fit in very much more next week, but we will certainly give the matter consideration.
Mr. Cole: Has my right hon. Friend been able to consider making a day available before the Recess for the debate on roads, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) and myself asked him?
Mr. Butler: I am aware of that matter, but I think that the timetable of business to be done before the Recess is getting rather full.
Mr. G. Thomas: As we are likely to discuss before the end of the month the reorganisation of local government, can the Leader of the House say when we may expect a White Paper so that we may be adequately prepared for the debate? There is a great deal of interest and anxiety about the matter outside the House.
Mr. Butler: It is our idea that the White Paper shall be available if we are, as we think, to have a debate. The two things go together. I hope that we shall be able to publish this before long.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether we may expect a debate on foreign affairs before the Recess, as quite a lot of things seem to be happening in the world?
Mr. Butler: Things are certainly busy, but that is a matter for Her Maejsty's Opposition, on a Supply day. It is also a matter which is in our own minds. I can certainly undertake to discuss my hon. Friend's point with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Mr. K. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when can we expect the report of the Committee of Privileges on the complaint that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) made more than three months ago?
Mr. Butler: Members of the Committee of Privileges will bear me out when I say that we have had regular meetings and have found this subject one of great complexity. It involves all the traditions of the House. I cannot give a date for publication of the report, but I can give an undertaking to the House and to the hon. Member that we shall not in any way delay our deliberations on the matter. I would give this advice: if we are to do our work properly, since this question involves most of the traditions of the House, it is important that we should do our work thoroughly.
Mr. Osborne: In view of the great importance of the European Free Trade proposals to both our agriculture and our industry, can my right hon. Friend find time to discuss this matter before the Recess?
Mr. Butler: It is unlikely that there will be an actual day. It is dependent upon what is chosen for Supply days. I recognise the importance of the subject.
Mr. Mikardo: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind, in considering whether we ought to have
1318
a debate on the statement made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, that the statement was very complex and was of the type normally made in answer to Questions or at the end of Questions. It was made in answer to a Written Question and there was not an opportunity to ask questions for clarification. Would the right hon. Gentleman bear that point in mind in considering the necessity for an opportunity of clarifying the right hon. Gentleman's announcement?
Mr. Butler: There is, of course, also the opportunity of a Supply day. I think it is an example of how we take care of our liberties that the matter has been raised and that hon. Members have drawn attention to it.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Leader of the House will recall that we have referred before to the failure of the usual channels to set up a Select Committee on accommodation? The difference between us appears to be the completely inadequate terms of reference the Committee had before, and our desire that they should be adequate. Bearing in mind the fact that the House now has a new Serjeant at Arms, would it not be better to get the arrangements of the House to work properly? Now that we have cleared up hon. Members' financial difficulties, would it not be a good thing, next Session, if not in this, to set up a Select Committee to put right the pitifully inadequate conditions under which hon. Members work?
Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member's suggestion is perfectly reasonable, but it is rather late to do anything this Session. As a matter of fact, we have had exchanges between the two sides of the House on the question of accommodation, so the matter has not been forgotten. Certain adjustments have been made, although they may not be altogether satisfactory. Hon. Members will see that the matter has not slipped our notice. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  BILLS PRESENTED
    JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES AND PENSIONS)
    Bill to provide for increasing the salaries of the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, of county court judges and of metropolitan police magistrates; to make further provision as to the pensions of the said recorders; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by the Attorney-General; supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
    EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS
    Bill to make further provision as to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the performance of his duties, presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COAL-MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 9, page 14, lines 30, 37, 38 and 40, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Robens.—[Mr. Robens.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  Clause 9.—(DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES.)
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Williams: I beg to move, in page 14, line 30, to leave out "one assessor" and to insert "an assessor or assessors".
  The Deputy-Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee if all four Amendments to Clause 9 were considered together.
  Mr. R. Williams: It will also be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer at once to Section 88 of the County Courts Act, 1934, to see exactly the position in relation to assessors, apart from that in the Bill. Thus we shall be able to see clearly not only what we are doing in the Clause which we are now seeking to amend, but that we are bringing the law into line with experience which we have had on all sides of the Committee.
  Section 88 of the County Courts Act, 1934, says:
  "(I) In any proceedings the judge may, if he thinks fit on the application of any party, summon to his assistance, in such manner as may be prescribed, one or more persons of skill and experience in the matter to which the proceedings relate…
  (2) The remuneration of assessors for sitting as aforesaid shall be at such rate as may be prescribed and shall be costs in the proceedings unless otherwise ordered by the judge.
  (3) Where any person is proposed to be summoned as an assessor, objection to him, either personally or in respect of his qualification, may be taken by any party in the prescribed manner."
  It will be well known to hon. Members that the procedure has not been abused, but has been very useful in many cases.

  1321
  Indeed, for the judge to have sitting with him experienced men whose opinion he is not bound to accept, but who can be of great assistance to him in the technical questions which arise in workmen's compension, is particularly useful. It has resulted not only in justice being done, but in its appearing to be done in very many cases.
  4.0 p.m.
  In the Bill as it stands before the Committee today it is proposed in Clause 9 (4) that the county court judge, if no application is made on behalf of any party, shall himself have power to summon one assessor, but, unfortunately, the provision stops there. It does not go to the extent that Section 88 of the County Court Act does in envisaging that there might be circumstances in which it is desirable that there should be more than one assessor. In the particular cases which will arise under this Bill it must be self-evident that very often it will be highly desirable that a judge should have sitting with him not only a mining engineer, but possibly a surveyor, and that they should sit with him together.
  We do not say that should be so in every case; we say it should be so in every case where the judge himself decides that such a course should be taken. If the judge himself were to decide, that would be the safeguard against frivolous applications. In fact, there need be no application if the judge himself were to decide.
  We have to proceed by way of recommittal for the obvious reason that if as the Bill stood there was power to summon one assessor and now, were our Amendment accepted, there would be power to summon more than one, there would be an increase in expenditure. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. In so tightly-drawn a Money Resolution for us to be able to provide for increased payment out of public funds and yet be within the terms of the Money Resolution is perhaps a strong argument in favour of something being done by way of amendment such as we have proposed. It would be an extremely difficult thing in so tightly-drawn a Money Resolution to pro-
  1322
  vide for any additional expenditure without falling foul of that Resolution.
  As to the Money Resolution itself, it is my submission that we are within it, that we could, by this Amendment, give the judge that additional power which he could exercise in those cases where he considered it to be necessary. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression, when this subject was being discussed in Standing Committee, that the Government were not unfavourably disposed to the suggestion.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) said, this matter was discussed in Committee. I think that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) made some reference to it. Since then, we have been considering the point with some care. As the hon. Member for Wigan said, it is a normal provision for more than one assessor to be available to a court at the instance of the parties, although, normally, I think that the costs fall on the parties and not on the State. In this case, provision is made for the assessor to be paid out of public funds because this was thought to be something assisting the small man.
  It would seem unlikely in such cases that more than one assessor would be needed; in fact, I am informed that in no action which has taken place since the 1950 Act was passed have assessors been asked for or appointed. On the other hand, there is a lot in the point made by the hon. Member for Ince and reinforced by the hon. Member for Wigan. In all the circumstances, I am, therefore, prepared to accept this and the following three Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 37, at end insert "or assessors".
  In line 38, leave out "an assessor is summoned" and insert:
  "the court summons an assessor or assessors".
  In line 40, after "assessor", insert "or assessors".—[Mr. R. Williams.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  New Clause.—(LIABILITY OF BOARD FOR CERTAIN DAMAGE OCCURRING BEFORE PASSING OF ACT.)
  (1) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, this Act shall apply in relation to subsidence damage occurring before the passing of this Act but after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, to property within the curtilage of a dwelling-house which at the time of the occurrence of the damage was not a dwelling-house to which the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, applied, being—

  (a) in the case of damage to a building or structure, damage to the dwelling-house or to a building or structure appurtenant thereto;

  (b) in the case of damage to works such as as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act, damage to such works installed for the purposes of the dwelling-house or of a building or structure appurtenant thereto.

  (2) In the case of any property damaged by subsidence damage in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of this section, the other provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the three next following subsections.
  (3) Without prejudice to subsection (3) of section three of this Act, all subsidence damage in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of this section shall be treated as one, and accordingly references in this Act to the time immediately before or immediately after the occurrence of the damage shall be construed as references to the time immediately before the first occurrence of any such damage or immediately after the last occurrence of any such damage, as the case may be:
  Provided that the Board shall be under the like liability, if any, with respect to the cost of any works executed after the occurrence of any such damage as if no further such damage had occurred.
  (4) If remedial works or such merged works or re-development works as are mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act were begun in connection with the damaged property before the passing of this Act—

  (a) the persons entitled to serve a damage notice in respect of the damage shall include any person by whom the whole or any part of the cost of carrying out the works in question was incurred and who at the time of incurring that cost was the owner of the damaged property or liable to make good the damage in whole or in part;

  (b) the Board shall make the appropriate election under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of the said section one;

  (c) any payment under the said subsection (4) shall be made in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Schedule to this Act.

  (5) Subsection (1) of section seven of this Act shall not apply, and in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section for the reference
  1324
  to the tenth day of January there shall be substituted a reference to the twenty-fifth day of June.
  (6) This Act shall not apply in relation to any subsidence damage by virtue of this section—

  (a) if before the passing of this Act the Board made a payment or executed works in full satisfaction of an obligation apart from this Act to make a payment by way of damages or compensation in respect of that damage or to make the damage good;

  (b) in a case where before the passing of this Act the Board made, otherwise than in full satisfaction of such an obligation as aforesaid, any payment in respect of that damage to a person who, or whose successor in title, would but for this subsection be entitled to serve a damage notice in respect of the damage, unless the amount of that payment is refunded to the Board or brought into account either by that person or by his successor in title:

  Provided that this subsection shall not apply to such a payment made under such an agreement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act, being an agreement made before the occurrence of the damage.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This Clause arises from a discussion which took place in the early stages of our Standing Committee proceedings, at which time I undertook to give further consideration to the arguments which had been put forward. It was argued from both sides that some degree of retrospection should be introduced not for all subsidence damage comprised in this Bill, but for subsidence damage in dwelling-houses not already covered by the Act of 1950. It was argued on both sides that some degree of retrospection should be forthcoming. I endeavoured to explain why, although this is in many ways a persuasive idea, there are certain definite practical difficulties in the way of retrospection, certainly in the way of going too far back into the past.
  The two suggestions before the Committee were, first, retrospection to 1st January, 1956, and, secondly, an Amendment moved, I believe, by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Keegan), for retrospection to 1947. After further careful consideration we have still felt convinced that it is impossible to go a long way back into the past in this matter. Therefore, we have put forward this new Clause which

  1325
  has the effect of giving retrospection in the case of those dwelling-houses not covered by the 1950 Act to 1st January, 1956, which was the date in the Amendment moved in Committee by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).
  That is the sole effect of this Clause, although it is in substance and length rather formidable. Subsection (1) is the operative subsection, stating that there shall be retrospection to 1st January, 1956, and the subsequent subsections are machinery matters. For example, subsection (4) deals with the provision where in course of 1956 some work has been done by an individual to put right damage. He can claim to be paid by the Coal Board for the work he himself has done. There is also provision in subsection (6) to make quite clear that if a person has obtained payment from the Coal Board under some other legal right he cannot get a double remedy under this Clause. While it is complicated, the principal effect of the Clause is to ensure that in the case of dwelling-houses there shall be restrospective effect given to these mining subsidence compensation provisions to 1st January, 1956.
  I think I should refer again to the reasons why we cannot go back further, although they were mentioned in Committee. In the first place, there have been many strong arguments for extending the scope of the Bill and widening the classes of people and claims which can be made good for compensation, but all the time we felt that it was wrong to impose further burdens on the National Coal Board. Serious burdens are imposed already and the difficulty would be in admitting an exception to the rules without opening the gates to a whole host of other exceptions.
  In this case, the problem is a practical one. If we go back more than a practical time how can we be sure that the damage was caused by subsidence? How can we tell whether the repairs to a house were necessary to make good subsidence damage or were for some wider purpose? If the Coal Board wants to make a value payment, if we go too far back how can we decide what that payment should be? Finally, if we go too far back into the past we are liable to create a number of anomalies between the buyers and sellers of houses, the
  1326
  ownership of which has changed in the interim.
  For all those practical reasons, we felt unable to accept the view that we should go as far back as 1947 and we have decided to confine this provision to 1st January, 1956. In those circumstances, I hope that the new Clause will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. R. Williams: I hope that the House will accept the new Clause, which gives retrospection to the extent for which the Opposition asked in Committee and applies it to the properties to which we referred in the Committee. My observations will be limited to asking the Minister whether between now and later stages of the Bill he will look at the drafting, because there are one or two points which put me in a certain difficulty. I hasten to add that they do not put me in the difficulty of deciding whether I support the Clause. I do support the Clause.
  In subsection 1, the Clause refers to damage to
  "property within the curtilage of a dwelling-house".
  Having said that, it refers in paragraph (a) to "damage to the dwelling-house" It seems to me that the danger in defining in the opening words that the damage shall he damage "to property within the curtilage" is that it makes it difficult to talk about "damage to the dwelling-house", since obviously the curtilage is attached to the dwelling-house. This raises a question of clarity of drafting to which I ask the Minister to address his attention. I do not want to take the matter up at length. It will be sufficient for me to say that the word "curtilage" has been judicially construed in several cases. If the word "curtilage" is used, one should have clearly in one's mind that one is thinking of that which surrounds a dwelling-house and belongs to the dwelling-house rather than of the dwelling-house itself.
  My principal difficulty arises in connection with subsection (3), where, it seems to me, there is a formidable drafting problem. Having said at the beginning of subsection (3) that all the subsidence damage of the kind we are discussing—and we are discussing subsidence damage in the cases to which retrospection shall apply—shall be treated as one, what possible scope can there be for any "further such damage" occurring? I have no

  1327
  objection to all the subsidence damage in this respect being treated as one. We could argue that further damage might occur, but having said that all the damage about which we are talking is to be treated as one, we cannot then consider "further such damage."
  A house might be damaged four or five times between the 31st December, 1955, and the passing of this Bill. I am quite happy that the damage on those four or five occasions should be treated as one damage. I am happy that when we refer in the Bill to "immediately before" we mean immediately before the first damage and that when we refer to "after" we mean immediately after the last occurrence of the damage. But having put this into one category and said that there shall be one damage only, we cannot then talk about "further such damage".
  I do not ask the Minister to make up his mind this afternoon. If he did, he might put me in a little difficulty. I simply point out the drafting difficulty to him and hope that he will look into it. Whether he finds a way round it or not, I can assure him that we on this side of the House feel that the new Clause ought most certainly to receive our support.
  4.15 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I should like very shortly to welcome the new Clause. I think that the Minister has gone as far back as it is practically possible to go. The question of retrospection was considered at great length in the Turner Committee, and I for my part am satisfied from the evidence which we had before that Committee that we could not go very far back here for the kind of reasons which my right hon. Friend indicated. I think he has been as generous as it was possible for him to be.
  I have one purely drafting point to make. The opening words of subsection (2) read:
  "In the case of any property damaged by subsidence damage…"
  I do not think that one can be damaged by damage. As the expression "subsidence" is specially defined, I think the phrase ought to be amended to read, "In the case of any property affected
  1328
  by subsidence damage". I am sorry to call attention to so small a drafting point, but this has been the first available opportunity.
  Mr. Tom Brown: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the four Amendments just passed in Committee. They were passed so quickly that I was almost taken aback by the right hon. Gentleman's decision to give us the concession which we sought on 14th May.
  Mr. G. H. Oliver: It is a small point.
  Mr. Brown: I agree, but it is very important.
  Having said that, I want to put one or two questions on the new Clause. The Bill takes over the full financial responsibility of the 1950 Act, which became operative with effect from 1st January, 1947, and which has, therefore, been in operation for ten years. During those ten years, a large number of dwelling-houses have been repaired and the damage has been rectified. To all intents and purposes, everything in the garden is lovely. We now come to this Bill which goes back to the 1st January, 1956, the date mentioned in the new Clause being 31st December, 1955.
  Let us assume that a house has been damaged during the ten years, that repairs have been carried out, that the Government and the National Coal Board acting jointly have rectified the damage and that peace is reigning in the district. Assume that the house is damaged again and that another claim has to be made by the owners of the property. Will the applicant in respect of a house which suffers a second damage, or recurrence of the earlier damage, be entitled to claim under the Bill?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: It is the same house.
  Mr. Brown: It is the same house, and it may be the same tenant. Will he be able to have the damage put right under the new Clause? If his house has been put right under the 1950 Act, will he be able to claim compensation under the 1957 Act in respect of other damage which has been done?

  1329
  I have no quibble with the other points raised in the new Clause, but that which I have outlined presents a disturbing feature. I should like to know whether people who have claimed in respect of damage under the 1950 Act will be able to claim in respect of damage under the 1957 Act. If the right hon. Gentleman can give me a satisfactory answer on that point, he will satisfy my mind a great deal more than it is satisfied at the moment.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I ought to say that the Amendment in line 3, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), is not selected, but it would be germane to this matter if he would care to speak on it on the Second Reading of the Clause.
  Mr. Arthur Probert: I should like to add my word of appreciation to the Minister for being forthcoming in this respect. He will remember that the Committee was, I think, unanimous that some degree of retrospection must be given to those houses which suffered hardship by being excluded before.
  Subsection (2) of the new Clause reads:
  (2) In the case of any property damaged by subsidence damage in relation to which this Act applies by virtue of this section, the other provisions of this Act shall have effect subject to the three next following subsections.
  It may be that the Minister will be able to put at rest my concern about retrospection applying not merely to the property but to the occupants of the property, and I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying that there is a later new Clause entitled, "Payments in respect of death or disablement in certain cases," and also a new Schedule, which contain provisions not previously granted.
  If we are granting a degree of retrospection to those houses not included in the 1950 Act, because they were not of a certain rateable value, are we also granting a degree of retrospection in relation to new houses coming in? If we are, then I must say that, much as I welcome the provisions of the Bill, we are giving those new houses more favourable treatment than was given to those houses below a certain rateable value which were included in the 1950 Act. I should like to be clear on that point, because I should not be so complacent
  1330
  if more favourable treatment is to be given there. This subject is rather complex, but I am sure that the Minister is seized of my point and will, perhaps, give us some amplification later.
  Mr. J. C. George: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for informing me that my Amendment will not be called. That being so, I should like to say a few words as to what prompted me to table it. I cannot agree that the Bill does anything more for the new class of houses than was done for the very wide class covered by the 1950 Act. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) there. Indeed, it is because I think the other way that I put down the Amendment.
  The Turner Committee was appointed by the House to study subsidence and how it should be dealt with in view of the nationalisation of the mining industry. That Committee reported that it could see no reason to distinguish classes of property; that dwelling-houses should be treated and compensated as one. The 1950 Act did not do that. It separated dwelling-houses into two classes, consisting of those of a valuation of or below £32 in England and £40 in Scotland, and those above those figures. Therefore, a group of dwellings in mining areas has had the right to enjoy compensation for ten years, while another has no right to compensation until this Bill is passed.
  I fully agree that retrospection could be extremely difficult and that the date of 1947 on which the right of one group of houses to claim compensation is based goes too far back into the past. Nevertheless, I would say that in order to do full justice to all dwellings in mining areas, the second type of house should have been allowed the right to claim back to 1947. However, I think that there are insuperable difficulties. It would be impossible, after ten years, for the National Coal Board to discharge its onus of providing that the damage was not caused by subsidence.
  I have listened to the Minister saying that, in his opinion, in view of those difficulties, this period of one year which is included in the new Clause is as far back as it is reasonable to go, but let us look at the 1950 Act. In that Act, the three-year period of retrospection has worked perfectly satisfactorily. Of the two classes of houses with which we are concerned, I

  1331
  believe that the class representing 94 per cent. of all houses in the mining areas were given the right to claim seven years ago, and, if necessary to back date their claims for three years. We gave one class the benefit of three years' retrospection, but we have kept this other class waiting for seven years before belatedly trying to do it justice, and now it is to be allowed to back date only one year.
  Three years' retrospection has proved to be workable, and I suggest that there is no practical, technical reason why that class of house should not be brought into line with those dealt with in 1950. Therefore, while I welcome this new Clause, I feel that the Minister has rather spoiled the generosity that he has shown all the way through, and that we have only rectified to a small degree the injustice done to this class of house.
  Mr. Oliver: I am sure that all of us who were on the Committee are very grateful to the Minister for his concession, but I should like to advance some criticism of the new Clause very much on the lines of that voiced by the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). I appreciate, and so, I think, did the Committee, the difficulty of going back many years, but my criticism is that the Minister has confined the one-year retrospection wholly to dwelling-houses. That means that there is excluded a very large quantity of property which has suffered damage and which is normally in the occupation or possession of very humble people. This new Clause will cut out a number of small shopkeepers, small garages, and one-man businesses, whose property has, in fact, suffered and who have consistently urged upon Members of Parliament, of whom I have been one, for the past year or more, that something should be done.
  4.30 p.m.
  I am sorry that the Minister has limited it to dwelling-houses alone and taken a period of only one year. I hasten to say that we are grateful for that, but I thought that he might possibly have extended it a little more generously. I am quite sure that many local authorities will be concerned to find that they have been forgotten in this matter and that they will not receive consideration until the Bill becomes an Act. However, I say this only because of something I wish to say
  1332
  at a later stage. I am not quite satisfied. Although I appreciate what has been done, the Minister could have gone a little further.
  Mr. W. T. Proctor: We are thankful for small mercies and we are, therefore, very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for going back the little distance he has, but, taking the country as a whole, grave injustice is being done to a certain section of the community which is not able to go back three years. Three years proved to be practical in the 1950 Act, and I cannot see why it should not be practical now.
  There are certain areas where the responsibility of the Coal Board was much greater than it is in other areas. In an area like Lancashire, for example, in many parts the responsibility of the Coal Board covers both business premises and houses, both large and small, over the whole period, and, therefore, retrospection in that case does not mean anything at all. But in areas where the Coal Board has no responsibility whatever for the properties which were excluded by the 1950 Act, there is a grave injustice to the people that have had to bear the burden for so long.
  I believe that it is possible even now to take the period of retrospection further hack. I appeal to the Government to look at the matter again. I was much impressed by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George), who was able to prove, I think, that it was practical policy to go back three years. Is it not possible even now to go back three years and give a greater measure of justice than is provided by what the right hon. Gentleman now proposes?
  Mr. Maudling: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, there are certain points to which I should like to reply.
  The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised criticisms of drafting, and I must confess that I find the drafting of this new Clause extremely difficult to understand, after having looked at it for some time. I shall most gladly look at it again in the light of their advice. I believe that the only reference to "curtilage" in subsection (1) is necessary because this, of course, relates to the

  1333
  1950 Act. That is the reason that the expression is used there. Certainly, we shall look at the points of drafting which have been raised, but I do not think either hon. Member will expect me to give answers offhand.
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked a question which was, I think, based on a misapprehension, if I may say so. He asked what would happen to a person who had already claimed under the 1950 Act? This new Clause cannot affect anyone who has a claim under the 1950 Act, because it applies to properties excluded from the 1950 Act. Therefore, the danger the hon. Gentleman has in mind cannot possibly arise.
  The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) asked a most interesting ques4ion as to whether, as a result of what we are hoping to do this afternoon, the effect will be that people owning properties of this category will receive the benefit of the new provisions dealing, for example, with physical injury and removal expenses, whereas people in smaller properties will not. The answer "No." The hon. Gentleman will find that both these new provisions, the new Clause and the new Schedule about removal expenses, refer exclusively to something happening after the passing of the Act. Therefore, in practice, there will be no distinction, and it will not be possible for this limited category of householder to get benefits under the Act as a whole denied to the wider category of householder, who has been claiming up to now under the 1950 Act.
  Other hon. Members, the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor), my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South asked whether we have gone far enough. I suppose it is inevitable that, when the Government have done something, as they have here, someone should say, "The Government have done a little; let them now go a little farther." An argument was put that we should extend the provision to further categories of property and, also, that we should extend the provisions farther back in time.
  As regards the category of property concerned, which was the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston. I think it was agreed during the
  1334
  Committee stage and there was, I thought, fairly general agreement by most people interested, that it is quite a different thing to extend retrospection to the whole range of damage under the Bill, to all local authorities and all types of property; and I did not think that there had been much demand for that. Certainly, from the point of view of possible expense alone, I do not think that we could accept it.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that that view is endorsed by the Turner Committee in its Report. It is exactly in accordance with paragraph 96 of the Report.
  Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for that information; I must confess that I was not aware of it. I am always a little doubtful about quoting from the Report too often, because I am accused of selecting the bits which suit my purpose and ignoring those which do not—which might have a certain amount of truth, as often happens, on these occasions.
  As to the other argument, that we have not gone back far enough, I agree that it is right that we should try to go back as far as possible. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend for Hendon, South in our decision that this is about as far as practicable. After hearing all that has been said, I still feel compelled, rather reluctantly, to the view that both on grounds of expense and of practicability we have gone back as far as can reasonably be expected. That is the proposal we are putting before the House, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept it.
  Mr. T. Brown: I did not quite catch what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to my query about claims for compensation under the 1950 Act as against claims for compensation under the Bill. Though, I do not like asking him to repeat it, I should be grateful if he would give his answer again.
  Mr. Maudling: The answer was that this new Clause cannot affect anyone claiming under the 1950 Act, that is, small property owners. This new Clause affects people whose houses are above a certain rateable value, and people with houses below that rateable value cannot be affected in any way by the new Clause.
  Mr. Philip Bell: I hope that the House will excuse me for intervening. I did endeavour to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during the Second Reading, and I am one of the few Conservative Members who represent constituencies closely affected by mining subsidence. If I may say so, I had the opportunity of presenting a Petition to this House on that matter, and I have, in a small way, co-operated in an all-party meeting on the subject.
  For myself, I find it difficult at this moment to criticise the Government about this new Clause very strongly because I am overwhelmed by the new Schedule, which is a thing which I and many other people were hoping the Government could see their way to provide. Any question of going back is a small one compared with enlarging the scope of compensation.
  As for the question of going back, perhaps I may be excused for saying that it is difficult enough to get evidence when everybody is talking about what happened yesterday, but to get evidence over the years almost presents a temptation to people to go into litigation. I think that, by and large, it is most necessary, when one is setting a time limit for claims, not to put it too far back, not merely because it is impossible, or very difficult, to get at the facts, but because one leaves many dissatisfied people.
  If one puts it back two years, the man who is arguing for three years or four yours is still dissatisfied. One has to put the guillotine down within the reasonable limit of memory, and that, in my experience, does not go farther than, and very often not as far as, a year. On the whole, I would myself support the Government in saying that they have gone back, probably, as far as reason demands.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that when we draw a line some fall on the wrong side of it and some on the right side. The question of retrospection has exercised the minds of many of us from the time of the publication of the Report of the Turner Committee. While I join in the general chorus of welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet the wishes of the Members of the Committee on the question of retrospection, I also join with
  1336
  those who feel that his generosity has not been of the highest degree.
  I would have welcomed the Clause if the Minister could have found it possible to go back, in view of the very small number that would be affected, a little further than what, in actual practice, is about 18 months. We are not asking for the moon on this question of retrospection. We are not asking that it should go back to 1947 or even 1950. I think that the request that this should go back two or three years instead of the 18 months laid down in the new Clause is very reasonable.
  Mr. Philip Bell: I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is not, if I may say so with respect, as simple as that. It is not that certain claims can go back; it is all the disputes and anxieties that arise when one claim succeeds and five fail. We encourage disputes and litigation if we open the field of dispute.
  Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the difficulties inherent in going back too far. The point that I am trying to make, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) and in my general observations, is that the proposed 18 months is too short a period. Had it been twice as long, my own view is that it would have been fair and reasonable and that the difficulties presented would not have been insurmountable. I was endeavouring to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman had closed his mind or whether he was prepared to look at this again. I am sorry that he appears to have closed his mind on this very important question of retrospection. I hope that even at this late stage, in view of the appeals which have been made to him, he will, in the interests of those who are just over the limit of rateable values laid down in the 1950 Act, be prepared to have another look at this and at a later stage come down on the side of the appeal for extending this principle of retrospection.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. John McKay: I have been very interested in the discussion. I have listened to the points which have been touched upon and the difficulties we might expect if the time limit were extended. Nevertheless, we have to judge by past experience. When we passed an

  1337
  Act and it gave not a year's opportunity to go back but three years, it must have been assumed at that time, although there may have been difficulties in getting the exact facts and making a true decision, that it was reasonable to extend the time to three years.
  As time has gone on, we have decided that even at that time we had not allowed sufficient flexibility for applicants to make their claims and for the extension of that opportunity to other people. We recognise that circumstances change, but in this case it is not a change of circumstances —they have been there all the timel—but our opinion which has changed. We have changed it in a generous way in one direction, but we have hardened our point of view in another. I always feel in these discussions, particularly in regard to the National Coal Board, that a much greater degree of generosity is extended to all applicants to the Board than would be the case under private enterprise. Sometimes that tends to make me sit tight rather than make a plea for the people who have prior claim upon the coal industry.
  The point has been made that if we extend the time we are likely to have a greater number of doubtful cases making application and a greater number whose claims will not be successful. Is that any justification for limiting the time to one year? I cannot see any justification for it at all. The point is that these people have not had the opportunity before to make application. This Bill, if it passes without Amendment, closes the opportunity to a limited number. It is extending the position now to almost everyone who suffers damage to his house from subsidence. If one can get this opportunity, I think that all should get it.
  The point of difficulty that has been put to the House is that the more we extend this principle the more doubtful cases there will be applying. But, after all, is there not a limit? When a man takes proceedings to recover compensation it costs money, and, therefore, unless there is some circumstance which attaches to his particular case which gives him encouragement to apply, he is simply throwing his money away. The question therefore arises whether we are to apply this principle entirely to everyone who has suffered damage by the industry extracting coal. If so, why should the
  1338
  man who knows the circumstances and that the damage was caused by subsidence be debarred from applying?
  We may say that there is the cost to the man, but there is also the cost to the National Coal Board of any legal proceedings that may take place. That has to be considered as well. It is not a big plea to ask that we should recognise the justice of the demand for compensation. We went back over three years in 1947, so surely we can extend this provision to two years now. I personally should not like to feel, when we are going into the whole of these difficulties and troubles, that I had limited the opportunities to such an extent that all reasonable applications could not be put forward. We are not asking a great deal. We simply want the extension from one year to two years, when, in practice, there has already been an extension to three years in similar circumstances. We would be wrong to debar any justifiable cases which could succeed. As there was the extension to three years in the earlier Bill, there ought to be an extension now to at least two years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF DEATH OR DISABLEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES.)
  (1) If as the result of an Injury caused after the passing of this Act by the happening of subsidence damage any person dies or is seriously and permanently disabled, and apart from this section no action to recover damages is maintainable in respect of the death or disablement, then, subject to the next following subsection, the Board shall be liable—

  (a) in the case of a death, to pay to or for the benefit of any dependant of the deceased the like damages, recoverable in the like manner and within the like time, as would have been payable to or for the benefit of that dependant if the death had been attributable to the negligence of the Board and—

  (i) where the death resulted from an injury caused in England or Wales, if the persons for whose benefit an action may be brought under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, included any dependent of the deceased;

  (ii) where the death resulted from an injury caused in Scotland, if the persons entitled to bring an action against the Board for damages in respect of a death attributable to the negligence of the Board included any dependant of the deceased;

  1339

  (b) in a case of disablement, to pay the like damages, recoverable in the like manner and within the like time, as if the disablement had been attributable to the negligence of the Board.

  (2) No liability shall attach to the Board under the foregoing subsection in respect of the death or disablement of any person as a result of an injury if—

  (a) at the time when that person incurred the injury he was a trespasser; or

  (b) the injury was incurred underground in a mine of coal within the meaning of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954; or

  (c) the injury was wholly attributable to the negligence of that person;
  and if the injury was partly atributable to the negligence of that person the liability of the Board under the foregoing subsection shall be reduced proportionately.

  (3) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) the expression "dependant" in relation to a deceased person means any person who at the time of the death was, or but for the injury would have been, wholly or mainly maintained by the deceased;

  (b) a person shall be treated as seriously and permanently disabled if, and only if, he is suffering from loss of physical or mental faculty which is likely to be permanent and is such that the resulting disablement assessed, by reference to the disabilities incurred by that person as a result of that loss of faculty, in such manner as may be prescribed is not less than twenty per cent.;

  and any question arising under this section in any particular case shall be determined by a court having jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings for the recovery of damages in that case.—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  When the question of compensation in the event of death or disablement was discussed in Committee, I said that it seemed to raise rather difficult problems. Under existing law—indeed, under the law on these matters as it always has been—the peculiar situation is that if subsidence occurs and the roof of a man's house breaks and part of it falls on his head and injures him, he can get compensation for the damage to the roof, but not for the damage to his skull. This has always seemed to me to be a position which it is hard to sustain in logic.
  Fortunately, so far as the records go, there have been very few cases of injury or death arising from subsidence and we all hope that that will continue to be the case. It is, however, right that provisions should be made for compensation when
  1340
  people are killed or seriously injured as a direct result of mining subsidence.
  As I said in Committee, one of the difficulties is the introduction of a new principle. Normally, when a person is killed by the action of somebody else, damages cannot be claimed unless negligence can be proved. Now, it is proposed that absolute liability be placed upon the Coal Board in the case of damage caused by mining subsidence. It was, however, pointed out by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) when discussing the matter at an earlier stage that we are placing upon the Coal Board an absolute liability in the absence of negligence concerning damage to property and, therefore, it is reasonable to extend this principle to personal injury. The new Clause achieves that effect. In addition, it adds certain provisions which are necessary to round off the proposal.
  The effect of the new Clause is to say that when anyone is killed or seriously injured—and serious injury is defined quite generously in subsection (3, b), on the basis of existing legislation—as the direct result of subsidence damage, the actual phrase in the Clause being
  "by the happening of subsidence damage"
  the compensation will be payable on the lines on which it would have had to be paid had the damage been caused by negligence. In other words, the person injured or the dependants of a person who is killed can get the kind of damages to which they would have been entitled had the occurrence resulted from the negligence of the Coal Board.
  Certain further provisions are necessary. For example, it is fair that the Coal Board should not be liable if the injured person was, at the time a trespasser nor if the damage was his own fault. If it is a question of contributory negligence, compensation will be assessed in the normal way with which the law deals with contributory negligence.
  We thought it right also—and I am sure the House will agree—to make it quite clear that the new Clause does not apply to men employed underground, whose position, clearly, is different from that of a bystander. The compensation payable to mineworkers is regulated by other schemes and enactments. Accordingly, these various provisions appear in

  1341
  subsection (2). Subsection (3) defines "dependant" and defines the degree of disability which qualifies for compensation under the Clause.
  The only outstanding point, which will be raised subsequently on the Amendments to the Clause, is the class of person who should be entitled to claim the compensation in the case of death. Our proposal is that the people who should be able to claim compensation when a man dies are those who are wholly or mainly dependent upon him financially. The Clause is designed largely to deal with cases of hardship, and it is right to ensure that those who suffer hardship because they have been dependent upon the deceased should be the people who receive the compensation. We are, therefore, proposing a rather different principle from that which is likely to be advocated later by hon. Members opposite. It might be for the convenience of the House if I leave that point to be dealt with when the Amendments are called.
  To sum up, the general purpose of the Clause is to ensure that when somebody is killed or seriously injured as a result of subsidence damage, compensation shall be payable as if the damage had arisen from negligence, so long as the person concerned was, in effect, an innocent bystander and not a trespasser or a person who, by his own negligence, contributed in any degree to the damage that occurred or to the injury he suffered. I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the new Clause.
  Mr. R. Williams: I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that because the Amendments which immediately follow the new Clause go to the very roots of the Clause, it might save the time of the House if I deal with them in passing, so that when we come to them later we will be faced simply with the formal question of whether to divide. This would enable us to have the one debate rather than a debate on the merits of the Clause, in which I should have my reservations concerning the Amendments, and then a debate on the Amendments themselves. May I suggest that we take the Amendments with the Clause?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The procedure is first to read the Clause a Second time. Not until then can the Amendments be called. I am not
  1342
  sure which procedure the hon. Member wants to follow.
  Mr. Williams: If at this stage I incorporated my objections in my observations on the Clause, I should cover the whole ground in the one debate. It is not as if the Amendments relate to trifling matters.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is for the convenience of the House, that course would be agreeable.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Before you reply finally, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, let us see where we are going. This is an important Clause, and it has not been on the Order Paper very long, although I do not complain of that. The Minister has made an important statement and explanation, which I appreciate, but in view of what is at stake, it should be subject to searching interrogation. In my view, this is the best stage at which hon. Members can conduct that searching interrogation. We are all trying to be helpful, because it is necessary to have a complete understanding so that when people outside read the debate tomorrow they also will understand it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that nothing is now proposed that would prevent him from having his searching interrogation.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I have made a number of notes, because I am uneasy about the legal application of the Clause. I would prefer that we indulge in our constitutional right of interrogation now. Later, when the Amendments have been moved, if we are not satisfied with the Minister's reply we will have safeguarded our rights.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we can proceed on the Question. "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. Kenneth Piekthorn: All the Amendments down to line 29? Is that the intention?
  Mr. R. Williams: Yes, all the Amendments down to the one in line 29, to leave out paragraph (a), that is, all the Amendments on page 2400 and the two at the top of page 2401.
  It will, of course, give everyone the opportunity of asking any questions they

  1343
  like and of probing as far as they like. I am most indebted to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We are in the House of Commons now, and we all have rights. Will you be good enough to consider, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before agreeing to this suggestion, that the Minister's statement is now fresh in our minds and that we have the right to indulge in interrogation now in order to get a clear understanding. Then, later on, if the Amendments are moved, we shall be able to speak again, because we shall not have lost our right to do so by speaking on the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There will be a new Motion before the House when the Amendments are moved.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Then we shall have lost our right to speak on the Minister's statement.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can speak on the Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time", and then on the Amendments. I can assure him that he is not being prejudiced.
  Mr. Williams: Let me say at once that, in bringing in for the first time the provision for payments in respect of death and disablement, we very much welcome that step and are delighted that the Minister has considered the observations which we on this side of the House pressed in Committee. However, I wish to make it clear at the outset that we cannot consider the Clause without dividing very sharply in our minds the distinction between fatal and non-fatal cases. It might, perhaps, help the House if I say right away that, so far as the non-fatal cases are concerned, I think that this is a good Clause. The Minister has accepted the phrase, "serious and permanent disablement", which we on this side proposed in Committee, and he is following, I assume, legislation passed when we were in power in considering what the meaning of "serious" should be. He has suggested that it should be a loss of faculty being not less than 20 per cent. With all that I am in complete agreement.
  I am in complete agreement, too, with the Government approaching the matter
  1344
  along the lines of, shall I call it, a presumed or constructive negligence. The cases shall be treated in exactly the same way as cases of a similar nature which would arise if the injury were caused by negligence. Up to that point, I am in entire agreement with the Minister. It is when we come to the fatal cases that I must say quite frankly that I differ from him, because fatal cases, however small their numbers, are in one sense the very type of cases which command our sympathy even more than the non-fatal cases.
  If a man is killed as the result of mining subsidence we should draw upon our legal experience and provide whatever we can for the dependants and the estate of that man. We should be generous in our approach. I do not think that the Government have been generous. Perhaps it is because they have mixed up two things. When the Minister refers in the Clause to non-fatal cases he applies the test of pecuniary loss. When he deals with fatal cases he applies the test of need, and in applying the test of need he restricts that principle even further by saying that it is only those who are wholly or mainly dependent upon the deceased who can claim.
  That being so, the extraordinary situation would arise under the Clause that the person who was seriously and permanently disabled might succeed in getting a substantial sum by way of damages—and with that we heartily agree—but that the dependants of a person who was killed in precisely the same conditions might get little or nothing at all because the test would be not the question of pecuniary loss, but the test of whether the dependants were, in fact, wholly or mainly dependent.
  I think the Minister will see that we could get into very troubled waters here, and it would be wrong, I think, for the House to pass a Clause which contained two such dissimilar principles in relation to injuries arising from the same cause. I ask the House to forgive me if I quote from Charlesworth on negligence to indicate what the principle is in relation to fatal cases and how it was set out in the Fatal Accidents Act, 1946. That is over 100 years ago, and if we had then reached the stage where our minds were clear on the matter we should certainly not go back on that principle and give less to

  1345
  the equally deserving cases which we are considering under the Bill. Charlesworth says:
  "The measure of damages is the pecuniary loss suffered by the dependants as the result of the death. No damages can be given for the mental sufferings they have undergone or by way of solatium for their wounded feelings or the pain and suffering of the deceased. The pecuniary loss in question means the actual financial benefit of which the dependants have, in fact, been deprived whether the benefit was a result of a legal obligation or of what may reasonably have been expected to take place in the future."
  Those are firmly established principles which should apply in this case, but which do not because the only persons who can ask that those principles shall apply to them are people wholly or mainly dependent. Under the Fatal Accidents Act such a stringent test is very properly not applied since there the concern is not the question of need, but the question of pecuniary loss.
  Mr. Maudling: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am interested in his quotation from Charlesworth. Am I right in thinking that on that principle the people who can claim are confined to dependants? Though we are providing in the Bill for a wider category of dependants, it is still confined to dependants.
  Mr. Williams: That is a paint fairly taken, but the leading point which I want to leave in the Minister's mind is that the basis of it is pecuniary loss. It is not something based on the need of a particular dependant, or whether that particular dependant is wholly or mainly being maintained by the deceased. Perhaps the position will become even clearer in the Minister's mind if I remind him that where such cases occur in England and Wales the position is that one is not restricted to fatal accidents in making the claim, but that one can also proceed under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, and one can there rightly make a claim in respect of loss of expectation of life.
  I would ask the Paymaster-General to consider in this connection the words of Lord Wright. He was giving his judgment in the case of Roach v. Yates, decided in 1938, and he said this, speaking of the deceased:
  "I think he has a legal interest entitling him to complain if the integrity of his life is impaired by tortious acts not only in regard
  1346
  to pain, suffering and disability but in regard to the continuance of life for its normal expectancy. A man has a legal right that his life should not be shortened by the tortious act of another. His normal expectancy of life is a thing of temporal value, so that its impairment is something for which damages should be given."
  So here, in relation to negligence, we have clearly defined rights under the law in these matters, first, rights which come under the Fatal Accidents Acts, and secondly, the rights which come under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, the loss of expectation of life.
  In this new Clause there is nothing for loss of expectation of life at all. I submit that if a Clause is drafted as this is on the basis that it is to be treated as if it were an action for damages for negligence, it is highly necessary that there should be consistency in the application of that principle. That is to say, once we take the line to treat these cases as if they were negligence cases, we must proceed from that to what the natural consequences are of taking that line. What we must not do is attempt to make a distinction, and in the same Clause, between those who are seriously and permanently disabled and get the full benefits of Common Law rights and those who are even worse affected in that they are killed and have lost rights. In their cases we deprive their dependants of the full rights. We deprive their estates of the full rights which are applicable.
  I am quite sure that the Paymaster-General does not warn to do that. I feel that once he is seized of this point he will say we must surely treat this consistently and give what would apply in negligence cases without distinction between the two categories as we have made them in this new Clause.
  It will have this advantage, too, that when cases are being contested, as, regrettably, cases may be, before the courts, there will be great difficulty in a court's deciding the question posed by the words "wholly or mainly" in this new Clause, when everywhere else the legal principles are quite clear and are in accordance with the stream of precedents going back for over a hundred years.
  There is this advantage which I put before the Paymaster-General, that the National Coal Board will know where it is if this distinction is not made, because

  1347
  it will consider the fatal claims under mining subsidence in exactly the same way as it would treat a fatal claim which arose as the result of negligence in a pit. The Board has its competent staffs dealing with these cases every day of the week, and its mind is quite clear about this question of assessing damages and what amount should be paid.
  What would be very confusing and, I think, quite wrong would be for the Board at one and the same time in otherwise identical circumstances to pay under the Fatal Accidents Act amounts in respect of loss of expectation of life to the estate of one person who has been killed, and in relation to the estate of another, because it is a case arising out of mining subsidence, to say, "We will pay nothing more."
  That may easily arise. It may be that the wife of a person who is killed has also been working and may have had an income equal to that of her husband. Does the Paymaster-General seriously say that even though that man was killed and substantial damages would have been claimed had he been killed by negligence his widow is to get nothing whatsoever because she cannot show she was wholly or mainly maintained by him? Has the Paymaster-General thought about this, that if two persons were killed the dependant of one would be in that category, and the dependant of the other in an entirely different category, because the degree of the dependence at home was different?
  5.15 p.m.
  Why should we be concerned with these questions which fall into another part of the law altogether? This has more to do with the administrative side. When we are thinking in terms of benefits payable in cases where contributions have been made and where we have to have our categories worked out for the sake of administration, there is a strong case; but here there is no case at all, because here all the arguments are in favour of the vast experience we have in the courts and of the Acts, which exist, and which have been existing, many of them, as I have said, for over a century. Are we going to throw all those aside in regard to fatal cases but allow them all, in effect, in regard to non-fatal cases? That
  1348
  is what the Paymaster-General has done in his new Clause.
  I think that he will clearly understand, from the way I am putting my case, that I am not being carping and critical. He has made a great effort in bringing in these categories at all, and I thank him with all my heart for having done so. For the first time there will be claims in cases where now people can get nothing. However, I beg him, as he has done this job so far, to do a really good job, because now he can do it with all the force of legal authority and apply throughout the new Clause one consistent principle, that the damages are based on loss and not on some other and alien principle.
  The cases would number only one in a million, and consequently there is not a shred or a shadow of excuse for saying that because of the financial impact of such claims the Board will be in difficulty, and that we shall have to pay more for our coal. Of all these cases everybody regards the fatal cases as those which evoke our greatest sympathy. I say that it should be the object of the right hon. Gentleman to apply one well-settled, clearly defined legal principle which has stood the test of generations of experience in our courts. If that is done, I think it will be a tremendous improvement to the Bill and we can all be of one mind in relation to it.
  You will see from what I have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have covered all the ground which would have been covered by all our Amendments down to the new Clause. Our object is to bring this point forcibly before the Paymaster-General. I would even go so far as to say that if he will consider it, and consider having it implemented in another place, I will accept even that, but I must say to him, in the friendliest spirit, that if he asks us to accept the new Clause which contains mutually contradictory principles in relation to persons who are injured by the same things I shall at the appropriate time be obliged, and very much against the grain, because we have had a happy, friendly time in Committee, to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide. We do not want to on this. I beg the Paymaster-General to say at the appropriate time that he realises the strength and force of this argument and

  1349
  that he will give the matter further consideration.
  This argument applies equally, of course, to Scotland. I mentioned that it was in relation to England and Wales. I claim to have some acquaintance with the law in this respect in England and Wales. I know absolutely nothing about the law of Scotland, but I do know that it would be necessary there as here to have one clear, consistent principle running through the new Clause.
  Mr. Oliver: After hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), the Paymaster-General must appreciate that he has fallen rather short of what we expected of him when dealing with this matter. If a person who is deceased by reason of damage arising from mining subsidence is to be in the same position as a person who has been killed by an act of negligence, why not do the good, right and normal thing and not confine the damages to those obtainable only under the Fatal Accidents Acts? Why not permit damage to be claimed under the general heading which applies to cases of death caused through negligence which at present come before the courts, that is, under both the Fatal Accidents Acts and the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954? Both those Acts are used almost daily in cases where death occurs.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan that in the case of a man killed as a result of damage caused by mining subsidence, if the widow is at work and is not at all dependent upon her husband, or if by reason of her husband's death she should come into a small legacy in excess of the damage assessed by the court, she would be completely out of this provision and not entitled to anything at all. We recognise that under the Fatal Accidents Acts the man's wages before he was killed are taken into account. Account is also taken of how much went to the wife for the maintenance of the home and the children, and the court deducts an amount which was attributable to maintaining the husband.
  The weekly figure is then multiplied by 52 to make a yearly figure and then a number of years, according to the age of the parties or the age of the children, is taken into account. That fixes the amount, but if by reason of the husband's
  1350
  death the wife should succeed to a sum of money, that sum is deducted. Insurance money is excluded, the wife's benefits are excluded, and pensions are excluded.
  The purpose of passing the 1954 Act was to provide for a more extensive claim. Instead of the claim being brought by the wife or the children or grandchildren or grandparents, the claim could be brought by an executor or administrator and by that means it would be the estate that would be benefiting. Furthermore, under the Law Reform Act, account would be taken of the pain and suffering of the person who was killed. That is another item which by reason of drawing this new Clause so narrowly is excluded from consideration.
  In addition there is the question of loss of expectation of life. If the man was young and was likely to have lived a long time, the expectation would be much longer and a much larger sum would be allowed. Instead of being paid into the courts, as the money under the Fatal Accidents Acts is paid into a court which in turn pays it out weekly to the dependants, the money is paid to the executors or administrators under the Law Reform Act. The result is that there is greater freedom for members of the family in dealing with the sum of money.
  It is very strange that when the Government want to do something for people who are killed in these circumstances they should permit only one-half of the remedy to be applied to the relatives of the deceased person. Why not deal with the matter generously, as would be the case if a person in the employ of the National Coal Board were killed as a result of negligence? Anyone acting on behalf of the deceased person in a case of negligence would not bring a claim under the Fatal Accidents Acts only. He would bring it under the Law Reform Act as well, because of the benefit that would result.
  I agree that if the dependency is substantial it is set against any expectation of life. To that extent the sum is diminished, but that does not apply in all cases. The Minister said that very few, if any, cases of the kind with which we are now dealing had been brought to the notice of the Coal Board. If those were not the Minister's precise words, I think that he indicated that there was no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, why be

  1351
  so niggardly in so small a matter as this and limit claims to just one statute when the Minister could so generously, and probably at no greater expense, apply both statutes?
  That is exactly what the Amendments ask. I am sure that if the Amendments were accepted it would not involve a very large sum of money, because, on past experience, I am assured that the number of people who are killed in circumstances such as those to which the Bill relates would be negligible.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that the Minister will accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) about the proposals in the new Clause and that he will give further consideration to the matter, on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place. In the meantime, I hope that one or two questions which I feel compelled to put to the Minister today will be answered.
  I liked the right hon. Gentleman's approach not only to the matter with which the Clause deals, but to all these questions when we considered the Bill in Committee. I am disturbed, however, by this constant reiteration that there are only a few cases of this kind. I shall produce evidence later to show that either we have been very unfortunate, or that there were more cases than we were aware of.
  I understood the Minister to say that in fatal accident cases the Board will accept absolute liability, except where there is contributory negligence. I should like to make a few observations on that proviso relating to contributory negligence, but before doing so I would ask the Paymaster-General to refer to col. 525 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee, in which he said:
  "…I should like to see whether it is possible to draw up a Government new Clause on Report which would provide compensation strictly in those cases where injury or death is the direct result, and the direct result only of mining subsidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th May, 1957; c. 525.]
  I ask the Minister whether, in his opinion, the proposed Clause carries out the desire which he expressed on that occasion?
  1352
  5.30 p.m.
  The next question is: what is the meaning of "direct result"? It is upon this point that, later, I shall make one or two remarks. I have been subjecting this proposed Clause to a close analysis, based upon my experience and upon that of those with whom I am associated. I am uneasy lest the Board use its legal advisers to enable it to make a defence based upon contributory negligence. The proposed Clause reads:
  "If, as the result of an injury…any person dies or is seriously and permanently disabled…"
  I will give two or three concrete examples which have been given to me by our city authorities. The first one is of a miner going to work early one morning in the darkness of winter. The road gives way, the man falls into the hole, he is never seen again and the funeral service is held in the street and attended by his neighbours. He leaves a widow and children. Will they be eligible for full compensation? Will their interests be safeguarded, as long as that is necessary, throughout their lives? Would that man's widow be in the position I have just mentioned? Are there any means of using the phrase "contributory negligence" to create difficulties in such a case?
  I now come to the second case. In our area, the whole city is undermined with new mining, above which has been left the old mining. As a result of modernisation, the old mining is likely to be worked at any time and, therefore, it remains the property of the Board. Because we suffer from a lack of playing fields to a greater extent than any other part of the country, within the last two years the education committee has embarked upon a policy of making the land as safe as possible and laying it out as playing fields for the children. Much to the surprise of everyone, including the mining engineers who advised the education committee, the playing fields gave way. The city council obtained the best legal advice possible and called in scores of assessors, and as a result of the expert advice received they laid out the playing fields.
  To the great relief of all the parents, the subsidence occurred at night. We can all visualise what would have happened if that had taken place while the children were playing there. In

  1353
  such a case would those concerned have received full compensation under the proposed Clause? Would there be any contributory negligence on the part of anybody, since everyone is innocent?
  I have much more evidence here which has been sent on to me, but I will not weary the House with it. The Minister will realise that there are grounds for the uneasiness, so I ask him to consider the constructive proposal made by my hon. Friend about this difficult situation, so that when the Bill roes to another place the Minister will be able to take steps to cover all the points we have made. In that way, the harmonious proceedings which have been maintained from the time when this Bill first entered on its Committee stage can be continued and it will enable us to get the best results possible for the areas for which we are speaking.
  Mr. T. Brown: I support strongly the arguments advanced by the three previous speakers on the question of compensation for loss of life and limb caused by mining subsidence. It is true that the Minister has gone a long way along the road we wish him to travel, but he appears to have fallen short of the goal that we desired him to reach. It is the first time in the history of compensation for damage from mining subsidence that the question of payment for maiming or death is included. Happily for this country and for the mining areas, there are not many such cases.
  I can put forward the claim that it was in the constituency which I have the honour to represent that the first death from mining subsidence took place in the year 1874. That is going back a long way. It ought to be remembered, however, that we have been giving deep-mined coal to the nation since the year 1546. I will not go into the amount of damage caused since then, but the area in which I reside is a veritable honeycomb of underground workings for miles and miles. The next death took place in 1954, so that we have had only two deaths in practically a century.
  I want the Minister to respond to the pleas put forward from this side of the House. Instead of the Minister stopping where he has done in this proposed new Clause, will he travel along a little further and cover the dependants and estates of
  1354
  men or women who are maimed or killed as a result of mining subsidence?
  We are not asking that there shall be put upon the National Coal Board a tremendous financial responsibility. We are asking that, where loss of life occurs through mining subsidence, not only the family but the estate also shall receive the compensation to which they are entitled, following the general line of compensation throughout the country. I have spent more years than I care to remember in dealing with compensation cases. I have always found that the judge has been very generous and humane in his approach to the dependants and relatives of men who lose their lives in industry. Why not in these cases?
  I say with all respect that there seems to be on the part of the Department a hesitancy or, in the phrase coined by the Parliamentary Secretary, ultra-cautiousness. I say that, although I have a great admiration for the Department in spite of the strong words I have to use to the Minister from time to time. Why stop here? In effect, what is being said is, "Let us try to persuade the House and the Members of the Opposition to accept what we think is right." It should be remembered, however, that we on this side of the House have had considerable experience.
  We have not put down the nine Amendments for fun. We put them down for the specific and definite purpose of trying to get fair play and honest treatment for those unfortunate people who suffer death and injury because of mining subsidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) referred to a death in his constituency and quoted a case of a narrow escape. In Committee in May this year I referred to what is called the Crankwood Road case where it was only by the providence of God that a whole row of houses did not slip down because of mining subsidence.
  The problem of subsidence is known to everyone in mining areas and by this time it is known to the Department, but the Department does not know the full extent of the damage and the loss of human life. While the Department is not fully conversant with the circumstances prevailing in the coal fields, I beg the Minister to take some little notice of the people who do. We are not unreasonable. We have set out to get fair play when property

  1355
  is damaged and to do our best for the unfortunate people who live in coal fields. We must see to it that people and dependants who lose their lives or who are injured are covered.
  I beg the Minister not to fall short. He should go as far as we want, which is not unreasonable, and that is to say that those who are left after they have had the misfortune to lose their breadwinner should not be left high and dry, but should be fully compensated according to the principles governing the payment of compensation in this country.
  I hope that the Minister and the Department will consider that plea. I am not anxious to divide the House. What I am anxious about is that we should continue the harmony which has existed throughout the proceedings on the Bill since 31st January, 1957, so that at the end we can say that we have played our part and played fair with those who are unfortunately placed.
  Mr. Probert: I hesitate to enter into any legal argument, but one aspect of the new Clause does concern me. It is subsection (2, c), which contains the words:
  "the injury was wholly attributable to the negligence of that person".
  I do not know how the courts will interpret such a phrase and it is for that reason, my inadequacy in that connection, that I raise the matter now. The Minister will recall that in Committee we dealt with an Amendment in which we sought to include the tenant as a person who would be obliged to notify the Coal Board of subsidence damage.
  We did not succeed in that Amendment and we are now in some danger. Let us suppose that a tenant has notified the owner of a house that there is subsidence damage, but the owner of the house does not notify the Coal Board. If the tenant is killed, does the phrase which I have quoted debar the tenant's dependants from any recompense from the Coal Board?
  Mr. Maudling: That would surely be the negligence of the house owner, not of the tenant.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Probert: It is precisely that with which I am concerned. It is all right if the owner of the house is a wealthy person, but he may not be and may not be
  1356
  able to pay for the damages which the court may decide. What is the position of the tenant or his relatives in that case? Does the Coal Board get away with it if the tenant has notified the owner of the damage and is then injured or killed, if the owner has not notified the Coal Board?
  I see that danger if we do not include the tenant as one of the people who can notify the Coal Board of such damage. It is all very well to say that the house owner is responsible, but house owners are not always wealthy people. The Coal Board will have money to pay for this and the tenant should not be at the mercy of the negligence of a third party. However, I add my congratulations to those already given to the Paymaster-General for introducing this important Clause.
  Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) has been raising a specific matter of some detail. I hope that he will not mind if I do not pursue it, but leave my right hon. Friend to deal with it. I want to put a view arising from the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). I can understand his point of view and sympathise with it; and although we evidently have different views about the Amendment to the new Clause, I do not believe that there is anything of substance between us on the subject matter.
  Hon. Members who have spoken on this Clause seem to be under some misapprehension. The Clause does and is intended to lay upon the Board the responsibility, notwithstanding that there is no negligence by the Board, to pay by way of damages such compensation as may be proper to the dependants of the deceased and, as the hon. Member for Ince said, if the situation can arise, to the estate of the dependants of the deceased. What the Clause does not do —and I must confess that I was very surprised to hear Opposition Members who belong to the legal profession arguing that it should do—is to introduce an entirely new principle into our law where negligence is not involved and require the Board to pay compensation to the estate of a deceased in any event.
  While that is perfectly right and proper where compensation is payable as a result

  1357
  of the negligence of the person who would be the defendant in the case, because that is a measure of the damages for which he is responsible, at present there is no legal responsibility on the Board in this case and we are introducing a new statutory responsibility which is something far more narrow than the common law responsibility for negligence.
  What we are seeking to do is to provide a means whereby those who suffer damage shall receive compensation. I believe that that is what the new Clause does. The Amendment can be well illustrated by the example of the occupant of a house and his wife, having no children or dependants, both, unhappily, being killed as a result of subsidence and their estate going to the benefit of a fifth cousin resident in Australia. The compensation which would then be payable if the Amendment were accepted would go not to people who had suffered any damage as a result of subsidence, but to this possible beneficiary of the deceased's estate who was resident in Australia. I am sure that that is not the intention of hon. Members opposite any more than it is the Government's intention. Their intention, I am sure, is the same as ours—that those who suffer should be compensated. That is what I believe the Clause does.
  Notwithstanding his very natural and proper sympathy with pleas advanced by hon. Members with practical knowledge of this subject, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take steps to ensure that we do not depart from the legal principles of this country and that we do not introduce an entirely fresh precedent which might go a long way further than we can see at present. We know that hon. Members opposite have practical knowledge of these cases, and that examples have been put forward by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and the hon. Member for Ince and lathers, but I hope that my right hon. Friends will not depart from our normal legal principles.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member has made, but I should like his guidance on one aspect of it. Let us assume that I am killed in a road accident. It does not follow that only my next-of-kin or dependants would get compensation.
  1358
  Would not the money go to someone else who was entitled to my estate?
  Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: This clearly illustrates the difficulty in getting the matter understood. I am not asking the hon. Member to accept this as a legal opinion. For that, he had much better go to his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is in a better position to give him that opinion.
  I suggest that this is the answer: if it were somebody else's fault that the hon. Member was killed—for instance, if there were negligence on the part of the driver of the motor car or a third party—then the hon. Member's estate would recover in full and the money might go to his fifth cousin in Australia. If it were nobody else's fault, as it is admitted that it is not the Coal Board's fault if subsidence takes place, then the hon. Member's estate would not recover.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I know that this is not a simple subject but is complicated, and I am not conversant with the legal ramifications. I rise only for a few minutes to say that from the practical point of view my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) was perhaps mistaken in speaking of only two deaths in a century as a result of subsidence. Perhaps he had forgotten what must have happened frequently in his constituency and has certainly happened in mine—that, as a result of subsidence, there is a tendency for gas mains to fracture, and the number of deaths from gas poisoning has been by no means a few. I remember very many such cases in the twenty-five years that I was in practice in my constituency and I attended one or two inquests. These are not the types of death which we get in an area where there is no subsidence.
  It is a mistake to consider that only one or two deaths have occurred in a century. The dramatic cases, such as that which occurred in my constituency when the ground opened up and a man disappeared and was never seen again, are rare, and perhaps my hon. Friend had only that type of case in mind. In the northern constituency of Stoke-on-Trent there was a loss of life many years ago, but it was not human life. The ornamental pond in a garden disappeared one night and the ducks which had been

  1359
  swimming in it also disappeared and were never seen again. We are not asking for compensation on that ground tonight.
  I should like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) about the danger which we face in Stoke-on-Trent. After spending a vast sum of money to create playing fields and after having taken the very best possible advice we could get and having been told that the old pit shafts had been successfully filled in, we created many acres of playing fields and then, suddenly and unluckily in the night, me big shaft opened for hundreds of feet. Had children been playing in the area it would have created an impossible situation; we could never have held up our heads again. Nevertheless, what can a local authority do when it takes the best possible advice it can get, spares no money in obtaining that advice, takes every possible precaution and still the danger exists?
  I recognise that in respect of property anyone who is injured or a relative of anyone who dies as a result of subsidence should have recourse at law to the owner of the property, but I ask the Minister to look again—and that is all I ask him to do—at the number of cases where subsidence, and only subsidence directly due to the work of the National Coal Board, brings about injury, illness or in some cases death, often, perhaps, death from gas poisoning due to the fracture of gas mains. It is not enough that a local authority should insure against that type of eventuality, as local authorities do. They should have redress against those who are responsible for the damage, the illness and the death which may result.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I should like the guidance of the Minister on this point. It seems obvious from subsection (1) that if
  "as the result of an injury caused…by the happening of subsidence damage"
  permanent disablement takes place to any person in an area liable to mining subsidence, such a person will receive compensation under the new Clause only if he is not getting compensation from anywhere else.
  1360
  6.0 p.m.
  I do not know whether I heard the Minister clearly, but I think he said that that might seem fair to some people. But why should a person who lives in an area where mining subsidence occurs, and who has had the foresight to insure himself, not get compensation because of the effect of mining subsidence? Why should the courts take into account the fact that a person has had the foresight to take out some form of insurance?
  Mr. Philip Bell: There is nothing new in that. Under the existing law, it is not necessary to prove dependency in this case when damages are assessed. Account is taken of whatever other mitigation of damages occurs. It exists under the existing law.
  Mr. Davies: I know that, but I am asking why it should be so if a person has the foresight to insure himself. Hon. Members may not agree with me, but I am accustomed to people disagreeing with me.
  The expression "dependant" appears to me to be old-fashioned. It smacks of the mendicant period of our social history. In a virile society we want women to work. We urge as many as possible to go out to work to help production. But if they do, it seems that, should the death of their husbands occur as a result of mining subsidence, the benefits accruing from their work are entirely lost because their earnings are taken into account when the question of compensation is considered. I think that that is unfair.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) knows as well as I do that there are indirect consequences of mining subsidence damage and I am grateful to him for what he said. The House should not be under the impression that no ill-health or injury, or even death, results from mining subsidence. Only a few months ago all the members of a family living in Kidgrove, in North Staffordshire, were gassed, except one child, because the gas mains were cracked as a result of mining subsidence. Under the provisions of this Clause, would that child be compensated and looked after or would it be assumed that there had been negligence? Could it be argued that the local authority was negligent because there were not enough men employed on inspecting the gas mains?

  1361
  Those hon. Members who served on the Turner Committee will know that we discovered how expensive it was for local authorities to keep men to inspect gas mains. Could it be argued in the courts that because a local authority employed, say, only two men to inspect the gas mains instead of three or four, it had been negligent? It might be argued that there had been negligence on the part of the local authority because there were not enough inspectors. All this may sound unreal when mentioned in the House of Commons, but to those people who live in areas where mining subsidence occurs the danger resulting from cracked gas mains may occur almost every week.
  During the Committee stage we dealt with the question of consultation between the Coal Board and local authorities when new areas are being worked. Suppose I built a new house in an area where mining subsidence occurs, and, after about ten weeks, there was a crack in the gas mains which resulted in the death of a person. Could it be argued that the owner of the house was negligent because he had not consulted the Coal Board about where he should build his house, and had built in an area where he ought not to have built a house?
  There would appear to be an avenue of escape from the provisions of the Clause if it is not compulsory for the Coal Board to inform the local authority about its development schemes. That is a point which will affect people living in areas where mining subsidence may occur.
  I wish to thank the Minister for the work he has done on this Bill. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and those who assisted him have implemented still further the recommendations contained in the Turner Report; and, bearing in mind that the art of politics lies in obtaining not what we want, but what we can get, I am grateful for what has been done.
  Mr. B. Taylor: I wish to thank the Minister for his efforts and to give a welcome to the Clause. For the first time, recognition is to be given to the need to compensate the victims of mining subsidence damage as well as providing compensation in respect of property. A great deal was said about this during the Committee stage discussions and I myself
  1362
  commented on the necessity for compensating victims of such accidents. Were I in the position of the Minister, I should consider the legal arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) to be irresistible, and I think that on the grounds of fairness and humanity the right hon. Gentleman should concede all that he has been asked to concede.
  I wish to ask for clarification on a small but important point regarding subsection (2, e) where it is stated:
  "at the time when that person incurred the injury he was a trespasser."
  I do not know how that is to be interpreted. In some circumstances I can imagine that it would be easy to interpret. But a case might arise where people were in a house without any right to be there, and then the interpretation would not be so easy.
  Dr. Stross: Has my hon. Friend in mind the case of a person who might be committing a burglary in a house and the house fell on him, and whether such a person would be able to go to the Coal Board for damages?
  Mr. Taylor: That is one case, but there are others. I have in mind the case of a family comprising a widower and his son or daughter who might be living in a house of which the widower was the tenant. Suppose the widower died and the landlord of the property gave notice to the son or daughter to quit the premises. Suppose that the notice stated that in law the son or daughter were trespassers if they continued to occupy the house. Suppose that in the period between the serving of the notice and the time when the premises were vacated mining subsidence occurred and that the son or daughter were either fatally injured or disabled. What would then be the position, bearing in mind that in law they would be trespassers? I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clear up that point. Such cases may be few, but I regard them as important.
  Mr. Philip Bell: I should like to give an explanation to the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) who was good enough to give way to me when I intervened. As I understood him, he was

  1363
  saying that he thought it unfair that a person who suffered damage by subsidence, who had taken the precaution of insuring against that damage, should have that sort of insurance deducted from the compensation which he received. I rose to intervene and said that this was nothing new, for every claim for damages was made under the (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which lays down that account has to be taken of other sources of compensation coming in.
  So far, so good, but I was, in fact, wrong, because claims under this Bill, are made analogous to claims under the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, 1908, and I am glad to be able to contradict myself and to assure the hon. Member for Leek that the real position is as laid down under that Act in assessing damages. I quote from that Act:
  "…there shall not be taken into account any sum paid or payable on the death of the deceased under any contract of assurance".
  Therefore, if a person is wise enough to insure against this damage, it will not prejudice him in his claim, and I am very glad of the opportunity of correcting myself.
  Mr. McKay: I think the Minister must be thinking that something ought to be done to improve the new Clause, and I feel sure that all hon. Members on this side of the House are convinced that some change is necessary, while the right hon. Gentleman himself has only had one speaker from the other side to support him, and he seemed to throw some doubt on whether his right hon. Friend would be wise in amending the Clause to meet our requirements.
  The remarkable thing about this new Clause is that the Minister, in drawing up his Bill, has definitely laid down that compensation will be paid on grounds of negligence, but, having introduced that principle into the Bill, he then hangs fire at one of the most vital points. Let us take the case of a family living in a house subject to subsidence which has caused definite and serious damage to the occupants of that house. Under the Bill as it now stands, the occupier can claim and will get a great degree of compensation, and that, I understand, is acknowledged in the Bill. Taking the same family in the same house, but in the circumstances where the man is
  1364
  killed, if his wife and children are considered to be fairly comfortably placed, the idea is that there will be no compensation at all.
  Mr. Maudling: No.
  Mr. McKay: Is that not so? I understand that it is so. If the man is killed and the family cannot show that they were mainly dependent upon him when he was alive, in those circumstances no compensation will be paid. I understand that to be the right hon. Gentleman's contention in this discussion. I think it should be said that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) in presenting our arguments put a brilliant case before the House. I listened to him with great attention, and, to my mind, trying to be as impartial as possible, I think he presented a case that could not by any means in logic be denied.
  Therefore, I am very much surprised by the Minister's action on this occasion, because of the small amount involved to start with, and also because of the inconsistency of the new Clause, if it is not amended. I cannot understand why the Minister should fail to meet our views on this point. One hon. Member seemed to suggest that the Minister was doing all that could be considered necessary, and that we had put an extreme case before the House. He seemed to be trying to strengthen the attitude of the Minister in standing still rather than going out to meet the feelings of the majority of hon. Members on this side. The hon. Member quoted a case which he said might happen, but which was an extreme case, in which the compensation might go to the estate of the deceased person and finally land up in Australia. I do not think that any of us are worried about people in Australia getting any benefit from the Bill as the result of the death of any individual from mining subsidence.
  6.15 p.m.
  That is not the point. What we are trying to get is justice for the victims of subsidence and their dependants. How any Government or Minister can bring in a Bill which provides a new principle of accepting negligence where subsidence is concerned, and then drop it down to apply only where the people injured are still living whereas the dependants of those who are killed get nothing, seems to my mind to be absolutely illogical and

  1365
  against all past practice. The expense involved is likely to be infinitesimal, as far as all the evidence goes. I therefore desire to support this appeal which has been made to the Minister, because I think it is one of the most powerful and logical appeals that has ever been made.
  Mr. Maudling: As has been said more than once in the debate, this new Clause introduces a new principle in our mining subsidence law, and, for that reason if for no other, it was a difficult Clause to draft. Those who advise us in these matters and draft these things for us are extremely helpful and wise, and I know that they will not take it amiss if I say that I do not think that the drafting in this case is necessarily perfect.
  I have listened with a great deal of interest to the points which have been raised, a number of which, I readily admit, will need further consideration, though, for reasons which I shall explain, I cannot accept any of them tonight. There are, however, a number of points which need further consideration before the Bill passes to another place.
  I think we must start by remembering what we are doing here. The general law is that if someone is killed, damages cannot be obtained unless it is due to the negligence of somebody else. No one is supposing that the National Coal Board is being negligent. If the Board is negligent and a person is killed, there are the normal rights of compensation, but we say that in these cases where there is no negligence it will still have to pay compensation, and negligence is "presumed" largely to give the measure of the compensation which the Board will have to pay.
  Therefore, it is necessary, in considering some of the points which have been put forward, to remember that we are not dealing with a tortious act by the Coal Board, as someone has described it, or negligence, but a payment by the Coal Board on the same scale as if there had been negligence, in all cases where liability has been made by Statute absolute.
  Starting from that point, I will now deal with one or two points which have been raised in the discussion, and perhaps, finally, deal with the most important points made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams). The hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver)
  1366
  made several points, on one of which I think he was in error, when he suggested that if a man died, and, as a result of his death, his widow received a small legacy, she would not receive compensation. In fact, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that provision is made that, if the family was dependent on him, or if, apart from the occurrence of the injury, they would have been dependent on him, then she is included, because apart from the man's death, she would have been dependent upon him, and she would not have had the legacy.
  Mr. Oliver: If the compensation is based on the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is true that the insurance is completely excluded, that widows' pensions are completely excluded and pensions are excluded, but not money which is invested or any legacy which might come as a result. That is how I understand the Act.
  Mr. Maudling: The wording I had in mind is contained in subsection (3, a):
  "The expression 'dependant' in relation to a deceased person means any person who at the time of the death was, or but for the injury would have been, wholly or mainly maintained by the deceased."
  Anything that happens after the injury or as the result of it is not affected. The other point made by the hon. and learned Member was that under this provision, although dependants can claim damages, they would not be able to claim as much damages as in the case to which I have referred. That is a point that I would like to look into.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) referred to our Standing Committee proceedings, where I said that I was satisfied with the Clause as drawn because it fell into line with what I had said about directly attributable damages. So far as I can satisfy myself, I think it does so exactly. He then referred to contributory negligence and asked what it was. It is very difficult in this House to say what a court would decide.
  If the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) was one that is likely to come before a court it would be quite wrong of me to express any sort of opinion about it. I can give the example of walking down the road in a normal way. If the road

  1367
  suddenly opens up in front of us, there is no negligence on our part. On the other hand, if there is a crack in the road and warnings like, "Road liable to subsidence", then if we walk along the road and fall into a hole we are guilty of contributory negligence. That is the sort of principle which would operate, but it would be wrong of me to try to predict a decision of a court in any case. That general principle of law is widely understood.
  The Coal Board should have exactly the same protection in a case of contributory negligence as normally arises. In fact, it has an even stronger case than normally. When a man is negligent he does not pay the full amount of damages if the man he injures has been negligent, too. In this case, the Coal Board is not guilty of negligence and should not be forced to pay for the negligence of someone else.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: This is an important point. Where I live there are signs for some distance along the road, but in the winter men and women going to work will not see the signs because they will be rushing for their buses. In those circumstances, I feel that responsibility would be on nobody but the Coal Board.
  Mr. Maudling: The classical case is that of a man who was leading a donkey along the middle of the high road when someone drove furiously around the corner and bumped into them. It was held that both were negligent. The man should not have had a donkey in the middle of the road and the second man should not have driven so fast. If we walk down the road in circumstances in which we cannot see the whole of the road, we are negligent. That is a fair description of the general principle, but it may not apply to particular cases.
  Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the case in County Durham, where there is a notice on the side of the road saying, "Danger. Reduce speed owing to mining subsidence"?
  Mr. Maudling: The motorist is intended to reduce his speed to that appropriate to deal with any mining subsidence that might occur.
  On contributory negligence, points were also raised by the hon. Members for
  1368
  Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and Leek which, I think, are relevant to this discussion. The hon. Member for Aberdare talked about the position where a tenant had told the owner of a house that damage was likely to occur and the owner had failed to notify the Coal Board. I do not think that that would affect his claim in any way. Subsection (2, c) refers to
  "injury…wholly attributable to the negligence of that person"
  who was injured.
  Under subsection (1) an injured person cannot claim from the Coal Board if an action for damages is maintainable against some other party. If someone is injured and he can proceed against another person, that presupposes that the other person was careless. We presuppose that the Coal Board has not done anything wrong if the person can claim damages from someone else.
  Dr. Stross: If there is a fracture of gas mains and consequent sickness in a house, or possibly death of one or more people in the house, to whom must the relatives go for redress? Against the local authority in the first place, or directly against the Coal Board?
  Mr. Maudling: It would be wrong to try to predict upon a particular case. If the injury was caused by subsidence they can claim, unless they have a right to claim against some one else. That is a fair position, as far as one can see.
  Mr. Douglas Johnston: If it is the intention of the Minister that a person who is injured should have no claim if an action can be raised against a party other than the Coal Board, may I point out that that is not in the Bill? In the damaged gas main case, surely, while an action might possibly lie against a local authority as being the gas undertaker, an action would certainly lie against the Coal Board, also. Is that not so?
  Mr. Maudling: The Board would not be negligent. If the local authority had been negligent there would be a cause of action against it and the injured party could proceed against it. Therefore, he would not proceed against the Coal Board. That is in subsection (1). If the local authority is not negligent and the individual cannot proceed against it, he

  1369
  can get compensation from the Coal Board even though the Board has not been negligent. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) raised a point about compensation. It would be wrong for the Coal Board to compensate someone who was injured at a place where he had no right to be. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point and, once more, I will see that it is considered.
  Now I come to the major points raised by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson Hicks). The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had taken the right line in deciding who shall be able to get the benefit of the compensation paid. In one way, the case he was making was sound but in another way it was unsound. So, if I may, I will set both these points before the House.
  I accept the principle which I think the hon. Member for Wigan was enunciating, that damages should be based on the pecuniary loss of the dependants. We have provided for this, because the category of people who can carry out claims under the Bill is described as anyone
  "wholly or mainly maintained by the deceased."
  This goes beyond the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act, under which only wives, husbands, parents and children have a right to claim. But I would like to consider the hon. Gentleman's point, which I think is a strong one, that we have not covered dependants who are not main dependants. There are people who are partly dependent. This is a concession which I should like to consider between now and consideration of the Bill in another place.
  6.30 p.m.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member that benefit should go to the deceased's estate. I rather share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester. If we make this payment to a person's estate it might go to people who were in no way dependent on him at all. From time to time people make wills leaving their money to people who are not dependent on them, and people who are depending on them are not sufficiently provided for. It would be wrong to have a payment made to an estate if, in prac-
  1370
  tice, it went to people who were not dependent on the person concerned and who suffered no loss at all. A person then might suffer no loss, but have pecuniary gain.
  This links with what I said at the beginning. We are not considering a case where the Coal Board has done something wrong. Would it be right, in circumstances where the Board had not been negligent, to provide for a person who had not suffered?
  Mr. R. Williams: Is not the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that it is the injured person who has lost something? He has lost his expectation of life, and that is something which can be assessed. What happens to the damages after that is not of our concern. Unless we accept that we are in this extraordinary position that if the subsidence damage seriously and permanently incapacitates a man certain payments will ensue and substantial payments be payable, but if he is even more injured and dies the loss of expectation of life—which is something vested in him—is something we shall completely ignore.
  Mr. Maudling: I do not agree with the hon. Member when he says that we are not concerned with the question of who receives the money. We are very much concerned with that. I think there is more agreement between us than one might have thought. My concern is that people who have suffered loss should get some money as a result of this Clause. I accept that the present Clause is defective as it might not cover everyone, who should be covered, but I cannot agree that the Coal Board should pay out large sums of money to people who have not suffered, when the Board has not been negligent.
  I have endeavoured to explain what underlay our approach to this Clause and to deal with the points which have been raised. Several of the points need, and will receive, further consideration between now and later stages of the Bill. In view of that and in the light of my undertaking that these matters will be considered, I hope the House will agree to accept the Clause.
  Mr. Robens: I begin by saying, once again, that we appreciate the work of the right hon. Gentleman in producing this new Clause, which arises from all that was said in Committee on this matter.

  1371
  I am sure that he will not take it that because we have spent a considerable time on this matter, and put a number of arguments to him, we are in any way criticising the motive behind his action in drafting this Clause, but I do not think I have listened to a more clear exposition of a legal point than that which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams).
  It is clear that at least on one point we are looking at the matter from different angles. That point is on the question of dependency. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will look at subsection (3, a) again. At the same time, he has said that in the case of a man who dies as a result of actions arising from mining subsidence he is not prepared to provide that that money would go into the estate provided there is no dependant at all.
  My hon. Friend, in quoting from Charlcsworth, asked the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that in the Bill the Government should not produce another method of dealing with compensation, but that the Fatal Accidents (Damages) Act and the miscellaneous provisions Act are sufficient in themselves to cover matters such as this. When, at the beginning of the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman relies upon the words
  "if the death had been attributable to the negligence of the Board"
  it should follow from that that all benefits should arise as though negligence had taken place, although we are admitting that it is not the direct, wilful negligence or the tortuous act of the Board.
  Nevertheless, to provide for payments in respect of death or disablement in certain cases the right hon. Gentleman is relying upon an acceptance of negligence by the Board. As soon as he does that, surely the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan comes in and the right hon. Gentleman should not seek to set aside what is laid down in established law and provide another method by which compensation shall be assessed or to whom it is to be paid.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been prepared to say that he will look at this matter once again. I have no doubt that he has been persuaded on the arguments put from this side of the House that subsection (3, a) certainly
  1372
  does need revision and we are glad that he has promised to revise it. Accordingly, I would recommend the House to give a Second Reading to this Clause. Now that we have had this thorough discussion, perhaps when we come to the Amendments we might deal with those quickly and pass on to other sections of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the subject matter of the Amendments to the Clause which follow has been dealt with. Does any hon. Member wish to move any of them?
  Mr. Robens: By leave of the House, may I say that we shall not move any of those Amendments, Sir, in view of the undertaking given by the Minister.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN TENANTS.)
  (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect in any case where property is affected by subsidence damage and—

  (a) a person who is a tenant for the purposes of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949, a landholder for the purposes of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, or a crofter for the purposes of the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955, would have been entitled under any enactment contained in those Acts to remove that property or to be paid compensation in respect thereof by his landlord if his tenancy had terminated immediately before the damage occurred; and

  (b) apart from the provisions of this section, neither the person aforesaid nor any other person would be liable to make good the damage in whole or in part;

  and in the following provisions of this section the expression "protected tenant" in relation to any property means the person who would have been entitled as aforesaid in respect of that property.
  (2) Where the damaged property is property in respect of which the protected tenant would have been entitled to compensation as aforesaid, the protected tenant shall, subject to subsection (5) of this section, be treated for the purposes of this Act either—

  (a) as a person liable to make good the whole of the damage to the property; or

  (b) if by reason of any other enactment contained in the Acts aforesaid compensation in respect of the property would have been payable to him as aforesaid of less than the amount otherwise provided for by subsection (1) of section one on the said Act of 1927, section thirty-seven or

  1373
  section forty-eight of the said Act of 1948, section thirty-eight or subsection (1) of section forty-nine of the said Act of 1949, so much of section ten of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, as precedes the proviso thereto, or subsection (4) of section fourteen of the said Act of 1955, as the case may be, as a person liable to meet such part of the cost of making good the whole of the damage to the property as hears to the whole of that cost the same proportion that the compensation which would have been payable hears to the amount otherwise provided for as aforesaid:

  Provided that, for the purposes of this section, there shall be deemed to be omitted from the said section ten the words from "and the value" onwards.
  (3) Where any of the property consists of a building or structure which the protected tenant would have been entitled to remove as aforesaid, then, without prejudice to any liability of the Board in respect of damage to that building or structure, paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act shall have effect in relation to the site thereof as if that building or structure had not been erected.
  (4) Any question arising under this section in relation to any property as to whether or not any person is a protected tenant or as to the amount of any compensation which would have been payable to him as aforesaid under any of the Acts aforesaid shall he determined in like manner as if it had arisen under the Act in question
  (5) Where in the case of any damaged property it is claimed that a person who, apart from the provisions of this section, is neither the owner of, nor liable to make good in whole or in part the damage to, the property falls to be treated as so liable by virtue of this section, and a damage notice is served in respect of the property, whether by that or any other person, that person shall not be treated as liable as aforesaid unless—

  (a) either it is agreed between that person and the owner before the expiration of the period of one month from the first service of a damage notice in respect of the property, or it is determined in proceedings by virtue of the last foregoing subsection begun before the expiration of that period that that person is a protected tenant in relation to that property; and

  (b) notice in writing of that agreement or of the beginning of those proceedings has been given to the Board before the expiration of the said period;

  and where the liability of the Board to comply with any requirement of this Act in consequence of the service of the damage notice depends on the determination of the question whether or not that person falls to be treated as liable as aforesaid, the Board shall not be required to comply with that requirement until it is established in accordance with the provisions of this subsection whether or not that person falls to be so treated.
  (6) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, proceedings to determine by
  1374
  arbitration whether or not a person is a protected tenant by virtue of the said Act of 1948 or the said Act of 1949 shall be deemed to be begun when either an arbitrator or, as the case may he, an arbiter has been appointed by agreement between the owner and that person or an application for the appointment of an arbitrator or, as the case may he, an arbiter has been made to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, as the case may be, to the Secretary of State by either the owner or that person.
  (7) Subsection (1) of section eight of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, other than the provisos thereto, and subsection (3) of section twenty-three of the said Act of 1955 (which provide that the agreement for a loan by the Secretary of State to a landholder or, as the case may be, crofter shall effect a transfer to the Secretary of State of all rights of the landholder or crofter to compensation for permanent improvements) shall have effect as if the references therein to such compensation included references to any amount payable to the landholder or crofter by virtue of this section.—[Mr. Renton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I should point out that this new Clause is not introduced as a result of anything which was mentioned in Committee. It is intended to fill a gap in the Bill and to cure what might be considered quite important defects.
  As the House will remember there are many statutes dealing with landlord and tenant, the Agricultural Holdings Act, and various Scottish agricultural provisions, in which during their tenancies tenants may make improvements and at the end of their tenancies will be compensated by their landlords in respect of them, or may be entitled to remove the improvements if they are moveable. As the Bill stands at present, that does not fit in with the plan in the Bill because the general rule of the Bill is that compensation has to be payable either to the owner or to another person liable to make good the damage.
  Tenants, of course, are not owners and the position in law is that if they make improvements no one is liable to make good the damage. We had to think afresh about this matter, more especially as two rather unfortunate results would have occurred if we had not done anything about it. First, the tenant would have no power to serve a damage notice if his improvement had been damaged

  1375
  and the value payments would have gone to the landlord and not to the tenant. That is the first unfortunate result. The second is that where a value payment had been made when the tenancy fell in the tenant would only get compensation for the improvement in its damaged condition. He would not, therefore, even get the benefit of the Landlord and Tenant Act and of the various other Statutes that I have mentioned.
  The solution contained in this rather complicated provision of the new Clause is this. For the purpose of the Bill, the tenant shall be treated as a person liable to make good the damage to the improvement. Therefore, he is entitled to serve the damage notice, although otherwise he would not be liable to make good the damage. That is the simple solution, and I must apologise to the House for the fact that it has to be contained in such a very lengthy and such a very complicated Clause.
  The difficulty, of course, is that we have to dovetail the procedure under the Bill with the procedure under those other numerous enactments, which include the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927; the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948; the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1949; the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, and the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955.
  Not all of those Statutes have the same procedure for assessing the compensation due to the tenant, or even for deciding disputes which arise with regard to it. We have to ensure that disputes which will arise in respect of this matter now being introduced into the present Bill are decided in a way consistent not only with the Bill but with the various Statutes that I have mentioned, and the different procedures that they have.
  Perhaps I may just outline what we have done. I hope that the need for the first three subsections is plain from what I have already said. In subsection (4) we provide that any question as to whether or not a tenant is what we call, for the purpose of this Clause, "a protected tenant"—not to be confused with a protected tenant under the Rent Acts, but I think it is the best phrase that the Parliamentary draftsman can use—and any question as to the amount of compensation payable to him
  1376
  "…shall be determined in like matter as if it had arisen under the Act in question."
  Subsection (5) provides that when a damage notice has been served, the person serving it is to be treated as liable to make good the damage only if, within one month, he either obtains his landlord's consent or starts proceedings to establish his claim against his landlord under the appropriate Act, and he must notify the Board that he has done so.
  That brings in the landlord and the Board as to the position under, for example, both the Landlord and Tenant Act and under this Bill. Nothing is going on behind anybody's back if that is done. We obviously have to do this because, for instance, the National Coal Board cannot be expected to know whether or not a tenant is entitled to serve a damage notice. We have also to be sure that the Board's obligation under the Bill will arise only when the dispute between landlord and tenant has been settled. The subsection provides for that.
  Subsection (6) is more simple. It provides that proceedings under both the English and the Scottish Agricultural Holdings Acts will be deemed to have started when an arbitrator has been appointed, or when an application for the appointment of an arbitrator has been made to the appropriate agriculture Minister. Subsection (7) makes several consequential and purely drafting Amendments to the Scottish Acts which deal with small landholders and crofters. As I say, this new Clause is regrettably complicated, but I hope that its general intention commends itself to the House, and if any further explanation is required I will endeavour to give it to hon. Members.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his very clear exposition of this very complicated Clause. He has explained in five or ten minutes something which I, not being an expert on real property, tried to elucidate for nearly two hours. I could not visualise the circumstances in which the claims could arise by reason of the multifarious Acts under which, in fact, they can arise. The explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary has offered makes it clear that whoever had the drafting of the Clause ought to be mentioned in the Honours List, and I congratulate the hon. and

  1377
  learned Gentleman himself most heartily on his exposition.
  I have only one question to ask. Clause 5 (a) reads
  "either it is agreed between that person and the owner before the expiration of the period of one month from the first service of a damage notice in respect of the property, or it is determined in proceedings by virtue of the last foregoing subsection begun before the expiration of that period, that that person is a protected tenant in relation to that property."
  If no agreement is arrived at in that period, what is the effect?
  Mr. Renton: As I understand the position, if the tenant has started proceedings, and has notified the Board that he has started proceedings, nothing can happen with regard to the value payment under the Bill until those proceedings have been determined one way or another. I think that that is the right position because, to some extent, the amount of the value payment may depend upon findings of facts arrived at in those proceedings. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised a point which should be a subject of further thought, and I undertake that I will think about it still further. My own impression is that the position as I have described it is right, and satisfactory, and is fair to the tenant, but if, after further contemplation of the matter, I find that further elucidation is needed, I will take appropriate steps.
  Mr. Robens: When I first read rue Clause through to the end it meant precisely nothing to me. I therefore turned to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) who, besides having taken a great part in the proceedings on the Bill, advises me on legal matters. He assured me that the Clause was drafted with extreme clarity and was very well done. Not that I could understand it any better. However, I accept that it is a very well drafted Clause, and I see that opinion is reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). The Parliamentary Secretary explained it so very clearly that even people who, like myself, found it incomprehensible, saw at once that it was a very sound Clause.
  He indicated that it was undertaken by the Department and did not arise from anything said in Committee. Therefore, I would, first of all, thank him for having
  1378
  given this matter special attention—it shows his own close work in connection with the Bill—and say that obviously we would not seek to oppose the Second Reading of the new Clause. I presume, however—it is the one thing I could understand—that there is a printing error in line 23, and that the word "on" should be "of." I mention that just to make sure that the House understands that I did read the Clause.
  Mr. Renton: In the copy which I have I am unable to detect a mistake. It seems to me to be all right, but perhaps I may be allowed to think about this still further.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  New Clause.—(ANCIENT MONUMENTS.)
  Regulations shall be made by the Minister for the protection of ancient monuments likely to be affected by subsidence damage and in appropriate cases for the repair of such damage or for such restoration as may be reasonably practicable.—[Mr. Robens.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Robens: I beg to move, That cue Clause be read a Second time.
  We are inviting the Minister to produce Regulations which will protect ancient monuments which are likely to be affected by subsidence damage and, where it is not possible to provide against subsidence damage, to effect the appropriate repairs according to the value or antiquity of the ancient monument.
  We discussed this matter for a short time in Standing Committee, when the Minister said that he thought that procedure for the protection of ancient monuments had been overlooked and that i was important that they should be protected because, in most cases, they cannot be restored once damage has been done.
  We all agreed with what the Minister said. We all took the view that it was very desirable that ancient monuments should be protected as far as possible against damage as a result of mining subsidence, and that where there had been some damage then the repairs should be consistent with the character of the ancient monument. It means that the Minister would have to make very special provisions, because Clause 1 (2)

  1379
  says that the Coal Board should do such remedial work
  "as may be necessary to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used."
  A number of illustrations were given in Committee which showed that damage to an ancient monument might be repaired within the terms of the Clause which I have read, but they would, nevertheless, be the wrong repairs for an ancient monument. There was reference to the possibility of an old Norman church being damaged, having a roof fall and having the roof repaired easily with corrugated iron, just as the Guards' Chapel has been restored. That could not be regarded as the right sort of remedial repair, but, under the Bill, it is exactly what could be done, and the Coal Board would by that time have cleared off its obligation.
  Hadrian's Wall runs across a good deal of my constituency. Its original purpose no longer exists, but it acts as a division between fields and presumably in many cases marks the boundaries. If, as a result of mining subsidence, a good deal of it were destroyed, one could put up an iron fence, but it would be very incongruous in those circumstances. I could go on giving illustrations of how remedial measures could be taken which might enable the ancient monument to serve the purposes which it was serving before, but many illustrations will come to the minds of hon. Members.
  In short, the new Clause is designed in order that power should be given to the Minister to draw up some very special Regulations about ancient monuments. We are not even seeking to say what he ought to put in the Regulations; we regard that as a matter of good taste and common sense. Nevertheless, the power ought to exist, and I hope that the Minister will approve the Clause and that the House will accept it. It is a very reasonable Clause which must appeal to all those who want to see the retention of our ancient monuments and to see them properly preserved in this country. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the Clause. All it does is to give him power to make Regulations. I think that there should
  1380
  be such power, and I hope that the Minister will willingly take it when it is offered.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This question was considered at considerable length by the Turner Committee because we were very much concerned at the damage which could be done to what I think we referred to as our national heritage, and we were, of course, anxious that these ancient monuments should not be undermined. Our proposals, which are familiar to hon. Members, were that the purpose of the new Clause should be met by what we described as the key points principle. The key points were, of course, very much wider in ambit than ancient monuments. The principle was designed to cover all sorts of important objects, which might be ancient monuments or might be reservoirs or factories, for instance.
  In dealing with this question, we should be very careful indeed to see that we are not too narrow in what we propose. I raised this question on Second Reading, and in reply to the debate my hon. Friend said—I think rightly—that the position has changed somewhat from the time of the Turner Committee recommendations in that the Town and Country Planning Acts have come into much greater force and effect and we know much more how they will work. He said that this question of protection is better taken care of as part of the Town and Country Planning Act machinery than under a Bill primarily designed to deal with damage done by the working of coal when coal is worked.
  If I may say so, I thought that that was a valid answer, and I have not pursued the matter at any stage since. I believe that the right way to deal with this problem is not under the Bill but under the machinery of the Town and Country Planning Acts. On the whole, that machinery is working fairly well, and not many complaints are made that important aesthetic objects are being undermined and damaged.
  Mr. Oliver: Does it not depend wholly on the nature of the historic monument or historic building whether it comes within the province and the purview of the Town and Country Planning Acts?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I agree with the hon. and learned Member, and I am 100 per cent. in agreement with the principle

  1381
  that anything which is an ancient monument ought to receive absolute protection.
  Mr. Robens: I see the argument that the Town and Country Planning Acts could probably prevent coal mining operations which might cause damage, but assuming that there is damage to an ancient monument, would not the hon. Member agree that there is nothing within the provisions of the town and country planning legislation which will compel the Coal Board to do the kind of repair which is necessary when an ancient monument has been damaged despite all the care taken in extraction?
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I had not appreciated, when the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was moving the Second Reading of his new Clause, that he was considering that case. I agree that there is some room there for questions to he asked, and I shall listen with great interest to what my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says in reply to the debate.
  As I understand it, the new Clause is primarily designed to give ancient monuments absolute protection; if it is not, I think that it ought to be. The difficulty is that there is a great deal besides ancient monuments which ought to be protected. There are many buildings of the utmost importance in isolated communitites which should receive protection, and we all know that in many coal mining areas the communities are isolated and have not ready access to other parts. I should, therefore, be sorry to see one particular class of building alone receive treatment which, I think, ought to be generally available to all buildings which could be described as coming within the category of key points. For that reason, I should not support the new Clause. I should not like to have to vote against it, and I hope that it will not be pressed.
  I ask my hon. Friend to say that it is the view of the Government that ancient monuments ought to be protected. If he cannot give an answer to the particular question put by the right hon. Member for Blyth, I hope that he will say that the Government will further consider the matter before the Bill reaches another place.
  Mr. George: My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) says that, instead of giving protection through the Bill for ancient monuments, that could well be left in the hands of the town and country planning authorities. I have been following what my hon. Friend has said with great interest, and I should like his help on this question In my recollection, the town planning authorities have control only over new mining, but have no control over old mines, so that they could not be the appropriate authorities in the second case, if damage to ancient monuments occurred.
  Mr. Oliver: The new Clause is, I think, rather narrowly drawn. The expression "ancient monument" is not sufficiently comprehensive, and such things as buildings of historic importance ought to have been included. If the Parliamentary Secretary will cast his mind back to the Committee stage, he will recall that what is asked for in my right hon. Friend's new Clause is needed as a result of the wording of Clause 1 (2):
  "Subject to the provisions of this Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of any subsidence damage, the National Coal Board…shall execute such works …as may be necessary to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use…"
  One could not very well restore an ancient monument or building of historic importance by making it "reasonably fit for use" because we do not know what its use is; it may well have nothing but aesthetic value. If those words had not been introduced, to govern practically all the conditions in relation to mining subsidence, it would not, perhaps, have been necessary to move the new Clause at all.
  Mr. Renton: I find myself in the unusual position of being able to give satisfaction to every hon. Gentleman who has spoken on every point which has been made, but without having to accept the new Clause.
  The new Clause raises two quite separate matters in regard to ancient monuments only. First of all, there is the question of protecting ancient monuments, and, secondly, there is the question of their repair and restoration in the unfortunate event of their being damaged. We can, of course, all agree that ancient monuments are an irreplaceable part of our heritage and that, when legislating on

  1383
  any subject, we should do all we can to protect them.
  I assure the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that ancient monuments can be, and are already, fully protected by means of the planning legislation. We have several sets of circumstances to bear in mind. I will mention the example of ancient monuments lying, or standing—whatever it may be—on the surface under which coal is already being worked. That was the basis of a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George). Even in such cases the local planning authority can issue a direction under Article IV of the General Development Order, bringing any further coal working there under planning control. Thus, even in cases like that where at first sight it might be thought that the position is irretrievable, the local planning authority can act, if it has reason to believe that the ancient monument might be jeopardised.
  In view of the well working machinery which has been established between local authorities and the National Coal Board in order to inform local planning authorities of the progress of coal workings, I should have thought that there ought not to be any difficulty about keeping local authorities informed of any possible danger.
  Next, we have to consider the protection of ancient monuments standing on land under which, so far, there has been no coal working. In regard to such cases, the House will remember that an application for planning permission is necessary. If it is found that the working of the coal would destroy, damage or interfere with an ancient monument, the local planning authority can refuse planning permission altogether if it wishes. There have been cases where planning authorities have done that. There was one example at Asbury Hall in Derbyshire, where planning permission to work coal underneath was refused altogether, even though it meant a loss of no less than 500,000 tons of coal. That is a good example.
  There are other cases where a local planning authority can say, "We do not refuse planning permission altogether. We will grant it on certain conditions." The conditions may involve, for instance,
  1384
  underpinning, sometimes very expensive underpinning. That may very well meet the point.
  I say, therefore, that there is already full provision for the protection of ancient monuments. The law is there, administered by the people best able to administer it, namely the local planning authorities themselves. They have a special duty in the protection of ancient monuments under the Town and Country Planning Act; they have, indeed, to schedule a great many of them. But their responsibility is not limited to that, nor indeed are their desires or opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked about buildings which are not ancient monuments, but which, nevertheless, ought to be protected by the planning procedure. The answer to his question is simple. If the local planning authority thinks that any such building ought to be protected, it can either refuse planning permission, or, as I say, grant it subject to conditions. Any building, can, therefore, be protected.
  As to the question of restoration and repair, I quite appreciate the difficulty which was at first sight felt by the hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) who asked how an ancient monument could, by being repaired, be made
  "reasonably fit for use for the purpose for which at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used."
  I hope that this is not too much a matter of argument, but what I suggest to the House is that it is possible to restore an ancient monument in a way which would retain its interest and value as an ancient monument. After all, if it is a thing of beauty and no more, one can say that it is being made fit for the purpose for which it was expected to be used, which was to be looked at and enjoyed by people.
  Mr. Oliver: That is straining the language a little, is it not?
  Mr. Renton: I am advised that it is not straining the language, and I submit to the House that it is not doing so.
  The right hon. Member for Blyth particularly asked me to answer a question which he put. He referred, for example, to the Guards' Chapel. The

  1385
  analogy is not perfect because, obviously, it was a temporary restoration to enable the chapel to be continued in use. That did not mean that it would not one day be properly restored. Sometimes when mining subsidence damage occurs to an ancient monument it may be necessary to do some temporary patching up. But, in our view, that would not be complying with Clause 1 (2), and proper restoration would be required in order to comply with that subsection.
  Mr. Robens: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he means by Clause 1 (2) covering it? Secondly, does he really say that the words:
  "…as may be sufficient to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use£"
  cover the question of repair of ancient monuments?
  Mr. Renton: I do say that. The National Coal Board has a duty under this subsection to render the ancient monument reasonably fit for that purpose. It may have to restore it in a way which would retain its interest and value as an ancient monument; that is what the National Coal Board must do in order to comply with the subsection.
  Mr. Robens: May I come back to the question of the Guards' Chapel? The purpose for which the chapel is used is that of religious services. It has been restored and the purpose is now adequately served by what has been done, but no one would say that that is how the chapel should remain permanently. In the Bill, the words do not say anything other than that it would be restored fit for the purpose, not that it shall have an aesthetic beauty or anything of that character, but merely that it shall have functional repair.
  Mr. Renton: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman because he has illustrated the matter further and drawn attention in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of other hon. Members, to the fact that ancient monuments frequently have a dual purpose. They have a function, such as that of a cathedral or a bridge, but they also have a function derived merely from the fact that they are ancient monuments, part of the national heritage and something that people want to see and enjoy. When the word "purposes" is used in Clause 1 (2) we are advised that
  1386
  it does not have a limited meaning. It does not mean merely functional purposes. It does not merely mean purposes as an ancient monument; it means purposes in an unlimited sense. That being so, to take the example of damage to an ancient church, it would be necessary to restore it in such a way as not merely to enable church services to be held there in future as they have been in the past, but also to restore it in such a way as to preserve, so far as physically can be done, the ancient character and appearances of the building. I hope that explanation satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Robens: I would he perfectly satisfied with the explanation provided that the hon. and learned Gentleman were the judge of the county court when an issue like this was being discussed, but I cannot believe that if the matter really arose, and action was taken, good lawyers could not argue that, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman had said in this House, it had been restored fit for the purpose for which it was used before, and on that basis that was all the legal obligation on the Coal Board.
  Mr. Renton: Very well, if that is how the right hon. Gentleman feels—and I can quite understand his feelings—I will have another look at this to see, in order to make abundantly plain that no county court judge could misunderstand the position, that the word "purposes" is, if necessary, further defined so as to make sure that a dual purpose, a purpose as an ancient monument as well as a functional purpose, is what is contemplated when defining this obligation.
  Mr. Ede: What we want to avoid is having the kind of restoration by which so many Victorians restored quite good medieval churches for the purpose of continuing to carry on the form of worship, but completely destroyed the whole atmosphere of the place and ruined some of our best architectural monuments.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Renton: I am not a Victorian; I am an Edwardian. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a Victorian and, therefore, I must not express my feelings about some of the things the Victorians did. I do most heartily agree with him—and indeed it is what we all desire—that the original beauty of an ancient monument should be so far as possible restored.

  1387
  Bearing in mind that we have the town and country planning legislation to give protection, that we have this Bill to provide for restoration and repairs, and that I gave the undertaking that we will look at the meaning of the word "purposes" in order to see whether it is adequate for what the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of us have in mind, I trust that with that explanation the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to press the new Clause.
  Mr. T. Brown: The question that I am going to put to the Parliamentary Secretary may appear to be rather funny. I am fully aware that under Clause 8 churches and ecclesiastical property are covered. We are asking for regulations to protect ancient monuments. Not very far from where I live we have a very ancient and beautiful church. Just outside the gates leading to the church are medieval stocks which were used to put people in. If those are damaged by the proposed new colliery at Parkside will it be possible to claim compensation for damage to the stocks?
  Mr. Renton: I think that is a hypothetical example and I really ought not to give an opinion without a very full inquiry into the circumstances.
  Mr. Ede: Supposing the stocks are scheduled as an ancient monument?
  Mr. Renton: If the stocks are scheduled as an ancient monument what I have already said would apply.
  Mr. Robens: I wish merely to say that I accept wholeheartedly what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I would, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause.—(RIGHT TO REFER CLAIMS TO THE MINISTER.)
  Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act a person having a claim for subsidence damage against the National Coal Board shall have the right to refer the matter to the Minister for decision instead of having the decision made in the courts.—[Mr. Proctor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why the new Clause "Supply of plans and information to local authorities, &c." standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends, was not called? I know that I am not
  1388
  entitled, under Standing Orders, to ask for an explanation, but this is a special case. Some local authorities have asked for this Clause to be pressed. In view of the special circumstances, will you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to say why it has not been called.
  Mr. Speaker: I take the view that the Clause cannot be selected because it was discussed in Committee and there was a Division on it. The purpose of Report, as the hon. Member will know, is not to do over again the work of the Committee, but to tidy up the Bill after the Committee has made certain Amendments to it.
  Mr. Proctor: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time. The new Clause in my name arises out of the experience we have had in the administration of the previous Act. I should like to press the Minister again to consider this matter. We give everyone who considers that he suffers damages rights under this Bill, but I think that we should make those rights available without too great a risk. A person can have rights under the Bill only if he is capable of asserting his rights in the law courts. It is expensive and very difficult for an ordinary person to take up a controversy with a great organisation like the Coal Board, which has such immense and overwhelming resources, expert and technical advice. The ordinary individual has no help except his own resources.
  A claimant should, in the terms of the Clause, have the right to refer the matter to the Minister and ask for his decision on the facts of the case. Most of the mining experts are employed by the Coal Board. I doubt whether many mining engineers are employed elsewhere. Therefore, the possibility of getting expert witnesses outside the ranks of the Board is remote.
  When a person whose claim is rejected by the Coal Board asks the Minister of Power to decide the issue, the Minister would not conduct the investigation personally, but would appoint an expert assessor to consider the facts. All that the assessor would have to do would be to decide whether the damage was caused by mining subsidence. That is the point of controversy in the cases of which I have experience and it is a matter for an expert witness to decide. There seems

  1389
  to me no reason why, if so requested by an individual, the Minister should not appoint an assessor to deal with the case.
  I have referred earlier to two cases in which the persons concerned, although convinced of the soundness of their case, were not in a position financially to take their case to court. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that if they were not sufficiently endowed with the goods of this world, they would be able to obtain assistance from the State through free legal aid. Those cases are at present being considered through that medium. The claimants, however, would be quite willing for the Minister to appoint an expert assessor to decide whether the damage was due to mining subsidence, in which case the Coal Board would be responsible.
  I remind the Minister that it is extremely difficult for the ordinary person to secure the benefit of expert knowledge. When a claim is rejected, the individual has no right to apply to the Coal Board for the facts. He cannot examine a witness unless one is brought into court. By our suggestion, the Minister could send an assessor to examine the case from a much better viewpoint than if an expert witness had to be brought into court and the facts obtained from him by cross-examination.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to second the Motion.
  The object of the Clause is to minimise litigation and in case of dispute to refer questions to the Minister, in whom on matters of this kind we have complete confidence. Here again, it is the local authority who have pressed for this course to be pursued.
  We had a good discussion in Committee, but we made the mistake of proposing to refer disputes to Ministers. We have been advised that it would be better in cases of dispute to refer the matter to the Minister primarily responsible—that is, the Minister of Power That is the reason for our proposal, which we hope will be accepted.
  As I have said earlier, the more that ordinary people can avoid litigation the better. The average person is nervous of entering into disputes of this nature. People are apt to accept what officials tell them without pursuing the matter, often
  1390
  with the result that they suffer unnecessarily. If in the case of dispute there could be a representative, whether a trade union official, an employers' association official or a Member of Parliament, who could take the matter right through to the Minister, this would be more democratic, would give more satisfaction and would avoid unnecessary cost.
  I will quote only two of a number of cases. One of them has been going on for several years. I have photographs showing the seriousness of the damage. Disputes arose over decoration. The opinion of one of the officials who handled the matter was that if the room was dealt with simply by washing the walls and filling in the cracks that would be satisfactory treatment. Most people, however, including, I am sure, the Minister, would agree that that was not satisfactory.
  If I remember aright, the view expressed by the Minister in Committee was that the property should be at least restored to its state of repair and decoration prior to damage from mining subsidence. Most people would accept that view as reasonable, but, unfortunately, one meets the exceptional official. I am not making a wholesale indictment of officials. I have had too much experience of dealing with them. In the main, they are reasonable men who will make reasonable interpretations. There is, however, the exception, and it is the exceptional official for whom we must make provision. That is why we urge that in the event of dispute, cases should be referred to the Minister.
  In another case, which has been proceeding for some years, the house has been subject to mining subsidence on two or three occasions. The owners of the house have been advised to take legal proceedings. They are sick and tired of their experience. It has undermined their health and affected their employment. They have been moved out of their house on several occasions. They have employed a chartered architect and the best legal advice. Now they are right up against it. In the opinion of a number of municipal officers, the whole of their expenditure should have been covered.
  In Committee, I gave the cost of decoration of another house as £50. I have since discovered that the cost was

  1391
  £70 in one year. In cases of this description, instead of resorting to the whole procedure of litigation, and rather than have dispute after dispute, it would be better to go direct to the Minister and say, "This is a case which has been dealt with. We have taken it through every stage. We do not want to resort to the legal procedure. We have confidence in you and we want you now to adjudicate." We are confident that in cases of that kind, that is the best procedure.
  People who get involved in cases like these follow the judicial procedure until the stage is reached when they decide that the cost is too great and they must drop the claim. Instead, it would be better to allow the Member of Parliament to go to the Minister rather than that the claimant be forced to go to law or adopt other methods. For these reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and I, together with the support we have received from local authorities, have introduced the Clause.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. T. Brown: I support my hon. Friends because they have indicated that we are anxious not to overtax the opportunities or to put too much work upon the Minister. This will reveal, too, to the right hon. Gentleman that we have every confidence in him when we suggest that cases in dispute, instead of going to the law courts, should be submitted to him. It has been sweet reasonableness that has characterised the Minister throughout the proceedings on this Bill—
  Mr. Roy Mason: He will not be there all the time, though.
  Mr. Brown: I agree that there may be changes, but if we can get the Minister to deal with one or two cases, his successor will certainly follow suit. However, that is for the future and it cannot be determined now.
  The salient point is that we are anxious to prevent people who have very little money—decent, honest, good citizens who have worked hard to get their own houses and who have found that events have materialised differently from what they expected—from having to go to the law courts. We have evidence, which was submitted by the
  1392
  Parliamentary Secretary in the course of our proceedings in Committee, that out of 76,000 applications for compensation only two cases have had to go to court. So experience has shown that there are very few of these cases.
  It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has said, that we are anxious to save people undue anxiety or worry through fearing that they must take their case to the law courts. I will quote one such case where there was a dispute. After months and months of wrangling and correspondence it was settled, but during those months the old chap who owned the house was in fear and trembling about what would happen. He was an old-age pensioner who augmented his income by letting that house. Owing to subsidence, the tenant left and he cannot relet the house, thus losing part of his livelihood. If he had possessed the wherewithal, he could have taken the National Coal Board to court and have had the case adjudicated on by a judge and assessor, but he had not and so he could not do so.
  All that this Clause proposes is that when negotiations have taken place in the locality as to how the house has been damaged, and the amount of damage done, and there is failure to reach agreement by consent, the case should be submitted to the Minister. After all, he has technical advice available in the Department and in the regions upon which he can call. He can examine the plans and the evidence and can then say from his wide experience, and on the evidence submitted, that in his judgment there is a case on which he can adjudicate, and this will avoid taking it to court. That is all we are asking, it is simple, and I think that the Minister should concede the Clause.
  Mr. Renton: During the Committee stage I undertook to consider this narrow point as to whether or not, in those cases in which it is necessary to decide whether the damage was caused by mining subsidence, it would not be possible for that issue, and that issue alone, to be considered by the Minister or by somebody appointed by him, instead of being decided by the courts under the procedure in Clause 9 of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend and I have given the matter careful consideration and I

  1393
  want to be candid with the House about it. It is not just as easy as saying that the matter shall be referred to the Minister. If it was so referred he would have to appoint somebody to hear it. It is a question not merely of finding somebody who has mining experience and knowledge, but of finding several people who have had experience of deciding matters judicially, because there might be a number of these cases to be decided in different parts of the country. There would have to be arguments and evidence presented by both sides.
  In other words, all that one would be doing would be to establish yet another ministerial or administrative tribunal. We have a vast number of them already, and they do not all give that satisfaction to which the hon. Gentlemen have referred, and as people hope when they go before them. On balance, we have come to the conclusion that it would be both cheaper, simpler and quicker, and altogether more satisfactory, for people to use the traditional method of the courts for deciding this issue, than to establish yet another procedure.
  I assure hon. Gentlemen that we have given careful consideration to this matter. I said during the Committee stage that my undertaking was given very cautiously. In retrospect, I am glad that I said it.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Before the Minister sits down, could he consider the following? Often the Ministry will say—I am not talking about this one—"Oh, well, there is something in this, we will make an ex gratia payment." When we find ourselves up against such a situation, would it not be reasonable to suggest that the Minister should say, "There is something in this. Rather than allow it to proceed to court, cannot we get round a table and settle it?" If it can be done, would not that be the better way?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a fundamental difficulty in this matter. To quote his words, the Ministry will say, "We will make an ex gratia payment in this case." In fact, of course, it is the National Coal Board which will have obligations under the Bill and which will make the payments. The National Coal Board is an independent statutory corporation appointed by the Minister, but the Minister must not interfere with its day-to-day administration. It follows that we must not place
  1394
  the Minister in the position of virtually dictating to the National Coal Board as to whether or not it ought to make an ex gratia payment in a specific case.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Unhesitatingly, I accept all that explanation, but it is based upon a wrong premise. What I said was that we get cases of dispute where a Ministry will say, "We will make an ex gratia payment." I suggest that in such cases it would be better for the Minister to say, "Rather than allow this to proceed to the courts, I will suggest to the National Coal Board that it should look at this again in order to avoid further litigation expenses."
  Mr. Renton: No, Sir, with great respect, that is placing the Minister of Power, and those who advise him, in an extremely difficult position. After all, experience of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, has shown that those who handle these matters on the part of the Coal Board, although they do not always give satisfaction, have for the main part managed to settle some thousands of claims without there being any necessity at all for going to court. In that comparatively small number of cases which arise, it is much better for there to be a perfectly clear cut rule that these matters of dispute shall be decided by the courts, as envisaged by the Bill.
  Mr. Proctor: The hon. and learned Member said that a very small number of cases go to court. The cases we are envisaging would not go to court in any event because the prospective litigants do not have the money to take them to court. Those people feel that they cannot take the risk of fighting the Coal Board in the courts. There may be thousands of such cases, and it is no argument to say that only two have gone to litigation. There are two people in my constituency who will not go to court about this sort of case. Certainly the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider, on the narrow point of deciding whether there is a liability, whether an assessor appointed by the Minister would not be the better arrangement.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member has said that people concerned could not afford to go to court. If they cannot afford to go to court with the aid of the Legal Aid Scheme, they are not likely to be able to afford—in fact, they are less

  1395
  likely to be able to afford—to take part in a hearing before the Minister—because it would have to be a hearing before the Minister's representative—in which the Legal Aid Scheme would not apply.
  I hope that nobody will accuse my right hon. Friend or myself of lacking patience and thoroughness in this matter, but this is a matter which has been very strongly pressed. The Chairman of the Standing Committee showed great indulgence in allowing me to go as far as I did in discussing the merits of the Legal Aid Scheme as it applies to the proceedings under this Bill, but I should be raising false hopes in the minds of hon. Members opposite if I were now to say that after all the consideration we have given there is any hope of there being a concession in this matter.
  Question put and negatived.

  Clause 1.—(DUTY OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD IN RESPECT OF SUBSIDENCE DAMAGF.)
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page I, line 6, to leave out "commencement" and to insert "passing".
  This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance by the House of a new Clause introducing a measure of retrospection. At present, Clause 1 (1) says:
  "This Act shall apply in relation to any subsidence damage occurring after the commencement of this Act…"
  Until we passed the new Clause to which I have referred. "commencement of the Act" and "passing of the Act" meant the same thing. However, it might now be held that the Act commences on 1st January, 1956, from when the retrospection Clause operates. The Amendment is to make it clear that although the special category to which retrospection applies will begin to operate on the day stated, the rest of the provisions will come into effect with the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. R. Williams: I certainly think that the Amendment should be accepted. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that if we accept the Amendment, we shall have a Clause talking about the Bill applying to damage occurring after the passing of the Bill and a Clause referring to it applying to damage occurring before the passing of the Bill. I mention that to
  1396
  leave the Paymaster-General with the thought that he may later need a paving Amendment to take up the two points.
  Amendment agreed to.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8 after "damage", to insert:
  "(including an alteration of the level or gradient of property not otherwise damaged such as to affect the fitness of that property for use for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection)".
  It may be convenient with this Amendment to take that in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "land" to the end of line 11 and to insert:
  "not being damage to that land only as the site of an existing building or structure or of existing works such as are mentioned in the two foregoing paragraphs and being damage such as to affect the fitness of that land for use for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that will be convenient.
  Mr. Maudling: The purpose of the Amendments is to clear up a doubt raised in Committee. The doubt was whether a drain pipe, for example, which was tilted by subsidence but not actually cracked or fractured and which did not do its job and where the contents of the drain ran in the wrong direction had suffered subsidence damage within the meaning of the Bill. The Amendments are intended to make it perfectly clear that even if there is no fracture of a service pipe, if the change in gradient is such as to affect its fitness for proper purposes, compensation will arise accordingly.
  Mr. R. Williams: These Amendments should be accepted and, in suggesting that they should be, note should be taken of the fact that the Minister has honourably carried out the undertaking he gave in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 5, leave out from "land" to end of line 11 and insert:
  "not being damage to that land only as the site of an existing building or structure or of existing works such as are mentioned in the two foregoing paragraphs and being damage such as to affect the fitness of that land for use for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection".—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with".
  It may be convenient with this Amendment to take the two Amendments in page 2, that in line 16, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with" and the other in line 20, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That will be convenient.
  Mr. Maudling: The Amendments follow a general discussion in Committee when I was asked whether subsidence damage would cover damage caused by the dewatering of worked-out seams. I said at the time that the Bill did that, but after further consideration and discussion with my legal advisers, I came to the conclusion that we would be quite certain that dewatering was covered by putting "in connection with" rather than "as a result of". The purpose of the Amendments is for the avoidance of doubt.
  Mr. R. Williams: I am happy to say that on this side of the House we feel that by a neat piece of drafting the Paymaster-General has carried out a promise and we shall be happy to support the Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out "as the result of" and insert "in connection with".
  In line 20, leave out "as the result of" and insert in connection with".—[Mr. Mauding.]
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert:
  In this subsection the expression "works" includes works of redecoration.
  This Amendment concerns a point which was much discussed in Committee and to which many hon. Members paid considerable attention. The question is whether the remedial works which the National Coal Board are called upon to perform under Clause 1 (2) include redecoration. In Committee I expressed the opinion that they certainly included redecoration. For example, to replace a wall with merely plain brickwork and no decoration would not be proper remedial work. The purpose of the insertion
  1398
  is to make it quite clear that the remedial work to be done includes the work of redecoration.
  The extent of the redecoration is governed by the rest of the subsection. In other words, the work will be such works
  "as may be necessary to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used."
  There is a proviso referring to the Board's not having to restore the property to a better state than it was before. The principles that were involved and which we discussed to a considerable extent in Committee are not involved here. The Amendment makes it clear that the work includes work of redecoration.
  Mr. Roy Mason: I am very much obliged to the Minister for meeting us on this point. We stressed the matter in Committee and were most adamant that the word "decoration" should be inserted in the Bill. We have had a lot of trouble on this point in the past, but the Minister has at least given us a hope for the future.
  Nevertheless, I want to draw his attention to the way in which the subsection will read as amended. As Mr. Speaker said earlier, the purpose of the Report stage is to tidy up the Bill. But I have never seen words of such a maze-like character, which would tend to make even a lawyer dizzy after reading them. Before anyone can claim under the subsections he must correctly interpret the meaning of the words:
  "render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used."
  I can only repeat the words I uttered in Committee, when I said:
  "one feels almost like a punch-drunk boxer reeling from the ring as one tries to wind oneself round all the eventualities and circumstances which might, in a given case, have to be taken into consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th April, 1957, c 192.]
  There is still room for tidying up the subsection. I seriously suggest that in line 29 the word "reasonably" could be

  1399
  cut out, so that the subsection would read:
  "render the damaged property fit for use for the purposes"
  and so on. Secondly, I suggest that in lines 31–32 the words:
  "or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used"
  could be altered to read:
  "at the date immediately before the damage occurred it could be expected to be used."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would point out that he should have proposed all these Amendments if he wanted them to be made. We are now discussing only the Amendment that has been moved.
  Mr. Mason: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am just as keen as the Minister, other hon. Members and yourself that on Report the Bill should be tidied up. This is the only point at which I can argue about tidying up this untidy subsection. I suggest that to tidy up the subsection, half-way along line 29—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is putting himself out of order. We are now discussing only the Amendment. If the hon. Member had wanted other words inserted he should have proposed the necessary Amendments at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Mason: I am sorry to continue this argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. All I can say is that I want to make a final appeal to the Minister, when he is making an attempt to tidy up the Bill finally, to break through this jungle of legal jargon and make the subsection more understandable not only to hon. Members, and particularly learned Members, but to people outside, so that everyone can understand it when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We realise that we are on the Report stage and that we are therefore confined to relatively narrow arguments. We must speak to what is in the Bill and what is proposed in any Amendment. We have done that up to now and I shall try to carry on in that way so that I can remain in order. If it were only the Minister who was going to interpret the meaning of the subsection I should be quite confident about the
  1400
  position, but I am a little unsure about the effect of these words, since they are open to several interpretations.
  I do not blame the Minister for looking at me in that way, because he will have obtained the best legal advice. I have great respect for the legal man and it is not up to me to challenge the draftsmen, who are so well versed in the preparation of Bills and Amendments that it ill-becomes a man like me to challenge their words, but I have had sufficient experience of this kind of thing to know that unless the words of a Bill are very carefully drawn, if the meaning of a subsection is disputed and the matter goes to court the judge will say that it is what is in the Bill that matters and not what one party or the other wants to be in the Bill.
  It is not what Mr. Deputy-Speaker thinks, or what the Minister thinks, or what any hon. Member thinks; it is what is in the Bill that counts. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the matter again and to see if he cannot draw the subsection in such a way that the very small minority of officials about whom I am concerned will interpret the subsection in the way the Minister desires it to be interpreted, in the matter of redecoration.
  Mr. Oliver: I am glad that the Minister has inserted these words. The Ministry of Fuel and Power issued a little leaflet explaining quite clearly that the words used in the 1950 Statute mean that decoration is included. Notwithstanding that instruction, many disputes have occurred, even in my area, where the relationship between the Coal Board and the general public is quite good. Controversies frequently arise about the question of redecoration.
  I am glad that these words have been inserted, because their presence will remove a lot of unnecessary argument and disagreement. During the Committee stage hon. Members on this side of the House were concerned with the position regarding dwelling-houses, but I see that the Minister has widened the scope. As I read the words, the decoration of offices, shops and buildings of that kind, if damage occurs and decoration becomes necessary, are included. Although we were originally concerned more with the question of private houses, we are grateful for that.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. T. Brown: It is true to say that the question whether a house has been correctly redecorated has caused more trouble, anxiety and ill-feeling than any other part of the remedial work done by the Coal Board; because one man's idea of redecorating is not the same as another, although both may occupy the same position and work for the same authority. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to insert these words. It will make it easier to come to a proper understanding about whether a house has been decorated to the satisfaction of the people who have to live in it.
  In these enlightened days I can scarcely imagine a Coal Board official saying to a tenant who has a claim against the Board that if a crack has been made good and the bricks daubed with whitewash, that is good enough. We live in an age when such ideas are old-fashioned and unsatisfactory. In these days we must conform with modern ideas. I am not arguing that an ordinary miner's cottage should be decorated luxuriously with heavy, embossed wallpaper, but I maintain that the property should be restored to the condition in which it was before the damage occurred. That would not be an expensive job, but it would content the tenant.
  I wish, therefore, to express my appreciation to the Minister because, although he has not solved the problem, he has gone a long way to providing that degree of contentment for the tenant, and we welcome that. I hope that officials of the Coal Board will read what has been said not because I have said it, but because hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced a great deal of trouble and anxiety over the interpretation of what is the proper way to redecorate a house. The approach of Coal Board officials in the past has been niggardly.
  Mr. Maudling: The purpose of these words is to make it absolutely clear that remedial work includes redecoration. The hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) is right in saying that this goes beyond dwelling-houses. While this makes it clear that there is an obligation to redecorate, it does not follow that in every case the people concerned will be satisfied.
  Reference has been made to the leaflet which was distributed a short while ago,
  1402
  and perhaps hon. Members will be interested to know that we are considering the possibility of issuing a similar leaflet after the Bill becomes law. If that is done, I shall make sure that all hon. Members who have a constituency interest in this matter receive copies
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after "large," to insert:
  "or a highway in Scotland managed and maintained by the Secretary of State or by a county or town council."
  This is a drafting Amendment made necessary because, in Scotland, highways have never been repairable by the inhabitants at large as has been the case in England since the Middle Ages, although that does not mean to say that there are no inhabitants at large in Scotland.
  In Scotland, the highway is repaired or managed and maintained, to use the phrase which they prefer, by the Secretary of State or by the county council or town council, and, therefore, the words proposed in the Amendment are necessary.
  Mr. R. Williams: When any question of Scottish law arises I take every opportunity to declare that I am completely ignorant of Scottish law and that I am dependent on the advice of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House who have experience of it. Upon their advice I say that this appears to cover the position as it arises in Scotland. If that be so, and it is not questioned by any Scottish Member, we shall give this Amendment our support.
  Mr. George: I am glad that this change is made because the absence of these words gave rise to some anxiety. I wonder whether the whole purpose has been changed because, obviously, the intention is to cover everyone concerned and in Scotland many by-ways and rights of way have been taken over by district councils. Perhaps the words "district council" should also appear.
  Mr. William Hamilton: As the only Scottish Member present on this side of the House, may I thank the Minister for inserting these words? They could have been omitted only by an Englishman and suggested only by a Scotsman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. R. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, after "not", to insert
  "in the opinion of the Minister".
  We discussed this point during the Committee stage of the Bill and I was under the impression that the Minister had accepted that, as they stand, the words are unintelligible, or nearly so. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that they were almost otiose and I agree with him. I think that we must look at them again. In page 3, in line 18, are the words:
  "where for any reason it is not in the public interest that the Board should themselves execute the remedial works."
  How can we decide whether for any reason it is not in the public interest? On whose authority must we say that there is a dispute? Are we to go before the court and ask the county court judge to decide that it is not in the public interest? Or are we to say that, because public authorities will be concerned, if they and the Board are satisfied that it is in the public interest, then it is, in fact, in the public interest? The difficulty here is that these words as they stand are quite obviously meaningless, because there must be an authority to decide whether it is in the public interest or not.
  We have complete confidence as to where the authority should reside here, because there will be nobody who will be better qualified to consider the position, both in relation to the local authorities, where they are concerned, the Board itself and the public, than the Minister himself. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that that is too great a responsibility to rest upon his own Ministry, it is quite open to him to say that he cannot accept our Amendment, but will consider, between now and a later stage of the Bill, the question of it being decided by joint consultation between himself and other Ministers. But unless there is some authority to decide what is in the public interest, the point remains at large.
  We accepted the proposal of the Minister when he put an Amendment into the Bill in Committee to include the words—
  "where for any reason it is not in the public interest"
  and we accepted it on a clear understanding that he would look at the matter again and introduce something which would quite clearly bring out its meaning.
  1404
  We are not against the Minister on this point, but seeking to give him more power, apparently, than he wants himself, and if anything that I can say will overcome his diffidence I will continue to press the argument.
  I wish to say as clearly as I can that if this Amendment is not accepted, and if nothing is done to alter the words appearing in line 18 in Clause 1, the Bill will go out with an absolutely meaningless phrase in it.
  Mr. Renton: As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) has said, this is a difficult point. That was acknowledged by my right hon. Friend when he dealt with the matter in Committee, when he said that he would have a look at it again. Although it is a difficult point, it does not mean to say that automatically one can find an easy solution to it. The very fact that it is difficult means that it is difficult to find a solution, and we have found it so.
  We do not accept the solution put forward by the hon. Gentleman. As the Bill now stands, a dispute as to whether or not it is in the public interest for the Coal Board to do the remedial work itself or make a cost of works payment, in these cases which are dealt with in subsection (3), will be decided by the courts under Clause 9, as will other disputes under Clause 1. This question of the public interest arises not in relation to the ordinary citizen and domestic householder. It arises when the Coal Board finds that it has to repair or make a cost of works payment for the property of public authorities.
  8.15 p.m.
  The sort of issue which may arise is this. We will assume that the property of a water undertaking has been damaged and has to be repaired. We will also assume that, for public health reasons, access to the property of the water undertaking—to a particular reservoir, shall we say?—has to be very carefully controlled because of the danger of contamination. I do not think that a county court judge, if that point is put to him by the water undertaking, in the unlikely event of a dispute, would have great difficulty in finding that that is not a suitable case for the Coal Board to do the repairs itself. Therefore, he would come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest that the water

  1405
  undertaker rather than the Board should do the work. That is only one hypothetical case.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. and learned Friend has said that it is only in the case of a public authority. The difficulty that I feel about it is that, as I understand these words, they are quite general in their application. It may be the intention of the Government only to use this provision in that case, but there is nothing that I can see that would limit them.
  Mr. Renton: In practice, I am advised that disputes in which this issue has to be decided cannot arise in the case of the ordinary individual, but that they will arise only in the cases of public authorities and large undertakings; that, in the case of the ordinary individual, there will never be any question of it being contrary to the public interest that the Coal Board should carry out the remedial works in the ordinary way.
  Mr. R. Williams: Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the possibility, if he does not like our Amendment, of making it clear in the Bill that they are so limited, and that it is only in that class of case that the question will arise whether or not it is in the public interest? That, of course, under Clause 9, will fall to the county court judge to decide. It is simply a question of our making it specific and quite clear, and if the Parliamentary Secretary rests his case upon that, he will find nothing but the most conciliatory spirit from this side of the House in co-operating with him to see that the Bill is made better in this respect.
  Mr. Renton: I take the point which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I would be glad if he will listen to the case I have yet to put, for this reason. The point which he has just put has to be regarded in the light of the case which I am about to make.
  It is nothing new for the courts to decide matters of the public interest. Both under the common law and under Statute law, it is a thing which the courts have become accustomed to do and which we know they do quite satisfactorily. Perhaps I may give two examples, one of common law and one of Statute law. In relation to agreements in restraint of trade, the courts have to
  1406
  decide whether or not the agreement is contrary to the public interest. In the case of the Mines (Working Facilities) Acts, several different questions of public interest have to be decided by the courts. So it is not asking the courts to do something which they are unable to do or which it is not their practice to do.
  That being so, let us consider whether, in this case, it is wise to leave the words as they are now in the Bill, or whether we should do what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wigan in moving his Amendment and add the words:
  "in the opinion of the Minister."
  If we are to add these words, we then get hack to just that very difficulty which I was mentioning earlier in dealing with a proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).
  Once we bring Ministers into a proceeding of this kind it is obvious that, in spite of the dispensations which have been proposed today, they cannot be expected to undertake detailed inquiries of this kind. They must appoint somebody to hold a hearing, which means a quasi-judicial proceeding. Therefore, we do not carry the matter any further by asking the Minister to undertake this work and we might just as well let the courts do it.
  It is in the context of what I have said that I would ask the hon. Member for Wigan to do what I undertake to do. I will consider and if necessary will consult with my noble Friend in another place, whether it is not best to leave the Clause as it is. I will consider whether or not, as the Bill is framed, and in the particular circumstances in which we are legislating, it could be found that the public interest issue had to be decided in relation to the ordinary, private dwelling. I am advised that it is not so, but I will make quite sure that it is not so. If I find that the matter needs elucidation I undertake that an Amendment will he moved.
  Amendment negatived
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, after "damage" to insert "(a)".
  Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this somewhat innocuous Amendment could be taken with the next two Amendments

  1407
  on the Notice Paper, to lines 36 and 38. They are more substantial and are rather complicated.
  Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): Is that convenient to the House?
  Hon. Members: Agreed
  Mr. Renton: It may be that when a house or a row of houses have been damaged by mining subsidence they are fit only for a slum clearance or a demolition order under the housing Acts. So far, the Bill does not provide for such an eventuality. Neither does the 1950 Act. It, also, is silent on the subject.
  The matter has become very much more important now that the slum clearance drive is well under way. Normally, the Coal Board may discharge this obligation merely by making a value payment to the owner, based on the decline in the market value and on the possibility of a slum clearance order being issued. No doubt the owner would be satisfied. The snag is this. The Coal Board can make a value payment only if it is less than the cost of the remedial works.
  There is no point in its doing remedial works if the local authority is to order the House to be demolished. The Coal Board would be obliged to make a cost-of-works payment under Clause 1 (3), which would be payable to the other person mentioned in that subsection, in other words, to the local authority and not to the owner because it would be the local authority who would do the redevelopment.
  There is the further point that under the housing Acts any cost-of-works payment made to the local authority would be disregarded in assessing the owner's compensation for having his property taken away for slum clearance purposes. We therefore reach a result which is rather unfortunate for the owner. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that the owner will have lost his house through mining subsidence plus slum clearance, and he will also have lost the benefit of the Bill because that will pass to the local authority in the form of a cost-of-works payment, and he will have got virtually nothing.
  We feel that we have to meet this situation. We do it in this way. We say that the
  1408
  Coal Board shall be allowed to make a value payment if it appears to it that a slum clearance order is likely and it may disregard the question whether the value payment is more or less than the cost of remedial works. Under the Bill as it now stands, the Board can only make a value payment if it be less. When a house has been damaged and it appears that it might become subject to a demolition or a slum clearance order, the Board must consult the local authority. As has been said often in these proceedings the Board will be in touch with local authorities on many matters. Here is a case in which it must consult the local authority and ask whether a demolition order is to be made.
  If the local authority can give a decision straight away, the matter is clarified at once, but it may not be able to give a decision straight away. Therefore, the Coal Board will be in a state of some uncertainty, in having to decide what it must do, in the light of the advice received from the local authority and the evidence which it has of the effect of subsidence on the property.
  8.30 p.m.
  Of course, it might decide to start remedial works and back its own judgment by saying, "We are going to start remedial works; they will not cost very much and we will hope that that will be cheaper than having to make a value payment", but if, eventually, there is a slum clearance order we say that the owner is entitled to his value payment. He really ought to be entitled to it, otherwise he will not get anything at all for the total loss of his property. The Coal Board will have to be rather cautious before embarking upon remedial works, bearing in mind that it will have an ultimate liability for making a value payment in the event of a slum clearance order being made. That is the purpose of these Amendments and that is the procedure we propose.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: This is not quite clear to me. I have the case of Manchester in mind. There is a great deal of demolition of uninhabitable property to be undertaken. We are finding great difficulty in getting the Minister to move in the matter of expansion for overspill, and so on, and it looks as if that work of

  1409
  demolition might be seven, eight, perhaps ten years ahead. Will not any remedial work be done in the interval?
  Mr. Renton: Quite candidly, with great respect to the hon. Member, I do not see how his remarks relate to the situation I have been trying to describe. There is no question of any demolition, slum clearance and rehousing being held up in the light of the possibility of mining subsidence.
  Mr. Williams: I do not think that the Minister has got the point at all. That is not the point I was making. The point I was making is that demolition of a number of these houses would normally take place immediately, but, owing to certain circumstances, it cannot be done for perhaps three, four or five years. What is the position in that case?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member asks what would be the position in a case like that if the houses were affected by mining subsidence. The Coal Board would ask the local authority to make a decision as to its ultimate intentions about those houses. If the local authority came to the conclusion that there ought ultimately to be a demolition order, the Coal Board would go ahead and make a value payment to the person entitled to receive it under this Bill and there need be no delay at all.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What determines the value?
  Mr. Renton: The value is determined, as the hon. Member will see, by the provisions of subsection (4), paragraph (i), as read in the light of what at the moment is the only Schedule to the Bill. That Schedule is headed, "Determination of Amount of Depreciation and Recipients of Payments." It is a somewhat complicated Schedule and I do not want to go into it. From subsection (4) the hon. Member will see that it applies where in the case of
  "any property affected by subsidence damage the reasonable cost of executing remedial works would, in the opinion of the Board, exceed the amount of the depreciation in the value of the property."
  Mr. Proctor: Is not the sum total of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has told us a method by which landlords are to get payment for slum property for
  1410
  which they would get no payment from the local authorities?
  Mr. Renton: No, as I hoped I had made clear. It is not a question of what hon. Members opposite sometimes call landlords of slum property. It may be a very humble owner of a house inhabited by his neighbour.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We know of cases.
  Mr. Renton: We all know of cases. We think it extremely hard on them that in the event of there being mining subsidence followed by slum clearance there should not only be a loss of the house and of the property but that the benefit under this Bill, which is intended to benefit everyone who suffers from loss of property, should pass merely to the local authority, as it would unless we did something about it on the lines proposed in this Amendment.
  With that explanation, I hope I may feel that I have carried hon. Members with me in agreeing to two things: first, that this is a point we ought to deal with; and, secondly, that the method we propose—which we feel is a practical method and realistic in relation to rather difficult—circumstances—is a sound method, and one which is workable.
  Mr. Probert: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask him a question? I am confused about this, and it is an important matter. Let us assume that a local authority has scheduled an area for slum clearance and the area is in the authority's programme for the next five years. A considerable number of houses in my constituency are so affected. Unfortunately, they are also affected by mining subsidence. Do I understand from the Minister that the owners of the property, most of which are owner-occupied, can secure from the Coal Board under the suggested provisions a value payment in accordance with the Schedule? It appears to me that, rightly or wrongly, those people will be in a far better position than if the Bill were not passed, because normally they would receive only the site value.
  Mr. Renton: If they were entitled to receive the site value under the housing Acts, then, in assessing the compensation which they would receive, it would be based on site value and the quantity represented by the costs-of-works payment would be deducted from she compensation

  1411
  payable. It might be completely wiped out, because the site value would be very small indeed.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is not the answer to this point to be found in the words at the end of the second of these Amendments:
  "that the making of the clearance order will be attributable to the subsidence damage"?
  The case put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) was one in which the making of the order was attributable to something other than subsidence damage, and in that case it would be outside the Clause altogether. Is not that the answer to the point which he raised?
  Mr. Renton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. These provisions will apply only if the house is proceeded against under the housing Acts as a result of subsidence damage.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: It is with some hesitation that I enter into the debate, because the subject needs very careful study and we should be advised on it by the legal advisers of our local authorities. I want to make some observations in an interrogatory sense. In my own division we have several areas of this kind—such places as Fenton and Longton. Not only do they suffer from the old mining subsidence but there will be great subsidence during the next twenty years because of the modernised mines.
  The local authority has relatively the best housing record in the country, but because of the difficulties which have been created it now wants to proceed as quickly as it can with slum clearance. It is up against all kinds of legal difficulties and it has, therefore, decided to take out what is known as a blanket order. This order is put into effect by the local authority. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) will be well versed in the matter, because he has great experience of it.
  The local authority officials proceed to apply the blanket order but they run up against legal difficulties arising from the fact that they are dealing with many houses in a long row, each owned by a different individual. As a result, the local authority is stopped in such cases. Eventually, the Ministry of Housing and
  1412
  Local Government gives notice that it intends to conduct an inquiry. As a result, everything is held up.
  In cases of that kind, where they are suffering from mining subsidence, I can see great legal difficulties arising. I hope that between now and when the Bill is considered in another place the Minister will consider the views of local authorities on such matters so that any alteration which is required can be considered in another place.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should like to put a small drafting point to my hon. and learned Friend. As the Bill is now drafted, the words "that amount" are fairly clear. They refer to the words:
  "…the amount of the depreciation in the value of the property caused by the damage…"
  But when this series of Amendments is made, instead of the words "that amount" we find the words:
  "the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection."
  Paragraph (a) reads:
  "…the reasonable cost of executing remedial works would, in the opinion of the Board, exceed the amount of the depreciation in the value of the property caused by the damage…"
  The two amounts mentioned are the actual amount of the damage, and the reasonable cost of executing remedial works, which is also an amount. I think that some Amendment is necessary to show that it is the latter amount that is referred to.
  Mr. R. Williams: It is fair to say to the Minister that we on this side think that this is a practical way of dealing with an extremely difficult problem, but I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that, arising out of the observations given with such clarity and force by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening, I am left in doubt on a number of points. It seems to me that since we have reached this stage of the Bill, the right thing is to say that we accept this with reservations. The Minister must appreciate that we shall be consulting our colleagues in another place, and it may well be that he will find that Amendments will be there submitted arising out of observations made this evening. But I think that it would be quite wrong for us to say that there is so much wrong with these Amendments that we should oppose them.
  Mr. Proctor: The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation causes me considerable misgivings. If I am correct, owners of slum property have no right to compensation when their property is demolished, though there are exceptions. From what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it seems that certain sections of the owners of slum property will receive compensation which they would not receive under the present law. If that is so, it is putting an unfair burden on the Coal Board. I express that view only in order that consideration may be given to the question of whether, by this Bill, we have slipped into an alteration of the present practice as to no compensation for the owners I have mentioned.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) said that he thought that it might be unfair on the Coal Board, but I do not think that it really is. If a demolition is to be delayed for several years, the Board will probably do the remedial works in any case. Once the remedial works are completed—and perhaps I did not make this clear enough before—no question of value payment arises. It is only if it has spent some money starting on remedial works and has made a mistake in doing so that it incurs this ultimate liability for making the value payment.
  I do not think that this is unfair on the Coal Board, because this particular form of slum clearance is different from all others. It is slum clearance which is clue to mining subsidence. The subsidence has been caused by the Coal Board. The fact that it has been caused by the Coal Board should not debar a local authority from carrying out its duties with regard to any property which gets into a deteriorated condition, from whatever cause. Therefore, I do not think that it can possibly be said that this is unfair to the Coal Board.
  8.45 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised a drafting point, which I shall look at very carefully. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that he hoped the local authorities would be consulted. Certainly, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been consulted, and I shall ensure that, through it, the local authorities are.
  1414
  Finally, may I say that I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) about this. We have presented the House with a very difficult, but very important, set of Amendments. I appreciate that, normally, we should wish to follow the Committee stage procedure in analysing all this and getting it as straight as we can. In view of the fact that we are now at the Report stage, I accept that he will wish to consult his noble Friends in another place.
  I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House, for not having asked leave to speak again.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 36, after "damage" insert:
  "or

  (b) the property is a dwelling-house and it appears to the Board that a notice to treat for the compulsory purchase thereof is likely to he served under Part III of the Housing Act. 1936, or Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950 (which relate to clearance and redevelopment) in such circumstances that compensation payable for the purchase will fall, but if the subsidence damage had not occurred would not have fallen, to be assessed subject to subsection (2) or (3) of section forty of the said Act of 1936 or, as the case may be, subsection (2) of section thirty-six of the said Act of 1950 (which provide for compensation by reference to site value); or

  (c) the property is a dwelling-house and it appears to the Board that a clearance order under either of the said Parts III is likely to be made in respect thereof in such circumstances that the making of the clearance order will he attributable to the subsidence damage".

  In page 3, line 38, leave out "that amount" and insert:
  "the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; and if in the case of any dwelling-house affected by subsidence damage the Board do not elect to make a payment under this subsection but, before the completion of remedial works or, in a case falling within paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, before all sums in respect of which the Board are liable to make payments have been expended, a notice to treat is served tinder either of the said Parts III either in respect of the dwelling-house in such circumstances are mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in respect of the cleared site of the dwelling-house, or a clearance order is made under either of the said Parts III in such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection, then, notwithstanding and without prejudice to any expenditure or liability of the Board in respect of works already executed, the Board shall make a payment in respect of the dwelling-house equal to the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of this

  1415
  subsection in like manner as if they had originally elected so to do under paragraph (b) or (c) thereof and shall be absolved from any further obligations in respect of the dwelling-house under the two last foregoing subsections".
  In page 3, line 39, at end insert:
  "paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of".—[Mr. Renton.]
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end to insert:
  (6) Where a dwelling-house is affected by subsidence damage, the provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to dwelling-houses rendered uninhabitable) to this Act shall have effect.
  This is a paving Amendment, which paves the way for the new Schedule which sets out the substantial provisions which are to be made for helping people or doing things for people whose houses are rendered uninhabitable. I imagine that the House will not want to discuss the substance of it on this Amendment. I suggest that it would be more convenient if we discussed the substance of the matter when we come to the new Schedule. I hope that the House will let us have this Amendment for that purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, at end insert:
  "subsections (3), (4) or (5) of."—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Clause 2.—(NOTICES TO BE GIVEN TO OR BY BOARD.)
  Amendment made: In page 4, line 31, after "under", insert "subsections (2) to (5) of."—[Mr. Renton.]
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out "as reasonably practicable."
  I suggest that this Amendment and the next one be taken together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Renton: At present, Clause 2 (2), as it stands, provides that the Board must decide whether to make a cost of works payment under Clause 1 (3) or a value payment under Clause 1 (4) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a damage notice. In practice, we acknowledge that the Board may not be able to make this decision at once, because there may be a doubt about the position with regard to the alternative rights under Clause 6, or because there is an unresolved dispute between the tenant and
  1416
  his landlord about who is to be treated as the person liable to make good the damage under the third new Clause. Hon. Members will recollect that that is the one which deals with the tenant's right to compensation for improvements on the termination of his tenancy.
  So in order to provide for the delay which will necessarily occur owing to this doubt, what we propose in these Amendments is that the Board shall make its decision as soon after receiving a damage notice as is reasonably practicable, having regard, among other things, to the provisions of Clause 6 and the third new Clause. I hope that that will be considered to put the matter right.
  Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of this Amendment is one which commends itself to us, and I recommend my hon. Friends to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 42, at end insert:
  "as is reasonably practicable having regard among other things to the provisions of sections six and (Special provisions as to certain tenants) of this Act."—[Mr. Renton.]
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, after "property", to insert "(a)"
  I suggest that this Amendment and the next one be taken together.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Renton: These are Amendments designed to make it clear that the Board will not be obliged to pay for emergency works executed after it has discharged its liabilities under the Bill by electing to make a value payment under Clause 1 (4). It obviously would not be proper to make the Board pay twice in those circumstances, and if we insert the words in the second Amendment which we are discussing the Board will be saved that obligation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 28, at end insert:
  "or

  (b) if the emergency works are executed after the Board have given notice under subsection (2) of this section that they elect to make a payment in respect of the damaged property under subsection (4) of the foregoing section." —[Mr. Renton.]

  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, at the end to insert:
  (5) Where the board have given notice under subsection (2) of this section to the person by whom a damage notice was served that they propose to execute remedial works under subsection (2) of the foregoing section, the Board, if so requested by that person at any time before these works are completed, shall give to that person in writing adequate information with respect to any of those works still remaining to be executed.
  During the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) asked whether the Coal Board could be required to give advance notice of all the repairs—at least, all the substantial repairs—which it considered it would have to do to carry out to restore property. I gave to the Committee a statement embodying an undertaking by the National Coal Board that it would certainly give notice in advance of all substantial repairs that it proposed to carry out. We have considered this matter further and intend to make a legal obligation on the Board which goes very much beyond that undertaking.
  The Amendment will require the Board, when undertaking remedial works itself, to give details of all works which remain to be executed if the person serving the damage notice asks for a list of those repairs to be given. This means, in effect, that if the Board is asked for the information before the works are even begun, it must give details of all the works that it proposes to execute, whether substantial or not.
  It is only right and fair to the Board that I should explain why we have not merely fulfilled our promise to write into the Bill the undertaking by the Board to give notice of substantial repairs. The simple answer is that the definition of "substantial repairs" baffles the imagination of the Parliamentary draftsman. It is difficult for any of us to know where to draw the line. For that reason, and after due consultation, we have decided to go the whale hog and to write into the Bill that if anyone wants notice from the National Coal Board of repairs which it proposes to carry out, it shall be given.
  Mr. Robens: During the passage of the Bill and the Amendments that we have been considering today, one has been impressed how well the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have fulfilled the undertakings which they gave in
  1418
  Committee. We ought to say that right away in appreciation of the work that they have done.
  When this matter was under discussion, it was suggested by one of my hon. Friends that it should be automatic that the Board should indicate the amount of repairs that were to be done. The Amendment provides that the repairs to be done will be put in writing and supplied to the individual concerned only if requested.
  Mr. Renton indicated assent.
  Mr. Robens: In other words, it will not be automatic. That is a sensible method, because there will be many people who do not want details of all the minor repairs that the Board will require to undertake under the Bill. I regard this as another indication of the way in which the Ministry have met us on the matters we discussed in Committee and we are glad to support the Amendment.
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman's interpretation is quite correct. It would have been over-zealous to require the Coal Board to submit lists of things which the people concerned do not need.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 4.—(POWERS OF BOARD WITH RESPECT TO PREVENTIVE WORKS.)
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 7, line 8, after "Act", to insert:
  "being a building, structure or works for the time being in existence".
  This is to clear up a point of doubt raised during the Committee stage, when I said it was intended that the powers of the Board under Clause 4 to carry out preventive works were intended to cover preventive works to existing buildings or structures, and not to buildings that might he erected in the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) rightly pointed out that this might have been the intention, but that the Bill did not say it. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear, as was always our intention, that the preventive works are to prevent damage to buildings and structures actually in existence. I hope that this Amendment will clear up the point.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is only one small point on this Amendment. I am not certain when a building is in existence. I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend, but it may become important. For instance, is it in existence when there is nothing but the ground floor there? That might become important because it might well be that a part of a building may be said not to be a building in existence.
  It is a further small drafting point. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for having met the point which I raised in Committee, and I agree, but I think he will need to look a little further before the matter can be disposed of finally.
  Mr. Harold Davies: I want to back the point put by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) because we have this in practice in the City of Stoke-on-Trent. It may sound a funny question to ask when is a building in existence, but the foundations were laid for a new school where a new estate was being made. Before the school was finished—and in parts of it only the footings of the building were placed—mining subsidence took place to such an extent that they had to abandon the building while they considered placing rafts, etc., underneath. So I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this point, because it is a real problem in practice in mining subsidence areas.
  Mr. Maudling: A very pertinent point has been raised and I will check it. My guess is that the answer will be that a half-constructed building would be a structure and, therefore, is covered by the word "structure." If it is not so, I will see that it is put right.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, after "under", to insert "subsections (2) to (5) of section one of".
  I think that I am right in saying that these next four Amendments go together, Sir, because they are all consequential in a sense. If I may refer to them together, it would be for the convenience of the House.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is agreed.
  Mr. Maudling: The effect is that subsection (2) of Clause 4 provides that if people are unreasonable and will not let
  1420
  the National Coal Board carry out the necessary preventive works, and damage then occurs because of their unreasonableness, the Board obviously should be relieved of liability. That is generally agreed.
  In the course of the Report stage we have added a new liability on the Board, which has to pay not only for the cost of repairing the damage done but also removal expenses, and so on. The first purpose of these Amendments is to say that equally in the case of removal expenses, as in the case of the cost of repairing physical damage, where damage has occurred because someone has unreasonably refused to allow the Board to carry out preventive work, the Board shall be relieved of liability. Therefore, this Amendment is really consequential in a sense in that it carries on the existing principle.
  The second effect is to exclude the other new Clause about death and personal injury, because contributory negligence is dealt with under that Clause specifically, as the House will remember.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 35, leave out "this Act" and insert:
  "the said subsections (2) to (5)".
  In line 38, at end insert:
  (c) if the property is a dwelling-house, the person aforesaid shall not be entitled to serve a notice in respect thereof under paragraph 4 of the Schedule (Provisions as to dwelling-houses rendered uninhabitable) to this Act nor to receive any relief under that Schedule.
  In line 44, after "(ii)", insert "paragraphs (a) and (b) of".—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Clause 5.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO DAMAGE AFFECTING LAND DRAINAGE.)
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, to leave out "economically justified" and to insert:
  "not unjustifiable on economic grounds".
  Those hon. Members who were members of the Committee will remember the great discussions we had on the question and the test of economic justification in relation to the repair of a drainage system owned by a drainage authority. While not departing from what we consider to be the vital principle that there should be a due regard to economic considerations before plunging into what may be very heavy expenditure by the National

  1421
  Coal Board in repairing a drainage system, we nevertheless feel that it would be right slightly to alter the phrasing which we used first.
  We suggest that we should depart from the words "economically justified" and insert these other words. We should thereby very slightly ease the burden of proof on drainage authorities. They will find themselves proving a negative instead of having to prove the matter from a positive point of view. I should make it clear that the burden of proof will not be shifted. The burden of proof in this issue of drainage systems remains on drainage authorities, and it will be for them to prove that the works which they consider ought to be done to restore their drainage systems will not be "unjustifiable on economic grounds".
  Hon. Members who showed great interest in this matter in Committee will realise that we feel that this is a great concession to the objections which were raised to the criterion of economic justification. It is as far as we can go without giving up the principle that the National Coal Board shall not be required to undertake works which are uneconomic. The principle is fundamental to the Bill, and although we have been unable to abandon it, we hope that it will be felt that this is a reasonable relaxation of its application.
  Mr. Robens: This is another indication of the way in which the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have leaned over backwards to meet requests that came from the Committee to consider these matters and produce Amendments at this stage. I still do not see the difference between "economically justified" and
  "not unjustifiable on economic grounds"
  but the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a learned gentleman, evidently does, and I hope that everybody else feels that way. I hope that they will all be content with the Amendment.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We spent a long time on this matter in Committee, and the time has been well justified, as can be seen if any one checks the proceedings in Committee which were concerned with the Amendment. We were reinforced in our views on this point by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), the right hon. and learned Member for
  1422
  Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and a very well-informed mining engineer, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts). We were given an assurance by the Minister that he would consider the matter. I am very pleased that he has done so. It appears that he has accepted wholeheartedly the reasonable nature of the fears expressed by hon. Members in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 6.—(AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE REMEDIES.)
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out from "of" to the end of line 36 and to insert:
  "subsidence damage to any property shall not be entitled to proceed at the same time in respect of the same damage to that property with both—

  (a) a claim against the Board by virtue of subsections (2) to (5) of section one of this Act; and

  (b) a claim against the Board or a licensee of the Board for damages or compensation under a liability arising apart from this Act,

  but subject to the next following subsectian may elect which of those claims he will proceed with for the time being.
  (2) Where any person proceeds with a claim such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, then unless—

  (a) it is determined, whether by agreement or otherwise, that he is entitled to none of the relief claimed; or

  (b) the claim is withdrawn before it is determined.

  he shall not be entitled to proceed thereafter with a claim such as is mentioned in the other of the said paragraphs of that subsection.
  (3) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) of section two of this Act shall secure that where any person proceeds with a claim such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section and that claim was made before the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed for the service of a damage notice in respect of the same damage, the time within which a damage notice must be served by that person in respect of that damage shall not commence to run until that claim is either determined or withdrawn before determination".
  The effect of the Amendment would be virtually to redraft the whole of the first three subsections of the Clause, which deals with the avoidance of double remedies. It was pointed out to us in Committee—and we readily appreciated it—that, to put it bluntly, the Clause was a bit tough as it stood. We were very

  1423
  much impressed by the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and by other hon. Members on both sides about the fatal nature of the decision which has to be made under the Bill as it stands.
  What we have done is to give a free choice in the matter of proceeding under the Bill or seeking the alternative remedy by common law contract or Statute. If a person is completely unsuccessful in the proceedings in which he exercises his first choice he will have the right to bring other proceedings, but if he is only partially successful in the proceedings which he first chooses to bring he will not have the right to bring other proceedings. In other words, we adhere to the principle of avoidance of double remedies.
  It is not necessary for me to go into detail as to the phraseology used in the Amendment. It carries out the intention which I have expressed. I should mention subsection (3) of the Amendment, because it is a little complicated in its relation to the other Clauses. It requires the Minister, in the Regulations which he will in any event have to make under Clause 2 (1)—in order to lay down a time limit in which damage notices must be served—to prescribe that when a claim under rights other than those contained in the Bill—the alternative rights—has been made within the time limit for serving a damage notice, the time in which the damage notice can be served in respect of the same damage by the person who lodged the claim will not begin to run until that alternative claim has been decided or withdrawn. It is a rather considerable extension of time which is likely to take place but in the circumstances we feel that it is reasonable. The National Coal Board will have been put on inquiry about the matter by the mere making of the alternative claim so that it is not unfair to the Board and it will not have been taken at a disadvantage.
  9.15 p.m.
  There is another matter which has been achieved by the Amendment. It is that in Clause 6 as it stands, where there is more than one person with an interest in the damaged property, the person with the greatest liability for making good the damage is the person who has to serve
  1424
  the damage notice. The other people interested in the property are not entitled. That would have been very tough, but we have altered it as hon. Members will see. We have now provided that anyone with an interest in the property will have the right to exercise alternative rights of action, whether under the Bill or by means of action by common law contract or Statute. I think we may say, therefore, that we have tidied up Clause 6 in such a way as to meet the fears expressed by hon. Members.
  Mr. R. Williams: We are indebted to the Minister for having completely altered the basis of Clause 6. Without this Amendment it would have been necessary for the person concerned to "pick a winner." If he did not, he might very well lose the rights we all want him to have.
  As I understand it, the effect of this Amendment is to leave with a person with rights under the Bill his rights apart from the Bill. As a result of this Amendment, if in his election that person picks a "loser" he has not lost all because he can proceed under the Bill. If he succeeds in his action, he has no complaint because, having been successful, his case is ended. If he is partially successful, that ends his case, but in practice that might be a bit tough on him. The answer is that the Government in subsection (2, b) have inserted the words
  "the claim is withdrawn before it is determined."
  So there is a stage at which a man may think that he has a winning case but in consultation with his legal advisers discovers that it is a loser, and he can then withdraw without prejudicing his rights under the Bill. I thank the Minister for that provision and for the way in which this has been re-drafted. The Amendment which we submitted during the Committee stage discussions would have given the man everything, win, lose or draw, but the Government are not prepared to go as far as that. They are not prepared to provide complete justice in all possible situations, but they have gone so far in this Amendment that I heartily commend it, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I, too, should like to congratulate the Government on having redrafted the first three subsections of this Clause. I quite agree with all that has been said about the redrafting.
  In our discussions in Committee, I criticised subsections (2) and (3). These are the subsections which provided for the Board giving a counter-notice to third parties so as to try to clear off a whole set of claims at the same time. That procedure has now disappeared altogether, and I imagine that the position, therefore, is that, as regards third parties, if they have any rights against the Board in respect of the same circumstances, those rights shall be unaffected in the ordinary way.
  When remedial action is taken, their position will be safeguarded, because when the action has been taken there will normally be an end of the matter, but if there is a money claim involved it may be that third parties will still have some claims after the Clause has been brought into operation. In that event, the position is left entirely open, and they will have whatever rights they had before the machinery of the Clause was brought into operation.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 7.—(POWER OF BOARD TO RECOVER EXPENDITURE TN CERTAIN CASES.)
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, to leave out "of this Act in respect" and to insert:
  "or section (Payments in respect of death or disablement in certain cases) of this Act as a result".
  This Amendment is made necessary by the acceptance by the House of the new Clause providing for payments in respect of death or disablement. Clause 7 (1) as it stands provides that where the Board has to pay out money because of subsidence damage caused by a small licensed mine, it should be able to recover from the operator of the mine the money it had paid out. That is the principle applied by the Bill as it stands to payments made in compensation for physical damage, and all that the Amendment does is to extend the same principle to any payments made in respect of personal damage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in line 7, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with".
  The effect of this Amendment is the same as that of an Amendment made at an earlier stage, and it is intended, as the House will be aware, to deal with the problem of the dewatering of seams.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 11, line 13, after "under," to insert:
  "subsections (2) to (5) of".
  This is a purely consequential Amendment to the acceptance by the House of the Amendment in page 4, line 20
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, to leave out "commencement" and to insert "passing."
  This, again, is a consequential Amendment. Like a similar Amendment made to subsection (1) of Clause 1, it is made necessary by the introduction into the Bill of the new Clause setting up retrospective effects in certain limited circumstances.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, at the end to insert:
  "and where the person to whom the Board have made any payment under the agreement has paid over the whole or part of that payment to any other person by virtue of that other person's being entitled to the beneficial interest therein, any reference in this or the next following subsection to the recipient of payments under the agreement shall be construed in relation to that payment or that part thereof as including a reference to that other person".
  This is a small Amendment, but it is more than consequential. Clause 7 (2) enables the Board to recover money in certain circumstances, that is, if it has paid someone for the right to cause subsidence damage, and also becomes liable to pay compensation for that person. Obviously, that is quite unfair, and Clause 7 (2) therefore in these circumstances enables it to reclaim from that person the amount it has paid out.
  It has been observed subsequently that in certain circumstances it might be impossible to reclaim the money if it has, for example, been paid to a trustee who has passed it on to a beneficiary. The purpose of this small Amendment is to ensure that in those circumstances the Board shall be able to recoup itself from

  1427
  the beneficiary, who is the only person in a position to pay the Board.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, 12, lines 3, at the end to insert:
  "and (iii) any amounts shown by that person to have been borne by him by way of tax which he would not have borne but for periodical payments made by the Board under the agreement."
  This Amendment raises another small but important point. Where the Board has to pay people money in advance in order to exempt itself from the payment of compensation for damage—as I was explaining earlier the Clause provides that it shall be able to recoup these payments if it has to pay compensation—the payments are sometimes annual payments. It has been pointed out to us that the payments suffer tax, and if the Board were able to recoup the total sum, the person concerned might have to pay more than he had received. The Amendment provides that the payment is to be no more than the amount received, which we think is fair.
  Mr. Robens: Will the Inland Revenue repay the tax that has been paid, after the National Coal Board has been reimbursed?
  Mr. Maudling: It is not in the nature of the Board of Inland Revenue to make repayment if it can possibly help it. If the income were properly liable to tax, I doubt whether anything could be extracted from the Inland Revenue without the machinery of a Finance Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:In page 12, line 26, after "Act", insert:
  "or, as the case may be, subsections (2) to (5) thereof".
  In line 29, after "one", insert:
  "or, as the case may be. Subsections (2) to (5) thereof".—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Clause 11.—(REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.)
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, at the beginning to insert:
  "Without prejudice to any powers of the Board apart from this section".
  It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we take with it the two subsequent Amendments, in page 15, line 35, to leave out from the beginning to the third "by"; and in line 37, to leave out from
  1428
  "out" to the end of the line and to insert:
  "by the Board of their obligations under this Act"
  They have the same purpose of tidying the drafting of the Clause. They make no substantial difference to the substance of the Clause.
  This Clause was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in Committee, and I accepted it. It subsequently became apparent that it needed a certain amount of varying at the hands of the Parliamentary draftsmen. The purpose of the Amendments is to tidy up the drafting and to make clear, which otherwise would not be clear, that the Clause in no way detracts from the Board's existing power to make such payments. I am sure that it was not the intention when the Clause was accepted in Committee that these powers should be detracted from in any way. The Amendments do nothing more than make perfectly clear what has been the purpose of the Clause throughout.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 35, leave out from beginning to third "by".
  In line 37, leave out from "out" to end of line and insert:
  "by the Board of their obligations under this Act."—[Mr. Maudling.]

  Clause 13.—(INTERPRETATION ETC.)
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, at the end to insert:
  "dwelling-house" means—

  (a) a rating unit used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a private dwelling;or

  (b) any such separately occupied part of a rating unit as is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a private dwelling; or

  (c) such part of a rating unit which is used partly, but not wholly or mainly, for the purposes of a private dwelling as is used far those purposes; or

  (d) any such part (whether separately occupied or not) of a rating unit in Scotland entered in the valuation roll as agricultural lands and heritages within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, as is occupied wholly or mainly as a private dwelling.

  Here, we propose to add to the interpretation Clause a definition of "dwelling-house". That has become necessary because of the new Clause which makes the Bill retrospective in relation to dwelling-houses. We have, therefore, to have a definition of

  1429
  "dwelling-house" and the definition we have used is broadly the same as that which occurs in the 1950 Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, at the end to insert
  "rating unit" means—

  (a) in England and Wales, a hereditament which is separately valued for rating purposes;

  (b) in Scotland, lands and heritages within the meaning of the Lands Valuation (Stotland) Act, 1854, which are separately valued for rating purposes.

  Here, we are not adding anything to the Bill, but we are merely transferring the definition of "rating unit" from the Schedule where it now appears to the interpretation Clause where it will more appropriately appear, because in the definition of "dwelling-house" to which I have just referred "rating unit" comes into the context of the Bill itself for the first time. This, therefore, is purely a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 44, after "occur", to insert:
  (a) in the case of damage such as is specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act or damage consisting in an alteration et the level or gradient of property not otherwise damaged, at the time when the damage first affected the fitness of the damaged property for use for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of that section;
  (b) in any other case.
  This is another drafting Amendment which is consequential upon the Amendment to page 1, line 8, of Clause 1 which, as the House will remember, dealt with the inclusion in the definition of damage of the alteration to levels and drainage.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 14.—(SHORT TITLE, REPEALS AND EXTENT.)
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 17, line 16, to leave out "commencement" and to insert "the passing".
  This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause dealing with retrospection. My right hon. Friend has already explained the difference between "commencement" and "passing" and I could not hope to add to his perfection.
  Amendment agreed to.

  New Schedule. — (PROVISIONS AS TO DWELLING-HOUSES RENDERED UN INHABITABLE.)
  1. Where a dwelling-house is affected by subsidence damage occurring after the passing of this Act, the provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as respects any period (in this Schedule referred to as "the period of dispossession") during which both the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

  (a) that by reason of deterioration due to the subsidence damage in the condition of the dwelling-house, and having regard lo the time which will be required to remedy that deterioration, the dwelling-house is not in a reasonably fit state for it to be used as such; and

  (b) that the dwelling-house is not used as such by or with the authority of the person who immediately before the occurrence of the subsidence damage was entitled to possession thereof (hereinafter in this Schedule referred to as "the occupier").

  2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, in the case of any person ordinarily resident in the dwelling-house during the period immediately preceding the occurrence of the subsidence damage (hereinafter in this Schedule referred to as a "resident") the Board shall so long as the period of dispossession lasts be under an obligation at all times, as they may elect, either—

  (a) to make available alternative living accommodation which—

  (i) is of a standard comparable to the general standard of the housing accommodation under the management of the local authority for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, or, as the case may be, for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, for the area in which the dwelling-house is situated; and

  (ii) is otherwise reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including the probable duration of the period of dispossession; or

  (b) as respects any of the first thirty days of the period of dispossession, to pay to the resident in question the amount, if any, by which the aggregate expenditure reasonably incurred by him by way of rent, rates, food, living accommodation, heating, light and other household expenses exceeds what it would have been if the subsidence damage had not occurred and he had continued to reside in the dwelling-house; or

  (c) as respects any other part of the period of dispossession, to pay to the resident in question the amount aforesaid or the amount which would be payable by way of rent for accommodation equivalent to such alternative living accommodation as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subparagraph, whichever amount is the less:

  Provided that the Board shall not be under any obligation under this sub-paragraph in respect of any part of the period of dispossession during which, irrespective of the subsidence damage, the resident in question would not have been residing at the dwelling-house.
  (2) Where the Board are under an obligation towards a resident by virtue of the foregoing sub-paragraph, the Board shall also be under an obligation with respect to the contents of the dwelling-house to provide, or to pay to that resident any expenditure reasonably incurred by him in providing, for any removal or storage thereof reasonably required during the period of dispossession as a result of the subsidence damage and any removal thereof reasonably required as a result of the termination of the Board's obligations towards that resident under the foregoing sub-paragraph:
  Provided that the Board shall not be under any obligation under this sub-paragraph in respect of the contents of any part of the dwelling-house which, immediately before the occurrence of the subsidence damage, was not used for the purposes of a private dwelling and the said obligations shall not extend to storage in or removal to any place outside Great Britain.
  3.—(1) Subject to the two following subparagraphs, the obligations of the Board towards any resident under sub-paragraph (1) of the last foregoing paragraph shall cease, notwithstanding that the period of dispossession has not expired—

  (a) if the occupier has ceased (otherwise than by reason of his death) to be entitled to possession of, or, as the case may be, of the site of, the dwelling-house; or

  (b) on the expiration of a period of six months from the service by the Board on the resident in question of notice in writing of the opinion of the Board that the period of dispossession will continue indefinitely or that the said period will be unreasonably long or that the resident in question will not resume residence at or on the site of the dwelling-house at the expiration of that period.

  (2) Where a damage notice has been served in respect of the dwelling-house, the Board shall not be entitled to serve a notice under sub-paragraph (b) of the foregoing sub-paragraph on the grounds that the period of dispossession will continue indefinitely or will be unreasonably long—

  (a) unless the Board have elected to make a payment in respect of the dwelling-house under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section one of this Act; or

  (b) while a notice under subsection (2) of section three of this Act is in force with respect to the dwelling-house

  (3) Any person upon who a notice under the said paragraph (b) is served may apply to the county court or, where the dwelling-house is situated in Scotland, to the sheriff, and the court or sheriff, if satisfied that there are not reasonable grounds for the opinion of the Board, may declare the notice to be of no effect.
  4.—(1) The Board shall not be under any obligation by virtue of paragraph 2 of this Schedule unless either the owner or the occupier of the dwelling-house is a resident and has given to the Board notice ill writing, in such a manner, within such time and containing such particulars as may be prescribed,
  1432
  that in his opinion the condition specified in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule is satisfied, and has afforded the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the dwelling-house so far as he was in a position to afford such facilities.
  (2) As soon as reasonably practicable after receiving from any person a notice under the foregoing sub-paragraph, the Board shall give to that person notice in writing as to whether or not they agree with that person's opinion and, if they so agree, as to the manner in which they propose to discharge their obligations under paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and where in the circumstances of any particular case it appears to the Board appropriate so to do they may serve a separate notice such as aforesaid on any other resident; and where they have so given notice to any resident of an intention to adopt in his case the alternative set out in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of the said paragraph 2, they shall not adopt in his case the other of those alternatives without his consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld
  5.—(1) Where, in pursuance of paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, the Board have made alternative living accommodation available to a resident, the following provisions of this paragraph shall apply.
  (2) The Board shall be entitled to possession of the accommodation so made available—

  (a) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of this Schedule, at the expiration of the period of six months mentioned in the said paragraph (b);

  (b) without prejudice to any obligations of the Board under the said paragraph 2 or to the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, at any time not less than one week after the Board have served notice in writing on the resident in question of their intention to take possession;

  and where notice is given under paragraph (b) of this sub-paragraph, the said obligations shall continue until the expiration of the said week or such longer period as may be specified in the notice notwithstanding that the period of dispossession may have expired.
  (3) The Board shall be entitled to recover as a civil debt from the resident in question any amount by which the aggregate expenditure reasonably incurred by him by way of rent, rates, food, living accommodation, heating, light and other household expenses is less than it would have been if the subsidence damage had not occurred and he had continued to reside in the dwelling-house:
  Provided that the Board shall not be entitled to recover any amount under this subparagraph in excess of the amount which would have been payable by way of rent for the alternative living accommodation if it had been provided by the local authority for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, or for the purposes of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, for the area in which the dwelling-house is situated.
  6. Where no damage notice has been served in respect of the dwelling-house or where the Board have elected to make a payment under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section one of this Act then, during any period while the Board are under an obligation by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, they may exercise in the name of the occupier any right with respect to the repair of the dwelling-house by the occupier exercisable against any person other than the Board.
  7. Where the Board have elected to make a payment in respect of the dwelling-house under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section one of this Act, the Board shall be entitled to recover as a civil debt from the owner of the dwelling-house any amount by which the expenditure of the Board under this Schedule in connection with the dwelling-house exceeds what it would have been if only remedial works had been executed.
  8. Where a person entitled to serve a notice under paragraph 4 of this Schedule also has a right apart from this Act to claim from the Board or any other person compensation or damage in respect of any of the matters dealt with by this Schedule, he shall not be entitled to relief in respect of the same matters both under this Schedule and under that other right. —[Mr. Maudling.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.
  This Schedule deals with an important point which was much discussed in Committee. I see that there are some Amendments on the Order Paper on particular points, but I feel confident that the bulk of the Schedule will commend itself to the House without difficulty.
  It has always been difficult, in dealing with mining subsidence, to go beyond direct damage to building structures. Once we go beyond that, it is difficult to know where we shall stop. We have done so in the case of personal injury and death, and now we are to go beyond direct damage to a limited but important extent in providing people with alternative accommodation and paying for removals and storage.
  The broad effect of the Schedule is that where a dwelling-house is not in a reasonably fit state for use as a result of mining subsidence the Board will either make alternative accommodation available, as defined in subsection 2 (1, a, i), or make a payment instead of providing the accommodation. The payment in respect of the first thirty days of dispossession will be the amount of the additional cost incurred by the individual and in respect of any other
  1434
  part of the period of dispossession will be either that amount or the amount that would be paid for the sort of accommodation defined in the previous paragraph, whichever is the less.
  I should make it clear at this stage that the words in line 35,
  "the amount which would be payable by way of rent for accommodation equivalent to such alternative living accommodation as is mentioned in paragraph (a)"
  means the economic unsubsidised rent and not the subsidised rent at which local authority accommodation will be available. That is an important point.
  The second main effect is in subsection 2, where the Board is put under an obligation to provide storage accommodation for furniture. In subection 3 we deal with the duration of the obligation. Once the person concerned has ceased to be entitled to live in the house because his lease has lapsed, clearly the obligation of the Coal Board ought similarly to lapse. Otherwise we have decided in this subsection to say that the Board can give six months' notice when it comes to the conclusion that dispossession will continue indefinitely or for an intolerably long period because the amount of damage is so great as not to be reasonably repairable in any reasonable length of time.
  In other words, as I think was recognised in our earlier discussions, while the Coal Board will and should provide alternative accommodation, it cannot continue to do so for ever; and we think that six months is a fairly reasonable time. It is the same period of time as was given in the case of people made homeless by the East Coast flooding some time ago and, on the whole, it is longer than the obligation normally accepted by county councils, which, I believe, is three months. I hope the House feels that in this case six months is a generous provision.
  It will be observed that this six months' period applies when the Board is paying for the work to be done on the house and not when the Board is doing the work itself. Obviously the Board should not be under any incentive to let it go on longer than absolutely necessary.
  There are other provisions about notice to be given by the Board and the proceedings to be gone through in order to

  1435
  determine between the Board and the individual that this Schedule should apply because the house has become unfit for habitation.
  In subsection 5 provision is made as to how the Board shall be entitled to get the house back. In particular, as I said, the Board will be able to get it back on six months' notice. There is a rather peculiar provision, paragraph (b), in line 100, in which it says that the Board shall be able to give not less than one week's notice. The purpose is to prevent the Rent Act from operating, and the words are
  "without prejudice to any obligations of the Board under the said paragraph 2";
  but despite the provision of one week's notice in the paragraph, in fact the Board will have to give six months' notice. It is a tortuous provision, but that is the effect which it will have in practice.
  The next point which is important and which I gather exercises the minds of hon. Members opposite is the question of what are known as home savings. In other words, where the person concerned saves rent or rates as a result of living elsewhere, it seems reasonable that the Board should be entitled to recoup from the individual. The idea behind it is that the Board has not been negligent in any way and in the process of causing the subsidence damage it has been acting as it is legally entitled to act. Indeed, in many cases it is acting in accordance with undertakings which its predecessors in title had obtained for a given consideration.
  Despite the fact that there is no negligence and that the Board is acting quite legally, it is by this Schedule obliged to re-house free of cost people whose houses are made uninhabitable. It therefore seems reasonable that if, as a result of re-housing and being moved into Coal Board accommodation, these people are saved rent on their old accommodation, the Coal Board should be entitled to the benefit of that. It is unreasonable that the people should get both the accommodation and the benefit of not paying rent or rates on the old accommodation. That is the idea.
  I think I have outlined the main purpose of this new Schedule. It is, I regret to say, very long and detailed, but I do
  1436
  not think the House will grudge that, because it covers some important new points. It was necessary to set them out with some exactness, because it will be of importance to people whose houses are made uninhabitable by mining subsidence.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: It appears to me that this Schedule, which contains such a large amount of phraseology, has allayed the uneasiness which was expressed during the Committee stage. But does it cover the following case? I know of some people who owned their own house, and who had a fairly large family. They looked with pride on their house, and their children were always well dressed and clean. They were moved from the house while the National Coal Board was dealing with damage to it. A number of the children could not live in the same house as their parents, who, as a result, had to pay extra for those children living elsewhere. Do the provisions of this new Schedule cover such a case?
  Mr. Maudling: That is an interesting point. The National Coal Board would have to make available alternative living accommodation which, I should have thought, would mean living accommodation for the family as a unit. I would not like to say so with absolute certainty, but I should have thought so. Failing that, if the Board cannot do that—and my impresssion is that it will not be able to do that, because it will not want to embark on a rehousing programme, which is a matter for the local authority —it will, for the first thirty days, have to pay the total cost of moving, and of finding alternative accommodation, including the cost of housing split households.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not the local authority that is responsible for providing the housing? The Coal Board consults the local authority, which provides the alternative accommodation. Where the council houses are not big enough, as in this case, to house the whole family —this family had its own house, with extra accommodation—I think that it is reasonable to suggest that the Board should also bear the cost of housing those children elsewhere.
  Mr. Maudling: I will check that, but I should have thought that the phrase

  1437
  "alternative living accommodation" must, in the case of the family, be alternative living accommodation all over the place. However, I will look into that.
  I hope that I have said enough to make clear the purpose of the Schedule, and that the House will approve of it as carrying out the obligations which we undertook.
  Mr. Mason: How will the Board tackle the problem of finding the alternative accommodation? Mining villages are suffering a lot in this respect. Because of the Government's policy of slashing housing subsidies and pressing for slum clearance, there are no houses for general need. In the mining areas, where no Coal Board houses are being built, the Board cannot find alternative accommodation for some time to come.
  There seem to be three alternative courses open. The Board must either build houses, or it must buy old property and convert it into flats, or it must make a working arrangement with the local authority to subsidise that local authority if it will build the houses. Can the Paymaster-General say how the Board will tackle this problem?
  Mr. Maudling: No, I think that it is too early to say how it will tackle the problem.
  Mr. William Stones: Paragraph 2 of the new Schedule refers to those resident in the dwelling-houses. In the County of Durham there are many hundreds of miners who, by virtue of their job, occupy houses owned by the Coal Board. They pay no rent. Will they be regarded as residents, and so be entitled to the protection afforded by the Schedule?
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. T. Brown: I am somewhat disturbed that the right hon. Gentleman, in giving his explanation of the new Schedule now under discussion, failed to give a satisfactory answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). After all, this problem of alternative accommodation, particularly in mining areas, is, as I said before, not only a headache but a heart-ache. We have reached the stage in some mining areas where a family has sometimes to be accommodated in several
  1438
  houses. In my constituency, there are two cases where the wife and husband of a family live in one place, the daughter of the family lives in another, and the son lives in another. There is a problem of providing three sets of alternative accommodation, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with that sort of point.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman has, to a very large extent, endeavoured to meet the arguments we expressed in Committee. He has in the Schedule provided that the Coal Board will be prepared to pay for alternative accommodation for six months, and that is going a lot further than is done in connection with the operations of county councils and local authorities. But he should, I think, give some consideration to the other increased costs which have to be borne by those who have to move to other accommodation.
  In Committee, I quoted the case of an old-age pensioner, a widow, who had to leave her home whilst repairs were being carried out. Those repairs took sixteen weeks. During this time, she had to pay an additional rent for the alternative accommodation of 28s. 6d. a week, as well as keeping on the rent of her original house of 8s. 3½d. a week, a total of 36s. 9½d. a week. Then she had to pay a further sum of 15s. per quarter—this is another important point in the provision of alternative accommodation—for the hire of a gas cooker whilst in her temporary home. She had to pay removal expenses to and from her original home, and they cost her £8 10s. There is no reference in the Schedule to that.
  All this difficulty, inconvenience and extra expense are incurred by householders who have to transfer from their homes which are damaged by mining subsidence so that repairs may be done, and then they have to come back again. This old lady had on her return a further expense—this again is an important addition—for the redecoration of her home and for providing new floor coverings. All these things she had to pay as the price for the mining of coal.
  These points of view were stressed very strongly in Committee, and I and my hon. Friends were hoping, indeed, expecting, that having regard to what we had said, based not upon hypothetical cases but

  1439
  upon cases we knew from our own practical experience, the Government would have gone farther than they have. We hoped, and we were justified in hoping, that the Minister would have covered these very important points. I am not complaining about the six months. I think that he has gone a long way in that direction, but he has not fully covered what we anticipated on the question of alternative accommodation.
  Let us for a moment visualise what is happening in the mining areas. I will not go into all the factors, but we know very well that in many of the mining areas houses are being demolished because of the conditions due to mining subsidence. The people who live in those houses cannot get alternative accommodation. The local authority cannot provide houses for them and, therefore these unfortunate people have their whole social and spiritual life disturbed.
  I do not want to go quoting case after case, but I think that the Minister should have gone a little bit further in meeting the people who have to go into alternative accommodation because of the damage by mining subsidence to the houses in which they live.
  Mr. Proctor: This Schedule goes much further and improves the position very considerably, but it nevertheless leaves those in the mining areas in a disastrous position. It is only in cases in which the Coal Board elects to make a money payment rather than restore a home that these benefits arise. Take the position of a person who owns a small house, worth, perhaps, a few hundred pounds. If the Board elects to make a money payment, it is a complete disaster for him to be left with only a few hundred pounds and have to provide himself with a new home. The obligation on the nation should be to provide another home for him.
  I regard the six months as being wholly insufficient. We have had some experience of families trying to find new homes, and it is almost impossible for a wife with two or three children, to find alternative accommodation. Even the owner of a small house is in a disastrous position. The tenant of a small house is in an equally disastrous position. Six months is nothing like sufficient as an
  1440
  obligation on the nation which has destroyed a home to provide another one.
  The individual is left to his own resources in this case. There is no obligation on the local authority to asist him in any way unless it cares to do so voluntarily. Suppose that a local authority comes to the rescue. It may cost £2,000 to provide the alternative accommodation and as the law stands the national subsidy for general housing needs is entirely denied to that local authority. The period of six months is wholly inadequate, and I hope that the Government will have another look at this matter.
  I do not know how this is to be administered, because the Coal Board has to find the alternative accommodation; but it is only obliged to find it for six months, and I envisage that it will take out eviction orders. If peope are evicted from accommodation which is provided only for six months, we shall have a disastrous position arising. I hope that before long we shall reach the stage of saying that if the nation, in its search for coal, destroys a home, the nation should provide another one in its place.
  Mr. Probert: I think we all agree that this is a most complex Schedule. There was one point which, to my rather confused mind, made confusion worse confounded. That was with regard to what the Minister said concerning one week's notice. He said that it was to bring the Schedule in accordance with the Rent Act. I understand that the Rent Act now states that there must be four weeks' notice.
  Mr. Maudling: A number of points of detail have been raised to which I will try to reply as best I can. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Stones) raised a point about miners living in National Coal Board houses in Durham. I should have thought without any doubt that they would be residents ordinarily resident in the dwellinghouse—in other words, in the terms of the Schedule, they are living there. Therefore, there is no doubt that they are covered.
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) raised a point, which had been raised previously by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), about families being split up. Perhaps I can call their attention to the words in paragraph 3 (1) of the

  1441
  Schedule, which say that the alternative accommodation should be
  "otherwise reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including the probable duration of the period of dispossession."
  It would be unreasonable to split up a family for a long time, and it would he equally unreasonable to separate a mother from her small children, but it is not unreasonable to ask grown-up members of a family to live apart temporarily. That is the effect of the Schedule. It does not mean that there should not be some splitting up of adults in certain circumstances.
  Mr. T. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed the sentiments of every one of us in saying that it is not fair to split up a family. What I am concerned about is whether the expenses incurred by the family in being split up will be paid by the National Coal Board.
  Mr. Maudling: That was covered by the point I was making, that if the family was split up for a long period it would not be reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the Schedule. The National Coal Board would have to find accommodation which did not involve the splitting up or find alternative accommodation which did not involve splitting up over a long period.
  The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) asked about my reference to the Rent Act. The point I was trying to make was that this provision is designed to exempt the properties from the operation of the Rent Act and not to bring them within it.
  The main point made by hon. Members opposite is that we have not gone far enough in this matter. Naturally, we expect them to make that kind of point. It is right that they should do so on behalf of their constituents. Throughout the passage of the Bill, they have urged us all the time to go further. If we have disappointed them, I am sorry, but I think we have gone a long way. We have all agreed that the line must be drawn somewhere. I hope that in the circumstances the House will accept the Schedule.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule read a Second time.
  Mr. Robens: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in paragraph 5, to leave out sub-paragraph (3).
  Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient for the House also to discuss the following Amendment, to leave out paragraph 7, though I am perfectly willing to put two separate Questions if that is desired.
  Mr. Robens: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be best to discuss these two Amendments together. We did not intervene from the Front Bench on the Schedule as a whole because my hon. Friends on the back benches had valid constituency points which dealt largely with the Schedule and their objections to it. We did, however, think that the Schedule was rather weak and a little niggardly in containing sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 5 and paragraph 7.
  Paragraph 5 (3) states that the Board shall be able to sue and to recover as a civil debt any odd amount by which someone is benefited financially, because for a period of six months he is living in the accommodation provided by the National Coal Board because the house in which he had been living was made uninhabitable by reason of the operations of the Coal Board. We regard this as rather mean, because nobody from this side, or, indeed, from any part of the House, has asked that there should be any compensation for disturbance.
  10.0 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has given one or two very graphic descriptions of what disturbance means to families in mining areas where subsidence occurs. An argument could have been put forward that some compensation for disturbance should be paid by the National Coal Board. That has not been done because obviously one must be fair on all sides about this.
  It may well be that the alternative accommodation to which the individual has to go is much further away from his place of work, and also farther away from the places of work of the members of his family who are working. It may well be, therefore, that they are put to considerably increased travelling expenses as a result of the disturbance. There is nothing in the Bill to say that the Coal Board shall pay the extra travelling expenses incurred, nor have we demanded that this shall be done, because reasonableness should at all times be exercised in these matters.

  1443
  It seems to us, therefore, that it is unreasonable that if, by a strange coincidence of the alternative accommodation provided by the Board, there should be a few shillings saved by the tenant, the Board should then have the power to sue for this as a civil debt. As the Board is providing the alternative accommodation, it knows precisely the kind of accommodation from which the individual has come. As a matter of fact the Schedule indicates that it shall provide something similar.
  As many other considerations are not taker, into account because of the disturbance to the family, it seems to us unreasonable and niggardly that the Board should have the power to regard any small amount that there might be in favour of the individual because he is living away by reason of disturbance, which has not taken into account extra travelling expenses and a host of other things, as a civil debt and be able to sue in the courts for it. That would destroy the spirit of the Bill, which has been one of sweet reasonableness.
  If we turn to paragraph 7 there is the same kind of objection and perhaps this one is even greater than the objection which we have just indicated towards sub-paragraph (3). In the copy of the Bill it is clear that the Board, under Clause 1 (3) itself elects to make a payment. Having elected to make a payment, it makes the payment
  "…equal to any sums from time to time shown to have been expended by any other person in executing the merged works or, as the case may be, the redevelopment works up to an aggregate amount equal to the expenditure which it is estimated would have been incurred by the Board or by any other person, whichever estimate is the less, in executing remedial works in connection with the damaged property…"
  In other words, the Board elects to make this payment, and there are laid down the methods by which it arrives at the amount it pays. Then, in the Schedule, having safeguarded the Board in the Bill itself in Clause 1 (3), if the Board has made a mistake and paid too much, again it is to be entitled to recover as a civil debt from the owner of the dwelling-house any amount by which the expenditure of the Board exceeds what it would have been if only remedial works had been executed.
  Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is perfectly clear that paragraph 7 relates to the option in Clause 1 (3, b). In other words, it is the National Coal Board which elects to make this sort of payment, subject to all the provisions which I have enumerated.
  Having elected to do this, having itself decided the amounts it will pay, it is now suggested that the Board should be able to recover as a civil debt some error which it has made in its own calculations. That is niggardly and not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill as it has passed through its various stages. The deletion of subsection (3, b) would not hurt the Board. It would be in keeping with the spirit of the Bill and to leave it in would be parsimonious, niggardly and a little hard. It would weigh against those who have been sinned against—because it is their homes which have been demolished —rather than the Board which has so much power over payments.
  Mr. Maudling: I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order, because on the second one I hope to show that he was under some misapprehension about the purpose of the subsection. Clause 1 (3) deals with making value payments instead of executing remedial works. It is perfectly true that it gives the Board the right to decide whether to do the work or to make the payment, but in paragraph (b) it deals with the case where it is proposed to merge the execution of other works with the remedial works.
  In that case the election is made not by the Board but by the owner of the property, and the purpose of paragraph (b) is to permit the National Coal Board to have the work done by a contractor instead of doing it itself, where the owner says that he does not want it done immediately but wants further development undertaken. Where the owner has further development carried out, the Board is liable only for the amount it would have had to pay if only the repairs had been done.
  Where the house is damaged, in addition to the cost of repairs the Board also has to pay for the re-housing of the people living there. If the Board tells the owner of the house that it is prepared to pay the cost of repairing the house and for the people to be accommodated elsewhere

  1445
  while the house is being repaired, and if the house owner wants other repairs merged with that work, which means that the occupiers of the house stay in that free accommodation longer than they would otherwise have done, the extra cost should fall on the owner and not on the Coal Board.
  That is a reasonable purpose and carries out exactly the same provision of subsection (3), which makes sure that where property owners want to carry out development while the repairs are done the Board will pay only for the cost of the damage and, similarly, the Board will pay only for housing people as long as they need re-housing while the repair work is being undertaken. If the owner wishes to redevelop and the occupiers have to be re-housed for longer as a result, the owner ought to pay the cost of that longer period which arises from his own choice. That is certainly the purpose of the subsection and on the whole it is fair.
  The other point is very difficult to answer, and the right hon. Gentleman made a good case when he pointed out that disturbance was involved and that many other unpleasant things arose when people had to move out of their houses as a result of mining subsidence. After thinking about this a good deal and taking that into account, I still think we are right to leave this provision as it stands. I repeat that the purpose is to give people compensation in circumstances where no negligence arises and where in many cases the Board, either itself or through its predecessor in title, has already paid to compensate people in advance for the damage done. So we are to some extent imposing a burden a second time over on the consumer of coal. While it is right to compensate people when the house for which they are paying rent is no longer usable by giving them alternative accommodation, I am not sure that the Board should also pay them when they are no longer obliged to pay rent, or are exempted from paying rates.
  It is the purpose of the provision to see that they get alternative accommodation, but if they are provided with it free the National Coal Board should be entitled to the benefit of the saving of rates which accrues. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is niggardly. Perhaps it is from one point
  1446
  of view, but I urge from another point of view that we are doing the reasonable thing in saying that although people should be provided with free accommodation, if some people get a benefit by a reduction of their rent or a remission of their rent or rates—and some will and others will not—the benefit should go to the Board which is paying for the accommodation and not to the people themselves, who are no longer paying for the accommodation because they are getting it free from the Board.
  Mr. Robens: Do I understand that the Paymaster-General is now saying that when alternative accommodation is provided by the Coal Board the people going into it will not be paying any rent at all?
  Mr. Maudling: The people are provided with accommodation—or, if they cannot be so accommodated, they are provided with the value of that accommodation, free. They either get the house provided or the rent, but in that case, as they are getting a house rent-free, or the rent of the house free, and are exempted from paying rent for another house, the Board should have the benefit of that exemption.
  We could always make a case for being more generous and more forthcoming in these matters, but I think that we have made the right balance between generosity to the injured party and a proper safeguard in respect of the burden that we are placing upon the consumers of coal. Therefore, with great regret, I must say that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Robens: I intervened upon the rent-free point only because it will not be in every case that the dispossessed person will go into a National Coal Board house. He may have to go into some other house, and he will have to pay the rent physically, which presumably will be repaid by the Board. He will not always be housed in a house owned by the Board, which in normal circumstances would be rent-free.
  Mr. Maudling: The first alternative is for the Board to make accommodation available to people. If it is Board accommodation it would be rent-free, but in most cases I agree that it probably will not be. The alternative is for the Board, for the first thirty days, to pay the whole

  1447
  of the additional expenses, and after that either the whole of the additional expenses or a rent, on an economic unsubsidised basis, equivalent to what would be paid for housing equivalent to local authority standards. In other words, these people are provided with housing equivalent to local authority housing, or with the unsubsidised rent currently obtainable for a house of that character.
  Mr. Oliver: I agree with the explanation given by the Paymaster-General in respect of paragraph 7. I think there is a great deal of force in his contention that if a landlord wishes to carry out an extensive scheme and thereby causes the disturbed tenant to remain in the other premises it is only right that the owner of the property should meet the additional expenses.
  I cannot, however, understand the objection of the Paymaster-General to sub-paragraph 3. I cannot see why this financial standard should be imported at all. We are not dealing with Arundel Castle when we talk of alternative accommodation; it will be ordinary working-class accommodation.
  Mr. Maudling: I understood that all houses were included.
  Mr. Oliver: I appreciate that, but it is highly improbable that anyone will go to Arundel Castle. Therefore, the margin of difference will be so insignificant that it is unworthy of the Paymaster-General to put forward this plea. It is not merely a question of rent; it concerns rent, rates, food, living accommodation, heating, lighting and other household expenses. All those are factors which I should not have thought anyone would have put forward when saying, "If the cost of those factors is in excess of what the person expended before he was compelled to move he must make a refund to the Board."
  This is the last Amendment to the Schedule and, therefore, it is the last we shall discuss tonight. I beg the Minister to withdraw these involved provisions and allow us to finish on an amicable note.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. R. Williams: I am astonished by the reaction of the Minister. I beg him to look at sub-paragraph 3 and to apply
  1448
  these questions to the situation which will obtain where a man and his wife and family have been obliged to leave their home because it has become uninhabitable. In such a case how is one to determine whether the amount spent on food is more or less than was the case when they occupied the House which has become uninhabitable?
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate how absurd the provisions will appear. It is possible for Coal Board officials to say to the man, "You were in a house where you paid 20s. a week in rent and you have now gone into a house where the rent is 15s. a week. Therefore, you owe us 5s. a week." But how is the expenditure on food to be determined? What sort of inquiry is to be made?
  What tribunal will determine whether the amount is more than it was, or less, or equal? Should the Coal Board be put in the position that as an authority responsible for public funds it is obliged to make such inquiries? Surely it is wrong for us to impose such an obligation to "snoop" upon a nationalised industry or upon anyone else.
  Who will assess the living accommodation? Presumably, if a person who moved into another house and pays less rent, other things being equal the living accommodation will be of a lower standard. Will that be taken into account for the benefit of the person concerned and as a claim to be put against any claim made by the Coal Board? Does it not become stupid when we find that heating, light and other household expenses quite undefined are to be included? I suggest to the Minister that whatever may be the reason which prompted him to support this, in practice it will make the Coal Board look ridiculous if it attempts to carry out its legal obligation, and it will be open to criticism if it does not. We are putting the Coal Board in that position and there is no necessity for it.
  The Minister has been very accommodating hitherto and his attitude in relation to this matter is quite out of character. He will be leaving something in the Bill which will make both this House and the Coal Board look ridiculous. I agree that it is possible—I do not think it is something which ought to be done—to make a case in relation to specific things like rent and rates

  1449
  which may be discovered without any "snooping". But to include these other things is absolutely indefensible and I do not apologise to the House for taking up time discussing this matter.
  We have done so much in this Bill which is so good. We have turned it into a good Bill between us. It has not been a case in which the Opposition have simply done their job and turned it into a good Bill. It is true that we have played our part, but the Government side have played their part as well. We have had great concessions from the Minister, and it would be a very bad thing indeed if the Report stage were to end in such a way that the Minister, on reflection, would find himself in an indefensible position.
  I beg the right hon. Gentleman, at this late hour, to say no more than this: that he will consider the arguments and discuss the question of sub-paragraph 3 with his noble Friend and see whether something can be done when the Bill reaches another place.
  Mr. Maudling: I should like to answer one of the points which the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) has made, and to put forward a suggestion. I think he is wrong when he said that if the Coal Board provided accommodation where the rent was 15s. a week as against the former 20s., it could say that the person in question owed the Board 5s. It is not possible, and that position is covered by the proviso in line 112.
  Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I could not help being rather influenced by the argument about food, heating and light, which I agree are in a rather different category from rent and rates. I imagine that the idea is that a person may be put into accommodation where these things are provided as part of the normal services.
  I really do not think that there is any possibility of us being able to give way on this question of rent and rates, where I think the case is a strong one. On the question of food and other matters, I certainly think that we should look at it again. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might consult with his noble Friends and see what can be done in another place. If we can think of an improvement, we will do it, and perhaps if they can think of one, no doubt they will do it them-
  1450
  selves. I do not see how we can make a concession on rent and rates, though on food I think the point is worth looking at, because it may be that it represents an excessive and unjustifiable caution on the part of the draftsmen. In these circumstances, I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would be prepared not to press the Amendment.
  Mr. Robens: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule added to the Bill.

  Schedule.—(DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND RECIPIENTS OF PAYMENTS.)
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 18, line 16, to leave out "by arbitration" and insert:
  "in the manner provided by section nine of this Act".
  This is the only Schedule which was originally in the Bill, described on the Notice Paper as being the Schedule, but which, I now understand, has become the First Schedule. Those hon. Members who were on the Committee will recollect that I expressed the great doubt which I felt myself about the advisability of having arbitration as a method of deciding such disputes as might arise on the Schedule. I should point out that the Schedule was taken practically wholesale from the War Damage Act, which happened to provide for arbitration in deciding these disputes about depreciation.
  Arbitration seems to me to be an inappropriate method of procedure in the context of this Bill, and it would be much better to have one form of proceedings before the county court, especially for people living in ordinary houses which may be damaged, or in small farmhouses and so on. We have, therefore, given the matter further thought and suggest that we ought to add these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 18, line 18, to leave out from "that" to "may" in line 19 and to insert:
  "a rating unit and property not included in any rating unit",

  1451
  The First Schedule at present provides that farm buildings which are rated, and other farm buildings and agricultural land which are not rated, shall be treated as one unit for the purpose of assessing the value payment which is agreed or determined as equitable in all the circumstances of the case. The Amendment provides that this shall apply generally to any rated unit and to any property not included in a rated unit, of which various kinds were mentioned in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 18, line 30, to leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  This Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment made earlier to the interpretation Clause, Clause 13.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 29 to 32.
  This Amendment is consequential upon the last Amendment but two.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  WINFRITH HEATH BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  WINFRITH HEATH BILL

    Clause 2.—(DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND PROVISION FOR COMPENSATION.)
    10.27 p.m.
    Colonel O. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out "Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and to insert "Lord Chancellor".
    We have always been most careful in this House to avoid placing responsibility upon a Minister to appoint somebody who would have to take action, and where the Minister might find himself party to something upon what the person he had appointed might have to adjudicate. The Minister of Agriculture has special responsibility for commons. That has been
    1452
    laid down by Act of Parliament dating back to sometime in the first half of the nineteenth century.
    Therefore, if we pass the Clause it could mean that at some future time the Minister will find himself in the rather awkward position of being party to a case about which his nominee would have to try to make a fair judgment. That is something that neither side of the Committee wants to see.
    My first idea, particularly after I listened to the Minister on Second Reading, was that it would be far better to choose somebody like the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Association who, by his very nature, would be divorced from any such risk when he came to his later activities.
    As my right hon. Friend said, it is far from clear at the moment exactly what type of person would best fulfil the job of valuer as envisaged in the Bill. I myself was convinced that it was not possible to designate any one of the technical associations, because if one did one might well find in the light of experience of the claims that are likely to be made and the questions that are likely to be asked that one had chosen the wrong one.
    Therefore, I thought it would be much better if we substituted the Lord Chancellor for the Minister. After all, the Lord Chancellor is a man known throughout the course of many years of Parliamentary experience as being one who always appoints people where there might be confusion or where it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt that the person appointed will in no circumstances in local gossip or in any other way be regarded as the nominee of a certain Minister or faction.
    I was reluctant to place a further burden on the Lord Chancellor, but I felt that to safeguard the principle to which I have just referred, by preventing the House of Commons from ever appointing someone who could by way of gossip or misinformation be construed as not impartial, it was well worth while to have the Amendment. Winfrith Heath presents us with our first case of a public authority wishing to take over common land, and I think it well worth while to ask that the Lord Chancellor should be the person to appoint the valuer.
    By so doing, we certainly cannot be misrepresented—I hope that in this I

    1453
    speak for all hon. Members—in whatever may be said later, and, above all, we shall have safeguarded the principle to which I have referred. In giving power to nominate, we shall be able to say without any question that the person has been nominated by an authority possessing no possible side or bias which can be misconstrued.
    I know full well that the Minister of Agriculture has special duties in regard to commons, and at first sight it might be that he was the natural choice, but I think that just because of that, and because of his special duties in regard to commons, it would be very much better to have someone quite outside any issue which might come before the valuer.
    For those reasons, I trust that the Amendment will be accepted. I am certain that it is in accordance with principles with which both sides of the House of Commons have always agreed. I am certain that it will stop any suggestion locally that the person appointed might be acting ex parte in respect of the person who appointed him.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that I shall not embarrass the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), nor prejudice his case, if I congratulate him on his speech and declare my whole-hearted support for the line of argument that he has adopted.
    This is a very important Measure. Although we have been told by the Minister—no one doubts his good faith in the matter—that the Bill will never he quoted as a precedent, we are dealing here with the kind of thing that has inured over centuries and will go on existing, and one can envisage some future Minister, oblivious to what is being said in Committee on this Bill, faced with a similar situation and looking to what has been done in the past, alighting on this and saying. "In 1957 they put in the Minister of Agriculture, and in 2235 I can do no better than follow what they did."
    This Bill may very well have successors, not necessarily from the Atomic Energy Authority but from nationalised industries who may, for the purpose of works or for some other reason, want to acquire a considerable tract of open country and to extinguish
    1454
    any common rights which may exist on it; and, instead of lighting on the place where, I understand, it is very difficult to discover anybody who claims to be capable of exercising the common rights, one might very well then he dealing with a place where there might be a considerable number of people who were so involved and where it would he highly desirable that the proceedings that this valuer is to conduct should be conducted by someone whose appointment must be placed above suspicion of being the "stooge"—to use a modern word—of any of the Ministries or other parties connected with the case.
    I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) for raising this point which, as he has said and as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has echoed, is an important one not only in this particular case, but as an example of a general matter that arises.
    I have discussed the matter with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, taking into account particularly the nature of this valuer's office which is rather of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, and we are inclined to agree that the appointment might better be made by my noble Friend. Therefore, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)
    Amendments made: In page 6, line 5, leave out "Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Lord Chancellor".
    In line 9, leave out "said Minister" and insert "Lord Chancellor".
    In page 6, leave out line 28 and insert "Lord Chancellor".—[Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I want to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for some information he has given me in the course of correspondence which I have had with him about the Bill. I hope that I shall not be expected to apologise to the House for raising the matter, for, as I said when we were in Committee, this is a very important Bill indeed, inasmuch as, whether we like it or not, being the first Bill of this kind that we have had before us, it must in some way or other influence any future Bills which may be brought forward in circumstances that may not be quite similar to those in this case.
    I am sure that no one wishes to hinder the Atomic Energy Authority in getting on with its task of creating this station at Winfrith Heath. I notice in the Preamble that we are told that the Ministry at the time they drafted the Bill were desirous of acquiring certain land in the parish of Winfrith Newburgh. I understand that that desire still subsists, unless it has been gratified in the meantime. Can the Minister give us any indication of the time when conveyance of this land from the present owners to the Government will be completed? I think that is information which we should have, because when he came before the House on Second Reading he held this matter out as one of urgency, and I think he will agree that no matter what other criticisms may have been made of the Government, no one doubted the urgency of the matter. I think we should now be told, on the assumption that he gets the Bill, when he expects that the land will be acquired by the Authority.
    The other point with which I want to deal is a statement which occurred in the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to me, in which various matters were raised, one of which we have already dealt with by the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), which has been accepted by the Government and
    1456
    put into the Bill by the House. Another was what is to happen to the whole of this vast tract of land when it passes into the possession of the Authority. I was somewhat surprised to learn from the Prime Minister's letter, although I greatly welcome the intimation, that although in Clause 1 (2, b) this land will in future be capable of enclosure without any further proceeding, it is not proposed to enclose the whole of this land and, in fact, a very considerable part of the 850 acres will remain open for people to roam about on as they have done, whether they had the legal right to do so or not, hitherto.
    I mention it because I think that that assurance should appear in the record of our proceedings, because in view of the occasional scares which we get about the necessity of having these places so sealed that no security risks are run about them, it might be possible at some date in the not-too-distant future for some Minister or some servant of the Authority to make representations that in the circumstances a ring fence should be put round the two areas on either side of the road which divides the site. I am bound to say that if this land is to remain physically unenclosed to a very large extent, no matter what its legal position may be, some of the objections which some of us feel to the proceedings as a whole will be removed.
    It is a very dangerous position when land is legally capable of enclosure but is left physically unenclosed. I know of several such commons in Surrey, including that vast common near Wisley Hut on the main Portsmouth Road. That is physically unenclosed, but it was legally enclosed over a hundred years ago. A considerable amount of public money had to be spent some few years ago, when I was Chairman of the Surrey County Council, to buy the freehold of the land so as to ensure that, in public ownership, it would not be enclosed.
    To have covered the whole of that tract of land, which is even larger than the amount of land now under consideration, would have meant very considerable destruction of one of the great amenities of the county, and would have robbed the drive along the Portsmouth Road of the considerable amount of enjoyment which can be had by those who do not drive along it too fast. They, unfortunately, are a rapidly diminishing minority.

    1457
    I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that, at the moment, it is not proposed to put the whole of this great acreage into two enclosures, one on either side of the main road which runs across the site; that, while they behave themselves reasonably, the public will be allowed to roam across it, and that no steps will be taken to hinder that approach, beyond the necessary enclosures for the various buildings that are part of the project. Having accepted the Bill, we cannot object to that, but if, in fact, these buildings are to cover only a portion—and, I understand, a comparatively small portion—of the total acreage, I hope that we may have an assurance of that kind.
    I would even go so far as to hope that at some time or other the Government will take powers, if they need them, to frame the necessary regulations for the use of the land by the public—powers such as those which have been obtained by the National Trust and some local authorities which have these large open spaces under their control. We can be quite certain that once the buildings begin to go up they will be objects of interest to great numbers of people.
    One does not desire to see these places regarded as the homes of mysterious processes from which the general public had better keep away. Nobody, I am quite sure, desires other than to get people to understand that these institutions will be part of the country's make-up for the next two or three generations, and the more we can get the people to familiarise themselves with them in that way the better it will be for all concerned.
    I should like to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for the very courteous reply that he sent to my representations made on behalf of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society. I hope, however, that next time the Authority is trying to acquire land it will be quite certain, before it desires it too much, that the land is not subject, even in theory, to any rights of common, because the destruction of common land over which the people can roam is not a thing to be encouraged in these days.
    There is just one other thing that I should like to say. I understand that a town of some considerable size will be built in connection with this scheme.
    1458
    May I be allowed to express the hope that the municipality which will be responsible for providing recreation grounds and playing facilities within that town will not be ungenerously treated by the Government should it have difficulty in acquiring land for that purpose?
    I want to make it quite plain that, as this land is subject to Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, there is no claim unless compulsory powers are used to acquire the land and that an equivalent area shall be added to the common, but where, in addition to enclosing a part of an open space, a Government also bring close to that site a new town, I hope that the Government will feel that they have some responsibilities towards the inhabitants, and particularly towards the younger inhabitants, of that new town.
    10.51 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I shall not detain the House very long at this stage, but I think it would be a pity if we let the Bill go to another place while there are still misgivings in our minds which the Paymaster-General can, perhaps, dispel when he comes to the Dispatch Box to reply. On Second Reading, we expressed a number of apprehensions and doubts which we had about the Bill, although, of course, we allowed it to have a Second Reading without opposing it in the Division Lobby.
    The doubt that I have in mind tonight is really an extension of the last point made by my right hon. Friend. Earlier in his speech, my right hon. Friend asked the Paymaster-General whether the land had yet been acquired, or when it was going to be acquired. I read through very carefully today the debate on Second Reading, and it looked to me from my study of HANSARD as if the Paymaster-General on that occasion rather carefully avoided referring to whether the land had or had not been acquired at that stage or giving us any indication when it would be acquired.
    What we really want to know is how the land is going to be acquired by the Atomic Energy Authority. If, for example, it is going to be acquired compulsorily, then I think the provisions to which my right hon. Friend referred ought to apply, because it is, I understand, the normal practice where a public

    1459
    authority acquires land by compulsory purchase that it should provide an alternative amount of land in compensation.
    It is, of course, possible for the Atomic Energy Authority under Section 5 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, to acquire this land by compulsory purchase, and it might, I think, be held by the cynical observer that the Government have, first of all, extinguished the common rights in this land and that, by having done so, have put the Atomic Energy Authority in a position in which, if it acquires the land by compulsory purchase, there is no need for it to provide alternative land because the commoners' rights have been extinguished by this House before the acquisition takes place.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that the Bill merely deals with common rights, their ascertainment, extinguishment, compensation, and so on. I do not think that it contains in its four corners any provision for the acquisition of land at all.
    Mr. Greenwood: I fully appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker. I was seeking to prove, of course, that we should not allow the Bill to proceed if we thought that any injustice to the local inhabitants was going to be caused in consequence of it.
    However, I have made that point, and I should now like finally to put to the Paymaster-General the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made. It is that, although it may be too late for the normal procedure to be applied in this case, if at a later stage it is found necessary for the growing population of the area to have open spaces provided, there will be a generous gesture either by the Government or by the Atomic Energy Authority to give some sort of undertaking that they will help the local inhabitants with the acquisition of the open spaces that will be required.
    10.55 p.m.
    Mr. Maudling: I hope I did not give the impression in moving the Second Reading of the Bill that the land had actually been acquired. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South
    1460
    Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, the Bill begins by saying:
    "Whereas…the…Authority are desirous of acquiring…"
    We have been negotiating for some time, and I hope, now the difficulty about commoners' rights has been removed, the negotiations will soon be completed. They are still continuing, and, having provided this Bill, there should be no delay over any rights. But I hope that the negotiations will not be protracted and that they will be concluded shortly. I do not think they have any relevance to the slightly sinister point of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). There seems to be some misapprehension about this.
    This is not a matter of open spaces. On this common, the public at large have no right of entry. The only common rights in question are those of the commoners to cut turf and pasture cattle in the area. The public generally has no right of access. Members of the public can and, in fact, do walk over the area, but by tacit consent of the owners.
    For the future, I am glad to give the assurance for which the right hon. Gentleman asked. Certainly the Atomic Energy Authority will not want to cover the whole of this large area with buildings. I understand that the practice is to build these reactors, which, although expensive and very heavy, are not very large, with the maximum amount of open space between them. I understand that the Authority's intention is to leave the rest of the land unoccupied by buildings and as open spaces for the public to walk over.
    The Authority is not likely to change that intention, and I cannot conceive that it will want to fence in the whole of the area. The cost alone would be prohibitive and the difficulty of maintaining security around the entire area would be much greater than maintaining security around a small number of smaller areas. There is no intention of enclosing this large area, and in practice the public will have as much right of access to the area as in the past.
    I will deal finally with the question of a new town coming into being. I do not think that the influx of scientific staff to this new extension of Harwell is likely to bring about the creation of anything

    1461
    remotely resembling a new town. Problems will arise with the influx of population into the area, problems which the Authority will have to settle in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. I will certainly see that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Gentleman are conveyed to the Authority and brought to its attention.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

  GRAMMAR AND TECHNICAL SCHOOL EDUCATION, ST. PAUL'S CRAY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Sumner: I want tonight to raise the matter of grammar and technical education in the area of St. Paul's Cray, which is an estate in Kent. I want to raise it because the comparative figures seem to show that there may be something definitely wrong with the facilities available for the education of children in that area.
  I should explain that this estate is shared by the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Miss Hornsby-Smith) and by my own constituency of Orpington. It is a very large and recent housing estate largely accommodating people from London and being a fair cross-section of the community. It includes professional laid business people and skilled workers. To add to the importance of the matter I am raising, I am told that there are about 2,000 children or more on the estate and that every year about 400 or more come forward for examination for further education. That the creation of such an estate with so many children must have created problems for the education authorities in that part of Kent is something which no one would deny; but the question is now whether the children are, in fact, getting proper education and proper and full opportunities to proceed to technical and grammar schools.
  I understand it is generally accepted that the fair proportion or proper overall figure of children who should pro-
  1462
  ceed to such further education is, throughout the country and, at any rate, in Kent, about 25 per cent. The comparative figures to which I wish to draw attention are those for the area in which St. Paul's Cray is situated, namely, the Sidcup, Chislehurst and Orpington County Division and the St. Paul's Cray area which forms part of that division. I am afraid that means referring in some detail to figures, which are not things which ever appeal to me very much. It it, however, essential to refer so them in this connection.
  Dealing first with grammar schools, only, in 1953–54 the division had a percentage of 15·3, and St. Paul's Cray had 5·6 per cent. In 1954–55, the division had 15·9 per cent. and St. Paul's Cray had 8·8. In 1955–56, the last year for which I have figures, the division had 15·3 per cent, and St. Paul's Cray had 8·5 per cent.
  For technical schools, I have the figures for boys only, because, as I understand it, girls go on later; that rather confuses the issue. Again, taking the figures in the same way, in 1953–54 and 1954–55. St. Paul's Cray and the division held an even balance, and St. Paul's Cray was, therefore, apparently getting a fair percentage. But in 1955–56, it is very significant that the division had a 7·6 per cent. and St. Paul's Cray's figure had fallen to 2·25 per cent. It was, therefore, no longer holding its own, but was, indeed, getting a very small part of the percentage which went to the division.
  Bearing in mind that for technical and grammar schools together one's target should be something like 25 or 26 per cent. for Kent, and also remembering that the technical school figures do not include girls, one finds that for St. Paul's Cray the combined figure for 1953–54 was 13·2 per cent., for 1954–55 it was 18·8 per cent., and then for 1955–56 it was 10·75 per cent. There has been a serious falling off in the last year.
  I give these figures because they are available to me, and I believe them to be accurate, but it is right to say that there are in my own constituency areas which are probably worse off and which receive fewer places even than these figures indicate. I am thinking of some parts of St. Mary Cray. However, from those figures, certain serious points emerge. So

  1463
  far as grammar schools are concerned, we in St. Paul's Cray still enjoy only a little over half of the overall percentage. So far as technical schools are concerned, dealing only with boys, the figure has fallen right away in the last year. Taking the combined figures for grammar and technical schools, the figure is certainly far below the overall accepted percentage of 25 per cent. I would emphasise again that it has fallen in the last year.
  There may be many causes for the present situation. There may be a combination of causes. At first, there was a tendency for one to be told that it was because the children were disturbed by the move from London down to this part of Kent. But that surely is something that is no longer a valid argument, if it ever was, and one must face the question that if they were disturbed, and therefore had the natural ability which was not being brought out because of the move and so on, what is happening to them now? One would expect to find a larger number of late entrants, whereas, in fact, I believe there have been virtually no late entrants from this estate in the past three years or so.
  It may be said that the children have not the same natural ability of other children in the area with which we are concerned for that overall percentage. One hesitates to say that of children who come from London, where everyone is always said to be rather brighter than in some other districts—even if we do not all accept that—but one would think that children from London would at least be able to hold their own. Indeed, those who have been most concerned with this have tried to make some sort of review, necessarily difficult and sketchy, of the academic abilities of the parents of these children, and of their elder brothers and sisters. I am told there is nothing to suggest that they do not come up to the ordinary standard of the area, and that housing estate contains a good cross-section of the community.
  I hope it will not be said that the reason for the matter I am raising tonight is lack of natural ability in these children, or that it will not be said without some concrete evidence to support it, which I think would be difficult to produce. Another reason could be that
  1464
  they are not being sufficiently well taught in the schools in which they are before they proceed to examination and the possibilities of further education. I would hesitate to suggest that, and most certainly do not in any way criticise or cast any aspersion on the people who are teaching them. In fact, there are excellent, modern schools situated near London and one would think they would attract a very able and competent teaching staff. So far as I know they do, and the children are adequately taught, but perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that possibility.
  Another thing that one can think of is that there might be unfair methods of selection. That is the last thing I would put forward, and I say it only because one tries to get rid of the possibilities, to come down to what might be the true cause of this state of affairs. Then, if one has run through those possibilities, one is left only with the question of whether there are adequate facilities for further education in the neighbourhood. Of course, when one sees the figures, there has been nothing seriously wrong, at any rate except in the past year, with the number of children going to technical schools, and one's attention must be focussed largely on the grammar schools.
  It is true that in Orpington a new girls' grammar school is being built, and I understand it should be opened in September of this year. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to assure us that that is so, and that there will be no delays there. I think a new boys' grammar school is scheduled for 1960–61, and one hopes that there will be no delay and that it might be somewhat expedited. There has, in fact, been a tremendous increase in population in the district since the war. One might almost say that the figures of population have virtually changed the character of the district, yet the increased number of places provided for grammar school pupils has been very small.
  The importance of the matter seems to be that we should be able to go ahead without delay in getting girls into the grammar school and providing a new grammar school for boys. I hope that my hon. Friend will not only allay the anxieties about how this situation has arisen, but also give some consideration to the question of late entries for any

  1465
  children who may have been passed over. I hope he will tell us that the provision of the girls' grammar school will go at least some of the way to meet this problem and that the provision of the boys' grammar school can be expedited, so that they can receive the opportunities to which it would appear they are entitled by their natural ability. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say why this situation has arisen and what can be done about it in the next few years.
  11.11 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Sumner) has put his case fairly and reasonably, and I am sure the House will have noticed that tonight we have also present my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is also the hon. Member for Chislehurst. By virtue of her office she is estopped from actually taking part in the debate, but I know that she is concerned about this matter, because she has corresponded with me. I will do my best to reply to the points which have been raised on behalf of both the Orpington and the Chislehurst areas.
  The St. Paul's Cray Estate consists for the most part of a large post-war London County Council housing estate which presented a special problem to the Kent education authority. The rapid growth of the population has compelled that authority to give special attention to the area. If hon. Members consider the record of education building during the last few years, they will feel that the area has at least had its full share of the available resources. I can assure my hon. Friends that whenever there is any question of an area growing in numbers which seems to be getting less than its proportion of grammar school places, we at once try to see that the building programme is adjusted as fairly as possible.
  My hon. Friend asked specifically about grammar schools. Orpington girls' grammar school was included in the 1955–56 programme, and it is also included in the current building programme. The boys' grammar school is included in the development plan, but it is true that it has not yet actually been included in a programme. The Orpington Ramsden Secondary School has been included in the 1956–57 and the 1957–58
  1466
  programmes, and, in addition, there has been a considerable number of primary schools in recent building programmes. This means that children moving into the St. Paul's Cray Estate have not as a general rule had to be taught in overlarge classes. The average size of primary classes of this estate has been a little below the average size for the country as a whole.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Kent education authority look upon 25 per cent. as the appropriate proportion of the secondary school population for whom grammar and technical school education should be provided. This is usually taken as being 15 per cent. for grammar schools and 10 per cent. for technical schools. These are the figures which my noble Friend feels reasonable for the country as a whole. I should make clear that 25 per cent. is regarded as appropriate as for the area as a whole.
  Admissions to grammar and technical schools are dealt with on an area basis, and St. Paul's Cray comes within the north-west area, which, apart from the north-western division, comprises also Penge, Beckenham, Bromley, Bexley, Orpington, Chislehurst and Sidcup. St. Paul's Cray cannot be treated, if I may use the expression, as a self-contained island. The needs of St. Paul's Cray have to be treated as part of the overall needs of the north-west area, and this arrangement of looking at the area as a whole means not only that the authority's resources are used to the best advantage, but that there is, more or less, an encouragement of a uniform standard among the technical and grammar schools of the area.
  I think my hon. Friend will agree that if we were to plan for particular "islands" within the area, then we should really defeat the whole object of the selection tests and that would also be unfair to the children outside St. Paul's Cray who were not selected for grammar schools. But, at the same time, the Kent Local Education Authority is not unaware of the disadvantages in which the St. Paul's Cray children have found themselves because of a disturbance in their primary education. Because of this, it takes into account a candidate's educational history when assessing examination results. Head teachers of secondary modern schools have been asked to keep

  1467
  the work of these children under special consideration for late transfer to a grammar or technical school. My hon. Friend has said, quite correctly, that there have not been many late transfers, but, of course, few children during the period of which he has spoken have yet reached the thirteen year group; and, as I have said, head teachers have been asked to keep special watch on their work.
  I recognise the force of the figures which he gave to the House about the proportion of children selected from the four primary schools serving in the St. Paul's Cray area. I agree that they were below the figures for the area as a whole, but the proportion had risen from 5·6 per cent. to 8·8 per cent. in 1955, and last year there was a further rise to 9·5 per cent. At the same time, I agree that the figure was appreciably below that for the area as a whole, and that is even more the case if one looks at the figures for boys selected for technical schools.
  I am asked if there are special reasons for this. We can rule out, straight away, any inadequacy of head teachers in the primary schools. From all that I have been able to gather, and from all the advice I have been given, the heads of both the infant and junior schools on the St. Paul's Cray estate make up a very good group indeed. Obviously, there must be some variation of ability in any area, but I can tell my hon. Friend that there is not a single head who can be looked on as a weak head teacher. Indeed, several are above the average, and I do not think, personally, that there could be any complaint about leadership or the way in which the schools are run.
  So far as selections in Kent are concerned, I can say that they seem to be perfectly fair. Of course, there can always be criticisms, and as I have said on many occasions in this House, we are never content with the existing system of selection. We want to improve this system as much as is possible, and my noble Friend, the Minister of Education, is the last person to disapprove of experiment or to expect all local education authorities to behave exactly alike. But, in general, the system of selection seems fair. The opportunities for St. Paul's
  1468
  Cray children are the same as for any other children in the division, or, for that matter, in the whole of the northwest Kent area, where the percentage of entrants to grammar schools is rather higher.
  It is difficult not to feel that the low percentage of admissions to grammar schools from the St. Paul's Cray area is simply due to lack of success in the selection tests. One really cannot say very much more than that. To what extent this may be due to the unsettled start that many of the pupils have had in their earlier life is extremely difficult to judge. It simply seems to be that there is not a very large proportion of really able children on the estate.
  There is one point which I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for making. I think I ought to make it. It is that one school—I shall not mention its name—includes a certain element which is rather irregular in attendance, and inevitably that does not help.
  I really do not think that anyone looking at the facts could say any more than that it simply happens that the proportion of children on the estate who are successful in the selection tests which they take on the same basis as the children in the rest of the area is not a very high one.
  There has been some improvement, and 1957 may show a continuation of the improvement, in the selection for grammar schools. I very much hope that will prove to be so, but at the moment we cannot say any more than that there is not an overall shortage of grammar school places in the area. We in the Ministry have done our best to see that the needs of the St. Paul's Cray Estate have been met from the point of view of school building. I would merely repeat that children in the area have not been notably successful in the local authority selection tests.
  I think that anyone who has been at the Department for even a period of six months, as I have, must be grateful for the co-operation that we always have from the Kent Local Education Authority. It is certainly an authority in which my noble Friend has every possible confidence. I think the ratepayers of Kent are extremely lucky that their affairs are so well managed by the

  1469
  local authority and by so able a chief education officer.
  I do not think anyone can say any more that-, I have done about the matter. I sincerely hope that I am right in my forecast that the upward trend in admissions to grammar schools in the St. Paul's
  1470
  Cray area may prove to have continued in the next year for which we have precise statistics.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eleven O'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air-Raid Shelters (Removal)
  Air-Raid Shelters (Removal)
  Nuclear Tests (Protest Meetings)
  Nuclear Tests (Protest Meetings)
  Young Persons (Care)
  Young Persons (Care)
  Marriages (Minors)
  Marriages (Minors)
  Refugees
  Refugees
  CROWN PROPERTIES, REGENT'S PARK (VACANCIES)
  CROWN PROPERTIES, REGENT'S PARK (VACANCIES)
EDUCATION
  New Schools, Newcastle-under- Lyme
  New Schools, Newcastle-under- Lyme
  Secondary School, Coniston
  Secondary School, Coniston
  Education Act (Independent Schools)
  Education Act (Independent Schools)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gun Licences (Underwater Harpoons)
  Gun Licences (Underwater Harpoons)
  British Transport Commission (Government Stock)
  British Transport Commission (Government Stock)
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Sheep (Road Transport)
  Sheep (Road Transport)
  River Boards (Drainage Schemes)
  River Boards (Drainage Schemes)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Education
  Education
MAURITIUS
  Cement Project
  Cement Project
UGANDA
  Constitution
  Constitution
CYPRUS
  Prisons and Detention Camps
  Prisons and Detention Camps
NIGERIA
  Constitutional Conference (Report)
  Constitutional Conference (Report)
MALAYA
  Commonwealth Forces
  Commonwealth Forces
  UNITED KINGDOM AND JAPAN (TREATIES)
  UNITED KINGDOM AND JAPAN (TREATIES)
  AGREEMENTS AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND JAPAN
  AGREEMENTS AFFECTING TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND JAPAN
  SLAVERY CONVENTION
  SLAVERY CONVENTION
  ARAB LEAGUE (TRADE BOYCOTT)
  ARAB LEAGUE (TRADE BOYCOTT)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hostel, North Staffordshire
  Hostel, North Staffordshire
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  German Measles (Immunisation)
  German Measles (Immunisation)
ROADS
  Week-end Traffic Congestion (Survey)
  Week-end Traffic Congestion (Survey)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Agricultural Workers (Call-up)
  Agricultural Workers (Call-up)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Norwich Transmissions (Interference)
  Norwich Transmissions (Interference)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Beverley Transport Aircraft
  Beverley Transport Aircraft
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Imports (Anti-dumping Duties)
  Imports (Anti-dumping Duties)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE VISCOUNT CHERWELL
3.4 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the House will have been ill-prepared for the grievous shock of Lord Cherwell's death when there are so fresh in our minds the vigorous and characteristic interventions in our debates which he has lately made. The records tell us that Lord Cherwell was seventy-one, but in his company age counted for nothing and until the other day he was as I knew him and as other noble Lords knew him thirty-five years ago, when we were undergraduates in Oxford; there was the same calm and penetrating mind moving among the mysteries of physical creation, clear and logical in its thinking, as behoved a high mathematician, a relentless hunter hurrying along the trail of discovery. There was the same immediate response to kindred intellects and the same contempt for a fool, the same restless impatience with mediocrity and with the generality of mankind who were slow to perceive and accept what, to him, were the plain highways of progress; the same burning patriotism for England and for Oxford and the same uncompromising hostility to anyone and anything that threatened the welfare of either.
His impact upon the young, as I remember it, was various. He was stimulating and challenging to the first-class mind, but to the average undergraduate he was perhaps an intimidating figure, with his caustic and mordant wit. Too often, as average undergraduates, we were apt to evade this rather intimidating and aloof don, even then always dressed in his bowler hat. But gradually his achievements captured our imagination and compelled our respect. Your Lordships, and many more outside, are familiar with his exploits when he was an experimental
650
pilot with the Physical Laboratory of the Royal Air Force. In particular, your Lordships are familiar with those days when he made a paper calculation of why the early aeroplane got into a fatal spin, and taught himself to fly in order to prove his mathematical conclusion that spin could be controlled. This act of cold, calculated, selfless courage ranks as one of the epics of human daring and of man's conquest of the unknown. And so distant and rather qualified admiration turned for us into respect.
He was decorated for valour in the First World War, and he had already become a legend in the 1920's, and certainly by 1939, when the Second World War came. Here was Lord Cherwell's opportunity and he took it with both hands, for, like his Prime Minister and close personal friend, Winston Churchill, he was supremely equipped to meet the challenge of those times. In the Government, he moved with complete familiarity among the problems presented by a war of science and machines, happy and expansive at this time, giving his whole self and talents to the service of his beloved chief and to his country. In those days he proved himself a character massive in adversity and undisturbed by calamity, and thus identified himself with the soul of England. "The Prof", as so many came to know him, was then not only a figure of distant admiration and respect, but also an object of affection, genuine and sincere.
True to his profession and to his beliefs, he worked unceasingly in his later years to equip his country with young scientists and technologists, because he knew that the future security of our country in a competitive world depended on their training. He looked forward with the anticipation of a young man to the application of thermo-nuclear physics and to using this inexhaustible source of energy, not to destroy one another, but to ease the lot of human toil. And so, while he was still young in mind, we take leave of Lord Cherwell. Early in life he reached the summit of his profession and he pursued it with integrity through a long and distinguished life. As a Peer of this House he was a perfect justification for its existence. A genius, like every genius, he was unlike other men, and in his generation a great figure among great contemporaries.
3.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to associate myself with the eloquent tribute which has been paid to the late Lord Cherwell by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Remembering his recent speeches, we find it very difficult to realise that Lord Cherwell is no longer amongst us. Those of us who took part in recent debates in which he spoke will remember the contributions which he made, which were so characteristic of him and so much alive, whether one agreed or did not agree with what he said.
Lord Cherwell was not only a scientist; he had wide interests outside. In the last debate in which he took part, he spoke characteristically on university education, and it is a remarkable thing that on that occasion he agreed almost completely with my noble, friend Lord Pakenham, who I hope will say a few words later on. The speech that stands out most in my own memory is the speech of Lord Cherwell on the testing of nuclear weapons. As always, Lord Cherwell was very sure of himself and of the views that he took—naturally so, because in his facts he had a far greater knowledge than most of us who took part in any of the discussions on this or any other subject on which he spoke. He was a specialist in experimental philosophy—that was his subject. But there was nothing experimental about his speeches in this House and the way in which he expressed himself. He arrived at firm conclusions. He was a great House of Lords man, and we shall miss him very much in our deliberations.
Most of us had not the advantage of knowing him at the university, or even in administration; our knowledge of the late Lord Cherwell was merely as a House of Lords figure. But we do know the great work that he did in conjunction with Sir Winston Churchill during the war, and the great part that he played in achieving victory. The combination of Sir Winston Churchill and Lord Cherwell was the most formidable possible combination one could have. We shall always remember the part Lord Cherwell played in the war, with the greatest possible gratitude. But I myself shall always think of him as a great House of Lords man; as a man who took part in debates on a wide variety of subjects. He made immense contributions to technological education,
652
and made many fine speeches on that subject and various other subjects. We shall remember him with respect and affection. The House of Lords is very much poorer for his loss, and we deeply deplore the fact that he has left us so suddenly.
3.12 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is a melancholy duty which falls to the spokesmen of the various political Parties in your Lordships' House to try to summarise in terms which are not too personal yet not too general the sense of loss which we feel when one of our number, known to us all and a friend of us all, is removed by death. Lord Cherwell's illustrious life, and his many contributions through his intellectual excellence to our emergence from the darkest days of the war, is, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said, well-known to all of us. For my part, it is, in a sense, a particular privilege to pay tribute to Lord Cherwell, because I do so in all sincerity to a man who was certainly an ornament and an asset to your Lordships' House; a man who represented what is so admirable in this Second Chamber of ours, in that he never shrank from expressing his views which, whether they were popular or controversial, were nevertheless well-grounded views, obviously highly intelligent views and genuine views. The fact that I more often than not found myself in disagreement with his political views gives me, if I may say so, a special satisfaction to-day in being allowed to pay homage to his forthright character and his individual integrity. From these Benches, we join in paying sincere tribute to the passing of a notable character and a valued colleague.
3.14 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, it has been suggested that I should add a few words—and they will be few—in tribute to Lord Cherwell. Some of your Lordships may remember his remark in a recent debate in this House to which yesterday's news has given a tragic significance. Speaking of the proposed road through Christ Church Meadow, he said that he could claim that he was not personally affected, because his medical adviser would agree that it was unlikely that he would survive to be disturbed by it.

653
Lord Cherwell and myself knew each other for some twenty years or more as fellow professors at Oxford, as rivals for the University seat, and afterwards in successive Administrations, both in war and peace. We sometimes differed, sometimes agreed and sometimes were in active and cordial co-operation. I recall one important and controversial question in which, after long debate, the Prime Minister at that time intervened with the remark: "Well, when I find 'The Prof' and Salter agreeing, I think there must be something in what they say"; and we were successful in our common effort on that occasion.
As we all know, Lord Cherwell was to an exceptional degree ascetic and austere in his personal life; unsparing of himself in an unremitting industry; and perhaps rather detached and aloof in his personal relations, except with the comparatively few who penetrated his reserve. The courage combined with his genius which, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has reminded us, enabled him to make such an outstanding contribution to the infant art of flying, was continued, though it found different expression, in the later stages in his life. In forming and advocating his opinions he had a kind of sharp-edged realism and a rather pugnacious persuasiveness which perhaps made him more effective in private and intimate than in public discussion.
There is one further thing that I think I should add. The method through which he exercised his influence was not mainly by virtue of a high executive office in which he held direct personal responsibility, but through his influence with the great Prime Minister whom he served for so long and with whom he was on terms of such intimate friendship. Both his personal qualities, and perhaps the method by which he exercised his influence may have sometimes increased the sharpness of the reactions to his advice both from his fellow scientists and from others. But this method had one consequence which I should now like to emphasise. It is that there is and can be no documentary evidence in existence which will adequately reflect for the future historian the great importance and value of his work. I therefore venture to express the hope that those who have direct and intimate knowledge of Lord Cherwell's achievements in the many spheres in which his impact was felt will leave a
654
record of what they know, not in mere obituary tributes, but in memoirs of an enduring character, which will be a contribution to the future history of our time.
3.18 p.m.
LORD MORAN: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to add a few words as a friend. If the time should ever come when England, like Carthage, is little more than a name, it will perhaps be remembered for two things; for its lyrical poetry and for its school of physics, the twin peaks in the worlds of science and art. This school of physics began at Cambridge, with Isaac Newton, and did not end with Lord Rutherford. It was Lord Cherwell's great achievement that, finding a derelict department at Oxford, he so built it up, especially with young scientists, that at the end, when he left it, the department was able to make a contribution comparable to that of the Cavendish School of Physics at Cambridge, which has led the world.
I am not competent to measure Lord Cherwell's worth and merits as a physicist. I think it was right that the noble Earl the Leader of the House should concentrate on that remarkable incident in the First World War, because it is difficult to know whether to admire more the clarity of Lord Cherwell's mind in coming, on pure mathematical grounds, to such a conclusion, or the singular courage which enabled him to put it to the lest, though at that time in the Royal Air Force it was thought to be certain death. There is a famous passage in The World Crisis in which Sir Winston Churchill meditates on the disparity between the task set to our Generals in the First World War and the gifts which they brought to solve it. He explained that there were no doubt more imaginative men; there were no doubt more sensitive men; there were certainly men more intellectually alert and acute; but these men, in modern war, are apt to crumble. Now the astonishing thing about this incident to which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has referred is that, with a mind which we associate generally with Fellows of the Royal Society, Lord Cherwell combined a courage which I think we expect to find in the long chronicles of the Victoria Cross.
In the Second World War his contribution was of a very different kind, and

655
I think that, on the whole, perhaps it was more valuable. He set out to interpret to the Prime Minister what one might call fundamental research; he would reduce some really complicated scientific problem to a very simple graph, so that Sir Winston could see the whole thing before him. Not only was this graph more intelligible but, I was informed last night by a leading physicist, it was much more accurate. He passed on nothing to Sir Winston without checking its accuracy, and he did something else which I think was quite remarkable. Modern war is probably won by ideas, and if that is really true the real legendary enemy of new ideas is always the expert. Sir Winston would not allow the expert to kill new ideas or technical innovations, and the physicist whom I am quoting said that Lord Cherwell produced a complete change in the psychological atmosphere with which those at the top came to regard scientific developments.
He had what I think may be called "a beautiful mind". The phrase is not my own. I borrowed it from one of his greatest friends who saw more of its working in the war than anybody else. It was a logical mind. Everything was driven to its last and final conclusion. When one saw him tackling a scientific problem and tidying it up, it was rather as if he were spring-cleaning his rooms at the House. But he was inclined, perhaps, at times to push logic too far, and to forget that in our English political life political sense is perhaps a surer guide than Gaelic logic.
In 1954, when we were going across to America, somebody said, "Do you know what kind of life 'the Prof' leads?" At that moment he came up, and the man turned to him and said, "Do you give lectures at Oxford? If so, how many, and what is the size of your audience, and what are the lectures about? What is metaphysics?" Then the man asked whether he encouraged undergraduates to ask questions. "The Prof" said, with a toss of his head, that he did not; he left it to the tutors. "Did he," he was asked again, "like lecturing"; and a much more emphatic "No" appeared. He was bored, he said. "Was he interested in undergraduates?" He said that he was not. He did not even know their names. Then he got up and
656
walked very gingerly to his cabin, for he had already been warned that his heart was not so good as it was, and that he must go slowly. I think that, perhaps because of this liking for dogma, there were some people who thought he he was enigmatic. The level tones of his voice, from which all emotion had been stripped, the quiet, almost self-effacing manner, and the placid exterior, hid and disguised the most—I nearly said the most violent views, and I think perhaps that would be quite the right word.
Finally, his personality was unusual in this sense. He built a wall around himself, and very few people were allowed inside. If they did succeed in getting inside they found a kindly man, utterly disinterested, utterly selfless and completely without political ambition. There has gone out from your Lordships' House a very unusual figure and a most lovable human being, of whom a man of many years may say that we shall not see his like again.
3.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there is nothing much that I can add to what has been said about the public services of Lord Cherwell, but if your Lordships will allow me I should like to say one word about the affection in which he has been held for more than thirty-five years by a great many undergraduates in the University of Oxford. When I went up to Oxford in 1922, Professor Lindemann had already reached the highest rank in the world of science, although he was well under forty. His whole personal kindness and his love of hospitality were not confined either to members of his own college or to students of science. They were extended, as they always have been, to include all kinds of undergraduates. He was a friend at that time of many people who were prominent in public life, including, for instance, Sir Winston Churchill and the late Lord Birkenhead, who often stayed with him in his rooms in Meadow Buildings, and he loved to give us all the opportunity of meeting and talking to these distinguished public men on terms of complete informality and freedom.
Personal kindness such as he had is particularly appreciated by people who are young, and I think that all his undergraduate friendships over so long a period have lasted until the end of his

657
life. He was a bachelor who sometimes liked to make cynical jokes about marriage, but I do not think I have ever known a man who had a greater love for children or a more genuine concern for the happiness of all his friends.
We admired him also for his intellectual brilliance, which sometimes expressed itself, or seemed to express itself, in the form of intellectual arrogance. He often used to make the most pointed and highly entertaining remarks about people who did not agree with him—remarks which were, of course, repeated, so that he was not always universally popular among all his colleagues. But I think that the strongest reason for the affection in which he was held was his record of personal courage in the First World War. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has referred to the aeronautical problem of the spinning nose-dive which had always resulted in the loss of the aircrafs and the death of the pilot because nobody knew how to correct it. Professor Lindemann had not been an aviator but he was confident that his mathematical calculations would rectify the trouble. His confidence was not shared by those in authority. He therefore decided that no one but himself could satisfactorily test his own theory, and so he learned to fly. As soon as he had become a qualified pilot he went up, alone, to test his theory. The story believed at Oxford was that he went up wearing his bowler hat; but, however that may be, he went up. He put his aircraft into a spinning nosedive, which until that time had always been fatal, for there were no parachutes in those days. He then did what he had calculated on paper ought to be done, with complete success. When he made a safe landing the officials who had witnessed the experiment came up to congratulate him on his courage, but all he said was, "I knew that my brain would not fail me."
Now he has made another safe landing. I think we can look back and say that all through his life his brain never failed him. He was one of those scientists who never tried to deceive himself or to deceive other people with any kind of half-baked, half-tested theory. He always worked and spoke with an utterly objective regard for scientific truth. He has now been taken from us, to the loss of his country and to the grief of his friends.
3.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps it would be fitting that one who served with Lord Cherwell in the Cabinet should add just a word to the tributes which have been so well paid and so richly deserved. I think I can liken him in one respect to another Cabinet colleague with whom I served when I was very much younger and who had perhaps the acutest brain in any Cabinet I knew—that was the late Lord Balfour. If I had a problem about which I was doubtful and uncertain as to whether I had seen it in proper proportion, in the old days I used to take it to Lord Balfour, who would say, "Well, I do not know anything about this", and then apply a penetrating mind to it.
Lord Cherwell had the same quality, and colleagues will recall how the slide rule used to come out of the pocket—and that was not only on mathematical calculations. The same penetrating accuracy came into all his criticisms. But he was not only a most penetrating critic who was never satisfied with anything less than, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, complete accuracy; he had an imagination which was equal to his sense of accuracy and his sense of proportion. No project was—I was almost going to say too far-fetched, but too novel to be rejected by Lord Cherwell. I can remember how much I myself owed to his imagination in the difficult days when I was Air Minister. He had, too, a third quality without which he could not have been, I think, the great success and the wonderful colleague he was—and that was his great understanding of humanity.
3.35 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, perhaps a few words may be added to what has already been said so movingly. I submit them to the House us one who was a colleague of Lord Cherwell at Christ Church for a number of years, though I do not speak with the authority, of course, of the right reverend Bishop, whose work as Dean Lord Cherwell regarded so highly. If the world is divided into givers and getters, no one would hesitate to place Lord Cherwell among the givers. There was that extreme shrinking from publicity, a quality shared, I am bound to say, by few of us who practise the public arts, but completely genuine in his case. There

659
was his extreme personal generosity, not known to many but appreciated to the full by those who had recourse to it. The undergraduate son of a very famous man, now himself famous—not a Member of your Lordships' House—visited "The Prof" when in straitened circumstances and began an eloquent argument about the economic difficulties of the time. "The Prof" pulled out his cheque book without more ado and began to write, putting the one question, "How much?". He handed over the cheque as soon as the figure was named.
"The Prof" was a man of dedicated loyalties, dedicated to a number of causes and institutions and people; dedicated to science, to Oxford and, above all, to Christ Church; to this House, to his friends, above all to the House of Birkenhead; to his heroes and, above all, to Sir Winston Churchill, his hero of heroes; and to Britain, of which he was so passionately a patriotic son. I would not venture to call him a very happy man. His own personal standards were so high that I should think he seldom satisfied himself. He was acutely sensitive, so that genuine opposition often seemed to him like antagonism, and he sometimes created antagonism where none need have existed. He was so modest that I do not suppose he ever realised how much enjoyment he disseminated or how much affection he aroused. But his limitations were on the surface—a great heart beat below them. I would venture to say that all who knew him well—and there were many in this House who knew him and some must have known him a great deal longer than I knew him—will always think of him as a personality not only of very high intellectual distinction but also of exceptional feeling and warmth. His departure for many of us has rent the garment of life. But if he was not always happy in life, he is surely happy now, as he learns beyond all question that this House, which he loved so dearly, recognises to the full his unsurpassed services to the country which he loved still more.

LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT BILL [H.L.]
LORD REA: My Lords, I beg leave to introduced a Bill entitled "An Act for the better preservation of the liberties of the subject", and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Geneva Conventions Bill through its remaining stages.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to make now (because I have to be at a session of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at four o'clock) a Statement which is being made by the Prime Minister in another place on public service salaries.
The Government have had under consideration the remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament, and certain related matters, including the expenses incurred by noble Lords in attendance at this House. The Prime Minister is at this moment explaining, in another place, the conclusions reached. Noble Lords will no doubt wish to hear first that part of the Government's proposals which affects them.
In a debate in this House on November 7, the Government accepted in principle that there ought to be some reimbursement of expenses incurred by noble Lords in attendance at this House. It will be generally agreed that such attendance should not be limited to those who can not only afford to give their service without remuneration, but who can also meet, out of their own resources, the

661
expenses inseparable from such services. The only assistance which Members of this House at present receive is free rail travel to Westminster. The Government now propose to allow Members to claim reimbursement of expenses up to a maximum of three guineas for each day of attendance. The payments will be in reimbursement of actual expenses arising out of unpaid service, and will therefore not be I able to tax. Ministers and the Lord Chairman of Committees will not be eligible for the payments, and they will not be made for attendances on Judicial Business.
With the agreement of noble Lords opposite, I shall ask the House to approve a Resolution in favour of these payments on Monday next.
The Government have also decided to propose increases in the emoluments of certain Ministers. The proposals involve no change in the salary of a Minister who is paid £5,000 or more. But the Government propose that the salary of a Minister who is at present paid £3,000 should be raised to £3,750; that those of the Financial and Economic Secretaries to the Treasury (who are at present paid £2,000) should be raised to the same level; those of Parliamentary Secretaries from £1,500 to £2,500; and that those with less than £1,500 should be increased by £1,000. The Government also propose that the salary of the Leader of the Opposition should be increased from £2,000 to £3,000. All these salary changes will require legislation. Appropriate steps will also be taken to increase the salary of the Lord Chairman of Committees of this House by £750.
The Government propose to take the opportunity presented by a Bill dealing with Ministerial salaries to include in it a clause applying the terms of the injury warrant to Ministers while on duty. At present, Ministers are the only servants of the Crown for whom (or for whose dependants) there is no provision in the event of their death or injury on duty.
Finally, the Government have decided that the long-deferred adjustment of the salaries of members of the Boards of nationalised industries should now take place. A plan has been worked out, but I do not propose to give full details now. Two figures will illustrate the order of the adjustments—the maximum salary of the Chairman of such a Board will be
662
raised from £8,500 to £10,000, while that of a member of a major Board will be raised from £5,000 to £7,000. In accordance with precedent—and in some cases with statutory requirements—details of the changes will be reported to Parliament in due course. A convenient date for these changes in emoluments and salary would be from July 1. The extension of the injury warrant would, of course, have to wait until the proposed Bill is law.
My Lords, it may be that there is a good deal of detail in the statement which I have just made. Noble Lords may like to have it in their possession before asking too many detailed questions, and as there is to be a Resolution on Monday perhaps we may take that opportunity; but I will, of course, answer any questions that I can now.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Leader of the House for making the statement: he has made, and I am perfectly certain in my own mind that the parts of it which relate to expense allowances to Members attending here for Parliamentary work will be agreeable to the majority of Members of the House. As the noble Leader of the House has to go to an urgent engagement of great importance, I do not think it would serve well to ask a number of questions about it; and as we on this side of the House have agreed, if and as necessary on Monday, to speak on a Resolution which is to be put on the Paper, I think that to-day I should like to leave the matter there.
LORD REA: My Lords, I follow the noble Viscount and echo his words. We normally say that we are grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement; I think we are particularly grateful in regard to this statement, and we may be even more grateful in the future. I agree that no good service would be done by going into matters of detail now, and I hope that the House will allow the Leader to perform his other duties as he wishes.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am grateful that your Lordships take that view. As I get neither an increase in salary nor the three guineas, I hope that I have been reasonable.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (CHURCH LEGISLATION) MEASURE, 1931 (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1957
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measure 1931 (Amendment) Measure, 1957, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name, and I think I can do it with extreme brevity. The objects of this small Measure are fully set out in the comments of the Legislative Committee which are appended to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I think your Lordships will be aware that the Channel Islands, which are, for ecclesiastical purposes, in the diocese of Winchester, have a peculiar constitional position. In the early days of the Church Assembly, the Islands were expressly excluded from all Measures which might otherwise have applied to them. Then, in 1931, a Measure was passed providing a simple machinery for the application of Measures to the Islands, where that was desired. That Measure provided that Measures passed before 1931 could be applied within five years of the passing of the Measure of 1931; and future Measures, if they contained the necessary appropriate clause, could be applied within two years of their receiving the Royal Assent. These limits of time are now thought to be unnecessary and sometimes inconvenient, and the object of this small Measure is to sweep them away.
There is a particular need to remove the limit of two years which applied in the case of Measures passed since 1931. We want to form a new parish in the Island of Jersey, and the natural way of doing it would be to use the New Parishes Measure, 1943. Unfortunately, during the period when this Measure could have been applied to the Islands they were in German occupation, and the Measure, naturally, could not be applied. It is the intention, if this Measure receives the Royal Assent, immediately to take the necessary steps to lay before Her Majesty in Council a scheme applying the New Parishes Measure to the Islands, in order that that
664
necessary piece of reorganisation can be carried out.
I ought to add that the Measure has been approved by the States of Deliberation of the Islands and by the Deaconal Conferences of the Islands. It passed through all its stages in the Church Assembly without a Division, and no Amendment was made or proposed. In those circumstances, I trust that your Lordships will be agreeable to allow it to go forward for the Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Channel Islands (Church Legislation) Measure, 1931 (Amendment) Measure, 1957, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
3.49 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution);
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her Prerogative so far as concerns certain matters dealt with by the Geneva Conventions Bill, at the disposal of Parliament. I now have to move the Third Reading of this Bill, and in view of the welcome which the Bill received when it was read a second time I do not think I need detain your Lordships further. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHEQUES BILL
3.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Protection of bankers paying unindorsed or irregularly indorsed cheques, &c.
1.—(1) Where a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays a cheque drawn on him which is not indorsed or is irregularly indorsed, he does not, in doing so, incur any liability by reason only of the absence of, or irregularity in, indorsement and he is deemed to have paid it in due course.
(2) Where a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays any such instrument as the following, namely—

(a) a document issued by a customer of his which, though not a bill of exchange, is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from him of the sum mentioned in the document;

(b) a draft payable on demand drawn by him upon himself, whether payable at the head office or some other office of his bank;

he does not, in doing so, incur any liability by reason only of the absence of, or irregularity in, indorsement, and the payment discharges the instrument.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to leave out Clause 1 and to insert the following new clause:
Protection of bankers paying unindorsed or irregularly indorsed cheques, &c.
" 1.—(1) Where a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays an instrument drawn on him to which this section applies which is not indorsed or is irregularly indorsed, he does not, in doing so, incur any liability by reason only of the absence of, or irregularity in, indorsement and he is deemed to have paid it in due course provided that he pays such instrument to the credit of an account of a customer of his or pays such instrument to another banker.
(2) This section applies to the following instruments, namely—

(a) cheques;

(b) any document issued by a customer of a banker which, though not a bill of exchange, is intended to enable a person to obtain payment from that banker of the sum mentioned in the document;

(c) any draft payable on demand drawn by a banker upon himself, whether payable at the head office or some other office of his bank."

The noble Lord said: In the speech which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill I criticised what I regard as rather serious departures from the recommendations made by the Committee set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this problem, familiarly known as the Mocatta Committee. In his reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, expressing the support of the Government for the Bill, took the view that these criticisms, if they were sound, could be given effect to by Amendments at the present stage. He invited me to put down the necessary amendments and said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 204 (No. 78), col. 285]:
" I should be glad to be the recipient of his confidence in this connection, so that the matter can be discussed at a later stage."
I took the noble and learned Viscount at his word and have put down the Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper. I also offered to discuss these matters informally with the noble and learned Viscount, and I should like to express my gratification at the very forthcoming way in which he arranged a meeting (although unfortunately he could not himself be present) which was held a day or two ago. I should like to say a word or two more on that matter in a few minutes.
There are a number of observations which I should like to make, partly in answer to points made by the noble and learned Viscount in reply to my own speech, and partly in view of the very great importance of this Bill, which I feel ought not to be allowed to pass without further discussion. When we are dealing with a measure which, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said, involves some seven and a half million cheques per annum and affects the procedure followed by every branch bank in Great Britain, the matter is obviously one of importance and worthy of careful scrutiny. But before making them, perhaps it would be advisable if I explained shortly the purport of the Amendments in my name.
As your Lordships are aware, the object of the Bill is to obviate the necessity for endorsements on cheques in connection with what might be called the banking side of the operation, not in

667
connection with negotiation or the transfer of property in cheques from one person to another, except in so far as the bank may come into the matter. The need for endorsement by the payee of a cheque who wishes to receive payment from the drawer's banker, in a general way, largely originated, as the Mocatta Committee pointed out in their Report, in banking practice; and, in the conditions of modern banking, this has led to an enormous waste of time. The object of this Bill is to get rid of that.
The view of the Mocatta Committee was that this practice might well be abolished but that legislation would be required, in view of the way in which the law had grown up during the last century; and that if that abolition was to be carried through with safety, and with general regard to the interests of customers of banks, the abolition should be restricted to those cheques which pass through a bank account. Very little reflection will, I am sure, satisfy your Lordships that that can safely be done, particularly in contradistinction to cases of another type, where a cheque is presented for payment over a bank counter. Your Lordships will recall that it appeared to members of the Mocatta Committee particularly necessary in such cases that the person presenting the cheque should put his endorsement on it before receiving payment. Without that requirement there would be a great temptation to clerks, servants and other employees to steal cheques which were passing through an office or shop, as they had only to take those cheques round to the bank to receive payment on them over the counter. That might occur if those cheques did not need the kind of endorsement which I believe everyone would agree has proved a considerable deterrent in the past to the stealing of cheques.
From time to time, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, would no doubt tell us, there has been a considerable loss of money to the banks as a result of the theft of cheques and forgery of endorsements; but it is generally agreed by those experienced in the ways of criminals that a criminal who is pre-pared to steal will, in most cases, stop short of committing forgery. The Bill as drafted is quite general in its terms, and it provides, in Clause 1 (1), that a banker
668
need pay no attention at all to the question of endorsements. It says:
" Where a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays a cheque drawn on him which is not indorsed or is irregularly indorsed, he does not, in doing so, incur any liability by reason only of the absence of, or irregularity in, indorsement and he is deemed to have paid it in due course."
So here the principle of not requiring endorsement is applied generally and not, as the Mocatta Committee suggested, only to those cheques passing through a bank account. My Amendment would have the effect of putting into the Bill the recommendation of the Mocatta Committee.
If your Lordships will look at the last two lines of subsection (1) of the Amendment you will see that it is limited to the case of an instrument which is paid to the credit of an account of a customer of his or where such instrument is paid to another banker. So it is limited to cheques passing through bank accounts, where, in the view of the Mocatta Committee, it could be safely done. The actual Amendment begins with a proposal to delete the whole of the existing Clause I and to substitute this other clause for it. The substance of the proposed new clause is exactly the same as the old one except for this particular point about the cheque passing through a bank account. The reason I put it in this way is to restore what one might call the elegancy of the clause as it originally stood. As it went through another place it was amended in Committee and the Amendment, in my view, rather detracted from the earlier admirable draftsmanship. It seemed to me better to put it in this way.
What I have done requires that in order to obviate endorsement a cheque should be passed through a bank account. I do not want to repeat in detail the arguments I addressed to your Lordships on the previous occasion. The subject is a very technical one, but the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, answering me in the Second Reading debate, made a number of points which he invited me to consider in the interval, and I have naturally taken the opportunity of doing so. At the same time, he made it clear that, for his own part, he had not had time to inform himself fully on the points at issue, and he indicated that he was giving to your Lordships advice that he had received from elsewhere. It is, of course, difficult to use

669
a brief which has been prepared in anticipation of points which are expected to be made in a debate in your Lordships' House and which, when made, may be not quite the same as those anticipated. With great respect to the noble Viscount, I do not think he met the point I was putting in regard to this matter.
He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 204 (No. 78) col. 283]:
" According to the advice I have received there is no requirement Chat a cheque should be endorsed otherwise than in existing practice "—
which was the view propounded in the Mocatta Committee Report. He went on to say:
" Therefore the proposal in the form in which it was originally recommended would have been an inappropriate way of drafting the particular clause "—
which was, if I may suggest it with all respect to the noble Viscount, really a non sequitur. The proposal has, in fact, that very point specifically in mind. The noble Lord went on to deal with the particular point of cheques paid across the counter, and he said:
" The view of the Government is that the exclusion from subsection (1) of cheques paid in cash might produce an anomalous result in that it would appear to imply that a paying banker was not absolved from liability if he paid over the counter on an unendorsed cheque presented by the wrong person, whereas under Section 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, he would in fact be absolved from liability if he paid that cheque on a forged endorsement".
Really the noble Viscount is giving the argument away, for it is because we wish to ensure that the banker should take these pains that we want to put this in, because he ought not to be absolved in cases of this sort. I thought that was clear; and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in effect, and those who spoke on behalf of banks in another place, said that they did not wish to be relieved of this obligation and would continue, as a matter of practice, to see that such cheques were endorsed. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said that; he would be glad to support any Amendment which had this object in view and which might be put down at the present stage of the Bill. So it seems to me that, in regard to this matter, Lord Hailsham has not succeeded in answering the arguments which I put before your Lordships. I cannot understand the reluctance of the promoters of the Bill to cover this point, because it would not put
670
any real extra burden on the bank officers. The number of these cheques presented for payment over the counter is really quite small. In any case, where that happens, the business of paying a cheque over the counter involves the bank officer obviously in a certain operation which is bound to last for a few minutes, and to turn the cheque over to see whether it is in order adds only a minute fraction of time. So there seems to me to be no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. I think that the banks themselves admit that this is so, because they would not have said: "We shall continue this practice", if they were not in fact accepting substantially the burden. In the circumstances, I find it impossible to understand why the promoters of the Bill should resist this Amendment.
Your Lordships may ask: "How do you know that they are going to do so?" That is where I come to the meeting which the noble Viscount so kindly arranged for me. I met Mr. Graham Page and Lord Jessel, the promoters of the Bill and other people, including the Parliamentary draftsman. It was unfortunate that Mr. Mocatta, who was invited to: he meeting, was detained in court and could not be there. What I thought still more unfortunate was that the banks were not represented. So I still do not know whether Lord Balfour of Burleigh feels that this is an Amendment of the sort which he said in the Second Reading debate he would be prepared to support. We had a very interesting discussion, but the meeting was not fruitful Mr. Graham Page and the Parliamentary draftsman tried to persuade me that I was wrong, and I tried to persuade them that they should accept this Amendment. In the result, neither party succeeded in persuading the other. It was made clear that the Government would not be prepared to advise your Lordships to support this Amendment.
The only other thing I need say is this. The Amendments have been prepared in consultation with Mr. Mocatta, who kindly gave me a whole morning during the Whitsun vacation, and also with the help of Dr. Milnes Holden, a junior member of the Bar and a specialist in this sort of law, whose evidence before the Mocatta Committee was of the greatest value to us. I hope I have said enough to explain the objects of

671
the Amendment and to persuade your Lordships that it is one that ought to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD JESSEL: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will not be surprised when I say that I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not agree with the argument which has been advanced in support of it, and even if that argument were valid I am advised that the wording of the Amendment is defective. In the debate on Second Reading, and again to-day, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has expressed fears in regard to the situation arising out of the non-endorsement of cheques paid over the counter. He seems to fear that in some way the position of the drawer of a cheque will be worse than it is under existing law. This is not the view of the promoters of the Bill—and may I add that the point has been considered most thoroughly by eminent legal practitioners. The noble Lord takes a different view of the legal situation, but I can assure him that it is not only the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government, but also those of great institutions who have formed this opinion. I may also add that this clause was thoroughly debated and accepted by another place, and there are plenty of good lawyers there, many of whom spoke both on Second Reading and on the Committee stage of the Bill. So that nobody can say that the promoters of the Bill have not had an enormous weight of well-informed legal opinion behind them.
On Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and again to-day, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has stated that Mr. Mocatta, the chairman of the departmental committee which investigated this problem, was worried, like the noble Lord, about Clause 1 as drafted. That may be so, but all I can say is that the promoters of the Bill naturally took the first opportunity, when the Bill was printed, to send a copy to Mr. Mocatta; and no adverse comment resulted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, we are concerned here with a tiny percentage of the cheques annually drawn and in circulation. Only 3 per cent. of the cheques drawn are not paid into the
672
account of the payee, and of this 3 per cent. a great many are cashed by the drawers of the cheques, and others are negotiated. As I see it, the noble Lord's Amendment intends to restrict the effect of the clause to cheques paid into the payee's accounts and, by inference, makes it necessary for the paying banks to insist on an endorsement when a cheque is paid in cash. As the noble Lord reminded us, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out on Second Reading what an absurd situation this would lead to. The result would be that the banker who paid a wrong person on an unendowed cheque would attract some liability, yet if he paid out on a forged signature he would be protected under the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said again to-day that he thought the effect of Clause 1 of our Bill would be to encourage people to try to cash unendorsed cheques, as they would not have to forge a signature. I am not sure that I find this argument convincing, but I know that the noble Lord is a chairman of quarter sessions and has probably had more experience of crime than I have. After all, Clause 1 does not diminish the responsibility of the paying bank to take proper care about the identity of persons it pays. The clause does not affect in any way the position of the drawer of the cheque. He can always cross a cheque; and if he does not, why should he be given additional protection over and above the protection of the law as it exists to-day? That would be the result of the noble Lord's Amendment. Let us remember that, while the noble Lord's legal opinion differs from the opinions of those I have consulted, the law contains no positive requirements for the endorsement of cheques at all. On Second Reading we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that he thought that the banks would still continue to insist on endorsement when they found it necessary.
May I say just a word or two about the actual drafting of the Amendment? In subsection (1) it says:
" Where a banker in good faith and in the ordinary course of business pays an instrument drawn on him…."
and "instrument" is defined in subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c). Instruments other than cheques are not always drawn on the paying bank. Therefore, while the

673
Amendment talks of an instrument drawn on a banker, later on it deals, by inference, with instruments which are not always drawn on the paying bank. I admit that these are small in number, but a Bill must cover everything. We must try to let nothing escape. I can give two instances. I am told that a local authority order on their treasurer, who is also a bank manager, is drawn on him in his capacity as a treasurer and not drawn on the bank as the paying bank. And apparently building society interest warrants are made payable "at" a bank but not "on" a bank. I appreciate that these are legal niceties, but this is a technical Bill and that is the sort of thing that we have to cover.
Some instruments intended to be covered by the Clause are not bills of exchange. "Instruments" are defined in subsection (2), and two classes of these are not bills of exchange, and therefore, the phrase "is deemed to have paid it in due course" does not apply. This is why the Bill is drafted most carefully and deliberately to use the phrase "the payment discharges the instrument" referring to instruments other than cheques. I would repeat that the promoters of the Bill are not convinced by the legal argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley; and, even if they were, they still do not think that the Amendment drafted covers these points.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I had hoped that it would not have been necessary for me to burden your Lordships with a speech this afternoon, but in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has quoted me (I am sure quite unintentionally) not quite accurately, I feel that I must make my position clear. The noble Lord quoted me as having said on Second Reading that I should be glad to support an Amendment. What I actually said was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 204 (No. 78), col. 280]:
" But if an Amendment is necessary on that point, I do not think the banks will object."
That was hardly a promise of support. As my noble friend Lord Jessel has said, this is a very technical matter. I am thankful that I have not to endeavour to deal with the technicalities, because, quite frankly, I am entirely incapable of doing so. I admire the courage with which my noble friend Lord Jessel has
674
tackled the technicalities—they are, indeed, terrible. I know that this Amendment, for technical reasons, is entirely unacceptable. I support my noble friend Lord Jessel and hope that the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
4.21 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): As I indicated on the Second Reading, there was then at my disposal official advice, but I had not had time to absorb it to the extent of forming a personal opinion. I would say this to-day, at the outset: I think, on a Bill of this kind, the spokesman of the Government should record the official attitude of the Government, rather than try, on a highly technical matter, to spell out a legal opinion because he happens to be someone who has practised at the Bar. That is my position to-day. I would say, however, that I am persuaded, for the little that that is worth, that the official view is right, and therefore I line myself up, both officially and personally, with my noble friends Lord Jessel and Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
The objections to this Amendment seem to me to be insuperable. In the first place, I am advised that for various reasons, which Lord Jessel has given, it is not aptly drawn. I am quite certain that it creates an anomaly; it is certainly unacceptable to the banks; I do not believe that it gives anybody any new effective security; and I think it introduces a new distinction into the law when the whole purpose of he Bill is to try to get rid of what was thought, rightly or wrongly, by Mr. Mocatta's Committee (of which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was a member) to be an anachronism—namely, the necessity for endorsement.
It is not aptly drawn for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Jessel gave. Instruments other than cheques are not always drawn on the paying bank. Some of the instruments intended to be covered by the clause are not bills of exchange, and therefores the phrase in the Amendment,
" is deemed to have been paid in due course,"
becomes inappropriate, and the phrase in the Bill, as drawn,
" the payment discharges the instrument,"
is the appropriate one. Moreover, I am told that the Amendment overlooks the

675
agency arrangements between banks. These are formidable drafting objections.
I am, of course, aware that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has taken powerful legal advice in drafting the Amendments. The Government have the advantage of a cross-bearing: they rely not only on their Parliamentary draftsmen, but they have seen the legal advice obtained by the banks, which is also of the highest quality, and those opinions happen to coincide. Therefore, I should have thought, particularly in the matter of draftsmanship, that the balance of authority lay in favour of my noble friend Lord Jessel. Then I fell that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rather "rode off" the point which I made, I thought effectively, on Second Reading (I have now checked my references and I think it is correct) that, under Lord Chorley's proposal a bank would be protected, under Section 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, if it paid under a forged endorsement, but if it paid on a cheque which was unendorsed, it would not be protected, notwithstanding that in other respects the whole object of the Bill is to get rid of the need for an endorsement. That seems to me to be an anomaly which verges on the absurd.
The argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that theft is encouraged, seems to me to have no real relation to fact. According to his argument, the prospective thief steals the cheque before he starts thinking what to do with it. When he has stolen the cheque, he argues to himself whether he would be rather hanged for a sheep or for a lamb. He has committed larceny by stealing the cheque, but according to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his speech for the Amendment, he is appalled at the thought of writing somebody else's name on the back of the cheque and thereby committing forgery. My own view is that, having swallowed the camel, he would hardly be inclined to strain at; he gnat. The experience of the noble Lord as chairman of a quarter sessions should, I think, have warned him against the practice of trying to rationalise the criminal's mentality to that extent.
The practical sense of the matter, I should have thought and believe, is this. We were all brought up when we were
676
young to believe that the only way of protecting a cheque is to cross it. That seems to me to be sound sense. A crossed cheque is protected, and by virtue of Section 77 of the Bills of Exchange Act a cheque can be crossed by the holder no less than by the drawer. If a business man is so careless as not to cross a cheque he holds he will not get any further or additional protection from the faint chance that the criminal, having already stolen the cheque, would fear to endorse it. If he wants to get any real protection, he must learn better sense and cross his cheques in future.
Moreover, the Amendment is unacceptable to the clearing banks. Of course, if one were persuaded of the virtue of the Amendment one would try to argue the clearing banks out of their opposition. But we had before the Amendment was produced, and we have now, so long as the Amendment is not passed, a measure which I think has balanced opinion behind it. I ventured on Second Reading to enumerate the various bodies who supported it and one of the most important was the clearing banks.
LORD CHORLEY: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Viscount. The clearing banks were represented before the Mocatta Committee and accepted the proposal which the Mocatta Committee were making. Now that they are getting an additional advantage it is understandable that they should want to cling on to it, but the representatives of the clearing banks did accept the views of the Mocatta Committee about the matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment is not, in fact, the same thing as the draft which Mr. Mocatta and the noble Lord put in the Appendix to the Committee's Report. That has already gone by the board: this is a new Amendment by the noble Lord, and all I know is what is the attitude of the clearing banks to this Amendment. I hold in my hand a copy of the letter written on their behalf to the Bank of England which concerned this and other Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, and I must tell him that the words at the end of the first paragraph are:
" The Amendments are unacceptable to the clearing banks."

677
This is a very technical subject, but one thing we can all understand is that the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to turn what has hitherto been a Bill which was wholly uncontroversial, except to the noble Lord, into a Bill which is opposed by one of the main parties for whose advantage it is being passed through Parliament. Therefore I cannot regard that as a matter which I was wrong to draw to the attention of the Committee.
Finally, I would say, with respect, that the idea that Parliament, by a statutory enactment in a Bill which is designed to get rid of the need for endorsement in something over 99 per cent. of the cases, should create a statutory obligation on the banks which they have never had hitherto—namely, that in a particular narrow class of case they should insist on endorsement—seems to me to be manifestly an unacceptable way of setting about the business. As I think the Mocatta Committee reported, at least 97 per cent. of the cheques which are passed are paid into banking accounts. Of the remaining 3 per cent., I suppose that well over 99 out of 100 are "Self" cheques, to which this clause does not apply. What the noble Lord is seeking to do is to legislate for something like, I should think, a one-thousandth part of the cheques which go through banks in a special kind of way which gives offence to the banks, and which seems to me to have no merits when it is exposed to criticism. For that reason I can only say that both the Government and I are against the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise as a person who has for a considerable number of years drawn and paid cheques into my account and cashed cheques. Beyond that, I have no great knowledge of this question. But I should like to ask the noble Viscount who has just sat down one or two simple questions, as I understand them to be, to elucidate the points in which those of us who are not experts in the law on this matter are probably a little in ignorance. Suppose I draw a cheque in favour of Mr. Brown. The cheque is "To Bearer". Now as I understand the law, the question of endorsement does not arise in that case at all; it is an open cheque and anybody can go and cash it, even if he is not Mr. Brown. Anybody can go to my bank or pay it into his account, or pay it over
678
to somebody else and pay it into that person's account. I think that is correct. On the other hand, I can draw a cheque "To Order" and make it out to Mr. Brown. Under the present law, Mr. Brown is supposed to endorse it on the back; and the bank as I understand it (I am merely asking for information) is not entitled to pay out cash to a person claiming to be Mr. Brown who presents a cheque which is made out to Mr. Brown unless he signs it on the back—in other words, endorses it. I think I am right there.
I have been in the United States, and I have been given a cheque made out to me. I have gone to the bank and written my name on the back and handed it to the cashier. In the United States the cashier says to me: "But we have no proof that you are Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and we cannot cash your cheque unless you bring some evidence to that effect." I have either to produce my passport or some other good evidence to the bank in order to get the money for the cheque which is made out to me, and which I have endorsed, as I do in this country. But in this country that is not, I think, the practice. Here, I make a cheque out to Mr. Brown; he goes to my bank; he endorses the cheque, either before he takes it or in their presence, and the bank hand him out the money without question. I may be wrong, but I want to know if that is the fact.
What I understand to be the effect of this Amendment is this. As I understand it, the Bill as drafted will not only relieve the banker in the case of a cheque being paid into an account, but it will also relieve the bank if it pays out to a man who is apparently Mr. Brown to whom I have made the cheque out, and who endorses the cheque and presents it to the bank for payment. Is that the real distinction between the Amendment and the Bill as it stands? I see the noble Viscount shakes his head, so I am probably quite wrong. I should be glad if he could explain in very simple words, intelligible even to me, precisely what the point at issue is. If it is something far more technical than that, then I am afraid I am quite unable to understand it.
There is one further point. I once had a case of a cheque drawn by a friend of mine to a certain man, and it was not only made out "To Order", but was

679
crossed. The man claimed that he had not received the cheque. The cheque was found, and it had been paid through, but it had been paid into an account by a publican. Someone had given the cheque to the publican who had handed out the money to the person, and the publican paid it into his account. The banker paid through the account of a recognised customer and another bank paid the money over. But the man who should have received the money and, in my opinion, did receive it, claimed that it was not his endorsement but that it was forged, and that he had nothing to do with it. Short of prosecuting the man and ultimately prosecuting the public house—although the cheque was not only made "To Order" and was actually crossed; it was not made "Not Negotiable"; it was an ordinary crossed cheque—it appeared that, short of proceedings in an expensive prosecution, there was no means of recovery at all. I hope that I have not asked questions which are too complicated and tiresome, but it will help us to understand the position if the noble Viscount could enlighten us on the points I have raised.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would not say that any of those questions are either too tiresome or too difficult. On the contrary, anything which comes from the noble Lord is always extremely pertinent and difficult to answer only because the subject is inherently a complicated one. Although, as the noble Lord knows, I have for many years practised in the courts, I have not in the course of this debate set myself up as specially qualified to answer questions of this kind. The first thing to get into one's mind, I think, is this. There is no requirement of law now that an "Order" cheque requires endorsement—none at all. It is part of the practice of mercantile people which is so universal that it is recognised in the courts for almost every purpose and, therefore, legislation is required to alter it. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that a "bearer" or open cheque, whichever one is talking about, requires no endorsement or further endorsement, as the case may be. We are not talking about these and, therefore we can exclude them. We are limiting ourselves to "Order" cheques which, by universal custom in this country, at present require endorsement.
680
The noble Lord is quite right in thinking that the purpose of the Bill is to remove the necessity for endorsement, in the sense which I have explained, and to protect a banker who pays an order cheque without an endorsement or with an irregularity in endorsement. The Mocatta Committee, in effect, said that endorsement was in general an expensive and unnecessary anachronism. The banker is protected where he pays in good faith and in the ordinary course of business, but not otherwise. Let us see the actual language of the clause. It is:
" in good faith and in the ordinary course of business".
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, by his Amendment, says that this exemption ought not to apply to cheques cashed across the counter. Where I began to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, was this. I ventured to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and I point out now to him, that if I draw a cheque payable to the noble Lord "or Order" thereby, which at present requires an endorsement, the absence of the noble Lord's endorsement under the Bill as drafted, will not render the paying bank liable if it pays that cheque in the ordinary course of business and in good faith. If somebody steals that cheque before the noble Lord has endorsed it and writes the words, "Pethick-Lawrence" on the back, the bank is similarly protected under both the Amendment and the Bill as drafted, because Section 60 of the existing Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, exempts a bank acting in good faith in such a case.
Now the very anomaly which is created by the noble Lord's Amendment is this—that, on the other hand, the thief, instead of forging the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pethwick-Lawrence, on the back of the cheque, presents it to the bank without any endorsement at all; then the paying bank, which is exempt under the Bill, as drafted, becomes liable under the noble Lord's Amendment. It is precisely because that seems to me to create an absurdity that I ventured to attack the Amendment. The noble Lord also raised some very difficult questions about the crossing of cheques. I do not think those points are really raised by the Amendment, but, if the noble Lord wishes to pursue it further, he will find it all in Section 77 of the existing Act.
4.41 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: In answer to the noble Viscount, I am quite prepared to accept a certain slight absurdity if that will protect a substantial number of people from having their money stolen from them. There are numerous anomalies in the law which have been laid down on the basis of protecting people. I quite agree with what the noble Viscount says, that this need for endorsement arose from a banking practice—that is agreed by everybody. But it is carrying it a little too far to say that it is not now legally necessary. It has become so as a result partly of the fact that usage grows into law, as the noble Viscount knows, and partly because of the way in which the courts have applied Section 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act.
For example, I have here a book on the law of banking by the late Sir John Paget, who was much the greatest authority on this subject who ever lived. For something like thirty years, I think, he was the standing counsel to the Bankers' Institute. This is the book which is always quoted before the courts as being the most authoritative textbook. He says:
" There used to be a superstition that the paying banker was not concerned with the indorsements on an order cheque. Such an idea is, of course, utterly opposed to the whole drift of s. 60, and if a patent irregularity in the indorsements were overlooked or disregarded by the banker, it would be hopeless for him to invoke the protection of s. 60."
That was the way in which the law stood as a result of the judgments of the court under Sect on 60 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 which really goes back to 1853 when it was brought in by the Stamp Act of that year. There was the interconnection of the two, the "ordinary course of business" and the section, and in that way we got this obligation on the banks, which has been of substantial use in protecting people from the theft of cheques. It is because I wish to preserve something in regard to this small area of the subject which is not really going to interfere seriously with this Bill that I wish to have this Amendment accepted.
Undoubtedly, there is here a conflict of legal opinion and, indeed, a conflict of opinion in regard to the common sense of the matter. The noble Viscount rather made fun of me as being the sort of person who takes an exaggerated view about the danger of people stealing
682
cheques and dealing with them in this way. But this view is not peculiar to me. I will read the passage in my speech on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 204 (No. 78), col. 276] where I quoted the Mocatta Committee. I did not want to repeat it, but I think perhaps, in view of what the noble Viscount said, I ought to. This Report was not only the Report of a couple of lawyers, Mr. Mocatta and myself, but was the Report of a Past President of the Bankers' Institute, a gentleman who has been, I believe, a general manager of one of the "Big Five" banks, a distinguished chartered accountant and a practical business man of great eminence, so it is not a peculiar little fad of my own. It is the view of men of great experience in the law of banking and in the business world. They said:
" If payment in cash could be obtained against an unendorsed cheque, the risk of theft and dishonesty by agents would certainly be increased."
It may be that we are wrong and the noble Viscount is right; but surely there is here a difference of opinion which if it can be, so to speak, resolved in favour of the protection of a customer drawing cheques on his bank, ought to be. It may be that in an attempt to get back to the elegance of the original clause we have drafted this Amendment in such a way that it is not quite right—I think there is a good deal of substance in what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, said about that—but that could be put right, and if the Government would lend us the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman, it could be put right very easily at the next stage.
In effect, what has happened in this case is that the noble Viscount and those who are advising him have constituted themselves a court of appeal in regard to the legal findings of the Mocatta Committee. It may well be that they are right or it may easily be that the House of Lords, sitting judicially, when the matter eventually came before them, would prefer the view of the Mocatta Committee on this particular point. That the promoters of this Bill are not necessarily right is shown to some extent, I think, by the fact that, when the Bill was first introduced, it left out bankers' drafts and these other instruments which are now inserted in subsection (2)—then were put in by another place in an Amendment;

683
this shows that the promoters are not necessarily always right. Moreover, another place also added subsection (3) to Clause 4 of the Bill which, although the noble Viscount said it was quite unnecessary, other lawyers with whom I have discussed the matter have regarded as a necessary improvement. So I suggest that the noble Viscount and those who think with him are not necessarily right in regard to this matter. It is a great pity that we did not have the advantage of some assistance from the legal Members of your Lordships' House. I remember the great assistance that the observations of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, were when we were passing the Companies Act, 1947, through the House. As a result of his advice, we were able to avoid a number of pitfalls on that occasion.
I should have liked similar assistance on this occasion. It seems to me that one ought not to put on the Statute Book, a Statute which is open to differences of opinion of this kind between lawyers and which is almost bound to lead to expensive litigation. This type of litigation, as the noble Viscount knows, has been before your Lordships' House in a substantial number of cases at very great expense. A substantial percentage of cases coming before this House has resulted from the drafting of the Bills of Exchange Act, which is nevertheless an ably drafted Act. If that can be avoided, as in my submission it can be, by this Amendment being put into the proper form, it is our duty to see that that is done. In view of the criticisms in regard to the actual drafting, I agree that I ought not to press this Amendment this afternoon, but I will try to get it put into a proper state by the next stage, because I feel we ought to take a decision on this matter, which is one of considerable importance. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Rights of bankers collecting cheques not indorsed by holders]:
LORD CHORLEY: The Amendments in my name to Clause 2 are really ancillary to the first Amendment, and were designed to carry out in Clause 2 what I was trying to do in regard to
684
Clause 1. Therefore there is no need to move them, and with your Lordships' consent I will not do so.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Clause 4:
Protection of bankers collecting payment of cheques, &c.
(3) A banker is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as having been negligent by reason only of his failure to concern himself with absence of, or irregularity in, indorsement of an instrument.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "indorsement of an instrument." and insert:
" the payee's indorsement provided that the customer is the payee of the instrument."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is directed to subsection (3) of this clause which was inserted in the Bill on the Committee stage in another place. In my speech on Second Reading I explained how the courts have, over the last half-century or so, built up a rather elaborate jurisprudence for protecting the true owners of cheques which have been stolen, or when they have been deprived of them by fraud or in some other way, from the results of their being encashed, so to speak, by a fraudulent person passing them through his bank account, by putting the job of taking reasonable precautions to see that that sort of thing does not happen upon the collecting banker, the banker into whose account the thief or fraudulent person pays the instrument in order to get it cashed. Obviously, it is necessary to amend the law in relation to this collecting of cheques by bankers to meet the alterations in the law which are being carried through by this Bill in regard to the removal of the need for endorsement.
But in regard to what I call "negotiation endorsements" I submit that it is still important that this obligation of the bankers should be maintained in its entirety. One of the important things which the collecting banker has to do when he is collecting a cheque on behalf of his customer, is to examine the endorsement or endorsements in order to make quite sure that they are in order. If in fact on something going wrong it is found that that necessary examination was not made, or was made inefficiently,

685
then the bank will be held negligent and will lose the protection which Section 82 would otherwise give them. This is an important aspect of the banking business and the books, such as the one which I have already quoted, contain elaborate advice to bankers, based on the cases which have been decided in the courts, on how they are to concern themselves with these endorsements.
The trouble about subsection (3) as printed is that it applies to endorsements generally and is not limited to the type of endorsement which I was discussing in my earlier speech—that is, to the type of cases where the cheque is being collected for the payee only, and is so widely drawn that it covers the case of cheques being paid for persons who have become holders by virtue of endorsement. My view, and that of those who think with me, is that it is a mistake to confer this additional protection upon the bankers. In respect of cheques which have been negotiated and which have been collected by bankers, the bankers ought to remain under the obligation to take care that the endorsements are in order. This, type of cheque will continue to require endorsement, and in the case of this type of cheque it must be perfectly clear to the banker that it is a cheque which has been endorsed over. This is a small proportion of the whole—certainly not more than 3 per cent., according to the findings of the Mocatta Committee, and therefore the burden which is put upon the bankers is quite a small one. In those circumstances, I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted, and I hope that here, at any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, will be able to help me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out (" indorsement of an instrument.") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD JESSEL: The effect of this Amendment would be to restrict the protection given under subsection (3) of our Bill in the case where the customer is the payee of an instrument. Obviously, the idea behind the Amendment is the fact that the subsection as drafted tends to remove any need on the part of the collecting bank to pay attention to the negotiated endorsement. I suggest that this Amendment is unnecessary. I have been advised—and I understand that the
686
clearing banks have been independently advised to the same effect—that subsection (3) would not enable the bank safely to collect for the account of a third party a negotiable cheque without looking for endorsement: which would be required to confer a title upon the third party.
The important words in that subsection are "by reason only of" there being no endorsement, or an irregular endorsement. If someone other than the person in whose favour the cheque is drawn tries to pay it into his account, obviously the collecting banker knows from the face of the cheque that something is unusual—either that it has been negotiated by special endorsement to the customer, or it has become a "bearer" cheque for which no endorsement is necessary, or that there is some fraudulent element about it. So if he fails to turn the cheque over, having looked at the face, he is negligent because he has not bothered to investigate the possibility of fraud, and it is not because he has failed to deal with the question of endorsement only. Therefore, I am advised, and I agree, that although the intention is excellent, this Amendment is unnecessary, and I am afraid I cannot accept it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have only two words to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said. I am advised that this Amendment would impose upon the banks far more stringent liability than even the courts have hitherto suggested or imposed. For that reason, I support the noble Lord in resisting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think it necessary for me to add much, because the advice which we in the Government have received is identical with that which my noble friends Lord Jessel and Lord Balfour of Burleigh have been given. I think this would be a damaging Amendment to accept. The purpose of the Bill is to get rid of the necessity for endorsement. When you get to Clause 4 (3) which we are discussing, you have left the paying bank and you reach the collecting bank. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, wants to limit the protection granted by subsection (3) in the case of the paying bank to cases where the customer is the payee of the instrument. That is wrong, according to the advice we have received, partly for

687
the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Jessel, and partly for the additional reason given by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
To deal with the latter first, the clearing banks have pointed out to us that the Amendment would impose upon banks a more stringent liability than the courts have so far suggested or imposed. It would have the result that, by inference, a banker is to be treated as negligent by reason only of his failure to concern himself with the absence of endorsement in every case where the customer turns out not to be the payee of the cheque. That, I am advised, is more than the courts have ever suggested a banker is even now liable for. Therefore, what was intended to be a precaution has become an added imposition.
The idea which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has of protecting in his Amendment is, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has pointed out, unnecessary; and the reason is that he has not, I think, read carefully enough the subsection as drafted. The protection conferred by the subsection as drafted is limited to cases where the negligence which would arise arises by reason only of the absence of or irregularity in endorsement of the instrument. But as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, pointed out, in the case which Lord Chorley has in mind, that of a negotiated cheque originally payable to a person other than the customer of the bank, the advice which we have received—and I am bound to say I should concur in it—is that such negligence as would arise by virtue of the bank's failure to look at the back of the cheque to see whether it had been endorsed would arise not merely from the absence of or irregularity in endorsement but by reason of the fact that the bank had not paid proper attention to what was on the face of the cheque. The subsection as drafted gives no kind of protection to a bank which fails to pay proper attention to what appears on the face of a cheque, except, of course, the general protection already conferred by Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. The result is that, even from his own point of view, the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary; and from the point of view of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, it is detrimental.
5.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Viscount. He has overlooked the fact that in subsection (1) of this clause the wording of the present Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, is reproduced—and, in parenthesis, I should like to compliment the draftsman on Clause 4. It is a most brilliant piece of drafting, and in particular incorporates the Crossed Cheques Act of 1906 into this Bill in a few words and in one of the most ingenious pieces of wording which, in my experience of statutory drafting, I have ever come across. But the governing subsection of this clause is subsection (1), which provides that
" Where a banker, in good faith and without negligence…receives payment…and the customer has no title, or a defective title, to the instrument, the banker does not incur any liability to the true owner of the instrument by reason only of having received payment thereof."
That is where the words "by reason only of" come in, and the protection here is general protection against conversion. In subsection (3) we are dealing with this particular case and it is limited and governed by the words of the earlier subsection. I therefore suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that he is reading too much into this matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under a misapprehension. The words "by reason only of" to which he was referring occur in line 29, in subsection (3). I was not referring to the same words where they occur in subsection (1).
LORD CHORLEY: I have just indicated to the noble and learned Viscount that they originate in Section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act and have been there all the time; and in the dozens of cases which have been before the courts in regard to negligence on the part of the collecting banker these words have been in the section. I suggest that they support my view that it cannot be prayed in aid that these words inculpate the banker in the way that the noble and learned Viscount is suggesting. I suggest that if the obligation to the banker to pay proper attention to endorsements in the case of negotiated cheques is to be maintained the words of the Amendment,

689
or something like them ought to be in the Bill, and that without them, the Bill is ineffective. I am afraid that I must press your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

HUNGARY AND EASTERN EUROPE
5.14 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD LORD BIRDWOOD rose to draw attention to the situation in Hungary and Eastern Europe with particular reference to the Report of the United Nations Commission on Hungary and the Prime Minister's recent reply to Marshal Bulganin; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been considering for an hour or so the state of the British citizen under the hazards, as I understand, of the laws of banking in this country, I ask you to bear with me while I draw your attention for a few minutes to the fate of about 103 million people in Eastern Europe. Your Lord ships will remember that when this Motion was first tabled it was confined to the one issue of Hungary, and some of your Lordships may have felt that in view of the publication of the
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 7; Not-Contents. 39.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Mathers, L.

Crook, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Colville of Culross, V.

Grantchester, L.

Crookshank, V.

Hawke, L.

Lansdowne, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Hailsham, V.

Merrivale, L.

Hereford, V.

Merthyr, L.

Balhurst, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Newall, L.

Bessborough, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Salter, L.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun, L.

Fortescue, E.

Abinger, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Gosford, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Sinha, L.

Morley, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Onslow, E.

Birdwood, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Swinton, E.

Chesham, L.

Templemore, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Thurlow, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

United Nations Report I should have returned to that more limited issue. I have read through most of that immense Report, and as I read I became more certain than ever that the right thing for us to do this afternoon was not only to review the limited crime—dreadful though it was—committed against Hungary, but to take the opportunity to survey the broad picture of millions in Eastern Europe suffering in mental and political slavery.
In the meantime, we have had the Prime Minister's reply to Marshal Bulganin—frank, fair and conciliatory, providing us with pegs on which to hang a whole range of arguments, because if we are considering Eastern Europe we must include Eastern Germany; that, in turn, leads us to consider matters of reunification, and we get into the maze of disarmament, controls and the like. If some of your Lordships care to follow up the chain of reaction, I am sure none of us would complain. For my part, I hope to avoid disarmament problems and confine myself to political issues. Above all, I shall attempt to give my own idea of what I would term Eastern European policy. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent they agree with such a policy, and where there is disagreement I think we can expect to hear some reasons.
May I first stress what I regard as the nature of this problem? To me, it seems completely fantastic that there is a range of opinion in the world, from the leaders of Great Powers down to something like a mere lunatic fringe in our own country, that will work itself up into a pathological state of frenzy over the quite unknown effects of the fail-out of a hydrogen bomb, and yet be seemingly unmoved, year after year, by the visible evidence of a nation suffering on our doorstep in Eastern Europe. Such suffering is not a matter simply of Party concern. I do not know whether the recent monopoly of Miss Anna Kethly, when she visited this country, by the Labour Party, was due to Labour Party initiative or to Conservative and Liberal apathy. I only know that it just should not have happened. Indeed, when one speaks of Eastern European policy, such a policy loses all significance unless it is put forward by a Government with the united force of a united nation behind it. Personally, I should like to see the emergence of an All-Party Committee of both Houses of Parliament, in fairly constant session, sitting to advise Her Majesty's Government in relation to Soviet affairs. It is in that spirit that I am hoping that before we conclude this evening we shall have registered something more than the ability of the already converted to agree, and that we shall have some idea of the path down which a future Europe in freedom may travel.
I am still stressing the character of this problem when I say that responsibility rests upon us in this debate. It may well be that there are certain policies and certain plans which Her Majesty's Government have in view, particularly of the action that may or may not be taken on the United Nations Report on Hungary, which should be left in obscurity. I appreciate that. For that reason, I stress that I am not asking for details of a plan; nor, of course, do I expect any uniformity of political treatment of Eastern Europe. Obviously, to such a country as Poland it is necessary to use a different kind of approach from that to Hungary or to Czechoslovakia. But there is another danger. If we fail to display our interest in and our willingness to help Eastern Europe, then certainly the Soviet will come forward with their own proposals and will reap their own advantages.
692
Indeed, if the West, and this country, in particular, do not prove by their actions and policy that they are prepared to help Eastern Europe, there is no other alternative for those countries but to turn back to the Soviet.
Arising from that conclusion, I would draw your Lordships' attention to another feature of the situation: that is, the wisdom or the folly of pursuing a calculated, relentless, psychological attack on the Soviet leadership. The opposing argument is that if we do this, if we press all agencies into our support, using language certainly far removed from diplomacy, then we are really turning the Iron Curtain into an iron wall and will end up by permanently enslaving those we are out to help. I am afraid that that is an argument with which I do not agree. As I see it, if truth is to endure, it has to be protected, and its defence requires both positive and active measures. I say that, remembering that there is a duty to emphasise that there is to-day a very definite indication that the whole Soviet empire is beginning to doubt the validity of its own ideological premises. Brave statements that are being made are arguments not from strength but from weakness. In confirmation, we see that three directors on the board are sacked.
As to the satellite empire, I would quote only one extract which happened to come into my hands a few days ago. On May 25 the Czech Communist paper Lidova Demokracia, the "People's Newspaper", for no apparent reason suddenly quoted an extract from a Czech history written by Vancura, the dead historian, quoting from page 277. Here is a translation, much reduced:
" Shameful treaties are curtailing the rights of the kingdom and frustrating the country's freedom…. The very seeds and foundations of our Czech life are suffocated. Only treason has forced us to peace. We were never defeated; in battle. Let us abrogate these shameful treaties. Victory or an honourable death."
I leave it to your Lordships to draw your own conclusion. I only suggest: is this the moment to display weakness in policy or in intention towards the Soviet leadership? For our purpose this afternoon I think that we may conclude that, within reason, bearing in mind certain conflicting elements, we can speak our minds.
I am finished with theory and want to turn to the practical aspect. Before I turn to the broader picture of Eastern

693
Europe I want to say a few words about Hungary. In the case of Hungary I suggest that we have a duty. Your Lordships will remember that the ultimatum to Israel and Egypt was put out on October 30, the same day that Budapest radio announced the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the city. It would be mischievously wrong to suggest that the ultimatum in any way influenced the Soviet decision, which in fact had been taken weeks before. At the same time as that bogus withdrawal was playing its part as a political smoke-screen, Soviet troops were on their way into the country from Roumania and Soviet Russia, crossing by bridges which had been erected over the rivers certainly on October 21. But what I think can be said is that Suez provided an alibi for the Soviets enabling them to say, "The oppressor on the Nile could not become the liberator on the Danube", and things of that sort. While we have no responsibility, I suggest that we have a particular obligation.
I will not waste your Lordships' time in drawing attention to the features of this revolution. They are all recounted in this great Report. All I would do is add one or two footnotes to a document which surely represents one of the great indictments in history. First of all, let me remind your Lordships that the Report is signed by five nations, of no particular political sympathy, of no particular bloc and of no single geographical area. Two of the signatories might well have been described by the Soviet a few years ago as "emerging from the grip of Western Colonialism". So it would be impossible for the Soviet to persuade anyone except their own millions of mesmerised mice to think that this Report is in any way instigated by the West and by the United States in particular. That being so, it occurs to me that one might hope to see the next step being taken by one of those small Powers usually classified as the "uncommitted".
I suggest that there is a clear and simple duty, in which Her Majesty's Government can play their part, to see that the world knows about this Report. The first issue is of 20,000 copies. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should not rest content until they have
694
seen 2 million copies published in different languages, and that in this country we could take steps to see that a reduced copy is available on all bookstalls at about 2s. 6d. apiece. Most important, I suggest, is to see that the Soviet people know about this Report. Your Lordships will recall that the Report draws attention to many examples of Soviet troops who had sudden flashes of humanity and sudden doubts about the morality of the orders they were receiving. Is it not our simple duty to reinforce those doubts?
Here I think the B.B.C. can play their part. Nothing impressed me more during my recent visit to Vienna than to find praise for the work of the B.B.C. who, year after year, while not presenting anything particularly spectacular about the West, have played their by part by merely giving the facts of life in the West. I understood that that had been a real factor in keeping alive behind the Iron Curtain faith and confidence in Western democracy. Finally, in undertaking this Report, I suggest that the United Nations have to some extent reinstated themselves as a forum of world opinion to be recognised. This is the world's protest. While we may not see the immediate results that can flow from it, we can be certain that to have made no protest would have achieved nothing at all.
At this point I would draw attention to a difficult problem which faces Her Majesty's Government. I said that I was not going to press for any declaration of intention in regard to this Report, but I would draw attention to the situation as it is in Hungary to-day. So far from conditions in any way being alleviated, they have become utterly unendurable: special tribunals roaming around the countryside with the right to re-try, to step up sentence of life to sentence of death; a pall of despair hanging over the whole country; and perhaps that most accurate gauge of conditions within a country, the barometer of suicide. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is going to speak, will doubtless be able to tell us something about the validity of these tribunals as they roam about the countryside. But those conditions have to be remembered by Her Majesty's Government when they come to face the problem, which, as I see it, is to decide whether we press for

695
the reconvening of the General Assembly now, or wait for the next Session in September.
I said that I would not repeat the story of the revolution. But, for my purpose, I must just refer to the closing phase, when on November 4 Hungary had reached the parting of the ways. For Kadar it was a choice either of following Nagy down a road which clearly led right away from Communism—for, your Lordships will remember, Nagy had openly renounced the Warsaw Pact—or of turning back to the Soviet. The difference between these two men was this: that Nagy saw the desires of his people and was determined to stand by them; Kadar saw only the inevitable return of the Soviet—a Soviet which feared now not the breakaway of a satellite "down a different road to Socialism", but down a road that would leave Socialism far behind and let in at last the open seas of freedom. Kadar chose the Soviet, and so the great betrayal of our time was perpetrated.
For a week or so we witnessed the spectacle of twenty Soviet divisions held by men, women and children, fighting with bottles, sticks and stones and bombs made in their own backyards. Of all the things that one may say of the heroism of a small, proud country I would choose only this as my comment: that the world had become dangerously near to taking its division for granted. Perhaps Hungary has shown it that that kind of weak, inept judgment is wrong. Hungary has restored confidence, and has shown us that this satellite empire rests not on any indigenous kind of will of the people, but only on the mere presence of the Soviet military might. I felt that that much was due to be said about a nation which, in a sense, lost its bid for freedom not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of the other millions suffering in captivity from the Baltic down to the Black Sea.
So I pass to the broader picture. I would remind your Lordships that there are ten States, because I include the three Baltic States, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, none of them even offered the privilege of a Communist dictatorship, their identity merely terminated in 1944, in one case, probably typical of the others, with 150,000 people removed in cattle
696
trucks to Siberia. One mentions the episode as a kind of debating point, and we, who have never had to send a British refugee over to the Continent of Europe, find much difficulty in understanding it. I confess that I did not fully understand its meaning until I had to study the Report of the Select Committee of he House of Representatives of the United States.
We come now to face the grave question which all men of conscience ask: What can we do? I think we first have to swallow a very bitter pill. I see it in this way: that there is no heroic stroke of rescue; no political pressure which we can bring to bear on a satellite country which would not at this point heap misery on to a people who are already suffering an overwhelming burden. At this moment there are nine Soviet divisions in Hungary; there are seven Soviet armoured divisions in Poland; there are twenty-two Soviet divisions in Eastern Germany, and there are many divisions at short call across the border in Soviet territory. It is not that suffering can be entirely avoided. To win freedom, obviously sacrifices will have to be made. The problem is, as I see it, to secure the minimum of suffering with the maximum results.
In doing so, we have, I think, always to hope and plan that the spirit of freedom will live on inside these countries; that the initiative will come always from the heart of the people themselves, rather than from outside; but of course, that there will be encouragement—and that is what I mean when I refer to the rôle of the B.B.C. It is within that context that I see that organisations claiming to represent their countries, such as the Assembly of Captive European Nations (A.C.E.N.) and the Federation of the Freedom Fighters of Hungary, must find their level. I mention them because, if Her Majesty's Government cannot find it within them to offer what might be termed resistance movements fair recognition, then, at least, it should be recognised that it would be callous and cruel to ignore them entirely. Those who have met General Bela Keraly, who has placed himself at the head of the Federation of Freedom Fighters, recognise quickly a leader who is going to dedicate the rest of his life to the freedom of his country. Her Majesty's Government have nothing

697
whatever to be ashamed of, in my view, if they give such men a little encouragement, even though it may cut across the normal processes of diplomatic procedure.
In attempting to answer the question, "What can we do?", I would say that if there is to be no coup, then at least there can be a long-term policy, and that can be supported by what I call a number of short-term plans, minor political engagements, all directed not at the satellite countries, but at the central control of oppression. In the East there is a saying that it is better to kill the serpent than to break her eggs, and, as the Soviet leadership is what one might term "summit-minded," as I see it a grave responsibility rests on men such as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. In what I have to say now there will be some measure of agreement, and there will most certainly be quite a measure of disagreement, but I would press for your Lordships' consent on this one point. So often, when proposals are put forward from the West, they are met with the objection that the Soviet will never accept them. That misses the point. The point seems to me to be this: that every time a fair proposal is put forward, even if it is turned down, a minor engagement on behalf of truth is won. Let us then saturate the political atmosphere with proposals. The danger does not lie in the Soviet refusal, but lies in the loss of political initiative.
I would say just a word or two about what I have termed these short-term plans and skirmishes. From time to time certain situations arise, and each one of them is capable of being put to some use. To give an example, to-day, only twenty kilometres down the road from Vienna, one encounters a double-apron barbed wire fence, put back by the Kadar Government the other day, mined, with watch towers at intervals, and patrols slinking about to ensure that there is no escape. At the same time, one reads that in August a World Festival of Youth is going to assemble in Moscow which is to be the last word in Soviet "window dressing", and from our own country some 2,000 applications have been made for visas. I am not certain whether those two situations can be linked together, but they are the kind of situation that can be linked. For me, one of the most
698
impressive passages in the Prime Minister's letter to Marshal Bulganin was the logic of his reference to the barriers which the Soviet have erected to prevent their people from knowing the West. Here, it seemed to me, was an appreciation of the technique of presenting a fair kind of condition which it is up to a fair-minded Government to accept.
The long-term policy, of course, in contrast, concerns the very existence of the Iron Curtain itself, and I think we should be drawing false conclusions if we attempted to differentiate between one area or another in a moral sense—that is to say, the crime is the same wherever it is being perpetrated, whether it be Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia or anywhere else. Nevertheless, in so far as in Eastern Germany the effect has also been to divide a nation, I would suggest to our friends in Eastern Europe that we are justified in believing that perhaps in Germany and its reunification lies the key to a settlement of the trouble; if we can effect the reunification of Germany, then Eastern Europe will be much nearer its day of liberation. In view of the emphasis which the Prime Minister, in his letter, placed upon the reunification of Germany that would appear also to be the view of the Government. Personally, I have always felt that the day on which free elections could be initiated all over Germany would be the dawn of a great new era for all Eastern Europe. That much is non-controversial.
My further contention, I realise, is probably full of controversy. I put it in this way. To me it is quite obvious that the Soviet will never accept a reunited Germany which has opted to be under the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty; and I believe that they would have some justice, for the first time, in refusing that kind of development. Similarly, if it were possible, the West equally would never accept a reunited Germany which was under the umbrella of the Warsaw Pact. So we may suppose that the terms for the reunification of Germany must logically develop from an assumption that Germany would be neutralised by being neither in the North Atlantic Treaty camp nor the Warsaw camp.
What then remains? Surely, only a Germany demilitarised, and neutralised, but at; last reunited and free In putting it that way, I realise that I have gone well

699
beyond the present position of Her Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister recently reminded Marshal Bulganin that at Geneva, in 1955, we recognised the possibility of a United Germany which might opt to join the North Atlantic Treaty, with certain assurances being offered to the Soviet covering their own security. I am also aware that Dr. Adenauer to-day firmly rejects the whole conception of neutralisation. In all humility, I would ask the great architect of the new Germany whether, if he continues to adopt that attitude, he will ever see Germany reunited within his own lifetime. He recently offered that if the Soviet would agree to reunification he, in turn, would agree that North Atlantic Treaty forces would not be stationed further East than the present Zonal border. It is the further step of renunciation, as I see it, that is required.
Your Lordships may naturally ask: What is the fate of the North Atlantic Treaty in those circumstances? I well appreciate that the North Atlantic Treaty has been the symbol by which we have rescued the European heritage. Not one yard of European territory has been yielded to the Soviet which lies within the scope of the Treaty. But the Treaty is only a means to an end, and not an end in itself. If the price of achieving the end, or getting at least a little nearer to its achievement, is some modification of the means, then I suggest that we should be unwise not to consider those necessary adjustments. So long as the Soviet have many divisions just over the border in their own territory, it is out of the question, of course, to break up the North Atlantic Treaty. The process I am suggesting is a gradual disengagement of forces by the North Atlantic side on to the fringe of Europe, in return for similar disengagements and withdrawals on the Soviet side. If that can be combined with the natural development of a military guarantee for any country which is afraid for its own security, on the lines which Sir Anthony Eden has frequently put forward, then we should welcome it.
I have developed this theme of Germany because the process of neutralisation is sorely infectious, and in Europe the soil is most certainly receptive. For, paradoxically, in these satellite countries, in the midst of all their misery, there are the seeds of a new Europe. I think it
700
stirs the imagination to contemplate the future that might lie ahead for these nations if they were in a position, not necessarily to go into the capitalist camp or the Communist camp, but to build their own future in their own way. If the only way in which they can win that freedom to which they are entitled is through some conception of neutrality and its extension from one country to another, then a very grave responsibility rests on any Power which would resist that kind of process.
I have only one final reflection, and that is of a different nature. When the Khrushchevs and Kadars of this world condemn whole communities to mental slavery, it is difficult to avoid being forced into that frame of mind which would fasten the hatred of a system on to the individual who operates it. And yet, if we are to be in tune with the God we profess to worship when we enter a Christian church, we have not to fight the individual but the system. Yet what does fighting in any form involve? It involves harnessing every agency at our disposal—the exchange of trade and cultural relations; the Press, the radio and television—into their place in this great battle of mind and word. So I would ask the right reverend Prelate who is to speak this question—I purposely put it in its most unfavourable light from my own point of view: is what one might term "organised hatred" justified, assuming always that one believes it to be the means to an end? As to that end, it may be that we in our time may never see Jerusalem built in these lost lands of Europe. But have we then to cease from mental strife? Have we not a duty to perform in handing on a torch to those who might come after? It is to discover whether these ideas in any way fit in with the policy which Her Majesty's Government have in mind in Europe that I have raised these matters in your Lordship's House this afternoon. I beg to move for Papers.
5.48 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, by the Motion which he has submitted this afternoon, has raised a number of important problems. I have listened with great attention to his speech, because I know that he takes a great personal interest in the affairs of Eastern Europe, and he has

701
taken special interest in the Hungarian tragedy. His speech has shown a constructive approach to the problem of the captive nations, and I can only hope that the debate we are having here this afternoon will in some way or other be reported to the satellite countries so that they may have further evidence that the West are concerned with their present enslavement and anxious to help them forward in whatever ways they can to the peaceful recovery of their national sovereign rights.
I believe that all of us regard what happened recently in Poland and Hungary as momentous events that will have an important influence on the future course of European development. The Soviet empire was deeply shaken by them and conditions of crisis within the Communist camp were intensified. We have all known for a long time that the Soviet leaders have some very awkward problems and anxieties, both within the captive empire and inside their own borders. Official confirmation of this is forthcoming to-day, as my noble friend mentioned, with the news of the split in the top leadership of the Soviet Government and the dismissal of Molotov. Malenkov and Kaganovich. I am not going to speculate as to the real significance of this drastic action or its likely effect on Soviet foreign policy, but it is clear that there have been strong disagreements and dissensions.
What has happened in recent times in the captive area of Europe—flashpointed by the uprisings in East Berlin, Poznan and Budapest—must have made a disturbing impact not only on the Soviet leaders themselves but on the minds of large numbers of Soviet citizens. They must recognise that disaffection, long-endured grievances and a bitter resentment of Soviet domination are now the open or underlying realities in the Communist-controlled neighbouring countries. The unanimous Report of the United Nations Special Committee, to which reference has already been made, confirms the view, which I think most of us formed at the time, that the revolts in Poland and Hungary were spontaneous popular bids by two small nations to liberate themselves from an intolerable foreign yoke, and to get for themselves a greater measure of national independence. The whole world knows now that the captive peoples are not reconciled,
702
and will never become reconciled, to Russian overlordship. It is an old lesson of history that the ideals of national independence and personal freedom cannot be torn from the human heart. The Polish and Hungarian nations have re-emphasised its validity.
One of the principal conclusions of the Special Committee is that what happened in Hungary was
" a massive armed intervention by one power on the territory of another with the avowed intention of interfering with the internal affairs of that country."
Contrast that impartial verdict of the Special Committee with an important passage in Mr. Bulganin's recent letter to the Prime Minister—I quote Mr. Bulganin's own words:
" The tasks of safeguarding a lasting peace in the Middle East demand, it is our profound conviction, that the great Powers strictly adhere to the principles of the peaceful settlement of all disputes connected with that area, respect the sovereignty and independence of the Middle East countries, and do not intervene in their internal affairs."
That, to me, is an unexceptionable statement, in harmony with the Charter of the United Nations. But if it is valid for the Middle East, it is valid also for Europe. It is, to say the least of it, strange that this "profound conviction" of Mr. Bulganin and his associates does not govern their policy and action towards their European neighbours. Had that "profound conviction" been translated into practice in the case of Hungary, how different would have been the situation in that country to-day!
I do not intend to introduce matters that have been thoroughly debated in this House in recent months, but I cannot refrain from expressing deep regret that at a crucial period in captive Europe's struggle for national rights the nations of the free world were torn by divisions and disagreements on the Suez crisis, with the result that they were unable to bring their united political and moral pressure effectively to bear in support of the Hungarian people. The Special Committee's Report has yet to be discussed by the General Assembly, and we must await the results of that discussion. I want, however, to refer to a relevant matter. As a result of recent events the United Nations has come under criticism for having what is termed a double standard. The facts do not justify that criticism. In

703
the case of Suez, the General Assembly called upon Britain, France and Israel to withdraw their armed forces from Egyptian territory. Intervention was ended and their armed forces were withdrawn. In the case of Hungary, also, the General Assembly called upon the Soviet Union to withdraw its armed forces. Intervention was not ended: Soviet armed forces were not withdrawn but were reinforced, and then they smashed Hungary's attempt to regain its freedom. Soviet armed forces remain in control of the country to-day. The double standard was set not by the United Nations but by one of its foundation members which refused to obey its call and continues to defy it.
All of us must recognise that these are circumstances in which there is not a great deal that the United Nations can do now. As the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said, there is no heroic action that can be taken by the West on behalf of the Hungarian people in their tragedy, but there ought to be no question of Soviet Russia's armed attack against Hungary and her defiance of the United Nations being glossed over. Nor can we pretend that what is reported by the Special Committee did not happen. The main facts as recorded cannot just be received and noted by the General Assembly. It would be wrong for member nations to close their eyes to the damage that has been done to the rule of law. They cannot safely regard armed intervention on the Western side of the Iron Curtain as something to be opposed and denounced, and armed intervention on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain as something to be ignored and condoned. And surely there are no nations who should be more concerned at the armed suppression of freedom in a small country by a powerful neighbour than the newly emergent independent nations. No nation can feel wholly secure unless respect for the rule of law is universal, and it is in their common interest, as well as their common duty, to record their condemnation of Soviet Russia's armed intervention and repression in Hungary.
I know that there are those who think that to censure Soviet Russia's action will not do very much good, but I do not believe that the Soviet leaders are, or can afford to be, as impervious to critical
704
world opinion as we are sometimes inclined to believe. World condemnation on this occasion might help in deterring the Soviet Government from a repetition of armed intervention to suppress future efforts among the captive nations to win a greater measure of independence. Soviet Russia has worked hard and schemed skilfully to build up political and economic credit with the uncommitted nations. We may be sure that her leaders will think carefully before they run too big a risk of squandering that influence and good will.
Then, at the very time the Soviet leaders are seeking to restrain the demand for "national Communism" based on the theory of "the many roads to Socialism" Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese Communist leader, has strengthened the basis for that demand by expounding the case for "tolerated diversity" within the Communist bloc. Moreover, the movement of mind and spirit in the captive peoples has, as we know, its counterpart within the Soviet Union itself, where the strong natural desires for more tolerable conditions of life and more personal liberty are astir.
My Lords, in the light of these developments, of internal and external pressures, how can we be sure that the Soviet leaders are not being influenced by them or that they all react to them along a single line? How can we be sure even that there may not be doubts about the action taken in Hungary, or that there may not be some misgivings about whether it was handled in the best way from their own standpoint? Some of them must surely have been pondering for some time past whether in certain ways their East European empire is not becoming more of a liability than an asset, both politically and economically, and that a more liberal policy might give better results. They have good reason to know that the satellite military forces are not a reliable source of strength to Russia; that in fact they can prove to be a source of grave peril in time of crisis. This knowledge could have a deterrent influence against what might be called an activist policy.
Furthermore, how long can Soviet Russia with advantage to its own long-term interests maintain its grip on Eastern Europe by sheer armed power? Nobody knows better than they do that the Kadar

705
Administration in Hungary is not supported by the masses in Hungary; that indeed it is hated and despised by them for having betrayed the nation; and that it depends entirely upon the tanks of the Soviet occupation forces for its continued existence. Can they really believe that Soviet Russia's security is strengthened when an unwanted Government, upheld by an unwelcome foreign force, rules an unwilling people? That situation, as they know, is not confined to Hungary alone.
I am not suggesting that the Soviet leaders have begun to think of withdrawing from the satellite nations. That would be absurd. But neither should we consider that their present policy is unalterable in all circumstances. The governing principle of Moscow's East European policy is the security of Russia, and the captive States continue to be regarded by Moscow as a vital strategic area in existing circumstances. The main reason for the Russian military subjugation of Hungary was, I believe, a determination not to allow her to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and adopt a status of neutrality on the Austrian model. To suggest contracting out of the Russian defence system touches Moscow's most sensitive nerve. The Polish leader, Gomulka, avoided that clanger, and thereby averted Soviet armed intervention.
Herein, I suggest, lies the real significance of the new series of treaties which Moscow has made with East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Roumania regarding the stationing and movements of Red Army forces in those countries. What were formerly hailed as the forces of liberation have become the forces of occupation. Not even Poland could secure their withdrawal. Red Army forces will remain in all these national territories, and Russian military power will continue to be the visible symbol to the inhabitants of their inferior status. In East Germany the Soviet military authorities have now a treaty right to intervene if they consider the security of their armed forces is threatened by internal events. Under this provision the Soviet leaders could no doubt claim the right to take action if there were a dangerous revolt against the East German puppet Government. Moscow will not allow a collapse of its control over East Germany because that
706
would mean the collapse of its European policy.
What has happened in recent months in Eastern Europe seems to underline the fact that, so long as: he German problem remains unresolved, the problem of the captive States cannot be solved, and so long as the problem of European security remains unsolved, the German problem cannot be solved. Neither the Russians nor the Western Powers will consider dismantling their present defence systems until both sides are assured that they can have an alternative form of all-in security which satisfies their requirements. That is a common basic position.
I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and I think that the West must now be convinced that Russia will not agree to German reunification while there is a possibility of a united Germany being a member of N.A.T.O. Soviet Russia on her part, must realise that no Federal German Government will negotiate reunification with the puppet Communist authorities of East Germany. Our Prime Minister has declared that an all-in European security system is contingent on a reunified Germany with a freely elected all-German Government free to choose its own foreign policy. It seems clear, therefore, that the reunification of Germany and the liberalisation of the captive nations will have to be sought through what has been called a "comprehensive and indivisible European Security Plan."
The main elements of such a comprehensive plan have been the subject of considerable public discussion over the lust two or three years. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined proposals in what has come to be called the "Gaitskell Plan". In recent months the Leader of the German Social Democratic Party has indicated the broad lines on which they think the problem of German reunification in freedom should be sought. Proposals have been elaborated by the exiled leaders of the captive nations. One of them, Mr. V.V. Tilea, who was the Roumanian Minister in London at the outbreak of war, stated them in a constructive article in The Times about a month ago. Comparison of all these different statements shows that they have much in common. I need only state the main elements concisely. They are: (1) The reunification of Germany on the basis of genuinely free elections; (2) the

707
gradual withdrawal of Soviet armed forces from East Germany and Central and South-Eastern Europe; and of Western armed forces from Federal Germany; (3) the choosing of their own Governments by the liberated States on the basis of free elections, without external intervention or pressure; and (4) the establishment of what we now call a neutral zone, whose members would be internationally guaranteed in their territorial integrity and military neutrality.
We all know, of course, that it is one thing to state objectives and another thing to attain them. But it must be recognised that there can be little hope of progress if both sides stand firmly on old positions and leave it at that. The kernel of the difficulty continues to be German unity and a united Germany's military status. However often the Western Allies proclaim that N.A.T.O. is a purely defensive shield against aggression, there seems little likelihood that Soviet Russia's opposition to the inclusion of a united Germany will be modified. It is, of course, true that the Western Powers have recognised the right of a united Germany to stay in or to go out of N.A.T.O., but that does not satisfy the Soviet Government, and they have made it abundantly clear that they will not agree to reunification, with freedom for Germany to be a member of N.A.T.O. if an all-German Government so chooses.
Even if the Soviet leaders were to give an affirmative answer to the four questions posed to Mr. Bulganin by the Prime Minister, none of the difficulties which have prevented agreement hitherto will be removed or eased. A solution appears to lie, therefore, in seeking a comprehensive agreement on European security as a whole. The need is for a practical start to be made to that end. I believe that the key to progress lies through disarmament, which will ease tensions, strengthen mutual confidence and open the way to agreements on other problems connected with European security and freedom.
Much depends, in my judgment, on what is achieved by the present Session of the Disarmament Sub-Committee. Both the latest Soviet and the Western statements on nuclear disarmament mark an advance on their previous positions. If negotiation on these two statements lead to an agreement to suspend
708
at once all further H-bomb tests for an agreed period, during which agreement will be sought for the cessation of production of nuclear materials for military purposes and for the establishment of proper control measures, a major step forward will have been taken on the road to a comprehensive disarmament agreement. It will, in my view, have a tremendous psychological effect upon the world as being a practical advance in the right direction. The sense of frustration which the prolonged absence of disarmament results has created will be replaced by a growing public confidence that the world is moving away from the perils of nuclear competition.
My Lords, we now have an opportunity to forge the key to greater world security. We must surely all be profoundly hoping that the opportunity will be seized. A positive achievement on nuclear disarmament with the promise of comprehensive disarmament to follow would help to transform the political climate of the world, in which a new political initiative would have more favourable prospects of success than any in the past decade. Conditions would then be ripe for another high-level conference at which negotiations should be directed at getting a European settlement providing for the reunification of Germany in freedom and the restoration of their sovereign rights to the captive nations in Eastern Europe.
My final word is therefore to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the need to prepare and undertake a new initiative in conjunction with the United States and France and in consultation with Federal Germany and other directly interested N.A.T.O. partners. When they go to another Summit Conference they should be ready to submit their own proposals for a political settlement in Europe. Their object must be to remove not only the division of Germany but the division of Europe, and so give freedom and security to all the European nations.
6.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty, on behalf of the whole House, first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for the admirable manner in which he has given Her Majesty's Government the opportunity of dealing with most important questions; and secondly, to thank the

709
noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for one of Chose shrewd, knowledgeable and restrained surveys of international affairs for which the House is repeatedly in his debt. But neither of the two noble Lords who have spoken will question the fact that they have put two immensely difficult and important problems to me for my consideration. The first is the situation in Hungary and the policy that should be pursued after the changing events there; and the second is the main problem of Eastern Europe, including German reunification and the advantages and disadvantages of mutual withdrawal of forces. I must ask the House to bear with me if I take some time in making my effort to deal adequately with these important problems.
I begin with the problem of Hungary, and I would remind your Lordships that from the early days of the rising Her Majesty's Government have been in no doubt whatsoever about its nature. Both noble Lords who have spoken have entirely agreed that it was the force of Soviet arms, and that alone, which frustrated the desire of the Hungarian people to rid themselves of foreign domination—because all that they wanted was to be ruled by a Government of their own choice. Therefore we have consistently and wholeheartedly supported all the efforts of the United Nations, first to alleviate the lot of the Hungarian people and secondly, and above all, to do everything we can to secure the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Hungary.
We also supported the setting up by the United Nations of the Special Committee on Hungary, charged with ascertaining and placing on record all the facts they could obtain about the circumstances of the rising. I believe that both my predecessors will agree with me that, if ever there was an episode which required investigation by an authoritative and impartial body, it was the Hungarian episode and its aftermath. I believe that I shall be following both the letter and the spirit of what was said by my noble friend Lord Birdwood if I pause for a moment to remind your Lordships of the strength, impartiality and importance of the Committee that produced this Report. It is worth noting that the Committee was composed of representatives of small nations: Denmark, Australia, Ceylon, Tunisia, and Uruguay, one from each continent and none—I repeat none—from
710
among the major Powers whose own interests might be held to be closely involved. It is really ludicrous to suppose, as the Soviet Government have alleged, that the findings of the representatives whom I have mentioned could have been dictated by the State Department in the United States or any other organ. Such a suggestion disparages both the distinguished and impartial members of the Committee and the United Nations, which appointed them.
The Report which the Committee made is a model of comprehensiveness and clarity. I should also like to add this. It should go out from your Lordships' House that we, at the heart of the Commonwealth, can take pride in the fact that two distinguished fellow-citizens took part in the preparation of the Report. They were Mr. Shann, of Australia, who was rapporteur, and Mr. Gunewardene of Ceylon—and I shall quote in a moment from a statement by Mr. Gunewardene. I am sure your Lordships would like to join me in thanking them for the admirable manner in which they discharged the heavy task laid on them by the United Nations.
An immense amount of material was gathered by the Committee. It came from documents, including newspapers published in both Hungary and the Soviet Union, and broadcasts; and, above all, it came from over 100 Hungarian witnesses chosen by the Committee themselves from many applicants as being most able to give most accurate testimony as to the events of the last nine months. I can note with special pleasure—because at; one stage the gentleman in question was my pupil at the Bar—that the Committee heard one non-Hungarian witness. Sir Hartley Shawcross, who asked to testify on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists, who had conducted independent examinations of the legal aspects of the uprising and its aftermath. As a lawyer, I should like to pay tribute to the judicial impartiality of their investigations.
The Report was an astonishingly revealing document, which I think travels that territory which I am just finishing, and I want to urge that it deserves to be read in full. I say, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, that one should do everything to encourage the reading of it. Therefore, I venture to

711
make these remarks to your Lordships to-day. Let us realise that the main conclusions completely vindicate the attitude adopted from the first by the General Assembly, but necessarily based on information which was less detailed and complete than that which was afterwards collected by the Committee. I shall certainly bear in mind—I cannot give any promise except that of careful consideration—the suggestions which Lord Bird-wood made as to increased publicity for the Report. I think it is also worth stating quite shortly, clearly and crisply, what were the five main findings of the Committee.
The first was that what took place in Hungary last year was a spontaneous national uprising, led from start to finish by students, workers, soldiers and intellectuals, many of them Communists. Secondly, the demonstrations which started off the chain of events were entirely peaceful—I think that needs to be stated again. None of the demontrators carried arms or had any intention of resorting to force. It was the action of the Hungarian Secret Police in opening fire on unarmed people and, later, the attacks by Soviet tanks which drove the Hungarian people to take up arms. Thirdly, the Committee find that, during those few days of freedom which the Hungarians were able to enjoy, life began quickly to return to normal, and there sprang up spontaneously the things that we all take for granted—political Parties, trade unions, a free Press. For those days, the burden of fear was magically lifted. Fourthly, the Committee find that the basic human rights of the Hungarian people were violated by the Hungarian Government prior to October 23 and that such violations have been resumed after November 4. Fifthly, they find—and this is important—that the consideration of the question by the United Nations was legally proper and, moreover, was requested by a legal Government of Hungary, Mr. Nagy's Government.
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I emphasise this point. The Committee specifically stated that the thesis that the uprising drew its strength from reactionary circles in Hungary and from Western "imperialists" did not stand up to examination. I should like to quote Mr. Gunewardene on this point
712
because I think this is very valuable. He said in Colombo on June 23:
" Not one witness had wanted a change in Hungary's social or economic system. No one was prepared to let the factories go back to the capitalists. If the revolution had been inspired by the Western Powers they would have wanted to break with the social and economic systems and to return to a capitalist system. They wanted a socialist republic based on Marxist and Leninist principles, with greater friendship with Russia and other socialist countries. But they also wanted independence from any foreign control."
That is Mr. Gunewardene's summary of the position. I hope that it will go out to the world. The Report concluded with these words—again I quote because the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, drew attention specifically to this point and I desire to underline it:
" A massive armed intervention by one Power on the territory of another, with the avowed intention of interfering with the internal affairs of the country must, by the Soviet Union's own definition of aggression, be a matter for international concern."
That is a grave and important statement that the world should understand at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked me to say a word about events since the uprising. In particular, he asked me to say something with regard to the legal system—and, though I call it a legal system, I must not be taken to admit that it has any of my conception of legality or rule of law; but I wanted to follow the noble Lord as he asked me to deal with the point. The aftermath, generally, has been a bitter one, and our heartfelt sympathy must go out to the whole Hungarian people, because undoubtedly they are being subjected to ruthless repression and a wholesale reign of terror. This campaign is now being waged by the Kadar régime. All the apparatus of the Police State has been introduced—beatings-up, disappearances in the night and arbitrary arrests are again common; and executions are a daily occurrence. So far as we can discover, even when cases are brought to court, the proceedings are only a travesty of justice.
I could go through—as no doubt Lord Birdwood has done—a whole line of decrees dealing with this matter. I want to quote only two that demonstrate my point. The courts hold wide powers of summary trial which they are expected to use to the fullest extent, and have

713
done so since the end of the uprising. But a Hungarian newspaper on January 11 carried the following statement:
" Trials at a summary court are short. The prosecutor brings the defendant before the court of summary jurisdiction, submits the proof and the charge, guilt is stated and sentence passed by short process."
That seems quick enough, to say the least of it. But two days afterwards a Government spokesman explained that these powers of summary jurisdiction had proved inadequate and that expedited procedure would be introduced. If I may take another example, under a decree of June 15 the right of persons on trial to a proper defence has been severely limited, for the Hungarian Minister of Justice is drawing up a short list of lawyers who alone will be entitled to appear for the defence. Even the courts of appeal are packed, because they now have one professional judge and four lay representatives who appear to be chosen because of their readiness to support the régime. Even so, there is a continual call for sterner measures. That is the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked me about the more general aspect. It is impossible to say accurately how many have suffered through the reign of terror. The best estimate we have of those executed or done to death is that they are numbered in thousands; and even the Hungarian authorities themselves may have no accurate idea of the total, because the secret police have killed many rather than bother to hand them over. I should just like to give two examples of the fate of those who reached the courts. On May 16—which, after all, was a considerable time after the events that brought this matter up—no fewer than 14 out of 21 persons accused of counterrevolutionary activities were sentenced to death and probably executed on the same day. On June 6, six persons were sentenced to death for the part they played in attacking a group of secret police who had massacred 80 unarmed demonstrators in a provincial town on October 26. In addition, there are at least 20,000 political prisoners, and I really need not elaborate on the conditions of life and manners of death in such places. I should like to say only that we have been informed that one of the Hungarian officials sent to inspect a concentration camp is said to have returned in three days and had to be treated for a nervous
714
breakdown. So, obviously, they have got to the depths of concentration camp procedure which the Nazis achieved in the course of same years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson that although organisations have been proscribed, and although it is no use denying that all this has had the desired effect that resistance to the régime both active and passive has, to all intents and purposes, ceased, that is not the end of the story. The recent proceedings of the Communist Party Congress show that the leaders know well enough that not only in the country at large but even in their own Party their support is negligible. The spirit of the Hungarian people has not been broken, although they know it is no use banging their heads against a brick wall. They have not accepted the dictatorship. Rather than face the voters even in the Communist travesty of elections, Kadar has postponed them, with specious excuses, for two years. The point where I think the noble Lord, Lord Henderson and I would agree at once is that Hungary, like most Communist States, is ruled by a minority, perhaps as small as 3 per cent., and that minority is in power by reason of one thing only—namely, the force of Soviet arms. That is the central fact of the tragedy of Hungary.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, quite fairly said that he would like me to say what was the policy of the Government in these bitter circumstances. I will treat it under three headings: first, the policy as regards the United Nations: secondly, the policy towards Russia; and thirdly, the policy towards Hungary and the other East European States. As regards the United Nations, Her Majesty's Government accept the findings of the Report of the Special Committee. The conclusions are so damning and the picture we have of events, both at the time of the uprising and since, is so appalling that we shall be satisfied only by the General Assembly giving their full attention to the situation. We shall therefore press for the Assembly to meet as soon as it is practicable to organise effective consideration of the Hungarian question. As two noble Lords have pointed out, the earlier resolutions of the Assembly are still on record. They call for the withdrawal of Soviet forces so that the Hungarian people can exercise their right to have a Government of their

715
own choice. This call, which has hitherto been disregarded by the Soviet-Hungarian Government, must be reaffirmed.
Now with regard to Russia: a heavy responsibility lies on the Soviet Union to right the wrongs which she has committed in Hungary. When, therefore, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote last month to Marshal Bulganin he said—and I quote his words:
" The policy of repression now being pursued in Hungary by a régime maintained in power by the presence of Soviet troops, and the continued refusal of the Soviet and Hungarian Governments to comply with the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, are bound to remain serious obstacles to any real improvement in any Anglo-Soviet relations."
I am sure my right honourable friend in saying that spoke for this country. The Soviet leaders are again pressing the doctrine of co-existence, and we, for our part, will carefully examine any issue on which we think we can make progress. But—and here again I think I am only quoting the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in words as well as in spirit, and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, too—there is no good purpose to be served by whitewashing Soviet actions of which we disapprove. That cannot be the basis of a genuine friendship such as is wanted. Hungary is such a case. We cannot hide, and we should be wrong to ignore, the profound feelings of disquiet that Soviet actions there have aroused in this country and, indeed, throughout the free world. The remedy lies in the hands of the Soviet Government. They should withdraw their forces from Hungary.
I know it is tempting to say—and there are people who say it—that the Hungarian episode is over and one should not rake up the dead embers. We have no wish—and certainly not I, who have the happiest personal memories of my co-operation with Soviet colleagues twelve years ago, and have always had personally a great and abiding interest in the Russian people, their history and literature and music—to add bitterness to Anglo-Soviet relations. But, having said that, the truth is that the Hungarian situation is not dead, and cannot be while the Hungarian people are in their present situation and half a dozen Assembly resolutions stand unheeded by the Soviet
716
Government. That is the situation which we must face.
Now what of Hungary and the Hungarian people themselves? We can take pride in the thought that private organisations and the Government were both in the forefront of the free world's campaign to help those whom it was in our power to help directly—the refugees. The Red Cross has done magnificent work, and we have contributed largely to the relief organisations of the International Red Cross. There are nearly 20,000 refugees still in this country, half of them already in work. Our power to help those still in Hungary under Soviet bondage is, unfortunately, much more limited. Sanctions, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, suggested, if I understood him aright, could only add to Hungarian sufferings. It would not be the Hungarian people but their Communist rulers who would benefit from economic aid from the West.
But there are three things we can and will do. First, we must make clear to the Hungarian people in every way our respect for their courage, our sympathy with their aims, and our constant hope that they will one day obtain the freedom that they so desire. I think the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked me specifically about that point, and I wanted to make it clear. Secondly, we shall do our best to see that the peoples of Eastern Europe are not cut off from the West. Their aspirations have much in common with our own philosophy of life. Finally, we must spare no effort to bring the whole world to realise the true nature of the Hungarian uprising. The fact must be faced by everyone, including the Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union stand condemned by the United Nations of the deliberate suppression by force of a whole nation in its struggle for freedom. As I have said, it has been quite clear that the basic desire was neutrality, their own way of life, and a Government of their own choice.
I want to finish on this note. Our hope must be that the Soviet leaders will ponder these facts; that they will realise the tone in which they are being put forward in your Lordships' House, from every part of it, and that they will heed the unanswered agony of the conscience of the world. There is the problem, and

717
it is no good setting it out except with its naked facts fully disclosed.
I am sorry for detaining your Lordships so long, but, if your Lordships will allow me, I want to deal with the most important second point of both noble Lords who preceded me, and that is the problem which involves German reunification and the suggested withdrawals of troops. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, talked, eo nomine, of the Gaitskell Plan for a long-term solution of the problems of Europe by the establishment of a neutral belt. That was not intended to mean the abolition of N.A.T.O., and as part of the suggestion the reunification of Germany by free elections was envisaged. We agree with the main aims and objectives of the proposal if they are to obtain the withdrawal of Soviet forces from the satellite countries and the reunification of Germany. We are prepared to consider seriously any scheme which seems likely to achieve these aims without prejudicing our own security.
I assure your Lordships that the proposal has been carefully considered. But in present circumstances we do not think it would be a satisfactory solution. In the first place, there is no indication at present that the Russians would be willing to consider a proposal for the withdrawal of their forces from the satellite countries in return for the withdrawal of N.A.T.O. forces from Germany. All the evidence points to the contrary. Their experiences in Hungary and Poland last year have led them to concentrate on strengthening their position in Eastern Europe, and particularly in Eastern Germany where, as was pointed out, they' keep a force of twenty-two divisions in a country of 17 million inhabitants.
LORD BIRDWOOD: May I interrupt my noble and learned friend for one moment to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Khrushchev did say that the Soviet would be prepared to withdraw their troops from Eastern Germany, from Hungary and Poland, in return for a United States withdrawal from Western Germany and, I think, France?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am coming to that offer; that was the next point with which I was going to deal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, but perhaps I might come to that as it is the
718
next point in my argument. What I wanted to make clear was—and I think this is a point that should be made—that the past, in so far as it is relevant as atmosphere, and especially the intervention in Hungary with which we have just been dealing, show that the sort of solution now proposed certainly did not appear to commend itself to them. There is nothing in past action to support it. I think the noble Lord will go with me that far, because, as I have said, and I think as he has said, the Hungarians did not want to join N.A.T.O.; they wanted to be neutral like Austria, so long as they were independent; and they were prevented by the Soviet intervention from achieving that aim.
I come to the point which the noble Lord mentioned to me. Of course, it is correct that Mr. Khrushchev himself put forward proposals dealing with the mutual withdrawal of forces. They were contained in his television broadcast on May 28. In this he proposed that the United States and other countries should withdraw their forces from Western Germany and all other N.A.T.O. countries. In return, Mr. Khruschev offered the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Eastern Europe. I say that the main Soviet aim in Europe is the abolition of N.A.T.O. and the removal of the United States from the Continent. That is exactly what Mr. Khrushchev's proposal would involve, and that is its intention. It would mean the complete disruption of all our Western defence arrangements, and Mr. Khrushchev is well aware that a proposal with that effect must be unacceptable.
There is no doubt as to where the balance of advantage would lie. On the one hand, United States forces would be moved back 3,000 miles, across the Atlantic. On the other side, the Russians would be poised only a short distance away on the Western frontiers of the Soviet Union. One can indeed imagine that in these circumstances, with Western Europe's defences weakened and disrupted, the Russians might be willing to pull back their forces to a position from where they could return at short notice. But, if this is the Russian aim, if this is their price, there is nothing to show that they would be willing to pay it in return for any arrangement which included the retention of N.A.T.O. These

719
are reasons why we do not see any likelihood that the noble Lord's suggestion for troop withdrawals would be accepted by the Russians in present circumstances.
It may be suggested that the offer should be made, in an effort to break the deadlock and to give encouragement to the peoples of the satellite countries. As I pointed out, such an offer would involve substantial concessions on our side—for the offer to withdraw N.A.T.O. forces from Germany would be a very real concession. How real it would be tan be seen from a study of the map. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, with his infinitely greater experience, would agree with me, because I suggest that the N.A.T.O. area in Europe is already deficient in depth, whereas on the Soviet side there is unlimited depth. But what would the position be if all that N.A.T.O. had was France and the Low Countries? One does not need to be—and I do not claim to be—a great strategist to see that it Would make military nonsense. I am glad to have an approving shake of the head from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. In any case, such an offer would have an incalculable result on morale in N.A.T.O. countries. It would quite probably result in the disruption of N.A.T.O. This is a risk which, without the assurance of any compensating benefits, the West cannot afford to take.
We could expect no answering concessions from the Russians, nor have the Russians given any real indication that they would be willing to agree to German reunification by free elections (and here we come to where I believe these points are interwoven): it would be all the other way, very much to the contrary. They have said in fact—I am quoting now from their Note to the Federal Government of Germany of October 22 last year:
" any talk about uniting Germany through the holding of all-German elections has no real foundation. There are no conditions in Germany at present for the holding of such elections."
They went on to say that
" the question of reuniting Germany is, above all, a question of changing the present political course of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany "
and then to maintain that reunification was a matter which could be worked out
720
only between Dr. Adenauer and Herr Grotewohl, the Prime Minister of the Communist Government of Eastern Germany. This has been their constant theme ever since the Geneva Conferences. But Herr Grotewohl has laid down numerous conditions which must be fulfilled before such negotiations could begin.
I want to give these conditions, because I think they show perfectly clearly what is the real situation. He demands, of course, something that sounds comprehensible—the removal of
" leading Nazi functionaries from the Governmental and economic machinery in Western Germany ";
the renunciation of the
" policy of re-Fascistisation "—
which is a new word to me: I thought I knew all of these forms of words. He demands a proletarian leadership to be established; the abolition of
" militaristic and Imperialist forces ";
the removal of the privileges of large landowners, and
" democratic land reform "
and so on. I think it is quite clear what these conditions mean. They mean two things. In the first place, the East German Communist leaders are not prepared to submit themselves and their régime to the free choice of the German electorate. Secondly, before they will even discuss reunification they insist that the Federal Government should adopt a social system of which they, and presumably their Russian masters, approve. In other words, they are intent on postponing indefinitely the reunification of Germany unless they can get it on Communist terms.
If one looks at the Soviet proposals for a European settlement which have been made at and since Geneva, one sees that they have all been based on and designed to perpetuate, the continued division of Germany. One can look at the proposals of Mr. Molotov, at the Geneva Conference of Foreign Ministers in 1955, and at those contained in the Soviet statement of November 17, 1956, just a year later. Both sets of proposals envisage security arrangements in Europe in which the two parts of Germany would participate separately. Mr. Bulganin's letter to Mr. Macmillan made no mention of the reunification of Germany in regard to the security arrangements.

721
Then one has to face the situation that it is quite illusory to suppose that any system of security in Europe could provide genuine stability if Germany continues to be divided. In fact, the Soviet Government have deliberately ignored the problem of German reunification and failed to put forward any constructive proposals for achieving it. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister thought it right to ask these specific questions of the Soviet Government about their policy towards German reunification. We want to know whether the Soviet Government have any intention of fulfilling the responsibility which Mr. Bulganin recognised in the directive issued by the four heads of Government to their Foreign Ministers at Geneva in July, 1955, for the reunification of Germany by free elections.
The essence of the scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has referred to and given a modified blessing to, and which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has also mentioned, is that there should be a neutral belt, and especially a neutral Germany, which would provide a satisfactory basis for a European settlement. To this idea there are grave objections, and they were put very succinctly by my right honourable friend Sir Anthony Eden. Your Lordships will remember that the way he put it was:
" If Germany is to be neutral and disarmed, who is to keep her disarmed; if neutral and armed, who is to keep her neutral? "
That, I think, puts epigrammatically but quite clearly the difficulty that arises.
My Lords, I will try to explain the abjections in greater detail, but as shortly as I can. We have always said that a Germany reunified on the basis of free elections should be free to determine her own future. We have not been hypocritical. We have considered it most likely that in these circumstances Germany would elect to join N.A.T.O., but we have proposed the answer to that. It is no good pretending that something will not happen—that is what I complain about in regard to the other approaches. That was why, at the Geneva meeting of Foreign Ministers, we offered the Russians security assurances designed particularly to meet that contingency of Germany joining N.A.T.O. But we recognise that, in the exercise of the free choice that is provided for in the "Eden Plan",
722
an all-German Government might decide to remain neutral. If it did, we should, of course, respect the decision. Even if it is not considered a very satisfactory solution, it is for them to make it, although the present Federal Government are opposed to it.
But I ask your Lordships to consider whether we are not right in believing that it would not make for stability in Europe to have a military vacuum in so large and powerful a country as Germany. We do not think it possible that a country of that size would remain for long neutralised and unattracted by other groups of Powers. I do not believe there is a real comparison between the positions of Austria and Germany. One must face the fact that, inevitably, there would be competition between East and West for Germany's support, and that would increase rather than diminish the insecurity and instability in Europe. I noted, as did my noble friend Lord Birdwood, that Dr. Adenauer made the same point in Vienna a short time ago.
What appears to be suggested, however, is not that an all-German Government—or, for that matter, the Governments of the satellite countries—should choose neutrality. It is rather that a decision should be made before an all-German Government exists and that the status of neutrality should be imposed on a reunified Germany. That is what the proposal for neutralisation means. We may have views on the likely attitude of an all-German Government based on free all-German elections, but until that Government is formed, there is no authority in Germany which is competent to take a binding decision on its behalf. So it would require a decision by the four Powers that, by the terms of the Peace Treaty to be signed with a future unified Germany, Germany would be compelled, whether she wished it or not, to adopt the status of neutrality. That seems to me utterly impracticable and utterly illusory as a basis for the future stability of Europe. I do not think I need develop that.
On the other hand, the Soviet Government, apart from the television broadcast, to which my noble friend referred, have so far shown no willingness to make any concessions at all—certainly not concessions on the question of German reunification. I think that, taking it in all, they

723
have demonstrated their determination to retain their grip on the satellite countries; and there is no sign that they have modified their aim of destroying the defence arrangements of the West. That is the situation up to date. I want to make one point clear, however. If the Soviet Government themselves were to propose a scheme of this sort—I mean a scheme involving a sensible and sound basis for German reunification—there would be an entirely new situation. We should have to examine the Scheme carefully, in the light of this new situation, in order to see whether it provided a suitable basis for serious negotiations, and whether such negotiations would have any prospect of real success.
LORD HENDERSON: If I may interrupt the Lord Chancellor, he says that if Russia would submit proposals along these lines, the West would be prepared to consider them, and so on. The suggestion I have made is that the West should submit these proposals. Why should it be left to Russia to take the initiative? Why cannot the West take the initiative? The noble and learned Viscount has said that Russia stands by her decision. But so does the West. If we go on like this, we shall not make any progress at all. Perhaps I might remind the Lord Chancellor that I pointed out that the fact that there is now a possibility of agreement with Russia in regard to disarmament—for the first time we seem to be getting nearer disarmament—might put us along the way towards progress in other directions. But if the British Government and the other Western Governments are going to sit and await proposals from Russia, it means that we are not taking our part in the initiative of trying to get a settlement of these outstanding problems.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that I made perfectly clear that, in my view, up to now the Soviet Government have not suggested concessions. Not merely have they not suggested concessions, but everything they have said has been on the basis of no reunification of Germany. If they were prepared to strike a new line, then we should be prepared to consider it. But what we are not prepared to do in the meantime is to commit strategical madness and also
724
to undermine the whole morale of the N.A.T.O. Forces. We are not prepared to do that. If they make a new suggestion, then it will be considered, but we are not going to put forward suggestions which include paying the price I have endeavoured to make clear in the speech that I have made to your Lordships. On the other point, the importance of the disarmament steps that are being taken, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
We have made our position and aims perfectly clear. We consider that the first step towards a European settlement must be the ending of the division of Germany. This is a matter on which we, together with the French, Soviet and United States Governments, have definite responsibilities. To this end, we have proposed free elections, under supervision, throughout the whole of Germany. We have insisted that, when an all-German Government has been formed after these elections, it should be free to decide its own policies. We have offered to sign with the Soviet Government and other countries a Treaty of Assurance which would come into force in conjunction with the reunification of Germany. That Treaty, which was tabled at Geneva in 1955, contains substantial guarantees for the security of its members. Among them, I would recall the provision for a zone of limitation of forces and armaments on either side in East and West, with the proposal for "special measures" in that part of the zone nearest the line of demarcation.
In his letter to Mr. Bulganin, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, reaffirmed that Her Majesty's Government are prepared, as part of a mutually acceptable European security arrangement, to give an assurance that in the event of Germany choosing to join N.A.T.O. they will not take any military advantage as a result of the withdrawal of Soviet forces from East Germany. These are genuine and positive proposals. These are proposals which we have put forward, and they provide, in our view, a constructive basis for a European settlement. So far they have met with no response and no willingness to negotiate on the part of the Soviet Union; and without such willingness there is little hope of real progress. But I ask my noble friend, who is the personification of fairness, whether, when we have put

725
forward these proposals and in face of the Russian refusal to negotiate on a basis which offers any prospect of settlement, it can be expected that we should, in advance, undertake to make concessions which would weaken Western security.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, Will the noble and learned Viscount allow me to interrupt him? I did not suggest making concessions in advance, but I recall that in the letter which he sent to the Prime Minister, Mr. Bulganin said quite firmly that neither side was going to break down its existing defence systems—Warsaw and N.A.T.O.—and he accepted that; but he went on to refer to the Eden Plan for a demilitarised zone in Europe, and was prepared to enter into discussions on that and other temporary measures. The reply which he received from the Prime Minister was not an acceptance of the proposal for a discussion; it merely referred him to the fact that the original proposal made by Sir Anthony Eden was part of the Western assurance plan and apparently nothing further is to be done about it. With all respect, I do not follow the argument that we are prepared to do all kinds of things and that the Russians will not do anything when, in point of fact, the question of dismantling the defence systems on either side does not arise at this moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to have entirely to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I do not want to repeat what I have said but I know that if he will do me the honour of reading it carefully he will see that I have tried to think the matter our carefully. What I said was that not only were these proposals put forward in 1955 but they are still open. The Soviet Union has made no response. There was no mention in Marshal Bulgaria's letter of the reunification of Germany, as I pointed out earlier; and without that willingness we are not prepared to go beyond these offers and make concessions which would weaken the security of the West. Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—and I am glad to end this very long speech on a note of agreement with him—is that that is the opening in the avenue of disarmament where some progress may be possible. I refer to the talks now proceeding. In these discussions the Soviet Government have the chance to show that they are genuinely interested in
726
achieving a settlement with the West. I do not want to say anything, and the noble Lord would be the last to ask me to say anything, which might prejudice negotiations. We must, of course, proceed with caution, and any progress which is made can only be gradual and step by step, because we must at every stage ensure that nothing is done which might prejudice our security and that of our Western Allies.
If, however, we can reach agreement on certain initial steps and see that the Soviet Government are prepared to carry them out, then it may be possible to proceed to a consideration of some of the political problems the solution of which might restore international confidence and without which that confidence cannot be re-established. Foremost among those problems is a European settlement, including an arrangement for European security and reunification of Germany. But I believe that this is the big difference between us, and all I ask is that the noble Lord will consider it: in advance of a settlement of such problems we must avoid any steps which would be dangerous and prejudicial to the security of the West and at the same time contrary to the true interests of the people of Western Europe.
I apologise to your Lordships for the length of time I have taken, but I have endeavoured to deal with two of the most difficult problems that exist in the world to-day, and I can only thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard what I have had to say.
7.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the whole House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, both for his initiative and for his speech, and also grateful for the two impressive speeches, from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack which have followed. I speak from a personal angle, with recent knowledge through a visit to Hungary, and on a slightly different line from what has already been said, though I will do my best to answer the question put to me, as a Prelate, by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood. The occasion of my visit to Hungary was the holding of a meeting of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches.

727
That body consisted of some 200 members and their colleagues of the Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican Churches. It was part of their annual programme and was the first occasion on which the World Council of Churches had met at all on Communist-controlled territory.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate I do so simply for the reason that what he is about to say is of exceptional interest. I wonder whether he would tell us the date of his visit, because that would make it still more helpful.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, my visit was made last August. I had been in Hungary in 1954 and there was a slight contrast. In 1954 there was a very great sense of terror, poverty, unhappiness and dictatorship. In 1956 the unhappiness, the poverty, the terror and the dictatorship still remained, but there was to some slight extent a lifting of the strain. The fear which had clouded over one's conversations two years previously was slightly diminished.
We were most hospitably entertained. Your Lordships may ask why were the Churches of the East and West, including those in Communist-controlled countries, invited to Budapest last year. The reason was partly that the rank and file of church people—and not simply the leaders and the official government of the churches—were very anxious indeed for a real contact with their fellow Christians in other parts of the world. But why did the Government agree? The reason was that they were paying some regard to public opinion outside Hungary. When I met the President of the Republic, Mr. Dobi, who is still the President, I asked him why this hospitality was being shown to us. He said without any hesitation, "Because we want to have friends in the West."
I also had an important conversation with the President of the State Office for Church Affairs. I am under no illusion as to the complete opposition, moral, spiritual and ideological between Christianity and Communism, but I recognise the courtesy of President Janos Horvath and his wish to understand and to be understood by others. He had already described the arrest and sentence
728
of the Lutheran Bishop Ordass, which had been carried out before he came into power, as a grave miscarriage of justice, and he had already arranged for his civic and ecclesiastical rehabilitation. In a conversation of some two hours with him I raised the question of the Catholic bishops and clergy under arrest or detained. I took many of their names seriatim from the Cardinal to lesser people, and I noticed that, while there was no question of a real change, there was a re-examination of individual cases. I communicated with some fullness the result of my conversation through the Apostolic Delegate for the United Kingdom to the highest authorities in Rome.
I also had conversations with many other people in Budapest and other parts of Hungary. There was no impeding of freedom of movement or freedom of discussion at our meetings, and I would also say that there was no sign whatever of any kind of counter-revolutionary preparation or conspiracy. In case I may be misunderstood, I want to say that I am under no illusion either that the whole country and the Churches, not least, were under a cruel dictatorship and were suffering from the general terror.
Then, just over two months later it came—this marvellous uprising of the Hungarian nation. As the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has said, it was clearly spontaneous, nation-wide and unfomented by any imperialist or counter revolutionary forces. It was to some extent the fruit, no doubt, of the effort in Poland, but it was really the desperate situation which prompted a whole nation to rise up. There was nothing reactionary, Fascist or imperialist about it. Indeed, the Report of the Special Committee in paragraph 392 quotes a girl student as saying:
" We wanted freedom and not a good comfortable life. We the young people were particularly hampered…brought up amidst lies. We could not have a healthy idea because everything was choked in us."
The Special Committee say that these words express as concisely as any the ideal which made possible a great uprising.
Then came the savage suppression by Soviet forces. I have read almost the whole of the Report of the Special Committee, so objective, so judicial and so

729
descriptive. It makes plain that the massive armed intervention of Soviet forces was faced with the unanimous opposition of an outraged people, and it quotes the remark of Mr. Kadar on November 6, which shows the spirit of the suppression. He said:
" A tiger cannot be tamed by baits. It can be tamed and forced to peace only by beating it to death."
That is a terrible sentence. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, the Report presents a terrible condemnation of the whole process of suppression. It insists that the desire for the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces was based on the patriotic feelings of the Hungarians, having their sources in their historic past. Now the terrors and the worst features of the old A.V.H. system has returned, and Hungary's position is grievous indeed.
I turn now to the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood. No one who heard Lord Birdwood could fail to be interested both in his long-term and his short-term plans, or in his references to the reunification of Germany and so forth—but I will not refer to them now. The noble Lord addressed a question to me in which he asked: "Is organised hatred justified if one believes that the end justifies the means?" I hope that, no less sincerely than the noble Lord, I condemn and deplore the Communist system and the fearful crimes committed in its name. But Western civilisation has its own record of materialism and injustice, and I think that we in the better-off Western countries have to take a wide look over the whole world, especially the Continents of Africa and Asia; and I think we must take full account of the attitude of many of the peoples in Asia and Africa when they contrast the prosperity comparatively speaking, of the West and the destitution of so many countries in Asia and Africa.
Let me give one or two facts. In 1949, the world's population was 2,400 million The population of North America was 213 million—less than 10 per cent. of the total. But the American population receive 44 per cent. of the world's income Asia's population is 1,300 million—that is 53 per cent. of the total world population, but they receive only 10·5 per cent. of the world's income. The citizen of the United States has, on an average, an income of 1,453 dollars each year. The
730
citizen of India has an average of 57 dollars and the citizen of China an average income of 27 dollars. The inequality is surely startling.
It is fair to remind ourselves that Western society has not yet realised the profound meaning of the judgment contained in Communism as an idea. Jacques Maritain, the Catholic, asked this question in 1939:
" What is the cause of this [atheism of Communism?]".
And he replies:
" It originates chiefly through the fault of a Christian world unfaithful to its own principles, in a profound sense of resentment not only against the Christian world but…against Christianity itself."
The noble Lord then asks me what kind of a campaign have I to suggest? I do not believe in organised hatred. I do not believe in threatening violence. I do believe, with the noble Lord and with the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, in publishing and exposing, objectively and widely, violations of human rights by Communist States, and the inequalities, oppressions and persecutions of which they are guilty, noting the sentences which are week by week passed in Hungary itself. I do believe in calling the attention of the General Assembly of the United Nations in a vigorous way to that splendid Special Committee's Report.
I also believe in publishing such demands as those which the Union of Hungarian Writers made spontaneously:
" We want an independent national policy based on the principles of Socialism; relations with all other countries, notably Soviet Russia, based on the principle of equality; and a review of international treaties and economical agreements in the spirit of equality of rights."
And since, as the United Nations Special Committee Report shows, and the startling news of the expulsion of the four Stalinists from the Praesidium in Moscow this morning confirms, there is a great struggle now going on amongst the Communists themselves in Russia and Hungary and other States of Eastern Europe between the advocates of the new trend and the Stalinists, I believe in appealing to the defenders of the new trend and telling them, firmly and plainly, that the only possibility of friendship between their countries and other countries outside Soviet control is to encourage truth and justice and law and freedom in their own country.

731
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, spoke of "other agencies" which he is anxious to have harnessed to his general campaign. He did not speak of the Church as an agency, but he did ask me before the debate began whether I should be willing to say, briefly, something of what the Churches are doing in order to penetrate the Iron Curtain and to link up persons of a similar religion with persons of the same religion on the other side. The Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches have a great importance in those countries, far greater than is sometimes realised in the West. The great Roman Catholic Church stands behind the Catholics in the Eastern European countries. The World Council of Churches stands behind its member Churches, Orthodox and Protestant, in the same countries. And in all we do, whatever agency, Government or interest we represent, it is, I think, of fundamental importance to remember the ordinary people who are under such great pressure in these Communist-controlled States. The Churches in Hungary, speaking for those that I know—the Protestant Churches—and the Orthodox and Protestant Churches in the other countries, dread being isolated and cut off. They beg us to keep in touch with them at all costs. They look for solidarity and fellowship. They know that we are on the watch to help them, and perhaps to take up individual cases with the Government; and they know also that the Churches outside of Eastern Europe are ready to stand up for the rights of man, and, what is more, the rights of God.
Sometimes the World Council of Churches make a statement on a critical issue which is upheld and has some educational value to the Governments themselves. For example, at the end of our meeting in Budapest last August a statement was issued which ended in the following words:
" To move out of a state of ' cold war ' into one of real peace requires respect for truth under all circumstances. People must not be subject to deliberate misrepresentations and false propaganda. They must have access to information and be free to discover truth for themselves. People must be free to travel, to meet and to know their neighbours, through personal encounter to seek understanding and create friendship, and thus to achieve mutual confidence and respect. They must also be free to choose by whom and in what way
732
they wish to be governed. They must be free to obey the dictates of their consciences. They must be free to worship God, to witness to their faith, and to have their children educated in it in church, school or youth meeting."
That was said and sent out in Hungary, and it was very welcome to the rank and file of Church people. It was also received with some applause by one of the Stalinist members of the Government himself.
But the greatest and most substantial help which the Churches can give, of another kind, is material relief on a large scale. Since the uprising—and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor spoke of the Red Cross and other agencies—the Catholics have been very much to the fore in their material aid. The World Council of Churches has paid out 700,000 dollars from its member Churches to the Hungarians; and, without any interference from the Government, 225,000 dollars for the rehabilitation of Hungarian churches and church institutions, and so on, 25,000 dollars for special supplies in Hungary, and 350,000 dollars for services to Hungarian refugees. In all these ways the Christian Church penetrates the Iron Curtain and assists those on the other side, as well as those who have escaped, and gives real help to those who are most in need. Here you see—and this is most important from the humanitarian, and even perhaps the social and general point of view—the Church in action. By action and voice the organs of the Christian Church, if possible (and let us hope) in cooperation with one another, raise the moral tone of international conduct, and also make a definite and valuable contribution to the building up of a responsible international society.
7.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am glad to follow the right reverend Prelate, not merely because he is a great personal friend but because we all know—and we know even better this evening—the great work which he has done in the cause of freedom in the countries of which we speak. It seems to me that the least we can do this evening is to remain here a little late on this very hot evening. The slight sufferings which we may have are but small compared with the sufferings of which we have heard.

733
It is extremely difficult to know what to say about the position in Eastern Europe. The last thing one would wish to do is to embarrass friends anywhere, but I feel in duty bound to speak, first of all because, like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I believe that we must never let the people in this country, or in other countries in the Western World, forget the savage rape of Hungary last autumn, in which, as we have heard, probably 15,000 Hungarians were slaughtered—the Indian figure puts it as high as 25,000. Despite: he "sacking" yesterday of the old Soviet guard, and the fact that perhaps, in consequence, some brakes on the Soviet liberalising policy may thus have gone, Mr. Khrushchev has in no way tried to disclaim responsibility for the massacre in Budapest. Therefore the more publicity we continue to give to the United Nations Report on Hungary, the better. Perhaps we might go so far as to ask whether in these new circumstances, now that the "old boys" have gone, Mr Khrushchev might not perhaps change his tune. Many doves are cooing to-day through cultural channels. I saw the Soviet film of Othello the other night, and the dove chorus was especially loud after it With all that kind of cooing, we may tend to forget the sort of military action and savage tyranny of which the Soviets are still capable, and of which the noble and leaned Viscount has given us so moving a description.
I rise, secondly, because I wish to pay a tribute to my noble friend who set down this Motion for his great efforts in this country on behalf of the people of Eastern Europe. It was largely due to his efforts that the all-Party, interdenominational mass meeting was held in the Albert Hall at the end of November. I had the honour of taking the chair at that meeting, and I know what great efforts the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, put into the organisation of it. Then, with friends of all Parties and different creeds, which included the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, we went together to the Soviet Embassy to present to the Soviet Ambassador the resolution which had been passed at that meeting The Ambassador would not receive us, nor would he receive the resolution, and we turned away from the Embassy to tell the world, in no uncertain and in most indignant terms, what we felt of a régime that could order such a dastardly and
734
inhuman attack on unarmed people. I am glad the Ambassador had not the elementary courtesy to receive us. I think that he thereby—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will agree—helped our cause in the outside world.
When we are inclined to feel rather more hopeful about the possibility of enlarging relations between East and West, from the economic as well as from the cultural point of view, we must remember that it seems unlikely that we can yet achieve any really decisive change in the political outlook and methods of the Soviet Government. I hope that I am proved wrong. We should all, of course, like to help bring down the last vestiges of the Iron Curtain. There is a considerable upsurge of feeling among the young people in this country to-day to mix with the young of the Soviet Union. Witness the considerable number of applications—I think my noble friend Lord Birdwood said 2,000—from young English men and women who wish to go to the World Youth Festival at the end of this month. That Festival is, of course, Communist-run, and is being boycotted by the N.A.T.O. Powers. They are right in doing so, yet I do not see how we can prevent our young people from going to that festival if they wish so to do and can obtain their visas. If we did, we should be using the very methods we deplore in Soviet policy.
According to a recent newspaper report, only one-third of these young people are members of the Communist Party; another third are probably fellow-travellers, and the last third, apparently, have no connections whatever with the Communist Party. It is interesting that they should wish to go, despite, I imagine, discouragement from their masters and their parents. There is, however, a strong belief among these young people, and some elderly people, too, that while Soviet officialdom is to be condemned for certain of their actions, these actions are not endorsed by the young people in the Soviet Union. They cite dissension among the students in Moscow and Kiev University as proof of this. They say, therefore, "Why should we not go to meet our contemporaries in Russia?" I Chink we must allow them to go on this adventure; but I hope that, if they do go, they will be properly briefed beforehand, for they must not delude themselves

735
into thinking that they will see anything more than they are expected to see.
Do not let them think that it is now safe for us to drop our guard, and no longer put our main effort behind the Atlantic Alliance. Support for N.A.T.O. must remain the cornerstone of our policy. It must remain so until the Soviet Government are prepared to make the kind of concessions in regard to Germany and in other fields that were suggested by my right honourable friend in his admirable reply to Mr. Bulganin. I shall read with great interest Mr. Bulganin's replies to the questions contained in that letter in which the initiative was taken by the Prime Minister. I hope that the reply, if it comes from Mr. Bulganin, will mark a step forward.
There seems no doubt that the Russians are beginning to think, and that they do not now believe that all of us in the Western World can be quite so criminally negligent in our social policies, or so ruthless towards the underdog, as Soviet propaganda would have them believe. When a Russian looks at an Englishman in the streets of Moscow I am told that you see an inquisitive and not a hostile look on his face. So perhaps gradually suspicions are being broken down. It is like water dripping on a stone. I am certain that the greater the number of visits to the Soviet Union which can be organised through the British Council, and perhaps—I say perhaps—in other ways, the better. There lies the future.
May I also suggest that there might be advantage in reopening the British Council offices in Hungary? I know that this is an extremely complicated question, but I venture to raise it. I understand that the Institut Française has remained open, and that it does a great deal of good. It scrupulously avoids anything which might be interpreted as propaganda, even to avoiding the daily French Press. The Institut concentrates on science and the arts. Could the British Council not do the same? The people of Hungary, like, perhaps, the people in the Middle East, do not want politics and propaganda, but they do want our technical assistance and our technicians, whom they believe to be the best in the world. If the British Council were reopened, another ray of light would
736
fall into the dark chamber which is Hungary to-day.
Therefore, regardless of the progress which may be made in disarmament—and that is the most important way in which progress might be made—I hope that in the long term there may be some future, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has suggested, in the exchange of radio programmes and television films, and that in due course the Eurovision network will be extended to other countries in Eastern Europe as well as to the Soviet Union. It has already reached Czechoslovakia, and I am certain that great use could be made of films—perhaps a greater use than the "live" network would permit. The B.B.C., as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has said, are already doing great work but more requires to be done; and if it is done, it should at least be possible for us to share with Soviet citizens certain programmes and experiences of sport and entertainment, such as boxing, football, variety or the ballet, in which the language barrier is no obstacle. In this way we may come to understand each other a little better and break down these childish suspicions.
Perhaps we in the West should organise an even bigger and better World Youth Festival, to which the young in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe would be invited, and not merely criticise rather negatively the Festival which the Russians have organised. If Russian youths are not allowed to come to our Festival, then the fact can be widely publicised. I do not think such activities should be confined only to the N.A.T.O. Powers—there are a great many youth meetings within the Atlantic Powers—or to the more friendly Powers in the West. Let us try to multiply the channels of communication with the East. Perhaps thereby our ways of life may come a little closer to one another, and so the terror which reigns in Eastern Europe will abate and the silver lining will shine through.
7.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor mention the Hungarian refugees. I, too, should like to do so, from this point of view: that if there is nothing, as is unfortunately true, that we can do to help the actual people in Hungary at the

737
moment, at least the Hungarian refugees are Hungarians. They are in a position where we can help them, and their numbers are such that any help we may give them will be on quite a substantial scale. But in fact there is more to it than that, for I believe that our help to them is more than a humanitarian gesture: it is more a token of our attitude to the Eastern half of Europe. For by our efficiency and our willingness in giving this help to them will, I feel, be measured our desire in practical terms, rather than in words, to support all those behind the Iron Curtain who look to-day for freedom. In proportion to what active steps we take to absorb and accommodate the refugees, to give them new work, new livelihoods and new countries to which to be loyal, so will our credit rise or fall; and so, too, will those countries look to us to see what sort of welcome they can now expect, and are likely in the future to be able to expect if they succeed in turning to the West.
But, surprisingly enough, there are two sorts of Hungarian refugees. There are those who went to Austria and there are those who went to Yugoslavia. About 173,000 went to Austria and 19,383 went to Yugoslavia, and it is about the difference in the treatment of these two classes of refugees that I should like to speak this evening, It is a surprising difference. As soon as the Yugoslav authorities allowed the: United Nations High Commissioners for Refugees to send a representative to Yugoslavia, it was evident that, in spite of the Yugoslav authorities' desire to make this an internal matter, it could not be thus confined, and international help was going to be needed.
At the end of December, on January 14 and on many subsequent occasions, the High Commissioner appealed to the Governments of the free nations to accept refugees from Yugoslavia. He could not, of course, use anything but persuasion through diplomatic channels, but ho made these requests, and the results, in spite of the fact that at the time most countries were taking refugees from Austria, were extremely disappointing. As I say, at first very few countries would accept from Yugoslavia. Only 500 of these refugees have been able to be integrated into Yugoslavia itself. In the first place, it is not surprising that they did not altogether wish to stay in Yugoslavia, for Yugoslavia is admittedly still a Communist country, however
738
different it may be from that under the Kadar régime in Hungary; and that, to some degree perhaps, is what they wished to escape. We must sympathise with them in that. Furthermore, Yugoslavia has still considerable unemployment, and it is not fair to expect her to take more than a very limited number of these refugees. Therefore, they had to go abroad.
At the end of January, this was the result of the High Commissioner's appeals. France had indicated willingness to take any refugees from Yugoslavia who wished to stay permanently in France. That was all right. The Federal Government of Germany was willing to accept the permanent settlement of Hungarians, but only those of German ethnic origin who had close relatives in Germany willing to sponsor them. These were very strict conditions. The Italian Government was prepared to give temporary asylum to sixty of them, and the Swiss Government permanent asylum to 100; and, to their eternal credit, they especially asked for 100 tubercular refugees. However, fortunately this position improved.
By June 18, the total of 19,000-odd who had originally been in Yugoslavia was reduced to 9,950. Of these, 600 left for France last week and 800 more will be leaving this week. There is an offer of ad mission of 1,000 to Belguim, 2,000 to Australia and 700 to Canada. The Belgium ones should go soon, but Australia and Canada, of course, require time, and these people may not be able to go immediately. In addition, 700 refugees will go to Latin America. The Latin American quotas are very generous, but there is the difficulty that the absorption facilities of the Latin American countries are somewhat limited and the number of refugees who can go at one time must be small: they must go stage by stage. However, I am hoping that that will continue. Also, Sweden has probably offered places for another 450, and another 200 are to go to Switzerland. So that by now quite a large number of them have either arrived or are on their way or have been offered homes to go to. By the end of the year, only 4,500 should be left.
One thing, however, stands out from these lists—I apologise to your Lordships for quoting them, but there is a point—

739
on none of them does the name of the United Kingdom appear. The United Kingdom attitude, from the private point of view, has been admirable. The British Red Cross, of course, has been very active, chiefly through the League of Red Crosses, and has also, on its own initiative, given £5,000 in cash to the Yugoslav Red Cross to set up their own administration. In addition, the Lord Mayor's Fund has contributed very largely to the Yugoslav position. The Red Cross is training three Yugoslav Red Cross officers in Austria on camp management in which they are inexperienced. Furthermore, Red Cross money is being sent out there, either in the form of goods or direct to the League of Red Crosses bank account, so that it may take advantage of the particularly favourable exchange rate in Yugoslavia which, for the Red Cross bank account, is 600 dinars to the dollar, as opposed to the normal rate of 300. That is very encouraging.
But what of Her Majesty's Government's attitude? When the Yugoslav authorities registered the refugees, they asked them to select countries to which they would like to emigrate. Five hundred selected Great Britain. Of these, 50 only have so far, on compassionate grounds, and very often with incredible delays, been allowed to come to this country. Another 50 may soon be coming. So, out of the very small total of 500 who wanted to come here, only 100 have at the moment the chance of coming to Great Britain. I know that it is largely a question of the shortage of space, and I know, too—at least, I believe—that Her Majesty's Government have now said that they are willing to have Hungarian refugees from Yugoslav as well as from Austria. Almost all European countries have already done so—Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium. West Germany, Norway and Italy have all taken their quotas. Admittedly, Holland has not done so, but the financial contribution that she made was so high, in comparison with her size, as to exonerate her fully. Yet so far only 50 have come to Great Britain.
My Lords, I submit that there are two things of importance in this. First of all, there is the attitude towards the refugees themselves, to which I have already pointed and which, although we may have done a great deal on the
740
Austrian side, I believe is still important; for I think that we might help all the refugees and not only some of them, or the point is lost. But I believe that the vital matter about this is the chance we are missing of doing a great service to Yugoslavia herself. They see us taking refugees from Austria, yet until recently we have not been prepared to do so from Yugoslavia. What complexion are they likely to put upon this? Might it not be a feeling that there is in the mind of Her Majesty's Government some sort of discrimination against Yugoslavia, at a moment when Yugoslavia is in the greatest need of international assistance? Docs it not look as though the United Kingdom, almost alone in the Western World, is not trying to do anything to help her? I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are very far from desiring to give that impression.
Yugoslavia is a country which is being wooed at the moment by both the East and the West. Perhaps it is significant—I do not know that one should put too much credit on these things—that the explanation of Mr. Molotov's expulsion to-day was given in the statement by the Soviet Communist Party as centring largely around his intransigence towards Yugoslavia. Might we not in future expect a renewed and more fervent wooing of them from the East? Yet Yugoslavia has done a very bold thing. She has given political asylum to 19,000 refugees from a Communist régime. What would appear to be the result of her boldness? The United Kingdom, at any rate, seems to have been unwilling to support her—although the other countries of the West have. Further, though Austria has had in her hands nine times as many refugees as Yugoslavia, the United Nations estimate that Austria's out-of-pocket expenses over the whole affair will amount by the end of 1957 to only 993,000 dollars. That is because of the vast subscriptions and grants—which have been magnificent—that have been poured into Austria from the United States and other Western nations.
On the other hand, at the end of 1957, it is estimated that Yugoslavia's out-of-pocket expenses will be in the nature of 6 million dollars, in spite of the fact that she had only one-ninth of the number of the refugees on her hands. Their great expenditure has been alleviated only by

741
the receipt of grants from the United Nations Fund. No Western country has contributed to her. Only the High Commissioner himself has been able to allow United Nations refugee funds to that country, to make good some of her expenses. Further, at the end of the year she will still have 4,500 refugees on her hands whom she cannot absorb and whom she will be hard put to it to support. Is this not an ideal situation in which Her Majesty's Government: could excel themselves in showing their eagerness to help Yugoslavia? If only they could accept at once the 500 refugees who want to come here, it would be a gesture, the effect of which in gaining Yugoslav good will would surely vastly outweigh any inconvenience at this end. Further, we must deal with the other 4,500. Could we do something to persuade the Western democracies to meet part of Yugoslavia's bill? I can only think that this would be a most rewarding way, at a most propitious moment, for Her Majesty's Government to commit themselves to a gesture of imaginative and progressive friendship to Yugoslavia.
8.5 p.m.
LORD ST.OSWALD: My Lords, I am drawn into this debate, irresistibly, by a new and uplifting belief. I believe that at last, after a dark and hopeless epoch, there is something to be done for the slave nations of Europe, and that we can do it by acting now. In this I differ if only in tempo, from my noble friend Lord Birdwood. And I differ also in method from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—a thing I had never expected to do.
But one factor is very clear in my mind. If we are to help in solving their desperate problems, in any attempt at rescue, we must approach these problems with humility, not with patronage. I think this has been fully recognised by noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I think that, in particular, the understanding and authoritative words of the Lord Chancellor should give great heart when they are read, as I am certain they will be, behind the Iron Curtain.
Whatever the warmth and intensity of our sympathy, we are on the outside looking in. It is close on 900 years since this island suffered foreign conquest. A few of us—some hundreds—who worked with resistance movements during the war, learned something, not very much,
742
about the subtle, hardly detectable thought-waves that pass through a conquered and occupied population. Prisons have a strange, secret music of their own. But now that music has swelled and reverberated beyond the prison walls, and across the world. The peoples of those subject nations are, most of all, vitally conscious of the new political orchestration of Europe, because the first splendid chords were struck in Poland and Hungary. It has kindled a new spirit among them. They dare not call it hope, until some echo reaches them from the West. But the minds of men and women, beyond that monstrous barrier of disillusion, are tuned again to hear a hopeful, responsive chord from us—a signal of survival, a positive sign that our conscience as human creatures survives and that their courage may have some reason, some incentive to survive.
The causes of this condition are well known to your Lordships, and I refer to them only for emphasis and to contribute detail These countries which, until lately, represented plunder and revenue to their Soviet masters, are now instead a drain, a burden on the Russian economy. Since the Poznan revolt, even more since the October revolts in Poland and Hungary, the Soviets have been obliged to give economic help to each of their satellites, with the single exception of Albania—help that is estimated at 8 billion roubles (2 billion dollars at the official rate) up to now. That sum, the equivalent of £700 million, is over half what this country spends on our entire defence in a year. I will offer your Lordships only a few examples of that Russian expenditure, that forced extravagance. Gromulka on his visit to Moscow last year obtained the following: a cancellation of all obligations on previous loans amounting to 2 billion roubles; a trade credit of 700 million roubles; a loan of grain valued at 400 million roubles. East Germany obtained last January a loan of 100 million roubles in goods. Hungary, even before the revolt, was given a loan of 100 million roubles in goods, and since then aid has amounted to another 300 millions. And there is no doubt that the shaken economy of that country will require more aid in the near and continuing future. That is only a part of the heavy bill for tyranny. London brokers report that

743
Soviet gold exports in 1956 were the largest since the war.
Moreover the value of the Warsaw Pact as a military asset has vanished. Instead, this satellite territory has become an area which must be constantly and expensively policed—policed by tanks, so long as the present hatred of Russia persists. And the Russian leaders know that it must persist for as long as those peoples are held down by force. That is why I believe that the time is ripe for new positive proposals—proposals at which the Russians would have sneered a year ago, but upon which a bloodless bargain might well he struck to-day.
I speak of a plan which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has, I imagine, overthrown in many of your Lordships' minds. The fact that even he has not been able to overthrow it in mine must be the measure of my conviction, for what it is worth. I should like to see the Western Powers laying on the table definite terms for a neutralised belt across Europe. The initial requirements of those terms would be the withdrawal of Russian troops from the captive lands, followed by free elections under United Nations supervision. If that could be brought about, as I believe it can, it would enact the uncompleted provisions of the Yalta Agreement, and at long last vindicate our signatures on that Agreement. To me it has always been unthinkable that so great an Englishman, so great a human being, as Sir Winston Churchill could have endorsed, on our behalf, the Russian occupation of those countries, as anything but the limited military passage which it purported to be. So long as that savage occupation lasts, the honour itself of this country remains in pawn.
Earlier this week there met in London an international body, the Central and Eastern European Commission. Statesmen and politicians from a number of countries, prominent among them exiles from the Iron Curtain nations, sat in a conference of which I had the honour to be appointed honorary secretary not long ago. The two principal founders and inspirers of this body during the twelve years of its existence are now the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister of this country. The Prime Minister is its Honorary President, and the Minister of
744
Defence addressed the delegates most stirringly at the luncheon held on Monday last. Among the resolutions passed at this Conference was one which affirmed that
" the withdrawal of Russian troops from the countries behind the Iron Curtain is an essential condition for any system of mutual security in Europe."
I do not suppose there is one Member of your Lordships' House who would deny that premise. I believe that we now have at hand the means to act upon it.
The Soviet leaders are, above all, realists. They know that the age of grasping colonialism is past, that it is out of date and impracticable, especially with regard to countries with far higher cultural standards than the colonisers themselves. Those who denied that fact in Russia have been out of a job since yesterday. It is significant that both Molotov and Kaganovich were with Khrushchev on his Warsaw visit last October, and it was their opposition to any appeasement that caused the failure of that mission. The remaining leaders know that the satellite countries are now political, economic and military liabilities.
I believe that the hard facts of that situation have induced a new mood in Soviet policy behind the scenes, at utter variance with the bombastic statements still being made for internal consumption. But I would also say that even if such a plan as I have outlined, put forward in good faith by the Western Powers, were rejected, ultimately or out of hand, by the Soviet leaders, it would still be of benefit to put it forward. Because the peoples of the slave nations would know that the proposal had been made, they would draw courage from it, and the position of their Russian persecutors would be even harder than it is to-day.
Such a plan does not envisage the break-up of N.A.T.O., or the entire withdrawal of American troops from Europe. It does envisage a good deal of bold rethinking with regard to our political defence, compatible with the bold rethinking we have already done on our military defence. It would establish an area well over 500,000 miles in extent, 800 miles wide at its narrowest point, made up of independent countries not demilitarised but neutralised, on a par with Austria to-day. Indeed we could not require

745
a more heartening example than the Austrian Republic as it has proved itself in recent months. The armed state of these countries would be governed by a clear security system, and Germany would be controlled under that plan. But the true splendour of this project would be in freeing more than 100 million people, now the slaves of Russia.
My Lords, I have included in that area what would undoubtedly be the Russian quid pro quo demanded—the neutralising of Western Germany with the rest. I take it that Russia, would insist upon that, the withdrawal of what is now Federal Germany from the N.A.T.O. pact. I frankly cannot see why that prospect should cause our hearts to ache or our knees to knock. In fact I am disturbed by one important detail of our European policy. And I feel it would be dishonest to keep silent about that anxiety. So far no argument that I have read or listened to has persuaded me that it is either politically wise or morally just, not only to separate the German problem from the whole problem of Eastern Europe, but to give it a definite priority over the needs and sufferings of friends to whom, in all conscience, we owe considerably more. I am disturbed by this tendency, this intention, on two counts: first, because I believe that at this point in history a comprehensive approach will be more rewarding than a piecemeal approach; and secondly, because I believe that such a policy will shock and disillusion the people of those other countries sufficiently to offset the recent murderous blunders by Soviet Russia, from which, I insist, the blameless victims and ourselves could reap enormous, peaceful benefits at thin time.
It is again a question of being on the outside, looking-in. We have known neither Russian nor German occupation: the countries that we are discussing have known both. Whatever our own confidence in the New Germany (and I, for one, do believe that a great change of character is potentially taking place) we cannot expect the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe to share that confidence at the present time; especially subject as they are to Communist propaganda, which does not lack fuel to inflame the distrust of their previous conquerors.
746
Also, it seems to me that this policy reactivates another danger within Germany itself. We must not ignore the fact that a large majority of Germans are very ready to look upon themselves as the élite of Europe, even when they are not seized by the Herrenvolk mania itself. This readiness on our part to allow Germany priority of regard and treatment could, I suggest, embolden the extremists among that majority, and distil anew the heady spirit of German nationalism which has cost the world so much. Some are already brash enough to be re-claiming the Sudetenland. We are not going to win the trust of the Czechs or their neighbours with any prospect of a new Munich. In any case, for Germany's own aspirations, I believe that the surest, perhaps the only path to the reunification that every true German desires, will be through a general settlement, not through a separate local contract on her behalf.
I have spoken along similar lines to what was said, at one point, by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. He referred to the idea with which I am so absorbed, as the "Gaitskell Plan". But I know I am right in saying that neither the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in another place, nor his Party, claim the authorship of this plan. In fact, Mr. Gaitskell at Strasbourg on May 2 referred to the plan "sometimes associated" with his name, as having been approved by many people in Britain, and being based upon the Eden Plan. For my part, despite his self-denial, I hope that Mr. Gaitskell's part in its promotion will be remembered, because I believe that it is a wise and practical plan, and that its sponsors are owed due recognition. What is most important, in my esteem, is that it stems in its original form from ideas held by exiled statesmen of the captive nations.
My Lords, we have at this point, as I believe, a new condition in Western Europe, fertile in possibilities. We have a harmony of purpose in your Lordships' House and among our countrymen; and we have a Prime Minister long-dedicated to the task. Here, it seems to me, are the vital components for the effort required—an inspiring effort, to save some of the best and bravest of our friends from the cruellest and most implacable of our enemies. I believe that every Member of your Lordships' House, that everyone

747
in these islands with any conscience or feeling, will go about his daily business with a lighter step, and sleep better in his bed at night, if this can be achieved.
8.19 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know that all who have spoken—and we have listened to a number of very weighty and cogent speeches—are labouring under a heavy sense of responsibility, whether they occupy great official positions like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who spoke so impressively, or the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Henderson, who speak for large numbers, or whether they are unofficial persons, if I may so put it, like myself. We are all conscious—and this was made very clear to me in the speech with which Lord Birdwood opened this important debate; a speech, if I may say so, of very great thoughtfulness for which we must all be grateful—of the Hungarians who are listening to us. It is not for me to suggest that they would pay any special attention to my words but, taking the House of Lords as a whole, I think one must say that anyone who takes part in a debate like this must expect that his words—it will of course take some time and will mean some sacrifice—will be studied by many responsible people who are now suffering under the yoke in Hungary.
There is a wide measure of agreement in all that has been said hitherto. It was seen in the earlier and, if I may so describe them, more official speeches, and seen also in the very telling contributions from rising Members of your Lordships' House to which we have listened later. There is general agreement that this Report of the United Nations is decisive history. There may be details on which it will have to be corrected later, but I think we are all satisfied that there is the substantial truth about what happened and that responsibility is allocated in a way that is basically correct. We are all agreed that the actions of the Russians were quite unpardonable. We are agreed also, I fear (the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor spoke upon this with much greater knowledge than I can) in recognising that the situation in Hungary is not getting better but, if possible, is getting worse. The terror is mounting. Let us hope that it may be alleviated later, but certainly up to the
748
present the evidence suggests that the terror is growing steadily more horrible.
We are agreed that the present Hungarian Government is a Government of agents or puppets for which the Hungarian people must be saddled with no responsibility. We are agreed, therefore, in our diagnosis of what has occurred and what is now taking place. We are agreed also, unless I am much mistaken, in a profound feeling of impotence. An article in the Daily Telegraph called it, I think, a feeling of "desparing impotence." Certainly at times that feeling must assail us all. There seems to be so much that we ought to do and so little that we can point to as being in any way possible; so little that is in any way commensurate with the terrible things that are happening.
I was very glad indeed that Lord Colville of Culross and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester and other speakers dealt with the refugee question. It may be said that to a limited extent we are doing something there now, but I am sure we can play in the future a much greater part in furthering assistance in this connection than has been possible hitherto. Apart from that, what solid action of any kind lies open to us? Military action has been ruled out. Economic pressure? I do not want to be provocative so I will not go into the past, but whether or not in other circumstances that might have been possible at the time, it is clear that it is a non-existent policy to-day. Even diplomatic action—about which I shall say a few words later—seems a very doubtful possibility. I think it is not too much to say that when we talk of this as a Hungarian tragedy we are limiting the reference to tragedy too narrowly. It may be there are some who would have us see it as a Russian tragedy. To think that a great people like the Russians should be inflicting these horrors through their Government upon a much smaller people like the Hungarians is indeed a tragic fact. I think that, in view of this feeling of relative impotence, the tragedy may be regarded in a sense as a British tragedy until and unless we can find some course of action more definitely helpful than anything that seems to be available to us at the present time.
We may ask: what can we do? I would agree with nearly all the concrete suggestions that have been made in this debate, particularly those (they are the

749
ones that come to my mind at the moment) suggested by the right reverend Prelate. Let us consider first our attitude to the Hungarian people. We must let the people of Hungary know that we are not deceived. We must prove to them that we know the truth, that we know they are victims and that they are not delinquents. We must make it plain that we recognise that they are free from any responsibility for what has occurred and is occurring in their country. We must reaffirm our confidence that the people of Hungary will win out by peaceful methods in the end. I am sure that that message will, in fact, have gone out to them from the many speakers in this House tonight. What more can we do?
For the moment I propose to deal entirely with Hungary and the wider implications of the Hungarian question, and not with other great topics such as Germany, on which I have ventured to address your Lordships' House rather frequently in the past. We might, perhaps, for a moment study the question of contacts with the people of Hungary. This is an issue which has troubled me in conscience a great deal in recent times, and I have discussed it with many friends and experts. It seems paradoxical, and indeed wrong, that just as we are expanding contacts will Russia, for purposes to which I am entirely favourable, we should, most of us, see very great difficulty—even if it were permitted—in encouraging personal contacts with Hungary at the present time. After all, the people of Hungary are the victims of the people of Russia There seems something strange, something contrary to human nature, that we should cut ourselves off from the people of Hungary at this time. I have tried to take the opinion of Hungarian friends now living in this country as to what in fact would be the effect of increased human contacts with Hungary.
There are certainly strong arguments in favour of discouraging contacts—at least for the time being. No visitor to Hungary today could avoid getting involved with the authorities there; delegations or more important individuals, in particular, would have to associate with representatives of the régime in public, thereby giving the impression of acceptance. Hungarians (I think 95 per cent. of them at least; the Lord Chancellor mentioned a higher figure) who are hostile
750
to the régime might justifiably wonder what all the solemn words of sympathy and of condemnation amounted to, for it would seem to them that the same Britons who pronounced judgment on the Kadar régime were willing to mix and fraternise with the agents of the oppressors. Again, it might endanger friends in Hungary. I am assured that that is the case. I am assured that if one went to Hungary and mixed with people who are opposed to the present régime it would be not unlikely to result in the placing of a noose round the necks of those people. For these and other reasons it is difficult to see what can be effectively accomplished just now.
Nevertheless, I do not feel that the arguments on the other side can be dismissed lightly. First, it seems that personal contacts with ordinary Hungarians afford perhaps the best way of showing to the Hungarian people that we have not forgotten them. The alternative is to see nothing of them and to exclude them from our lives—exclude them from the lives of the civilised West altogether. Then there is the question of the influence which we might exert. A number of enlightened visitors might exercise a helpful influence far greater than has perhaps seemed to some of us to be possible. Again, if visits from this country to Hungary could be encouraged, it might be the means, and the only means, of securing visits from Hungary in return. I have always believed, going back to German experience and to other experience, that this country, with all her faults, has a beneficial effect on her visitors. That may perhaps be rather an old-fashioned point of view, but I hope that on this one occasion I shall be forgiven for expressing it.
So there are, it seems to me, strong arguments against drawing in our skirts and saying that it is dangerous for the Hungarians, or morally contaminating to ourselves, to have any close contact with that country, apart from the influence, which I do not for one moment underrate, of the radio, which in many ways is doing remarkably fine work. At the same time, I think that most of us in this House would feel that contacts with Hungary should be developed slowly and with caution. There is always the danger that some fellow-travelling body in this country might somehow work itself into a position of assuming responsibility for

751
the visitors; and in that event, the last state might be much worse than the first.
So I would say that, particularly during this period of terror, we have perhaps got to be more cautious than adventurous in promoting contacts; but we must never rest happy for one moment until we do find a way of safely and prudently increasing contacts between our people and the Hungarians, and generally increasing contacts between the Hungarian people and the West, if we want to bring about an influence. I am not only thinking of converting the recalcitrant; I am thinking, too, of strengthening the resolve of those who are doing their best to keep hope alive. If those are our aspirations, this idea of contacts outside official diplomacy must rank high among our objectives in years to come.
There is one diplomatic point that I feel I must mention and put to the noble Lord, though I do not wish to seem too dogmatic, because so many technical provisions are involved. I find it difficult, if recognition of the régime means anything, or carries any moral connotation at all, to support the continued recognition of the Hungarian régime. Here is a régime which is not only utterly evil, on all showing, but is not in fact a Hungarian Government: it is simply a body of Russian "stooges". Although there are many Governments in the world of which we do not perhaps approve, this seems to be the extreme case when we try to distinguish it from free Governments. Therefore, on moral grounds, I should feel it difficult, if I occupied any official position of responsibility, to play any part in recognition of that régime. However, I know that there are technical objections. This plan of non-recognition has been tried more than once; the results have seldom been beneficial, and often there has to be a somewhat humiliating "climb-down". I therefore hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will tell us frankly the attitude of the Government to the recognition of the Kadar régime; and if he feels bound to inform us that non-recognition would carry greater evils than recognition, will he at least make plain that we continue to keep on recognising this Government for a purely technical reason, and that there is no lessening of our condemnation of their policy?
752
I come now to our dealings with Russia. I feel sure that many noble Lords will agree with me if I say that this is the supreme moral difficulty of to-day. Here we have the Russian Government, with whom we must do business if we are to rid the spectre of war from the world. Yet we feel bound to mince no words in condemning their actions in Hungary and elsewhere—most specifically, at the moment, in Hungary. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Henderson, who speaks always so carefully, and therefore so weightily, pulled no punches in what he said about the Russian responsibility for the events in Hungary. It is bound to be tempting for good men negotiating with the Russians and seeking world peace to feel that a particular moment is not propitious for publishing the truth; but I think there is a general consensus in your Lordships' House to-day that such an attitude would be not only useless but cowardly, and unworthy of your Lordships and of Britain.
So we continue the search, with all its infinite significance, for some kind of disarmament agreement, compelled to tell the people with whom we are negotiating that we regard their action in Hungary as that of being of a criminal character. It cannot make the task easier (on this point, I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who spoke in sparkling fashion just now) that we should go to the Russians and be compelled to tell them frankly exactly what we think of their conduct. But it is a burden that falls on us; and it seems to me that if we shirked it, we should rightly find ourselves despised, not only by the satellite peoples but ultimately throughout the world and in our own country.
I am not going to embark on the details of the attempts to reach agreement with the Russians. I do not condemn the Russian people. I think that in this House we have all got past the stage of abusing particular nations. I detest their régime; I detest the actions for which that régime has been responsible recently in Hungary. There is an old saying that I came across in a book of the sixteenth century—the right reverend Prelate may inform me that it goes further back—that one must not hate the sinner, but must hate the sin, because the sinner was made by God, and the sin was made by man. Therefore, in dealing

753
with the Russians, remembering our own weaknesses, we must never fall into the state of mind of treating them as lost beyond redemption.
As I draw to a conclusion, I would only add the thought that what the Russians really care about—and this must help; if you like, it can be set on the "assets" side in this terrible balance sheet—is the weight of opinion in the uncommitted nations. I think it is obvious, if we take the Russian policy at the present time, and, if you like, imagine the horrible possibility of our being in their shoes, that what we should rather take for granted, would be the fact that we were opposed by the West. I think, that, in the long run, that barrier could be broken down. But let us assume, from their point of view, that they take for granted the barrier that has arisen between them and the Western nations. There is then the remaining one-third of the world, on which their eyes are cast the whole time, It seems to me that there, among the uncommitted peoples, among the countries sometimes referred to as underdeveloped, the great opportunity of persuasion arises; and it is there that this Report of the United Nations, and anything we can say to-day, will be of the utmost assistance. In the task of persuasion, therefore, these terrible events could prove to have had a positive compensating value.
We in this country are not very good propagandists. We have a fairly shrewd idea that in the end good conduct will be respected by those who understand what we are about, but I think that an overdeveloped confidence, born of our historic past, makes it difficult for us to understand that any honest uncommitted person can, in the last resort, disagree with us. We find it hard to believe that very much further effort is necessary to convert the peoples of Asia and of Africa to our point of view. We are convinced—certainly I am—that our system is vastly superior to that of the Communists, and that any reasonable man of Asia or Africa should automatically realise this essential fact. If he fails to do so, we write him off as a fool or a knave. I feel that on that point we are somewhat short sighted and narrow-minded propagandists. It seems to me that the facts brought out in this whole Hungary story, properly handled, can help us enormously in persuading the uncommitted nations—
754
the real third force in the world—that there is, in fact, a tremendous moral gulf between the West and the Communists, and that even in their own interests, and also for higher reasons, the advantage must lie in conjunction with the Western side. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said about our own record and standard. Here we are, Western nations, immensely richer per head than the peoples we are trying to persuade. We inform them that if they have any sense or decency, they will side with us, but they look to us not only for words but also for deeds.
I will not detain the House further on this matter. It is a subject on which noble Lords have spoken more than once, and from different parts of the House; but I agree absolutely that in the last resort this Hungarian horror, this terrible story of human suffering, is a challenge to the West and, perhaps, most of all to this country of ours that prides itself on standards unsurpassed by any. It is a challenge to exert ourselves more strongly on behalf of the backward peoples of the world and, more intimately still, to exert ourselves more urgently in our own spiritual lives. If it proves that these very brave men in Hungary have stimulated us into a more self-sacrificing way of life they will not have died in vain.
8.43 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, before I reply to some of the points which have been brought up in this debate, perhaps your Lordships would like to have a few short preliminary comments on the news which has reached this country in the last twenty-four hours on the developments in the Soviet Union. The question of greatest immediate importance to this country is undoubtedly the effect which these disputes among the Soviet leaders will have on Soviet foreign policy. It does not seem likely that there will be any rapid changes of great significance. It appears that the policies laid down at the Twentieth Party Congress will still be followed. Mr. Khrushchev, whose personal prestige has been enhanced by the ousting of his critics, has been himself closely associated with all the main changes in recent Soviet policies, and it must be assumed that the policies he has advocated will be continued, probably

755
with even greater vigour and authority. It would seem that the changes which have taken place have not solved the contradictions which are inherent in the Soviet scene. On this it would be unwise to say more at present, but it is a point of such importance to us all that we shall need to watch it very closely indeed.
Your Lordships will not wish at this late hour that I should cover any of the ground covered by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in his exposition of Government policy on the satellite countries, and on Hungary in particular. I will confine myself to answering one or two questions which have been put during your Lordships' debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked about Her Majesty's Government's policy on recognition of the Kadar régime. Her Majesty's Government have never taken any special step to recognise the Kadar Government; but neither, for that matter, have they taken any special step to break off relations. They have, in common with other Western nations with representatives already in Budapest, continued to maintain a diplomatic mission there and to accept a Hungarian mission in London. Generally speaking, Her Majesty's Government's policy in the matter of recognition of Governments is to face facts and to acknowledge de facto a Government which has effective control of the territory within its jurisdiction, and of the inhabitants within that territory. Such de facto recognition does not constitute a judgment on the legality of the Government concerned; still less does it imply approval of it. I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked what the Government's attitude is to the Assembly of Captive European Nations, and to the Hungarian Federation of Freedom Fighters. Thirteen years ago many Poles who fought the war alongside us settled in this country. Among the first and most important emigré organisations which have been set up were, therefore, Polish ones. They have been doing admirable work here in the social, welfare and cultural spheres, and we wish them all well. But, as, your Lordships will be aware, there are many other organisations established in this country whose purpose is to preserve the national heritage of countries now behind the Iron Curtain. We sympathise with these aims.
756
It is a sad commentary on the suppression of human rights and freedoms in the satellite countries that it is only refugees in exile from their homelands who can freely associate and speak their minds. We have no wish to deter people from lending their support to the legal activities in this country of the emigré organisations which have established themselves here. But to give official support or encouragement to any emigré body, particularly one which purports to be a Government in exile or anything of that nature, would be contrary to the established policy of successive British Governments. There is no question, however, in any way of discouraging or ignoring such organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, also made a suggestion that the United Nations' Report on Hungary should be given wider circulation—that it should be reprinted under Government auspices in this country, and sold at a far cheaper price. I am afraid that, in answer to this, I must confine myself to the answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place yesterday to an almost similar question, in which he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 573 (No. 133), col. 1095]:
" I will certainly bear this in mind."
Her Majesty's Government feel that this is a United Nations document, and it is not up to the British Government to take it on as a. White Paper of its own, but that the United Nations themselves, it is hoped, will give this document the widest circulation, possibly by abbreviation; thus making it cheaper.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who has asked me to give your Lordships an apology for having to leave as he was due at the Mansion House, asked whether there was any good reason why the British Council should not operate in Budapest. If the noble Lord opposite will allow me, I will couple this with his remarks about contacts. The British Council representative in Hungary was turned out by the Hungarian Government in 1949 following accusations of espionage. Given the necessary finance and reasonable freedom of action, the British Council would be ready to consider operating again in Hungary. In passing, I would call attention to the work of the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council which was set up in 1955 at the request of Her Majesty's

757
Government to foster cultural relations between the two countries. Until interrupted by the events in Hungary, the Committee was able to sponsor or finance many types of professional, educational and cultural exchanges. A programme for the resumption of the activities of the Soviet Relations Committee has now been agreed with the Soviet authorities.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned the Institut Français. Although the Institut Français has continued some work in Budapest without interruption, as has the British Council in Warsaw ever since the war, it seems improbable that satellite Governments would consent to the opening of further offices. Her Majesty's Government will do what they can to see that cultural relations develop on the right lines and as far as possible under the ægis of the Council. As regards visits, Her Majesty's Government have no objection to visits to Hungary, but naturally this depends on whether the Hungarian régime will let in visitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, also mentioned the World Youth Festival, and I believe so also did the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards attendance at the Work Youth Festival was clearly set out by my right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, in another place on October 24 last. A Communist nation can, of course, offer inducements (for example, by way of subsidies) to enhance the appeal of a journey of this kind. At the: same time, we can, I think, rely on the common sense of British youth not to be deceived by the elaborate preparations which have been made for the Festival. Her Majesty's Government would not wish that any form of pressure should be applied to prevent attendance. Those who do decide to go would be well advised to make themselves familiar with the outlines of the Soviet system, on which there is an abundance of literature, in the Press and elsewhere.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has urged Her Majesty's Government to make arrangements now for the; admission to the United Kingdom of 500 Hungarian refugees from Yugoslavia. I do not propose to go into this subject in detail since it was dealt with fairly exhaustively in your Lordships' House only two days ago. Her Majesty's
758
Government have given this question very detailed and sympathetic consideration. It is true that there has been no bulk intake of Hungarian refugees from Yugoslavia since the Hungarian uprising, but at the end of last year and the beginning of this Her Majesty's Government concentrated all their efforts on the large-scale admission of Hungarians from Austria, where the major problem originally existed. I think your Lordships will perhaps have it better in perspective if I remind you that over 23,000 Hungarian refugees have arrived in this country, of whom 5,000 have gone on to Canada. This is no small number of refugees, when one considers that at the same time we have other refugees of our own to deal with.
Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government have now decided that they are prepared to admit Hungarians from Yugoslavia as well as from Austria, but they will have to take the place of those refugees who are moved from the United Kingdom to countries of their own choice, under similar arrangements to those made with Canada. The United Nations High Commissioner has already been told of this decision. Nevertheless, arrangements are already advanced for the departure of many refugees from this country, and I do not think that it will be very long before the 500 refugees can in fact be absorbed.
I am afraid that my remarks have seemed to be somewhat negative, but answering questions which are put obviously because they have not been satisfied before must produce that result. I hope that your Lordships will not get the impression from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government are disinterested or unsympathetic towards the countries behind the Iron Curtain. On the contrtry, I think that if your Lordships will read again the speech which was made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, you will see that Her Majesty's Government have done and are doing all that they can, and all that they have in their power to do, to help these countries. But I must add that festina lente must, alas, be the watchword unless we are to have the fate of Hungary repeated perhaps elsewhere. Finally, I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in expressing deep sympathy for the Hungarian people,

759
and the hope that they will one day attain the freedom for which they have already fought and which they so justly deserve.
8.57 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, we have had a long debate covering a very wide range, and at this late hour I certainly will not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes. I realise that many of us have missed our trains and meals, but let us keep things in proportion. While we have done that, probably somebody has been condemned to death for nothing at all in Hungary.
It is curious that in this kind of long debate one's mind seems to focus on points on which one disagrees, which are very few, and one forgets all the many points on which one certainly agrees with all the speakers. The two points which stand out in my mind concerning disagreement—not serious disagreement but disagreement of a limited nature—are these. One concerns my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and perhaps also the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who is not here and who did not speak but who, by a mere nod of his head, conveyed his disagreement with my own views.
The Lord Chancellor referred to the dangers of prejudicial interests which would accrue to the West supposing a policy of the withdrawal and the shrinkage of North Atlantic Treaty Forces were to be pursued. It seemed to me that what I could have done if I could have intervened at the time was to point out that surely the whole of the North Atlantic strategy is to-day undergoing a profound change; that whereas formerly we depended upon 90 divisions—90 divisions was the figure named for Western Europe—by our own admission we now accept 30 divisions, and that the policy is for the guided ballistic missile to be regarded as the long-range deterrent and the ground forces are, as I understand it, regarded as the trip wire; whereas the real force behind such an instrument as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is
760
the power to deter, and in these days that can be exercised from New York. I think perhaps that that particular aspect was out of focus.
Then, whereas I agree profoundly with my noble friend Lord St. Oswald in the general conception of neutralisation in the future fate of Eastern Europe, I disagree with him slightly in his approach. I suggest that all who share oppression share a common cause. One speaks of the brotherhood of arms; there is also a brotherhood of suffering. I think it does not do any good to encourage the conception that we are rather giving preference to Eastern Germany and to the German problem than to other areas in Europe. If one could see the release of Eastern Europe through pressure being applied in Albania or Bulgaria, by all means let us accept that. But merely because the German situation lends itself to some flexibility, it seems to me that the key to happiness of Eastern Europe is to be found in the solution in Germany.
Those are the two points which I felt I should stress. I was most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for answering my questions. I agree very much with him that we in the Western democracies should make no effort whatsoever to hide our feelings. Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, for his careful reply to all my questions, particularly in regard to the attitude to these exiled organisations. I imagine that one can link that attitude, which, of its nature, must be slightly vague, to the equally and quite correctly vague attitude which Her Majesty's Government have suggested they adopt to the Kadar Government. I think the spirit in which we should break off would be to remember a saying that
" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Perhaps if we can go on doing something, evil may not triumph. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave withdrawn.
House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.