Sitting of 24 March 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Colne Valley Sewerage Board, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works what action he now proposes to take over the future of Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The Royal Fine Art Commission will shortly be consulted about the architect's proposals for the Downing Street houses.
    Captain Pilkington: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very altruistic of hon. Members opposite to take any interest in the future of Downing Street?

    Office Buildings, Greater London
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Works how many office buildings are owned by his Department in the Greater London area; for what purposes they are used; and how many people are employed in them.
    Mr. Molson: Since the Answer consists of a long tabulated statement, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr.Johnson: May I ask my right hon Friend Whether he will at least give an answer to the first part of the Question and say how many buildings are owned by the Ministry of Works?
    Mr.Molson: one hundred and thirteen.
    Following is the Answer:

    STATEMENT OF OFFICE BUILDINGS OWNED BY THE MINISTRY OF WORKS IN GREATER LONDON, THEIR PURPOSE, AND THE NUMBERS OF STAFF THEREIN

    Nature of Occupancy

    No. of Buildings

    No. of Staff

    Headquarters staffs, including those of the Service Departments

    35

    23,500

    Local office staffs:—

    Social Service Departments(47)

    Revenue Departments(8)

    County Courts(14)

    —

    69

    2,800

    Jointly occupied by head quarter and local office staffs

    9

    5,100

    Total

    113

    31,400

    New Buildings
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Works on how many new buildings work has been started by his Department since 1st January, 1957; what is the purpose of these buildings; how many have been completed; by what date it is estimated that the remainder will be completed; and what is the estimated cost.
    Mr. Molson: The information available includes a table of figures which I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It relates to the United Kingdom only, although we build all over the world.
    Mr. Johnson: Again, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will answer the first part of the Question and say on how many new buildings work has been started? As there are already 113 in use, is it necessary to start on any more?
    Mr. Molson: If the hon. Gentleman will wait to read the Answer, I think that he will understand the reasons for it. He could have derived most of this

    1097
    information from the Civil Estimates for this year, without involving about 50 man-hours of work in the Department and the setting out of information, the relevance of which I do not quite follow.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unneces-

    NEW WORKS £10,000 AND OVER ERECTED BY THE MINISTRY OF WORKS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Categories of Buildings

    Started since 1st January, 1957

    Completed by 18th March, 1959

    No. of Schemes

    Estimated cost

    No. of Schemes

    Estimated cost

    £

    £

    Government Buildings (including Courts and Prisons, Ministry of Labour, Insurance, Pensions and Inland Revenue Offices, etc.)

    83

    3,763,771

    23

    1,185,726

    Housing (including barracks) for Service Departments, Ministry of Supply, Atomic Energy Authority and Prison Commission, etc.

    23

    1,218,485

    13

    632,278

    Museums and Art Galleries

    10

    788,674

    6

    445,722

    Research Establishments (including R.O.Fs.) for Ministry of Supply, Atomic Energy Authority, Admiralty, D.S.I.R., Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, etc.

    104

    21,284,388

    30

    1,331,478

    Post Office (including Garage and Workshops, etc.)

    155

    6,818,105

    75

    1,927,677

    Telephone Exchanges (including Telephone Manager's Offices, etc.)

    183

    8,942,558

    66

    1,883,135

    U.SA.A.F.

    8

    107,490

    —

    —

    Total

    566

    42,923,471

    213

    7,406,016

    353 schemes started on different dates since 1st January, 1957, are due to finish on various dates ranging from months to years ahead.

    Victoria Tower, Palace of Westminster (Flag)
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Works whether he will ensure that the Union flag on the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster is reasonably clean and is flown close up and not slightly dipped as on several recent occasions.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): Yes, Sir. The standing instructions are that flags are to be changed as necessary for cleaning and repair. The flag is hoisted close up in the morning and if, owing to weather conditions, it dips during the day, this is attended to.
    Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend explain why the flag is often extremely
    sarily aggressive about this. Having done his homework, he surely knows on how many new buildings work has started. That is a perfectly simple question.
    Mr. Molson: Five hundred and sixty-six.
    Following is the information:
    dirty and dipped below the truck? Will he consider having the flag washed with soap and water at frequent intervals?
    Mr. Nicholls: I think that it was just unfortunate that my hon. Friend looked up on these particular days.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is not the real reason that the Government have dragged it in the mud?

    Palace of Westminster (Lifts)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Works the estimated cost of manning the lift serving the basement, the ground floor, the Library floor, the Committee floor and the upper Committee floor from 7 p.m. until the House rises.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: This would involve increasing the complement of attendants

    1099
    by one at an estimated cost of some £500 per annum.
    Mr. Hayman: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider this a pettifogging meanness in economy when considering the facilities of the Mother of Parliaments?
    Mr. Nicholls: No. I understand the very real interest which the hon. Gentleman has taken in this matter, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is trying hard to give the facilities that the hon. Gentleman desires without incurring unnecessary expense. We shall continue to try to solve this problem, and I am sure that we shall arrive at a solution satisfactory to all.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Works the cost of manning the lift in the House of Peers after 7 p.m.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The cost so far this year has been £5 14s. 8d., representing overtime payments to the lift attendant on the occasion of late sittings.
    Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this expenditure has been wholly incurred on late sittings or whether it is due to cocktail parties and dinner parties in the House of Lords after the House has risen? Why is it that they can have this service on the lift after 7 o'clock but this House cannot?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is not very worthy in this matter. It is due to late sittings on 15 occasions, and the length of late sittings varied from five minutes to four and a half hours.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Long-Distance Radio Communication
    Mr. Farey-Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what help has been given by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to overcome the recurrent difficulties in world-wide radio communication.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Radio Research Station of the Department provides forecasts of the most suitable radio wavelengths to be used for long-distance
    1100
    communication for several months in advance. These forecasts are extensively used by telecommunication operating agencies, both civil and military, in this country and overseas.
    Mr. Farey-Jones: In view of the urgent—I underline "urgent"ߞtechnical importance of the solution of these recurring problems, will my hon. Friend lay particular emphasis upon the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research tackling this problem and settling it at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. The Department understands the importance of this matter. As my hon. Friend, who knows much more about it than I, will know, special knowledge is required of the ionosphere, and the Department is better equipped than anyone else in the country to provide that information.

    Domestic Boilers (Flues)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what advice the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has to offer to prevent or cure the problem of widespread damage to flues in houses with small domestic boilers.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Building Research Station of the Department has shown that chemicals in condensed moisture in the flue cause distortion of stacks and staining of inside and outside walls and attack the mortar, crack the brickwork and cause the rendering to fall away. The trouble is best avoided by providing an impervious lining to the flue whenever possible.
    Mr. Pannell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the widest publicity is given to his reply? What steps is he taking to enlist the support of the building trade in the solution of this problem?
    Mr. Nicholls: The Department knows that this is a troublesome point and has let the architects and all the building organisations have all the knowledge which it has acquired from this research. Indeed, the building industry is working on the problem, too.

    Road Research Laboratory
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether a review has yet been made as to which Department should control the Road Research Laboratory, as recommended by the Select Committee on Estimates in its Fifth Report of Session 1957–58; and what action it is proposed to take.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: An inter-Departmental review of the control of the stations to which the Committee refers has been initiated. The question is still under consideration.
    Mr. Davies: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication when the review is likely to be terminated? Does he realise that there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to the future of the Department, the work of which is becoming of increasing importance in view of the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads and the added danger of road accidents?
    Mr. Nicholls: I accept the hon. Member's point concerning the importance of the matter. I am sorry that I cannot give any indication how long the review will take, but it is under way.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what action has been taken on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, made in its Fifth Report of Session 1957–58, that tenders received from contractors for road work to be done to new specifications should be shown to the Road Research Laboratory, and that it should be informed of the results obtained.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Arrangements to increase the already substantial collaboration between the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Road Research Laboratory have been made along the lines of this recommendation.

    Diesel and Petrol Engines (Exhaust Fumes)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is being carried out in regard to controlling the
    1102
    emission of diesel oil and petrol exhaust fumes from vehicles; and what results have so far been obtained.
    Mr. Nicholls: Research on combustion in diesel and petrol engines with a view to reduction in the emission of exhaust fumes is being carried out by the Motor Industry Research Association and the British Internal Combustion Engine Research Association, each of which is supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Results of this and other work show that the greater part of the smoke from such engines can be prevented by proper adjustment, running and maintenance. The Warren Spring Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has tested a catalytic device which reduces the pollution from petrol engine fumes effectively.
    Mr. Davies: While I welcome that reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that it indicates that the operators of vehicles are remiss in not controlling the emission of these noxious fumes? Will the Parliamentary Secretary make representations in the right quarters for the more vigorous enforcement of the regulations? The very large amount of fumes which are emitted is a growing menace on the roads.
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes. From the personal experience of all of us, it is a fact that in far too many cases proper maintenance has not been carried out, resulting in the emission of unpleasant fumes. I assure the hon. Member that this is well known and that anything that can be done by my noble Friend's Department is being done to ensure that the authorities which can insist upon proper maintenance do so.
    Mr. Davies: What is being done? The matter has been raised in the House on several occasions, but no indication has been given of the action which is being taken to reduce this menace on the roads.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member knows that action of this kind is against the law and the authorities for enforcing the law are well known to the hon. Member. I have no doubt that they recognise the importance of the matter. The Questions and Answers which we have in this House from time to time underline not only the importance that the Department attaches to this problem, but the importance which this House attaches to ensuring that action is taken.

  SCOTLAND

    Eyemouth Harbour
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce his decision with regard to Eyemouth Harbour.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): No, Sir, not yet. Representatives of the harbour trustees have discussed their proposals with officials of my right hon. Friend's Department and have undertaken to consider whether a less costly scheme would meet the needs of the harbour.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my noble Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is difficult to see how a scheme very much smaller than the £300,000 scheme would meet the needs of the situation?

    Detective Officers (Training Courses)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Scottish detective training school functions for only four weeks each year; and whether he will consider setting up this school on a more permanent basis to provide some link with the study of criminology at United Kingdom universities.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Annual courses for detective officers are held at Edinburgh and Glasgow in alternate years. The arrangements are in accordance with the advice given to my right hon. Friend by the Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association and by a committee of chief constables and other ranks of the police service under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary. The Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association is at present considering whether the length of the course or the number of courses should be increased and is obtaining the views of detective officers on the subject. Some of the instruction at the courses is given by lecturers from the universities. There are also courses at universities which police officers can attend, such as the extra-mural course on criminal science and administration at Glasgow.
    Mrs. Mann: I am glad to know that the matter is to some extent under review. In reviewing the position, however, will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the much superior position of the English constabulary in that at Cambridge there is almost a permanent school? In view of the serious increase of crime, does not the Joint Under-Secretary think that regard should be paid to the recommendations by a well-known sheriff that this matter should be on a more permanent basis?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, but England has many more detectives to train. A lot of training is given in forces and detectives can be attached to larger forces for training. In addition, courses for specialist officers such as fingerprint experts are given in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen and there are annual conferences of detective officers from all forces and group conferences at regular intervals for detectives from the west, east, and north of Scotland.

    Distribution of Industry Act, 1945 (Section 3)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schemes of rehabilitation were suspended in 1952; and how many are now sanctioned under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): Any question on the rehabilitation of derelict sites under Section 5 of the 1945 Act should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As regards Section 3, which refers, not to rehabilitation, but to the improvement of basic services, no schemes where assistance had been promised were suspended by Scottish Departments in 1952. The renewed availability of grant under Section 3 for water and sewerage schemes was intimated to local authorities on 12th March and applications since received are now under consideration by the Department of Health.
    Mrs. Mann: To whom falls the responsibility under Sections 3 and 5 of the 1945 Act? Are local authorities aware to whom they should apply?
    Mr. Browne: I am sure that local authorities are aware. The responsibility under Section 5 is that of the Board of Trade and under Section 3, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Scottish Universities Entrance Board (Regulations)
    Sir J. Henderson-Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the representations made to him about the probable effects which the proposed new regulations of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board will have on the work of the schools, what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The regulations are a matter for the universities themselves, although they consult my right hon. Friend's Department. As Glasgow University has intimated dissent from the regulations, the other universities have petitioned the Queen in Council praying for them to be approved. I understand that Her Majesty at a Council this morning referred the matter to the Scottish Universities Committee for consideration and report. A notice is being published shortly by the Privy Council Office in the Edinburgh Gazette and certains newspapers circulating in Scotland about the submission of petitions for or against such approval.
    Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: I think I heard my hon. Friend say something about the Scottish Universities Committee. Who forms that Committee? Secondly, may one take it that members of the Educational Institute of Scotland and other groups of teachers may have an opportunity of expressing their feelings about this matter?
    Mr. Macpherson: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I would inform my hon. Friend that he will find the composition of the Committee referred to in Section 9 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889. In answer to the second part of the supplementary question, notice will be given regarding the submission of petitions and it will then be for the Committee to decide how these should be dealt with. Certainly, the E.I.S. will have an opportunity to submit petitions.

    Speed Limit
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the introduction of a 40 miles per hour speed limit on selected stretches of road in Scotland of similar type to those English roads where the 40 miles per hour speed limit is giving general satisfaction.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. The provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which would allow the introduction of a 40 m.p.h. speed limit outside the London Traffic Area, cannot come into effect until a report has been made to Parliament on its experimental use in that area.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Has my hon. Friend any information as to when such a report will be in the hands of the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir, it is not yet known when that report will be available. First the views of the Departmental Road Safety Committee on the results of the experimental introduction of the speed restriction have to be obtained.

    Roads, East of Scotland
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the plan for building a modern road system through the east of Scotland; and how soon he expects the task to be completed.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The future road pattern in the east of Scotland, as elsewhere, is shown in the development plans for the local authority areas concerned. When these plans can be carried out will depend on how much of our resources can be devoted to this part of the country, having regard to the needs of Scotland as a whole.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his statement is extremely vague, that it does not take into account the importance of the nature of the developing industry in that area, and that now would seem to be a particularly appropriate time to push ahead, particularly with the Tay Road Bridge, so that

    1107
    this bridge and the Forth Road Bridge could together form part of that modernised system?
    Mr. Macpherson: One has to bear in mind, in considering this part of the country, that the Forth Road Bridge is costing a considerable proportion of the £40 million that is being devoted to the development of roads in Scotland at present.

    Digest of Statistics
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider issuing the Scottish Digest of Statistics quarterly instead of half-yearly as at present.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is anxious to provide as much information as Parliament and the public want, but before agreeing to the hon. Member's suggestion he would wish to be thoroughly convinced that the advantage of a quarterly publication of the Digest would be commensurate with the considerable extra work and cost that would be involved.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does that reply mean that the hon. Gentleman has the suggestion under consideration, or is he rejecting it out of hand? It is rather important that Scottish Members should have this extra information, much of which is out of date by the time we get the six-monthly document.
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend and I would be glad to consult with the hon. Gentleman and others concerned. We do not reject this out of hand, but I must point out to the House that it would involve a considerable amount of extra work, as the figures are not available in this form in every case.

    Eggs
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect in Scotland of the reduction of the guarantee for eggs.
    Lord John Hope: The course of egg production in Scotland will depend on a number of factors of which the change in the guarantee is only one and no precise estimate is possible.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are a number of small
    1108
    farmers in Scotland who are not crofters, and therefore do not gain under the crofting subsidies, who will be hurt by the limitation of the marginal grants system, and who have been depending largely on the sale of eggs? Can he give us any idea about their position?
    Lord John Hope: From previous experience, I do not think it is likely that there will be any drastic reduction in the production of eggs. It has not happened before, and it is unlikely to happen now.

    Herring
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the arrangements, prices, etc., for the coming herring season in the North and on the prospects of finding continental markets.
    Lord John Hope: The Herring Industry Board has submitted for approval a draft rule prescribing minimum prices for the year beginning on 1st May. My right hon. Friends are considering the rule along with the objections lodged to it and it is hoped that a decision will be reached shortly. As regards the latter part in the Question, the general problem n recent years has been to supply enough herring to our continental customers.
    Mr. Grimond: If this is the case, is not it very important indeed to keep up the strength of the herring fleets? Also, will the Minister, when considering giving approval to this rule, bear in mind that the Herring Board must offer a price, even for fishmeal, which renders it profitable to fish for herring?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that all relevant considerations, including that one, will be taken into account.
    Mrs. Mann: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if we may take it that, now he has answered Questions on agriculture, eggs and fishing, the Scottish Office are now accepting these Questions and not passing them on to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
    Lord John Hope: The hon. Lady can accept the fact that the Scottish Office has accepted Questions which have been answered by Scottish Office Ministers. She can certainly do that.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish contact with the Russian fleets off Shetland with a view to persuading them to use local facilities and to preventing the fouling of seine netting grounds by their debris; and if he will request the Herring Industry l3oard to explore the market in Russia for herring caught in Shetland waters.
    Lord John Hope: I understand that the Russians are already making considerable use of local facilities at Lerwick. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend is taking steps in consultation with the Admiralty to get into touch with the Russian vessels.
    On the last part of the Question, in recent years the problem has been to find enough suitable herring to fulfil the Russian contract and last year about half the herring actually supplied came from Shetland waters.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask why the Scottish Office is so timid about approaching the Russians, who have been lying off the coast of Shetland for years and yet apparently only now is serious contact being established with them? It is true that occasionally they land, but we should be delighted to offer them more facilities. They might bring employment, they might bring money. Of course, we should like to get rid of their debris as soon as possible, but we cannot help thinking that there must be an outlet for winter herring, which so far the people of Shetland have not been able to tap, and we should like the support of the Scottish Office in finding out whether we cannot explore these markets further.
    Lord John Hope: I had hoped that my Answer would reassure the hon. Gentleman. As regards timidity, my answer directly encouraged the Russians to come to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That seems to me to be the reverse of timid.

    Senior Secondary Schools (Working Party Recommendations)
    Sir J. Henderson-Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take about the new ordinary grade examination and the recommendations of the Working Party
    1110
    on the Curriculum of the Senior Secondary School.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: After considering the views received from various educational bodies, my right hon. Friend has decided to defer the introduction of the certificate from 1961 to 1962. He proposes to issue a circular within the next few weeks on the recommendations in the Report.
    Sir J. Henderson-StewartThis is a postponement. Have the schools asked for this postponement?
    Mr. Macpherson: The Association of Directors of Education has pressed strongly for this and the Educational Institute of Scotland has advised deferment. On the other hand, the Association of Headmasters thinks that we should adhere to 1961, but since it would be desirable to introduce this change in an atmosphere of complete readiness, my right hon. Friend thinks it right to postpone until 1962.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Industrial Estates, Wales (Rents)
    Mr. Gowerasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from tenants of factories in Welsh industrial estates regarding future rentals; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): A number of tenants in Wales have made representations to the Board of Trade in connection with the rents for proposed extensions. As I said in the course of the debate on 10th February, current market value will continue to be the basis of rents for our factories in Development Areas.
    Mr. Gower: Although the long-term industrial prospects in Wales appear to be extremely good, does my hon. Friend recognise that particular parts of Wales are facing real problems? Does not it seem inappropriate in those circumstances that proposals should be made which may involve substantial increases in rent?
    Mr. Rodgers: Of course, values have gone up too in the time since the rents were first negotiated. Tenants in England and Wales may appeal to the courts

    1111
    under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, to determine the current market value when a lease is to be renewed. This does not apply in Scotland.

    U.S.S.R. (Long-term Trade Credits)
    Mr. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning his investigations into the Russian desire for long-term trade credits.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I cannot add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on 12th March.
    Mr. Lewis: That was no Answer. Is the Minister aware of the fact that only yesterday the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance informed me that we are now paying £64 million a year in National Insurance unemployment benefits and National Assistance grants to men who are unemployed in this country? Would not it be better to make a large financial credit to the Russians and put these people to work? Is it not better to have them working than to pay £50 million or £60 million in dole?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer to the supplementary question on the earlier occasion, he will see that my right hon. Friend said:
    "This is a difficult question but one which is well worth while investigating. We are trying to obtain more information from the Russians on the subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1959; Vol. 601, c. 1436.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While it is desirable to increase trade with Soviet Russia, would not my hon. Friend agree that if there are applications for long-term trade credits, priority should be given to Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: In general terms, yes.

    New Industry, Burntwood
    Mr. Snowasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, arising out of the meeting held at Lichfield on 13th July, 1951, attended by a representative of his Department who agreed that there was a case for additional light industry at Burntwood, Staffordshire, and in view of the closing of Cannock Chase No. 3
    1112
    Pit and the present need for a more flexible industrial potential in the district, he will make a statement on the inquiries which he has received from suitable firms about the facilities available at Burntwood.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: As I told the hon. Member on 9th February, we should be glad to see suitable firms from the vicinity of Birmingham set up in the Burntwood district. Industrial development certificates totalling nearly one-quarter of a million square feet have been issued for projects in the locality in recent years.
    Mr. Snow: Be that as it may, he Government have now had eight years since a representative from the hon. Gentleman's Department visited the area, and virtually no employment for women has been provided, and the recent closure of the pit, as the result of the Government's economic policy, has made the male employment position even more serious.
    Mr. Rodgers: As I also informed the hon. Gentleman on 9th February, it is understood that, except for a small number of workers who will be retiring altogether or are unfit, all those who were unemployed at the Cannock Chase No. 3 pit have been found jobs by the National Coal Board within the Cannock Chase area. The position set out in the hon. Gentleman's Question, therefore, is not quite as serious as he alleges.
    Mr. Snow: is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people are now having to travel inordinate distances to other towns and that this is a real hardship? Will he do something about it?
    Mr. Rodgers: We are trying to induce footloose firms to go to areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Snow: Footloose? What on earth does the hon. Gentleman mean?

    Isle of Sheppey (Advance Factory)
    Mr. P. Wellsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will authorise the erection of an advance factory on the Isle of Sheppey.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade has no powers to build factories in the Isle of Sheppey.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Will he give some reconsideration to the matter, especially as it has been quite impossible to dispose of Sheerness Dockyard, owing primarily to the cost that would be involved in switching over from a naval repair plant and organisation to civilian production? Would not the hon. Gentleman give some consideration to providing financial assistance to a firm or firms to make that switch-over, in the event of such a firm or firms coming forward?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am well aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman for the employment situation in the Isle of Sheppey, but I would remind him that the island is one of the places which do qualify for assistance under the 1958 D.A.T.A.C. scheme.
    Mr. Wells: Why does the hon. Gentleman say he has no power, in view of the fact that it is a scheduled area?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is a scheduled area under the D.A.T.A.C. scheme, but it is not scheduled under the 1945 Act, and, therefore, we have no powers.

    Messrs. Wickman, Ltd., Hillington (Factories)
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade if, as a result of his investigation, he will now say whether one or both of the factories used by Wickman, Limited, Hillington, will be closed.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that the firm announced last Friday that the factory at Hillington is to be closed over the next few months, but that the factory at North Cardonald will continue in production.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, last night, speaking in Glasgow to the people of Scotland, the Lord Chancellor stated that the Government would use all their powers to deal with unemployment in Scotland? Now that the hon. Gentleman is being given his chance to deal with threatened unemployment in Hillington, will he tell us what steps he proposes to take in order to keep these men at work?
    Mr. Rodgers: We shall do our best, of course to try to find jobs for these
    1114
    redundant workers, and use the powers which we have at the present moment. We are advertising the five existing empty factories in Scotland.

    New Industry, Ayrshire
    Mr. Rossasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken in the past three months to bring new industry to Ayrshire.
    Mr. J. Rodgers: North-West Ayrshire was added in January last to the list of places to benefit from the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958. Since the 1st December last three industrial projects in Ayrshire have been approved, two of which should in due course employ 215 workers.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister realise that so far the steps that have been taken have been quite ineffective and that the position is very serious indeed? Is he aware that in one part we have got nearly 16 per cent. of the insured population unemployed?
    Mr. Rodgers: I realise the gravity of the situation, but I would point out that in Kilmarnock itself the figure is 2·6.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in general, all those British industries whose products are subjected to high rates of Purchase Tax such as 60 per cent. and 30 per cent. suffer severely as regards production and distribution efficiency during the period of January to April each year because the shops and the shopping public are inclined to hold off buying in the hope that appreciation of the country's economic needs will persuade him to reduce these high levels of Purchase Tax in his Budget; and if he will give this consideration priority in connection with his future arrangements for amending the Purchase Tax Schedule of the Finance Act, 1958.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend must not over-state this problem. Nor must he expect me to anticipate my Budget decisions.
    Mr. Nabarro: Has not my right hon. Friend read the national newspapers today? Is he aware that three more large and famous trading firms, Harrods, Cannon (Holdings) Ltd., and Lewis Investment Trust, Limited—added to Leyland Motors, Limited, and Jaguar Cars, Limited, last Thursday—have all protested in the most vigorous terms on the very point which is enshrined in this Question? Will my right hon. Friend bow to the overwhelming volume of industrial and commercial opinion, which supports me in these matters, against his own minority view?
    Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend must agree that his own modest activities in these matters—not that I am quarrelling with him in any way—have made a small contribution towards keeping alive in the breasts of business men some anxieties about the theoretical, hypothetical and highly speculative possibilities of Budget action in this field.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have raised their dividends?
    Mr. Nabarro: That is thoroughly irrelevant, of course.
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid I have not yet got round to a study of the national Press today.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the ill-feeling caused amongst the people of Wales by the levy of Purchase Tax at 30 per cent. on the national musical instrument of their country, the harp, whilst pianos and other similar instruments have for many years been free of such tax; and what steps he proposes to take in the near future to ensure that the importance of dealing with this matter sympathetically at an early date is properly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Amory: I cannot anticipate my Budget decisions.
    Mr. Nabarro: While having no special partiality or solicitude for the people of Wales, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will again apply himself to the fact that Welsh harps, bagpipes, trumpets and horns all carry Purchase
    1116
    Tax at 30 per cent. whereas pianos carry none?
    Mr. Snow: The answer is that the hon. Gentleman should play the harp.
    Mr. Nabarro: Why should my right hon. Friend discriminate in this invidious fashion?
    Mr. Amory: I should like to assure my hon. Friend that there is no racial discrimination here. Bagpipes carry the same rate of 30 per cent.
    Mr. Nabarro: That is exactly what I said.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately what percentage of the total revenue is represented by the current yield of Purchase Tax; and what such percentage would be if all goods liable to tax at 60 per cent. became liable to tax at 30 per cent., and if the 30 per cent. tax were abolished on goods liable to such rates on Groups 12, 19 (a), 26 (b), 27 and 28.
    Mr. Amory: The Budget estimate of £490 million for the yield of Purchase Tax in the current financial year represented 9 per cent. of the estimated total ordinary revenue of £5,439 million. As regards the second part of the Question, the Purchase Tax estimate included about £209 million in respect of goods chargeable at 60 per cent. and about £88 million in respect of the 30 per cent. goods mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is not the practice to publish any revision of Budget estimates in the course of the financial year.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the 194th Purchase Tax Question from myself in the 1958–59 series? Are his Answers considered to be sufficiently provocative to cause me to proceed with a further century in the next Parliamentary Session?
    Mr. Amory: I realise that for my hon. Friend this is the last shoot of the season, and, because I am very anxious that he should not go home without something in the bag, I should like to assure him that, in the review of taxation Which I am now in the course of making, I shall give full consideration to his views.
    Sir H. Lucas-Toothasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will

    1117
    give the comparable monthly or other figures for receipts from Purchase Tax on shopping bags, shopping baskets, and handbags, respectively, before and after the changes effected by the last Budget.
    Mr. Amory: I regret that this information is not available.

    Income Tax (Schedule A)
    Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals to the General Commissioners against assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A have been made and heard, respectively, during each of the past five complete fiscal years.
    Mr. Amory: I regret the information is not available.
    Mr. Page: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that most of these appeals arise out of the discrepancy between new valuations and the valuations of existing houses, which were valued some 20 years ago? Does not that show that the method of collection of Schedule A tax is unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Amory: In the absense of the information for which my hon. Friend asked, I am not able to give him a certain reply to his Question.
    Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the number of units of assessment for Schedule A tax which remain at the annual value determined at the last quinquennial valuation made some 22 years ago; and in respect of how many of such units an annual value has been determined since the last quinquennial valuation.
    Mr. Amory: The total number of Schedule A assessments is now about 17½ million, and it is estimated that in about a third of these the annual value has been determined since the last quinquennial revaluation which came into force in 1936–37.
    Mr. Page: Is not it a fact that because they have had a recent valuation as compared with the other two-thirds, that one-third is subsidising the other two-thirds to a certain extent, and is not that one of the unfairnesses of the Schedule A tax?
    Mr. Amory: I am not sure that I accept the implication of what my hon.
    1118
    Friend has suggested, but I will take note of his views.
    Mr. Jay: In considering any case for reducing or abolishing Schedule A tax, will the Chancellor also take into account the need to be fair to those people who pay rent out of taxed income?
    Mr. Amory: I will take account of all the relevant considerations, including the one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the amount of Schedule A tax paid annually by occupiers of property belonging to the Crown.
    Mr. Amory: I regret that no such estimate can be made.
    Mr. Page: Is not this a case where my right hon. Friend could be fair to the tenants, in that the tenants of Crown property are called on to pay what is called a landlord's property tax without, apparently, any recourse to the Crown? Is not this another anomaly which would justify my right hon. Friend doing away with Schedule A tax?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think so but, once again, I will look into the point raised by my hon. Friend.

    Loans and Grants
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of money provided in loans and grants by the United Kingdom since the end of the war in 1945 to other members of the Commonwealth, to the Colonial Territories, to non-Commonwealth members of the sterling area, and other countries, respectively.
    Mr. Amory: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: is not this something which should be made widely known besides being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and can my right hon. Friend say how the amount compares, roughly, with the amount of money made available to this country by the United States? Would not the comparison prove creditable to Britain?
    Mr. Amory: I am much in favour of this information being given the widest possible publicity, because the figures reflect great credit on the achievements of this country. Without notice, I should not like to make any comparison with the performance of the United States which has also been extremely generous in this respect.
    Following is the Answer:

    UNITED KINGDOM LOANS AND GRANTS FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND UNITED KINGDOM COLONIAL TERRITORIES, 1945-59

    £m. (to the nearest £10m.)

    —

    Grants

    Loans

    Independent Commonwealth countries

    30

    110

    U.K. Colonial Territories

    420

    110

    Non-Common wealth sterling area countries

    170

    20

    Other countries

    640

    470

    Total

    1,260

    710

    Grand Total

    1,970

    NOTES:
    (1) The figures above are of actual (or in the case of the current financial year estimated) disbursements as distinct from authorisations or sanctions.
    (2) The figures reflect in part the financial value of loans or grants made in kind.
    (3) The figures of loans and grants to "other countries" include large contributions towards the cost of post-war reconstruction in Europe in the immediate post-war years and the table does not therefore reflect the current pattern of loans and grants.

    Post-war Credits
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the cost of repaying post-war credits to those persons who are 60 years of age or more and whose credits are £50 or less.
    Mr. Amory: The cost of repaying men of 60 or more and women of 55 or more whose credits are £50 or less would be about £30 million.
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the cost of repaying post-war credits to those persons who are 60 years of age or more, and whose credits are £25 or less.
    Mr. Amory: The cost of repaying men of 60 or more and women of 55 or more
    1120
    whose credits are £25 or less would be about £10 million.
    Mr. Denzil Freethasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the cost of repaying post-war credits to those persons who are 55 years of age or more, and whose credits are £25 or less.
    Mr. Amory: The cost of repaying men who are 55 years or more and women who are 50 years or more whose credits are £25 or less would be about £25 million.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fletcher.
    Mr. Freeth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not one allowed to put a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had been so self-denying on his previous Questions that I did not think he intended to ask a supplementary question on this one.
    Mr. Freeth: That was so that I could have all the relevant information, Mr. Speaker.
    May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider the possibility of making some such repayment of post-war credits along these lines, since that would provide the greatest possible benefit to those who need it most at the smallest possible cost to the Exchequer? Will not my right Friend agree that elderly people with small means who have post-war credits are likely to be the people who in their working lives had relatively little and have the least amount of savings?
    Mr. Amory: I will take account of the views of my hon. Friend in the course of the review of all financial questions upon which I am now engaged.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the figure he has given, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that there is an overwhelming case for alleviating the hardship among a great many sections of the community by anticipating the date on which some of these hard-pressed people will receive payment of their post-war credits?
    Mr. Amory: I will also take account of the views of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will enumerate the administrative difficulties which make it impossible to repay postwar credits in cases of hardship.
    Mr. Amory: The difficulties centre mainly round the necessity of discriminating betwen one form or degree of hardship and another.
    Mr. Chetwynd: When preparing the Budget speech which he will make in a few days' time, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that a great many people will be expecting him to tackle this problem seriously? Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to explain why, when it is a question of paying money back, there are always administrative difficulties, but when it is a question of taking money from people those difficulties do not seem to exist?
    Mr. Amory: I will take account of the point which the hon. Gentleman has very kindly made.

  PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911
  Mr. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce amending legislation to the Parliament Act, 1911, substituting four years for five as the maximum duration of Parliament.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is not very surprising, in view of the recent Gallup Poll results? Nevertheless, would not he agree that five years is a rather long time to keep the British public from expressing an opinion, and will he reconsider the matter?
  Mr. Butler: I see no reason to alter one of the fundamentals of the British constitution, as laid down in the 1911 Act, nor do I think that any ephemeral considerations should be brought into account.

  MINISTERS (OFFICIAL MISSIONS)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister on how many occasions during the current year he has given permission for a Minister's wife to travel on an official mission with her husband at the
  1122
  public expense; and if he will give a list of the official missions in question and the Ministers involved.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The Answer to the first part of the Question is four so far, Sir. I will, with permission, circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the information:
  The official missions involved were the visit of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to Caracas and Port of Spain in January; the visit of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Malaya in January; the projected visit of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to Ghana in May, and the projected visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to Queensland in August.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (TELEVISION)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange with the leaders of the political parties to have discussions concerning the procedure to be adopted on televising political activities connected with Parliamentary by-elections on the basis that, provided the majority of the candidates taking part are so willing, the by-election activities should be televised by joint agreement and arrangement.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir. The initiative for such broadcasts is with the broadcasting authorities. Hon. Members will no doubt have seen the statement made by the British Broadcasting Corporation on 20th March stating that the Corporation has been advised that it would be liable to prosecution under Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, if not all of the candidates took part in a broadcast.
  Mr. Lewis: Is it not anti-democratic and against the usual run of affairs when, as with the last by-election and the one pending, there are three candidates, the majority being in favour of the broadcast taking place, the minority can, by refusing to take part, prevent the majority having their wish? If the majority of candidates at a by-election signify that they are willing, should not that decide

  1123
  the issue and should not the minority either take part or abstain from going on the programme? Is not that the best way?
  Mr. Butler: The situation is not quite as simple as that. We are governed by the Representation of the People Act and by the Television Act, which controls the I.T.A. and which requires that all political programmes shall have equal balance between all parties. In order to carry out the terms of those Acts, it is important that all the parties should agree. If they did not agree, we could not have majority rule, because it would not be consistent with those Acts.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not just a question of majority rule, but of how we are to interpret the question of keeping a fair balance between the different parties? Is not a new situation now developing in which with two successive by-elections television broadcasts have been vetoed by one party? While I am anxious that this matter should be settled by agreement between the parties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider talks through the usual channels to see whether the matter can be reconsidered?
  Mr. Butler: It is interesting that in several of the by-elections, namely, those at Southend, West, Shoreditch and Finsbury, Morecambe and Lansdale, St. Helens, Wigan and Islington, North, this issue did not arise, while it did arise at Torrington, Harrow, East, and Norfolk, South-West. Any aspect of broadcasting policy can and will be considered and discussed, as has often been the case, but this matter would be governed, as far as I can see, by the terms of the Statutes in question. Therefore, it is rather more fundamental than any of the other matters raised in our discussions. If anybody like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself has any points to put, we should be only too glad to consider them.
  Mr. Gower: Can my right hon. Friend explain whether official party broadcasts constitute an exception to the legal requirements of the ordinary case, where if one party is represented, the opposing party must also have a representative present?
  Mr. Butler: Nothing is more abstruse, except medieval theology, than the
  1124
  general regulations covering broadcasting. If I apprehend my hon. Friend's supplementary question correctly, an ordinary party political broadcast is allowed for in the programme and is undertaken by the parties on a rota according to a certain number. In fact, I am going to do one tonight and that is an ordinary party political broadcast.
  However, on the occasion of a by-election, hitherto the situation has been governed by the terms of the Television Act, which set up the I.T.A. and which demanded balance, and by the terms of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, in relation to the alleged expenses of candidates. Those are the governing Statutes and it has therefore been impossible to proceed in a by-election without agreement. The next Question on the Order Paper deals with a General Election. In the case of a by-election we do not see any way round at present, but if there are any representations, I shall listen to them.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the people most affected are the public and the electorate and that if it should prove that they are to be deprived of their main means of political debate, there must be a case for altering the present law?
  Mr. Butler: As Dr. Joad used to say, it depends on what is meant by "main means of debate". There is a variety of means of debate, and I am certain that this would not work unless there were agreement among the parties.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister the arrangements he is proposing for televising speeches by hon. Members during the next General Election.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  The right hon. Gentleman may wish to be reminded that the arrangements for political broadcasting at the next General Election which were made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority after joint consultation with the Government and the two Opposition parties were announced by the authorities on 18th March.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several hon. Members, including myself, are not familiar with

  1125
  the details of the arrangements, particularly as regards private Members? In the circumstances, will he set out the details in a White Paper so that we may be fully enlightened? At the same time, can he say how the rights of private Members are to be safeguarded at the next General Election? Are we to apply to the television authorities to appear on television, and are we at the same time to be instructed on how to conduct ourselves on television programmes? What is the position of private Members?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Who is to do the instructing?
  Mr. Butler: As this is a matter essentially for the parties, it would not be proper for me to issue this information in a White Paper, but I can certainly arrange for a copy of the statement issued by the authorities to be placed in the Library, if that will be of any assistance to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
  As regards the rights of private Members, the right hon. Gentleman has so much influence with his own Front Bench that I feel sure he can influence his right hon. Friends to give him time in their broadcasts on the next occasion. Private Members take part in television broadcasts at the invitation of the authorities, and I must leave it to the discretion of the authorities themselves.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have no intention of applying to anybody for permission to appear on television, that I can look after myself in that regard and that I have had sufficient television experience? I am concerned with the rights of private Members in a matter of this sort. Are these matters to be left entirely to the Government Front Bench and to the hierarchy of the Opposition Front Bench? When the General Election comes, what is to be the position of private Members? What are we to do in these matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain?
  Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 3 of the statement issued by the authorities, he will see that, in addition to the main national series which are run by the authorities, the Corporations will broadcast a series of regional programmes from a number of centres in which selected candidates
  1126
  will take part. Smaller parties may participate according to a qualification to be announced later. Those programmes will be under the discretion of the authorities. There would therefore be opportunities, other than purely party political broadcasts, for people to take part.
  Mr. Osborne: Before my right hon. Friend agrees to a large increase in the number of televised political speeches, will he bear in mind the rights of the public who may not be so keen on hearing so many political speeches as some hon. Members allege?
  Mr. Butler: We have to remember that the election period is a short and vital one. During that period there will he a number of political broadcasts which in a normal period might be too much for the digestion, but which in this period would be valuable.
  Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman dig into his remote Radical days and appreciate the danger of constantly reiterating that agreement has been established by the parties? Does not he realise that in a democracy it is vital that the minority opinion should have an opportunity of making itself heard and that the mere fact that there is agreement in two great concentrations of power does not sanctify that agreement?
  Mr. Butler: It does not sanctify it, but it makes it valid as between the partners and the authorities concerned. In relation to minorities, which are so carefully protected in the House by you, Mr. Speaker, I hope that it is possible for the minorities and individual Members to represent their views to the authorities concerned, and if it is any consolation to the hon. Member, who is a champion of minorities and who represents himself with great success, I should say that would be very glad to remind the authorities, in a perfectly constitutional way, of the existence of the demands of hon. Members.
  Later—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. In reply to supplementary questions asked on Question No. 48 which was put today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Leader of the House said that this was a matter for Mr. Speaker.

  1127
  The Prime Minister has said, in reply to me on another aspect of the matter, that this was a matter for the House. While it may be true that you have not all this material before you, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear in mind what the Leader of the House said on my right hon. Friend's Question, together with the three Motions which appear on the Order Paper, and if you will give consideration to all that.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order. Is not it a fact that during the period of a General Election there are no hon. Members of this House at all?
  Mr. Speaker: My reply to the point of order by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is that I do not think that my jurisdiction extends beyond this House and the hon. Members in it. It certainly does not include the Independent Television Authority or the British Broadcasting Corporation. I do not think that I can do very much about it. I think that what the Leader of the House meant was that I will endeavour to the best of my ability to protect the rights of minorities in this House.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: With respect, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasise that I understand that Mr. Speaker's duties are to protect not only the rights of minorities but those of private Members while in the House. If Mr. Speaker, when he has an opportunity, will analyse the Motions which appear on the Order Paper, he will see that they deal with the procedure of the House which the Prime Minister said was a matter for the House. In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted Parliament to be associated with the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry, I would remind the House that we want Parliament to be associated with this issue, in which is involved the future democracy of Britain. Therefore, I am asking Mr. Speaker to give consideration to that matter.
  Mr. Speaker: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. While it is true, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, that during a General Election none of us will be Members of Parliament, we will all be candidates,
  1128
  and presumably all equal in the eyes of the electors. If that be so, cannot we arrange that there will be a fair balance in the provision of General Election facilities as between all candidates, irrespective of what they believe their rights or prospects to be? In particular, is not it part of your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that any facilities provided for one section of hon. Members, or for that matter of candidates, are provided for the others? Will you look into the matter?
  Mr. C. Pannell: Will you also consider, Mr. Speaker, that all those who have spoken up to now will be fighting the election as either Conservative or Labour candidates, and that none of those people who usually ask to be considered on independent lines will probably be elected unless they fight on one of those tickets?
  Mr. Wigg: Is it not the tradition of the House that Mr. Speaker has presided over conferences dealing with matters affecting electoral law? Is it not a fact also that these new techniques of television and sound broadcasting are matters to which the House has not yet given serious consideration although they affect fundamentally the democracy of this country? Is not it a question not of party but of democracy, and therefore, in accordance with the new traditions of the Chair, will you look into the matter very carefully and give the House the benefit of your opinion?
  Mr. Speaker: If I can be of assistance to hon. Members in arriving at an agreed solution on a matter upon which opinions are now divided, I shall be glad to do anything I can. I can say no more than that. During a General Election there are no Members of Parliament. I remain Speaker, I suppose, for the purpose of conducting duties unconnected with presiding in this Chamber which have been placed on me by Statute, and for no other reason. I hold on to that shadowy existence until my successor is elected. Anybody occupying the Chair, if asked by the House to help in resolving a dispute, would feel it proper to do what he could.
  Mr. Mellish: In view of the fact that you are to consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that you will not give priority on television to a Privy Councillor.
  Mr. Speaker: In the hypothetical event of anything of that sort happening, I had better not say anything more lest I disclose a certain bias at the outset.

  HIGH FLYING AIRCRAFT (RADIATION)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister which authority in this country is responsible for monitoring the radiation accumulated by high-flying aircraft; how regularly tests are conducted; to what extent research in this matter has been conducted with regard to both civil and military aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  No regular monitoring of aircraft is carried out because the measurements taken in the past have suggested that this is unnecessary. The need for additional research on this subject is however reviewed periodically.
  Mr. Beswick: Would not the Lord Privy Seal agree that that Answer is wholly unsatisfactory? What might have been unnecessary in the past may well be very urgent and important today. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the report which was published from the Pentagon over the weekend, he will see that it is obvious that we are unaware of what is happening in the upper atmosphere. Will he, therefore, look at the matter again?
  Mr. Butler: I read the previous Question asked by the hon. Member, which was answered by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, and I have also investigated when the last measurements were taken, which was early this year. At the moment we have no new material which would aid in giving the hon. Member any further information. We have the situation under review.

  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS (URANIUM SUPPLIES)
  Colonel Beamishasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the present system of supplying natural uranium for use in nuclear power stations, involving immediate payment for the fuel and a refund when the fuel is
  1130
  returned, is not placing British contractors at a disadvantage with foreign competitors; to what factors he ascribes the recent British failure to get an order in Baden-Württemberg; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
  I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority expects to be able to arrange extended credit terms for the initial fuel charges for reactors sold abroad. It is unlikely that any practicable alteration in the terms for the supply of fuel would have affected the decision of the Baden-Württemberg undertaking not to order a British reactor.
  Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that American contractors appear to have two major advantages in this important matter—first, the fact that Euratom enjoys a loan of 135 million dollars and, secondly, that the American Government provide enriched fuel at a low interest? Is he satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to offset these advantages?
  Mr. Butler: I am, of course, aware both of the fueling and the financial advantage which, for example, the United States Euratom Agreement gives in tendering in a matter of this sort. I cannot pledge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have no doubt that he will note the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Commercial Businesses, Clearance Areas (Discretionary Payments)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the hardship caused to small business people in or on the verge of clearance areas who lose both their business and its goodwill as a result of clearance schemes; and if he will consider the desirability of introducing a scheme for compensating such people for this loss which in most cases deprives them of their livelihood.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Local authorities are empowered under the Housing

    1131
    Act, 1957, to make discretionary payments to business occupiers within clearance areas if their interest is so limited that there is no basis for statutory compensation. They can also make payments to meet the personal hardship to any shopkeeper in the locality of a clearance area whose business suffers because the population has decreased.
    I doubt whether it would be practicable to introduce any statutory scheme for compensation in this type of case. But I intend to remind local authorities once again of the desirability of making appropriate use of their discretionary powers.
    Mr. Awbery: I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I wished to inquire into the serious position of some of these people who have opened small shops in or near areas where clearance is to take place. Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at the matter to see what help he can give them?
    Mr. Brooke: I will look at any evidence which the hon. Member sends to me. I know that there have been a number of complaints of this character from Bristol.

    Private Street Works
    Colonel Beamishasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether the promised survey of the working of the existing arrangements for the making up of private streets has yet begun; how long it is likely to take; whether he is aware of the urgency of this matter, since many projects which would have been undertaken in the coming months have now been deferred pending the results of the enquiry; and when he hopes to be able to announce his proposals for amendments to the existing law.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, what further progress has been made with the examination of the arrangements for the making up of private streets; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): This survey is still at a preliminary stage. I am not aware that projects have been held up pending the outcome of the survey. While my right hon. Friend appreciates the
    1132
    desirability of making as rapid progress as possible it must take some time to find an answer to this complicated problem.
    Colonel Beamish: I fully appreciate that. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he would be willing during an inquiry to look at typical cases of hardship which exist in my constituency—no doubt other hon. Members have similar cases in their constituencies—where the existing legislation seems to impose an unduly heavy burden on the shoulders of people who can ill afford to bear it?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, certainly. My right hon. Friend is prepared to look at any case which is put to him.

    Public Works, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state, and give short particulars of, the main classes of public works so far approved in Wales for completion this year, the object of which is to relieve unemployment, together with the total cost and the cost of each class of work.
    Mr. H. Brooke: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gower: I thank my right hon. Friend. Is he able to state the total amount?
    Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir. The total is just over £1,700,000, which is in addition to the expenditure which would have been sanctioned in the normal course.
    Following is the Answer:

    Works

    Cost £

    Local authority health and welfare services (old people's homes, ambulance stations, clinics, etc.)

    490,000

    Trunk roads

    152,920

    Classified roads

    461,750

    Rural road improvements

    117,000

    Home Office services

    45,450

    Electricity (erection of overhead lines and laying of cables)

    150,000

    Miscellaneous local government schemes

    213,000

    Site clearance at industrial trading estates

    72,280

    Total

    1,702,400

    River Colne
    Mr. F. Beswickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the fact that the River Colne between Rickmansworth and Denham, which is now largely sewage, is facilitating the breeding of the chironomus fly at an unusually rapid rate, that the river surface is almost covered with the flies, and that swarms arc creating a serious nuisance even in March. he will direct the appropriate authorities to carry out an emergency spraying operation before the warmer weather further aggravates this problem.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has no power to direct spraying operations or any other remedial action. The local authorities are, I understand aware of the problem; but they will also be aware of the danger that spraying might kill fish.
    Mr. Beswick: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware that local authorities know of this problem, because they have called my attention to it? Does he appreciate that the problem is so grave that one local authority alone cannot deal with it? Is there no co-ordinating authority, such as his own Department, which could provide assistance so that this matter may be tackled?
    Mr. Bevins: I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend has no power to direct local authorities to take this action. At the same time he is prepared to help with advice if that is required by local authorities.

NYASALAND (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It has been decided to set up a Commission of Inquiry into recent events in Nyasaland. The terms of reference will be
"To inquire into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them, and to report thereon."
Mr. Justice Devlin has agreed to serve as Chairman and there will be three other members—Sir John Ure Primrose, a former Lord Provost of Perth, Sir Percy Wyn-Harris, formerly Governor of the Gambia, and Mr. E. T. Williams, Warden of Rhodes House, Oxford. We are much
1134
indebted to them all for agreeing at such short notice to take on this important task.
The Commission will be concerned only with the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them. But in announcing its appointment I think it appropriate to take the opportunity to say that Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Federal Government and with the Territorial Governments concerned, and are considering the best way of preparing for the 1960 review of the Federal Constitution.
When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals on this they will do so, and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might he set up.
Mr. Gaitskell: In welcoming the announcement of the Government that a Commission of Inquiry is to be set up, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we, for our part, would have preferred a Parliamentary Commission because we believe that the fundamental problem here is essentially a political one and because we also hold that it is desirable that Parliament should be openly associated with an inquiry of this kind?
Nevertheless, we are glad that a Commission has been appointed and we recognise the distinction of the members invited by the Government to serve upon it. Our attitude to this depends to some extent on the significance of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I should like to ask him one or two questions about this.
Is it his opinion that the political considerations to which I have referred would be considered more appropriately by the further inquiry which he implies in his statement? What sort of inquiry has he in mind? Is it the idea of the Government that there should be perhaps a Royal Commission, on the lines of the Simon Commission which was set up before the Round Table Conference on India? Can he say when it is likely to take up its duties and to what extent it will be concerned with the whole broad issue of the future of federation? If the right hon. Gentleman would give us some

1135
idea of the position there, I think that we could direct our questions to the other part of his statement more intelligently.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am, of course, aware that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have preferred a Parliamentary Commission. I am grateful for what he said about the quality of those who have kindly consented to serve upon the Commission of Inquiry. Her Majesty's Government thought that it would be more appropriate to appoint a body with members having judicial and expert experience and African experience.
In reply to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, when he reads my answer again I think he will see that I said that we are
"considering the best way of preparing for the 1960 review of the Federal Constitution"
and that
"When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals on this they will do so and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might be set up."
That, in my view, would be a more appropriate moment for the undoubtedly proper rights of Parliament and the interest of Members of Parliament to be exercised. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would not ask me to add to this answer now. I am not at this moment in a position to say when this particular process will be set in motion.
Mr. Gaitskell: I had no desire to make things more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman in his discussions with the Federal Government. Nevertheless, I hope that he can at least assure us that there will be a Commission of Inquiry of this kind and that Members of Parliament will participate and play, I hope, a prominent part in its proceedings, as they did in the case of the Simon Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance on that, that would be helpful.
May I ask him whether the Commission of Inquiry into events in Nyasaland will be investigating the statements made in the White Paper, whether, in particular, they will have access to the persons named in the Governor's despatch, and whether those persons will be able to be properly represnted by counsel, if necessary, when they appear before the Commission?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add to what I have already stated about the thoughts in our minds and about how to equip ourselves and Parliament with the proper information to arrive at the wisest conclusion in October, 1960, which I know we all want to arrive at.
Of course, the information in the White Paper in the despatch from the Governor to me, which was published yesterday, will be very much before the Commission of Inquiry. Exactly who the Commission will see will be for the Commission itself to consider and I do not want at this stage to prejudge that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about people being entitled to be represented by counsel. I do not think that that would be appropriate, because it is not a judicial inquiry in the strict sense of the word. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Leader of the Opposition is nodding, but he has had wide experience of public affairs and I think he agrees with me. It is appropriate that the Chairman should be someone with wide judicial experience, but I do not imagine that there would be provision made for representation by counsel. Matters of that kind must be left to the Commission itself to settle.
Mr. Gaitskell: There is a very unusual circumstance. A White Paper has been published specifically naming certain individuals and implying that they have carried on what I should have thought was a criminal conspiracy. At any rate, some of them are detained at the moment by Her Majesty's Government and, therefore, in these circumstances the Commission of Inquiry appears to take on something of the nature of a tribunal. In this case, I should have thought—would not the right hon. Gentleman agree?—that it was appropriate that they should be represented. Alternatively, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring proceedings against these individuals, in which event, presumably, the Commission of Inquiry would not investigate the case at all?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Questions of prosecution are for the Attorney-General of Nyasaland. As for the procedure that the Commission will adopt, I am certain that it will take every appropriate step to arrive at the truth and accuracy of the facts put before it.
Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the persons accused of complicity in these events are now incarcerated in Salisbury Prison, detained without trial? Has he seen the offer made by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia yesterday that these persons may be released, provided the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will accept them? Will he, therefore, take steps to reply at once to the Prime Minister, saying that those Governments will accept them? Does he realise that if he does not do so, responsibility for their not getting a fair trial and remaining incarcerated in Salisbury Prison will be his and Her Majesty's Government's alone?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add to what I have said about the form in which the Commission and its distinguished Chairman will proceed about this business.
The preservation of law and order in each of the Northern Territories is the responsibility of the Governors of those Territories and I should not dream of issuing directions to them as to how they should exercise that in this difficult situation.
Mr. Callaghan: While the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement is obviously of greater importance, nevertheless should not we be as clear as we can about the Commission of Inquiry? Will Mr. Justice Devlin know, when he starts the investigation, whether the
1138
Attorney-General of Nyasaland proposes to prosecute Hastings Banda and his associates for criminal conspiracy or any other crime? If not, how can Mr. Justice Devlin really proceed about his business in these circumstances? Can the right hon. Gentleman clear that up for us?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot clear that up nor would anyone, when announcing the setting up of a Commission, give a detailed statement of that kind. It was never done when the party opposite was in power and set up a Commission of Inquiry in Africa and elsewhere. I have nothing to add about how the Commission will be conducted, other than what I have already said.
Mr. Grimond: I welcome the appointment of the Commission, but I think that the Secretary of State should give the House an assurance that if the Commission wants to see witnesses who are held in the Federation outside Nyasaland those witnesses will be made available.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certain that the Commission will not neglect any appropriate way of arriving at the truth.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill 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
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
  [As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal) considered.]
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

    New Clause.—(ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION.)
    (1) For the purpose of assessing compensation in respect of any compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies, such one or more of the assumptions mentioned in sections two and three of this Act as are applicable to the relevant land or any part thereof shall be made in ascertaining the value of the relevant interest.

    (2) Any planning permission which, in accordance with any of the provisions of those sections, is to be assumed as therein mentioned is in addition to any planning permission which may already be in force at the date of service of the notice to treat.

    (3) Nothing in those provisions shall be construed as requiring it to be assumed that planning permission would necessarily be refused for any development, notwithstanding that it is not development for which in accordance with those provisions the granting of planning permission is to be assumed; but, in determining whether planning permission for any development could in any particular circumstances reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land, regard shall be had to any contrary opinion expressed in relation to that land in any certificate issued under the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

    (4) For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted

    (a) unconditionally or subject to conditions, or

    (b) in respect of the land in question taken by itself or in respect of an area including that land, or

    (c) on an ordinary application or on an outline application or by virtue of a development order,

    or is planning permission which, in accordance with any direction or provision given or made by or under any enactment, is deemed to have been granted.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.47 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause, which makes possible the recasting of some parts of the Bill, is designed to be inserted after Clause I to form an introduction to the succeeding Clauses, which deal with assumptions about planning permission. In the Standing Committee, the hon. Members for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and Acton (Mr. Sparks) drew attention to certain comments made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. One of the purposes of the proposed new Clause is to deal with the material point that the Institution raised.
    Perhaps I might quote from a memorandum which was sent by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to all hon. Members, I believe, and certainly to those who served on the Standing Committee. It said:
    1140
    "It is widely believed—and there is a danger that the legislation might he so construed—that the land will be valued for the specified uses, and for those uses, only, which are in fact permitted or assumed to be permitted. But the market would not necessarily limit its price to the value of the land for such specific uses; the market would have regard to all the potentialities and disabilities of the land, but with the knowledge that certain developments would definitely be permitted. The Institution believes that this is the basis on which 'market value' is intended to be assessed under the Bill, and that the making of certain specific assumptions does not exclude from account other types of development to which the market would have regard. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be made clear in the Bill that this is its effect."
    In Standing Committee, when attention was drawn by two hon. Members opposite to this matter, I undertook to consider, before the Report stage, whether anything was needed to remove any possible doubts. We came to that in subsection (3) of the new Clause.
    If I may, I shall take the House quickly through the various subsections. Subsection (1) will be recognised as the existing subsection (1) of Clause 2 with one very minor amendment. Associated

    1141
    with this new Clause are certain Amendments which perhaps could be examined at the same time. The Amendment in my name to Clause 2, page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (1), is closely associated with subsection (1) of this new Clause, which replaces the old subsection. Subsection (2) of the new Clause makes it clear that assumed planning permissions are in addition to existing planning permissions. Previously, the Government have rested on the argument that the removal of the restrictive provisions in the 1947 Act was a sufficient indication that, in future, existing planning permissions would form part of market value. This subsection (2) puts that matter beyond doubt.
    Subsection (3), as I have mentioned, meets the point raised by the Royal Institution. In addition, subsection (3) provides that the contents of a certificate which may be issued under subsection (4, b) of Clause (4) can be used to counter what I might call an over-optimistic view of the potentialities of the land which the market might otherwise entertain. Subsection (4) replaces with certain amendments the later part of subsection (6) of Clause 2. That is associated with the Amendment in my name to page 3, line 40, to leave out subsection (6).
    The earlier part of the existing subsection (6) of Clause 2, which, as I say, is being left out, refers to permissions which do not inure for the benefit of the land and is transferred by the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 42, at the end to insert:
    (3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any planning permission so granted as not to enure (while the permission remains in force) for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested therein.
    That would provide a new subsection (3) to Clause 2.
    I think that it will be found that with this new Clause and the accompanying Amendments which, as it were, clear the decks for it, these early Clauses will read more clearly and more logically. That certainly is the intention of the Government. There is no idea in the mind of the Government, in moving this new Clause, to make any material change from the Bill as it was considered by the Standing Committee, but simply to meet the point made by the Royal
    1142
    Institution of Chartered Surveyors and, apart from that, somewhat to clarify the arrangements.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, at the end to insert:
    "but regard shall he had to the extent to which it is probable that any planning permission, which by virtue of the said sections two and three it is assumed would be granted, would in fact he applied for or exercised, and no account shall be taken of any such planning permission which is inconsistent with and less likely to he exercised than another such planning permission".
    Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) discuss this Amendment with the next two Amendments, in line 9, to leave out from the beginning to "in" in line 12, and in line 12, at the end to insert:
    "for the purpose of any of those provisions"?
    Mr. Mitchison: If you please, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be convenient to do so.
    I can deal with this matter quite shortly. We regret that the Minister found himself unable to accept an Amendment moved yesterday which would have had the effect of leaving a great deal more to the judgment and experience of surveyors. In rejecting it he told us in his own words that the Government said:
    "Let us have exact rules throughout, so that everybody may know where he stands."
    Accordingly, we look at what he now proposes to see how far that conforms with his own standard. The first comment I have to make is that it is not merely a question of what planning permissions are to be assumed, but of how those assumptions are to be treated. That, I think, is recognised by the general tenor of this new Clause.
    We on our side recognise that unless we could have something like the Amendment which was rejected yesterday something of this sort is an improvement in the Bill. On the other hand, when we look at the terms proposed we find some things to object to in them. The first is that there is nothing said for the guidance of valuers about the weight to be attached to the various permissions. If we

    1143
    are to have a set of rules to govern the whole matter there should be some reference to the element of probability which will come into it. We had the impression during our Committee discussions that what the right hon. Gentleman was putting before the valuers was a market composed on the one side of the willing seller who is mentioned in the second of the rules in the 1919 Act and, on the other side, not of a single buyer, but of a whole stream of buyers.
    In some cases that might be the position, but if we are simply to direct people to guide themselves entirely by assumed planning permissions and if, in fact, we are to have exact rules throughout so that everyone may know where he stands, one cannot know where he stands unless the valuers are directed in some form or another to take the element of probability into account. That is what we seek to do by the few words we wish to introduce at the end of line 8.
    Similarly, when we come to a conflict between planning permissions, it seems that if the valuer is to assess the matter rightly, having decided which value is the more probable, he can attach weight to them. He cannot give effect, at the same time, to a number of hypothetical planning permissions—for these are all hypothetical planning permissions—if they are inconsistent one with another. There must be some direction given to him in the matter. That is what we suggest in the first Amendment.
    The Amendment suggested to line 9—the one to line 12 is a drafting Amendment—raises a slightly different point. We are told, in the new Clause, that
    "Nothing in those provisions shall be construed as requiring it to be assumed that planning permission would necessarily be refused for any development, notwithstanding that it is not development for which in accordance with those provisions the granting of planning permission is to be assumed".
    What by now has happened to the exact rules throughout so that everyone may know where he stands? I am quoting the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speech by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday on the same matter.
    "… one would think that the only fair thing to do would be to state clearly what permissions it should be assumed he would have obtained."
    1144
    If, in addition to the permissions we have stated clearly, we open the door to any other permissions which the valuer may think appropriate we are going either back to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman refused yesterday, or making nonsense of the suggestion that these are exact rules throughout.
    Lastly, if I may give the right hon. Gentleman one more quotation from himself, still on the same point he said:
    "It is for these reasons that the Government feel"—
    this is a peroration, by the way—
    "… that they must, in these early Clauses of the Bill, lay down a set of rules which will guide valuers as to the kind of planning permissions they are to assume when land is being compulsorily purchased, and is not changing hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 925–9.]
    If one first lays down a collection of assumed permissions and then says that there is nothing whatever to prevent one assuming some other permissions, one is not doing what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government must do.
    Short of a more satisfactory explanation, we cordially dislike that phrase. We feel that it opens the door, and once again opens it in one direction. Whenever the door is opened, it appears to be so that the man whose land is compulsorily acquired should receive more than the ordinary open market value and that the acquiring authority should pay rather more.
    We had the impression all through, and it persists in relation to the new Clause, and particularly to the phrase I have mentioned, that, whatever may be said about the intention to arrive at an open market value, not only does the right hon. Gentleman lean in every case against the acquiring authority, but he adds additional provisions which, instead of arriving at the open market value, mean that the acquiring authority and the ratepayers who stand behind the acquiring authority, or in other cases the taxpayers, will be unduly penalised.
    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I was hoping that we should have a reply from the Minister. I want to intervene

    1145
    briefly to support the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
    We are dealing with a highly technical subject. In the new Clause moved by the Minister the House is being asked to legislate that certain assumptions should be made about planning permission for the purpose of the assessment of compensation which local authorities will have to pay.
    There is very great force in what my hon. and learned Friend said. If we are to embark upon the kind of provision that assumptions should be made by the surveyors and valuers who will have to decide the amount of compensation, it seems to me to be not merely entirely reasonable, but essential, that a direction should be given to them that they should have regard to the kind of planning permission which is probable and that they should disregard, or in other words take no account of, any possible planning permission which would be inconsistent with, and less likely to be exercised than, that planning permission.
    In dealing with the Bill we are all anxious to see that justice is done as between owners of property and the local authorities who will have to pay compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of property. In the Bill a great deal depends upon the kind of planning permission to be anticipated. One cannot be dogmatic about it. Therefore, one must make certain assumptions. If we are now, as the Minister concedes, embarking upon legislation which makes certain assumptions about the planning permission which will be allowed, it follows that we must deal with it comprehensively.
    If we are to deal with it comprehensively, we should incorporate in the new Clause the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend and should make perfectly clear what surveyors have to take into account and what they have to disregard. If justice is to be done, it is essential that these words should be added to the new Clause. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Brooke: There are two separate, but related, points. I will address myself first to the Amendment that has actually been moved. I listened very carefully to the hon. and learned Member
    1146
    for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and it seemed to me that the old erronious thought was creeping in that, because planning permissions are cumulative, values based on planning permissions are also cumulative.
    That is not the case. Several planning permissions may, as we all know, exist in relation to a piece of land. The granting of a fresh planning permission in no way limits the right to develop in accordance with any of the other planning permissions still in force. When land is valued, the valuer does not add up cumulatively the separate values which the land might have for each of the purposes for which planning permission is available and arrive at a sum total. The market has regard to all the planning permissions available, but the price in the market will be what the land is worth for the most valuable form of development among them. However many planning permissions there are for less valuable forms of development, that will not add anything to the price and will not raise the value of the land.
    It is rather as if a number of coins were put in front of somebody and he was told that he could choose any one he wished. Obviously, under those conditions he would choose the coin of highest value. If there was a half crown among them, he would choose the half crown. However many halfpennies, pennies and sixpences were added to the pile, he would still choose the half crown and he would still not take anything more than a half crown, because he would be permitted to take only one of the coins.
    The question which form of development will bring the highest price is in every individual case decided by reference to the circumstances of the individual site. It will depend on the size and shape of the land, on its situation, on the services available and on the demand which may exist in the area for land for that purpose.
    Taking the country at large, land for which there is planning permission for industrial development normally commands a higher price than land for which there is no planning permission for industry, but for which there is planning permission for housing development. While that is true for the country at large, nevertheless there are some areas where

    1147
    it is not true. In areas where there is practically no demand for industrial land and nobody wants it, planning permission for industrial use has very little value. Normally, in such a case, if there were a demand for residential accommodation, planning permission for housing would give the land a greater value than any planning permission for industrial use.
    Therefore, what it amounts to is that the likelihood of any planning permission being applied for or exercised is already taken into account in assessing market value. There is no need for the additional complications which the first Amendment would introduce. It certainly would not reduce the compensation payable, as I think the hon. and learned Member may have had in mind. It would add a complication to the Bill—and I submit to the House a needless complication—and, as the Opposition have already said that this Clause may be somewhat bewildering, I can only say that, if anything, any bewilderment would be increased should words like these be written into the Bill.
    The hon. Member referred, at the same time, to the second and third Amendments—as he said, the third is a purely drafting Amendment. Their main purpose is to delete the opening words of subsection (3) and, indeed, to fly in the face of the advice that we have all received from so respected a body as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I take it that the Opposition's argument is that, as it stands in the new Clause, subsection (3) might give too much encouragement to valuers to assume that there is something else that they might take into account.
    I assure the House that this criticism will not be justified, more particularly in view of the second part of the subsection, to which I specifically referred when I moved the new Clause. All that the subsection does is to ensure that the valuer will be able to do what he normally does in assessing market values; that is to say, to take into account all the potentialities and, of course, all the disadvantages that the land might have.
    If the Amendment were accepted, that would be left open to doubt. Indeed, as it seems to me, the Bill would be back in the state in which it was when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors criti-
    1148
    cised it. That criticism appeared to be valid—it was certainly supported in Committee by hon. Members—and the Government have addressed themselves to putting the matter beyond all doubt. I have no doubt at all that the new Clause as it stands is more likely to enable a valuer to arrive at a figure that is the true market value of the land in the open market than it would be if this Amendment to leave out part of subsection (3) were accepted.
    Mr. Mitchison: That was a magnificently contradictory answer. In his reply to the second Amendment, the Minister explained that it was advisable to make clear that valuers could do what they normally would. In dealing with the first group of Amendments, where exactly the same state of affairs seems to me to prevail, he objected to its being made clear that they could do what the normally would. He should reconcile his attitudes to the two points raised.
    Moreover, on the first Amendment—which is, perhaps, the more important—he told us, first, that if one had to choose between a number of coins, one would take the most valuable. He then explained that this would apply, for instance, to industrial use and to use for building houses; but that it did not follow that one would attach much importance to the more valuable use—in his own simile, the more valuable coin—in cases where it was unlikely that that use would come into being.
    The right hon. Gentleman will himself see that instead of taking the analogy of a number of coins he should have taken the analogy of a number of Premium Savings Bonds. Let us suppose that there is one Premium Bond of £100, the chance of winning which was dependent on a single draw, and that there was another of £10 that one might get on any of not 10 but 11 draws. A sensible man would take the £10 bond rather than the £100 Premium bond for he would have a better chance of making some money.
    That is exactly our point in the first Amendment. If the Minister says, in effect, that the valuers would do it in any case, then—apart from drawing attention to the contradiction that he has just enunciated, which is exactly the opposite to his reply to the first point — I repeat that the danger of setting out in a Statute a whole series of extremely

    1149
    complicated assumptions is that valuers may think that that is the end of the matter, and they will be led into that erroneous conclusion by the right hon. Gentleman's own words, which I have just quoted and will not repeat.
    The Minister quite clearly stated yesterday that this was to be a comprehensive set of rules. Accordingly, if there is something not in those rules, valuers may be tempted to look at his remarks and say, "True, we should have attended to that in normal practice, but we need not do so now because the Minister himself told us that we need not look beyond the rules." It is for that reason that in this general Clause, which is to cover the application of the whole set of rules, we think it desirable—indeed, necessary — that this particular and, if I may say so, very obvious matter should be stated.
    There is no real dispute that the valuer would have to do it, but the right hon. Gentleman objects, for some reason, to stating it. We do not think that a good reason. We feel that there is a very real danger that if the Minister is allowed to persist in that attitude, an injustice that he might not intend may result.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I should like further information on the application of subsection (3) of the new Clause. In our discussions yesterday about floating value, the Minister apprehended that I and other hon. Members are worried about the cost of a number of parcels of land being sold for, say, residential purposes. In the development of that area some space will have to he marked out, or may well be permitted in any plan for shops.
    My fear yesterday, when we were talking about the new Clause by which we proposed a method of global compensation that we thought would be fairer, was that, under the present scheme, every parcel of land will attract to itself some potential of the value as a shopping site. I gathered from the Minister that that fear was taken care of, to some extent, by subsection (3) of this new Clause. As this is an important matter, and one that causes a lot of concern outside, perhaps the Minister will show us how the subsection deals with that problem.
    Mr. Brooke: During our discussion in Committee yesterday, I invited the hon. Member's attention to this subsection (3). I mentioned the positive part of it, whereas I think that he was really more concerned with the active part—
    Mr. Skeffington: Yes.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has in mind the case where land is to be used for housing purposes. Everyone with any practical experience knows that if the area is of any size one does not confine it solely to houses. One may need shops, or other facilities that any ordinary community of any magnitude would require. The value of the land should take that possibility into account. At the same time, it should not be possible for the owner of any individual site to claim that his site, quite definitely, will be the one to be selected for the more valuable purpose. If he were to do that, someone else might do it and we should be right back to the conception of floating value.
    The first part of subsection (3) introduces into the process of arriving at market value an indication that the valuer can pay attention to the possibility that, although the land as a whole is to be developed for housing purposes, some more valuable uses may be permitted within the land. Then the valuer will have to judge what are the odds in favour or against that piece of land being selected for the more valuable use.
    The effect of that is that nobody gets the full amount of the more valuable use. He may get some element of it, but it will be only a percentage of the whole, related to his proportionate chance of getting the more valuable use on his land.
    As I sought to explain, the second part of subsection (3) is the safeguarding part. It provides that a certificate issued under Clause 4 (4, b) can be utilised to counter an over-optimistic claim as to the potentialities of the land. That is the way it is done in this subsection. I think it will be found to be practical.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause: —
    The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 225.

    Division No. 72.]

    AYES

    [4.21 p.m.

    Alnsley, J. W.

    Healey, Denis

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Awbery, S, S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Probert, A. R.

    Benson, Sir George

    Holman, P.

    Randall, H. E.

    Beswick, Frank

    Holmes, Horace

    Rankin, John

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Reld, William

    Blenkinsop, A,

    Hoy, J. H.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Ross, William

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Janner, B.

    Royle, C.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pnes,S.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Short, E. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon, C. W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Carmichael, J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Champlon, A. J.

    Lee, Frederiok (Newton)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Coldrick, W.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sparks, J. A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Logan, D. G.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Steele, T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Stonehouse, John

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McCann, J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MaoColl, J. E.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Dayies, Harold (Leek)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Deer, G.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mahon, Simon

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Timmons, J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Tomney, F.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Viant, S. P.

    Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Weitzman, D.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Foot, D. M.

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Moody, A. S.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morris Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moss R.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oram A. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oswald, T.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hale, Leslie

    Owen, W. J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Parker, J.

    Zilllacus, K.

    Hannan, W.

    Paton, John

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Hastings, S.

    Peart, T. P.

    Mr. J. Taylor and

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pentland, N.

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Aithen, W. T.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Bidgood, J. c.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Bishop, F. P.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Ashton, H.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Cunningham, Knox

    Atkins, H. E.

    Bryan, P.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Barter, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Batsford, Brian

    Channon, H. P. G.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    de Ferrantl, Basil

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Cole, Norman

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cooke, Robert

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    1152

    1153

    Drayson, G. B.

    Johnson, Erie (Blackley)

    Pitman, I. J.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Pott, H. P.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Price, David (Eastlelgh)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Leavey, J. A.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E.A. H.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Redmayne, M.

    Fell, A.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Rees-Davles, W. R.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Ridsdale, j. E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Freeth, Denzil

    Longden, Gilbert

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Gammans, Lady

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Tony

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Russell, R. S.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Glover, D.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Speir, R. M.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Godber, J. B.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Gower, H. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Maddan, Martin

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Green, A.

    Maitland, Cdr.J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Grlmond, J.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Storey, S.

    Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col R. G.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Gurden, Harold

    Marshall, Douglas

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mathew R.

    Teeling, W.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Temple, John M.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Maydon, Lt. Comdr. S. L. C.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hay, John

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Molson Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Nabarro G. D. N.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Neave, Airey

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wade, D. W.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Hobson, John(Warwlck & Leam'gt'n)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wall, Patrick

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Holt, A. F.

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Hope, Lord John

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Hornby, R. P.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Webster, David

    Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)

    Osborne, C.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Page, R. G.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hutohison, Mlohael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Partridge E.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Iromonger, T. L.

    Peel, W. J.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Mr. Brooman-White and

    Mr. Whitelaw.

    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 26, at the end to insert:
    Provided that, if such planning permission was granted subject to conditions, nothing in this subsection shall have effect to permit those conditions to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation.
    This is a very short and simple matter. I understand subsection (4) of the new Clause to refer to the question whether or not a planning permission is in existence. It is a guide to the cases in which a planning permission exists. But it mentions the possibility of a conditional planning permission, and its words are a little open to misconstruction. It says:
    1154
    "For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions."
    I think that I understand what is intended by that reference. I think it means that we are to treat a planning permission as being in force whether or not it was conditional. But the language is open to some misunderstanding. Although, for the purpose of its existence, that is no doubt right, we must not, at the same time, treat a conditional planning permission for all purposes as being the same as an unconditional

    1155
    planning permission. In particular, when, in assessing compensation, we have to consider the value of that planning permission, we must give it a value which is appropriate to it as a conditional planning permission and not a value appropriate to it as an unconditional planning permission.
    The right hon. Gentleman always accuses me of an inveterate error if I suggest that planning permissions tend to have some plus value in the matter of the assessment of compensation, but even if, by some inversion particularly dear to the right hon. Gentleman, they were to have a minus value, the result would be the same. A conditional planning permission should be treated as what it is for the purpose of assessing compensation, and that is what the Amendment seeks to provide.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Amendment ought to commend itself to the House for two reasons, one a reason of substance and the other a drafting reason. Both have been indicated by my hon. and learned Friend. The Amendment is essential to the sensible drafting of the Clause. As my hon. and learned Friend has said, subsection (4, a) provides that for the purposes of the Clause it is immaterial whether planning permission was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions. If we take that as it stands, it could mean that the direction to the person charged with the responsibility of assessing compensation is that he is entitled to ignore the conditions. That is one possible interpretation of the paragraph, and I am not sure that it is not the only one.
    This seems to make nonsense of the provisions of the Clause. I understand that it is the Minister's intention that if a conditional planning permission is given the valuer should have regard to the conditions, and, if so, it would seem essential that he should say so. I should think that the only way in which he could say so would be by accepting the Amendment.
    The reason of substance for which I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment is that in town and country planning matters it is notorious that planning permissions are very often given subject to conditions. Experience shows that on
    1156
    some occasions those conditions are observed but on other occasions disregarded. It is obviously very difficult for the Minister, his Department or local authorities to busy themselves with ensuring that conditions are always observed.
    Although the conditions attaching to planning permissions are frequently disregarded in practice, there is no reason for surveyors or valuers to assume that they will be so disregarded. In fact, it is essential that in assessing compensation valuers should act on the assumption that conditions attached to planning permissions will be observed. If that is to be the canon upon which compensation is to be calculated, it seems essential that it should be incorporated in the express provisions of the Bill, and I submit that that can be done only by accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. Brooke: When I first saw the Amendment I was puzzled as to the reason for it, because there is nothing in subsection (4, a) or, indeed, in any part of the subsection, which would have the effect of allowing conditions attached to planning permissions to be disregarded in the assessment of compensation. I can certainly give the House the assurance that it is not intended that there should be such a disregard.
    I listened carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), and I think that he may have misread the subsection. It does not say, as he fears it may do, that if planning permission is granted subject to conditions it may be treated as though it had been granted unconditionally. What it says is:
    "For the purposes of any reference in this section, or in section two of this Act, to planning permission which is in force on the date of the service of the notice to treat, it is immaterial whether the planning permission in question was granted unconditionally or subject to conditions …".
    Whether it was unconditional or subject to conditions, it is a planning permission for the purposes of the Clause.
    The references to planning permissions in force occur in subsection (2) and in Clause 2 (2). In the new Clause, the effect of subsection (4, a) is to make assumed permissions additional to existing planning permissions, whether they are conditional or unconditional.
    The effect of Clause 2 (2), when read with paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of

    1157
    the new Clause, is that planning permission will not be assumed under subsection (2) for the development for which the land is being acquired if there is in existence an actual permission for that development, whether that development is conditional or unconditional, unless the permission is a personal one—this is dealt with in the Amendment on page 2, line 42. But there is nothing in the new Clause which says or implies that a condition attached to an actual planning permission may be disregarded. I give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.
    I promise the hon. and learned Member that this matter has been considered very carefully and that there is no need for the Amendment in order to secure that the Clause means what I have described it to mean.
    Mr. Mitchison: We are not entirely satisfied with the Minister's answer, but I agree that there is some doubt in the matter. I gather that he has been advised that the effect of the references as they stand would not be altered by this proviso. I am not prepared to divide the House on what seems to me to be a rather small point. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw 'he Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO CROWN.)
    (1) The provisions of Part 1 of this Act, and of the First, Second, Third and Sixth Schedules thereto, apply in relation to the acquisition of interest in land (whether compulsorily or by agreement) by government departments, being public authorities possessing compulsory purchase powers, as they apply in relation to the acquisition of interests in land by such authorities which are not government departments; and any reference in this Act to a compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies, or to a sale of an interest in land by agreement in circumstances corresponding to such an acquisition, shall be construed accordingly.
    (2) The provisions of sections thirty and thirty-one of this Act shall apply in relation to any application for planning permission relating to Crown land as they apply in relation to applications for planning permission relating to any other land.
    (3) The rights conferred by section thirty-two of this Act shall be exercisable by a person
    1158
    who (within the meaning of that section) is a resident owner-occupier of a hereditament which is Crown land, in the same way as they are exercisable in respect of a hereditament which is not Crown land, and the provisions of that section and of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall apply accordingly.
    (4) In so far as any power conferred by section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, is exercisable in respect of Crown land, that power as extended by section thirty-four of this Act shall be exercisable in respect of Crown land to the like extent.
    (5) Paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall apply in relation to an interest in land which is a Duchy interest as it applies in relation to an interest in land which is a private interest.
    (6) In this section "Crown land" has the same meaning as in section eighty-seven of the Act of 1947, and "Duchy interest" and "private interest" have the same meanings as in section sixty-one of the Act of 1954.
    (7) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to section six of the Town Development Act, 1952, there shall be substituted a reference to section thirteen of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, for any reference to section thirty-four of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to section thirty-five of this Act, for any reference to section eighty-seven of the Act of 1947 there shall be substituted a reference to section eighty-three of the Scottish Act of 1947, and for any reference to the Act of 1954 there shall be substituted a reference to the Scottish Act of 1954.—[Mr. Bevins.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Government Amendment to page 54, line 30, to leave out Clause 39, to which it is related.
    Mr. Mitchison: We on this side have no objection.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew) indicated assent.
    Mr. Bevins: This matter was touched upon by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in the course of one of his earlier speeches, and later my right hon. Friend informed the Committee that he intended to replace the general statement in Clause 39, that
    "This Act binds the Crown".
    by specific provisions dealing with the application to the Crown of certain parts of the Bill. The Amendment deletes Clause 39 altogether and replaces it with

    1159
    the new Clause. That sets out in detail the way in which certain parts of the Bill will apply to the Crown. It implements the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. MacColl: If the Minister had not become irritated and moved the Closure to stop me speaking on Clause 15, I would not have had to make on Clause 17 the speech that I was intending to make on Clause 15. If I had not had to make it on Clause 17, I would not have had to refer to the Crown to keep in order. If I had not referred to the Crown, the Minister would not have removed Clause 39 and sought to insert the new Clause. As far as I can calculate, the net result is that the number of words used has been increased ten times. There may be a slight difference either way, but as far as I can work out the new Clause is ten times longer than Clause 39. I am, therefore, wondering what I have done and what precisely is in these words that were not in the original Clause 39.
    If the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary propose to have this glorious frolic of drafting and to produce this wonderful verbiage, why did they leave in Clause 17? Could not they have thrown Clause 17 with the new Clause for good measure and got rid of another Clause?
    It is odd that we have this long Clause incorporating the Crown and then, perched on a shelf, as it were, Clause 17, dealing with a particular point. That was the main object of my criticism at the time. However, in so far as I have been able to understand the Clause, and in so far as it does not refer to Scotland —because I would not venture to express any point on whether the Bill is good or bad for Scotland—it seems to me that this proposal does not make the matter much worse than when we started. I therefore do not advise my hon. Friend to object to it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 2.—(GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION.)
    Mr. Bevins: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will remember that at an
    1160
    earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill he took the opportunity of pointing out that Clause 2 (5) failed to make clear that a certificate could have conditions attached to it.
    I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to move in page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (1).
    Hon. Members: Why?
    Mr. Brooke: When moving the first of the new Clauses, I referred to three Amendments which were linked with it, and I think that I explained all of them at that time.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 42, at end insert:
    (3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, no account shall be taken of any planning permission so granted as not to enure (while the permission remains in force) for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested therein. —[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I may be allowed to express our grateful thanks, not for the way in which the Amendment to line 26 was moved, but for the substance of it.
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end to insert:
    "as being development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted:
    Provided that if, in any such certificate, it is indicated that, in the opinion of the authority issuing the certificate, any such planning permission would only have been granted—

    (a) subject to conditions specified in the certificate, or

    (b) at a future time so specified, or

    (c) both subject to conditions so specified and at a future time so specified,

    the assumption shall be that planning permission for development of that class would be granted, in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, but would only be granted subject to those conditions, or at that future time, or both subject to those conditions and at that future time, as the case may be".
    As I was saying, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out at an earlier stage that Clause 2 (5) did not make it clear that a certificate could have conditions attached to it. Later, Clause 4 (5) was amended to allow a certificate to be issued on a deferred basis. The Amendment makes it possible for planning permission, which is assumed under Clause

    1161
    2 (5) by reference to a certificate, to be conditional or deferred if that is specified in the certificate. I hope that that will commend itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. MacColl: I express my doubts about this matter not only in regard to the certificate but also in regard to the same point that arises in connection with the Amendment to Clause 3, page 5, line 31; at the end to insert:
    "and
    (b) if, in accordance with any map or statement comprised in the current development plan, it is indicated that any such planning permission would be granted only at a future time, then (without prejudice to the preceding paragraph) the assumption shall be that the planning permission in question would be granted at the time when, in accordance with the indications in the plan, that permission might reasonably be expected to be granted."
    which is another case where the concept of a future permission is being introduced into the Bill. Certainly, that case and, I suspect, this one also are the result of concessions that were made on Clause 4 under pressure from the back benches of the party opposite in Committee.
    I have never been happy about this use of future planning permission. As I ventured to point out upstairs, in the 1954 Act it was made perfectly clear that permission which was post-dated could not be given. In other words, if it was not an immediate permission, the correct procedure was to refuse the permission on the ground that it was premature. It seems to me to be dangerous to start compensating people for what is supposed to be market value on a speculation about a permission that will happen anything up to twenty years ahead—which was the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman.
    One sees the difficulties in which a planning authority will be placed, because it will be asked what are the prospects of development in twenty years' time. That would be an extremely difficult question to answer. It may well depend upon activities by the planning authority itself. The development of public services—of transport, drainage or whatever it may be—might appear to make it possible that development will take place a fairly long time ahead. Therefore, the planning authority would have to say, "Yes, as far as we can tell, we would give permission at a future
    1162
    time for this development." That would go to inflate the market price, but at the same time, the only circumstances in which the planning authority would be able to give the permission would be if already it or some other public authority had indulged in activity which had increased the value of the land.
    In other words, our old friend betterment is creeping in again to haunt us. What is being presented to the vendor of the land is uncovenanted betterment, which is extremely speculative. It is not even betterment which has taken place, but betterment which might take place in the future should certain hypothetical circumstances occur. This places a difficult decision on the planning authority and presents difficulties to the valuer. One thing that we can be sure about is that it will present a nice little bonus to the property owner. Therefore, I regard it with considerable suspicion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Brooke.]

    Clause 3.—(SPECIAL ASSUMPTIONS AS TO PLANNING PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN LAND COMPRISED IN DEVELOPMENT PLANS.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out first "be" and to insert "have been".
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could also take the Amendments in page 4, line 42, page 5, line 31, page 7, line 15, and page 56, line 15.
    This group of Amendments is designed wholly to meet a valid point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Their purpose is to make it clear that the planning permissions to be assumed under subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause by reference to allocations in a development plan are for development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if the relevant land were not proposed to be acquired by any public authority.
    In the Bill as it stands, the phrase is
    "development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted".
    In Committee, the hon. and learned Member pointed out that at the time

    1163
    when notice to treat is served, planning permission could not reasonably be expected for anything except what the acquiring authority proposed to do. It would, indeed, be nonsense if planning permission were at that stage expected to be granted for something quite different.
    I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion, which definitely improves the Bill. This new wording is in line with our conception of a fair market value as the price which an owner could reasonably have expected to receive for his land if there had been no proposal for its purchase by a public authority. I assure the hon. and learned Member that though there are subsequent drafting Amendments the sole effective change which these five Amendments make is to satisfy the point which he reasonably raised in Committee.
    Mr. Mitchison: Suspicious though I am by temperament, I can do no more than express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the need for this series of glorified drafting Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the end to insert:
    "in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".
    This Amendment might, perhaps, be taken with the identical Amendment in page 4, line 42.
    These two Amendments are, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to the last series, rather glorified drafting Amendments, but they meet a point of a little obscurity that was raised by the hon and learned Member at an earlier stage. It was suggested that the phrase in Clause 3
    "development for which planning permission might reasonably be expected to be granted"
    was meant to relate to the relevant land, as, clearly, it is intended to relate. The effects of these Amendments are to make that clear beyond all doubt.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 42, leave out first "be" and insert "have been".
    In line 42, at end insert:
    "in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".—[Mr. Brooke.]
    5.0 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert:
    "it shall be assumed that planning permission would be granted, in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be, for any development for the purposes of a use of the relevant land or that part thereof falling within the planned range of uses (whether it is the use which, in accordance with the particulars and proposals comprised in the current development plan in relation to the area in question, is indicated in the plan as the proposed use of the relevant land or that part thereof, or is any other use falling within the planned range of uses) being development for which, in the circumstances specified in the next following subsection, planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof, as the case may be".
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss the Amendments in page 5, lines 15, 19 and 24.
    These are mainly drafting Amendments, designed to meet the criticisms of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who thought, in particular, that the meaning of the words "take into account" in this context were not sufficiently clear. The Amendment removes any possibility of doubt as to their intention. The planning permission to be assumed will be planning permission for such use or uses within the range of uses planned for the area of comprehensive development as could reasonably have been expected to be granted had the area not been an area of comprehensive development and had no development in accordance with the plan taken place. The first Amendment introduces the phrase "planned range of uses" and the fourth Amendment defines that. The combined effect of those two Amendments makes no change whatever in the intention as explained by my right hon. Friend at length in Committee. We have done our best in this Amendment to meet the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman.
    The Amendment to page 5, line 19, goes perhaps a little further than pure drafting. This is designed to make it clear that in considering what planning permissions should be assumed, the valuer is not only to disregard the fact that the land to be acquired is in an area defined as an area of comprehensive development but also is to disregard any particulars or proposals comprised in

    1165
    the plan relating to the land to be acquired. In brief, this means that the valuer will have regard within the planned range of uses to the uses for which permission might have been given had the lay-out of the area remained substantially as it was, and had there been no question of comprehensive redevelopment.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I welcome a Scottish Minister at the Dispatch Box to deal with matters relating to Scotland. This is the first time we have had the pleasure of an explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I was pleased to hear him say that this Amendment is designed to clarify the Clause, because I have been spending some time trying to find out what it means, and not being a lawyer, I found it difficult.
    I wonder whether all this verbiage is necessary when we come to deal with the intelligent people of Scotland, though I admit it might be necessary in England. Here we are dealing with intelligent men who, one assumes, do not want verbiage put into the Bill. Why, for instance, in the third line of the first Amendment, must we have "as the case may be"? What difference would it make if those words were left out? I have read this Amendment three or four times and I can see no difference in the meaning if those words were omitted.
    I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have such a poor opinion of his own profession as to think that the Scottish legal fraternity would not be capable of interpreting this Amendment without the interpolation of those words. I can see the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting into serious trouble in Parliament House for treating his fellow-lawyers in this manner.
    Then there is the long interpolation in brackets in the centre of the Amendment. Why is that necessary? It might quite well be omitted, and so might the final "as the case may be", which occurs about nine times in the Clause, for what reason I do not know. Maybe the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can tell us; or his right hon. and learned Friend, from whom we have not yet had a word, might be prepared to give us a lesson in legal terminology. We are always prepared to sit at the feet of learned gentlemen in order to extend our knowledge of Scottish law, though I must
    1166
    admit that we do not seem to extend it far.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant)The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant) rose—
    Mr. Willis: The Solicitor-General for Scotland, as usual, is bursting to give us the benefit of his advice. We shall be delighted to receive it, so I will let him explain why we must have all this for Scotland. The English can put what they like into their own legislation, but we should treat Scotland rather more respectfully.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am always glad to have compliments on the intelligence of the Scots from an Englishman, and I will try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The point of "as the case may be" is that under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 we have to make an assumption in respect of the relevant, or part of the relevant, land if either the relevant land or the particular part of it complies with a specified condition. The words "as the case may be" have been inserted, and are necessary, to make it clear that when the condition applies to the relevant land the assumption also applies to the whole of the relevant land, but where it applies only to part the assumption applies only to part. If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, I think he will understand the point.
    Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the sentence, omitting the words "as the case may be" and then tell me what is the difference?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The difference would be this. If those words were omitted, the assumption might be applied by a skilful lawyer to the whole of the relevant land when, in fact, it applied to part only.
    Mr. William Ross: Really.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am always obliged to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for his legal advice. I merely give him my opinion for what it is worth, and I know at what he values it. There would be doubt about these words in a case where the assumption applied only to part of the relevant land since it could be applied also to the whole.

    1167
    As regards the words in brackets, brevity is not always clarity, although I find in listening sometimes to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the opposite is sometimes the fact. The words in brackets have been inserted for clarity, and I think they are necessary.
    Mr. Ross: There is one thing about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is always provocative. I had intended by my silence to try to assist the Committee to get through the Bill reasonably quickly. When I heard the Joint Under-Secretary of State say that this Amendment and the consequential series of Amendments are due to something I said inadvertently in the Standing Committee, I wondered whether he had paid attention to the Amendments I had put down which were not selected, for he went out of his way to give us the perfect snub by including the words "as the case may be", not once but twice in his Amendment, accepting suggestions I had made in the Committee.
    Then the Solicitor-General for Scotland tried to justify not the Amendment, but the inclusion of those words. He said he gave us his advice for what I think it is worth. He knows quite well what I think his advice is worth—absolutely nothing. I doubt if any person could be in doubt, even if the words were left out, who referred to subsection (2):
    "… in respect of the relevant land or that part thereof …"
    What dubiety is there in respect of that? Is it that some learned lawyer in Scotland will think that it applies to the whole of the land and not only to the relevant land, or part thereof, so that we must have this importing of the words "as the case may be"? We were very concerned, and we are very willing to learn in Scotland, but when we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government saying this:
    "… if we were to import into the drafting of all these Bills words which are really quite superfluous and unnecessary in the circumstances we should go on and on to no great purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1959; c. 431.]
    we thought that we were being helpful in suggesting that the Government should take out words which are unnecessary and superfluous. Yet the Government put them in and tell us that the Amendment
    1168
    is due to something which we put forward. If the Parliamentary Secretary had paid attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and myself had said on Clause 3, he would have left Scotland out of it altogether and would have satisfied us, but we are glad to know that he was listening to one part of the Committee stage to what we were submitting to him.
    Mr. Willis: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether when a Bill containing the Scottish provisions in this Bill goes before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in order to apply to Scotland it will be possible for that Committee to cut out some of these unnecessary words?
    Mr. Macpherson: If it would alter the sense, then, of course, the words would not be taken out.
    Mr. Ross: There is no sense in it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 15, leave out "paragraph (b) of".
    In line 19, at end insert:
    "no particulars or proposals relating to any land in that area had been comprised in the plan, and".
    In line 24, at end insert:
    "and in that subsection 'the planned range of uses' means the range of uses which, in accordance with the particulars and proposals comprised in the current development plan in relation to the area in question, are indicated in the plan as proposed uses of land in that area."—[Mr. Brooke.]
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out from "with" to "it" in line 26 and to insert:
    "any of the preceding subsections."
    This is another Amendment put forward in order to meet a point raised by the Opposition in Committee. Its purpose is to apply subsection (6) of Clause 3 to subsection (1) as well as to subsections (2), (3) and (4). I remember giving an undertaking in the Committee that I would consider carefully whether that subsection might not be applied to subsection (1) also. It was originally considered when the Bill was drafted that where a site was defined in a development plan the description in the plan gave a sufficiently specific indication of what would be permitted without further qualification.
    On further consideration, it is possible to see that conditions relating to, for

    1169
    instance, access to roads or the height of buildings might be imposed on the grant of permission for development for which a site is defined in a plan, and it seems reasonable therefore to allow such conditions to be assumed. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who was, I think, the first to raise the matter in Committee.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, after "mentioned", to insert "(a)".
    This is a paving Amendment for the Amendment of substance which is the next one on the Notice Paper—in line 31, to insert the new paragraph (b). These Amendments provide for an assumption of deferred planning permission where it is indicated, by the programme map or by information contained in the written statement forming part of a development plan, that planning permission for development would be granted, but only at some future time and not immediately.
    In such a case, the assumption is to be that planning permission would be granted at such future time as might reasonably be expected from the indications in the development plan. Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recollect that this point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) during the discussion on Clause 3. I think it was generally agreed that the Bill did require Amendment, and there was time to insert the necessary Amendment in Clause 4. Subsection (5) of Clause 4 contains the Amendment which was made in Committee, and it was stated on behalf of the Government at that time that it would be necessary to pick up the point in Clause 3. That is what we are doing now.
    Mr. McColl: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this was a matter which received general agreement in the Committee, I think that is a staggering overstatement. I thought for one moment that it might have happened during one of my unfortunate absences from the Committee, but I can distinctly remember
    1170
    speaking on it, and I think we divided on it.
    I am still not clear about it, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has helped the House at all about how we discount the value of future planning permissions of this sort. I will put the point to him again. If the planning authority is asked whether it would give planning permission in fifteen years' time for a development on a particular site—it woes not matter whether it is house building or commercial building, because it makes no difference to the argument—and it has a reasonable suspicion that by then the public activities of the authority will have begun to develop in that area, and, therefore, it would not be likely any longer to be a premature development, as the services would be there, in the first place, what sort of odds is the authority to accept when it decides whether to say "Yes" or "No"?
    Secondly, how is the valuer to discount the fact that it is hypothetical, that it is in the future, and that it is a development which is only possible if the public authorities develop in that particular direction, and if a private developer on his own could not possibly do it? These are the problems presented, and that was the problem which we raised upstairs, and the right hon. Gentleman has not helped us by giving us some picture of how this will work out in practice.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think this presents the valuer with any problem of any great difficulty. The fact is that there is no planning permission to be assumed for immediate development, and therefore it would be wrong to value the land as if there were. If there is an element of addition to the market value which the land would have otherwise—an element of additional value given by the assumed deferred planning permission —then that must be discounted to the extent that development cannot take place immediately. If the development could be immediate and could start forthwith, any increase of market value in the land thereby would accrue in full, but quite clearly if that additional value could not be secured for five years, the amount that should be added to the market value to take account of it must be less than it would be if the development could be immediate.

    1171
    It will be further reduced if the development cannot take place for ten years, and even further reduced if it cannot take place for fifteen years. Indeed, if it went into the distant future, the additional value accruing therefrom would probably be nil or negligible, because people would be unlikely to buy land unless they were disposed to look very far ahead at the prospect of being able to carry out some developments in their children's or children's children's time.
    Fortunately, the ordinary development plan does not extend for more than twenty years at the maximum, so we do not have to peer into the distant future. I assure hon. Members that it does not present the valuer with any unaccustomed obstacle if he is asked to put a value on a planning permission for development which cannot accrue immediately. That is a perfectly straightforward problem of valuation and we are not making the task of a valuer any more difficult by the Amendment.
    If I went too far and suggested that there was a greater degree of amiability in Standing Committee about the corresponding Amendments to Clause 4 than there actually was, I am sorry. In Standing Committee we were amicable about some things and less amicable about others. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked me about the practicability of this proposal. I assure him that it would not present any difficulties to the ordinary experienced valuer.
    Mr. Mitchison: This matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee when we dealt with Clause 4, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) made some very trenchant and forceful criticisms, as shown by col. 491 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We held and still hold those objections, and we divided on the Amendment to Clause 4. The debate was of such a character that in the course of discussion there was for a time no quorum in the Committee.
    However, the Amendment was put into Clause 4 and the right hon. Gentleman said at the time that if it went into Clause 4 it would also have to go into Clause 3, which we are now considering. Whatever our objections were and are, it is now in Clause 4 and it is obvious that there must
    1172
    be something corresponding in Clause 3. Although we do not like it in either of those places, we recognise that it must be either absent or present in both places.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 31, at end insert:
    "and
    (b) if, in accordance with any map or statement comprised in the current development plan, it is indicated that any such planning permission would be granted only at a future time, then (without prejudice to the preceding paragraph) the assumption shall be that the planning permission in question would be granted at the time when, in accordance with the indications in the plan, that permission might reasonably be expected to be granted".
    In line 31, at end insert:
    (7) Any reference in this section to development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted is a reference to development for which planning permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted if no part of the relevant land were proposed to be acquired by any authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32 to leave out "section" and to insert "Part of this Act".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that with this we can discuss the Amendments in page 5, line 44 to leave out from "area" to end of line 2 on page 6 and to insert:
    "defined in the current development plan as the site of proposed development or shown in the current development plan as allocated primarily for a specified use or specified uses, or where any question arises as to the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted";
    and in page 13, line 15, to leave out from "section" to "the" in line 16, which is consequential.
    Mr. MacColl: The effective Amendment is that in page 5, line 44.
    This is a complicated Amendment which at various times in the last few minutes I have not been sure that I understood myself. I do not blame myself for that, since it is complicated because of the obscure drafting of Clause 4. Clause 4 deals with those cases in which one or other of the parties applies to the local planning authority for a certificate about appropriate alternative developments. It is interesting to note in what cases that applies. The Bill approaches

    1173
    that question by the process of defining the cases in which it is not applied. The Amendment is restricted in the sense that it reduces the force of Clause 4 (1, b) and, by narrowing that, widens the broad principle of the cases in which an application may be made. That is complicated, but it arises by the round about way of approaching this question.
    What are the cases in which no application can be made for a certificate? First, in paragraph (a), is the case of comprehensive development, which is a term of art well understood among planners. An area of comprehensive development is an area in which there is to take place comprehensive development under a comprehensive plan covering the whole area. The precise limit of comprehensive development is a subject about which we have argued and will later argue again.
    The second case of exclusion from application for a certificate is where there is an area shown in the current development plan as allocated primarily for use of a residential, commercial or industrial character, or range of two or more uses. That seems to be an extremely wide exception, and in many cases its effect is that many cases where a planning authority could help with a certificate are excluded. I am puzzled to know why the Government, who invented the idea of a certificate, are so modest about using it. 'They have taken the trouble to initiate the idea and then, in paragraph (b), they have cut out some cases in which it could have been used.
    Instead of having this very wide exception, our Amendment proposes that wherever an area is shown in the development plan as primarily allocated for a use of a particular character, the exclusion shall apply where it is an area defined in the current development plan as a site of proposed development, or shown as allocated primarily for a specified use or specified uses, in other words, in all cases where the development plan is vague.
    For example, where it is "white land", for which no use is prescribed, or in any case where there is not a specific allocation to a specific use, but where there is ambiguity and vagueness about the development plan, the certificate procedure would be used. As
    1174
    drafted, the Bill provides that the certificate procedure would be excluded in those cases and the valuer would be left to his own ingenuity and imagination when making a decision.
    That is the first leg of the Amendment. The second leg of the Amendment says:
    "… where any question arises as to the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted."
    In other words, there will be access to the planning authority in any case of ambiguity where there is any question about which of the number of possible uses to which the land might have been put, and where there is any obscurity as to which is the most probable use. Those are essentially questions to which the planning authorities will know the answers.
    Therefore, the purpose of our Amendment is to give responsibilities to the planning authority which are at present to be exercised by the valuer. Because we are dealing with planning questions, that is a much more appropriate authority to deal with them than the valuer. That principle is accepted in the whole idea of the certificate about which the Government are proud. They accept the general principle that the best people to know about planning permission are members of a planning authority. Once that principle is accepted it seems reasonable to use it in cases where there is ambiguity.
    Although this Amendment is complicated, it is important, and we attach a great deal of importance to it. The Amendment will enable decisions to be taken by the right authority and will prevent valuers getting involved in a lot of decisions which are not within their compass and are not decisions about values but about planning policy and the likelihood of particular planning developments and so on. That is all common form stuff for planning authorities but goes much beyond the sphere of knowledge of the valuer.
    We press this Amendment with some certainty. There is no great controversial issue here. It is a question of the improvement of procedure for the benefit of everyone and in order to get a more qualified and better decision which will benefit all the parties concerned and will be obtained quickly and smoothly from the planning authority.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    When I was quite young I used occasionally to blow out balloons. For that purpose I took in my breath first, and that is what this Amendment does. The first part of it is not very important, but it restricts even further the restriction already imposed in the Clause itself. The Clause does not allow the certification procedure to be applied either to areas of comprehensive development or to areas which are allocated primarily for one of a number of general uses or for a range of uses. It is therefore clear in the Bill as drafted that the certification procedure will be rarely used.
    The right hon. Gentleman indicated to us that in the great majority of cases its use would be in respect of white land. As I understand it, white land is land shown without any indication of the use for which it is intended, and the first words of the Amendment are designed specifically to cover the case of white land. What really matters are the words beginning
    "… or where any question arises …."
    because that considerably enlarges the scope of the certification procedure. It allows that procedure to be used under general terms in cases which may or may not involve white land. That does not matter, provided that a question arises as to the development for which planning permission may reasonably have been expected to be granted.
    It may be said—I should accept the criticism if it were said—that it would not have made much difference if the original words—the taking in of the breath before blowing out the balloon—had been omitted. The substantial point is dealt with by the words at the end. Therefore the Amendment is intended to apply the process of certification to all cases where there is a question about what might reasonably have been expected to be granted by way of planning permission.
    Though the procedure both in this and the following Clause is not altered by this change so far as I can see, the effect of making it is considerable. We may be told by the right hon. Gentleman that there are other cases besides those involving white land, and that may be so. But in the vast majority of cases where land
    1176
    is shown on a development plan the certification procedure will not be applied at all. It is only a recourse in certain limited circumstances. We looked at this matter upside down and roundabout and came to the conclusion that it looks quite good, because the object of the certification procedure is to decide questions of probability in relation to planning permission and to get them decided by the person who is the best if not the only person qualified to decide them, namely, the planning authority.
    The planning authority is the best judge of its own intentions and the best judge of any prospective or conditional intentions which it might have. When one has to choose between one possibility and another in a wide range, it may be very useful to know the view of the planning authority. If I may give hon. Members a homely instance, I am sure that a number of people intending to make some development in an area go informally to the planning authority beforehand to ask whether they would be likely to obtain permission for what they intend to do; because it might save a lot of time and trouble, and possibly money, being spent on something about which there is not much probability of permission being given. We are trying to go considerably beyond what is intended in the Bill by way of certification procedure and to use this piece of machinery for a realistic purpose.
    If we are to assess open market value, which is what we are all trying to do, and to do so in relation to planning permission, clearly we should have some way of deciding the weight to be given to any particular planning permission and the selection in any terms of that planning permission which would be reasonably probable. That is the intention of this Clause but only for limited purposes and in limited cases. We desire to give it what I think would be an almost universal, but, of course, only a discretionary application.
    We have more confidence in professional valuers than the right hon. Gentleman appears to have, judging from the way he dealt with an Amendment yesterday which would have had the result of leaving a lot more to them. Having that confidence, we think that in a great many cases there would be no necessity to go to the planning authority; but if the question did arise and if the

    1177
    valuers, sitting over their cups of tea in the picturesque office described by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) during the Committee stage discussions—
    Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Not picturesque.
    Mr, Mitchison: —in a rather grimy, dusty office, if the hon. Gentleman would have it that way—agree among themselves, no question arises. There is no need to go to the planning authority. That may be so in a number of cases, but we have given a wide discretionary power to go to the planning authority.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. I cannot say that I expect he will, because I never expect him to accept any Amendment. If he is proposing to accept anything he usually turns it down firmly at the moment and then brings it in again later. Perhaps he will turn this Amendment down today and bring it in in another place—one never knows.
    I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is so wedded to the frame of his Bill that he will reject the Amendment. He has invested a very nice procedure in this certification business. He ought to be proud of it. It is very sensible, very good and we compliment him on it as a bit of procedure. The trouble is that, having invented it, he does not use it. This is an endeavour to make him do so.
    Therefore, we attach a considerable importance to the Amendment. We believe that it would introduce an element of reality and save a great deal of trouble in many cases, and since this is a matter to which we attach importance, it would save a good many applications to the Lands Tribunal on exactly this sort of question, because we believe the planning authorities' views on the matter would always be available and in a great many cases would be conclusive.
    Mr. Bevins: This question and one or two variants of it have been discussed at some considerable length in Committee. What the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) are seeking to do is to widen the area in which applications may be made for certificates.
    1178
    Under the principal Amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself, it would be possible, as I read it, for an acquiring authority to apply for a certificate wherever any assumptions fall to be made under Clause 3—except, of course, the assumption in subsection (1) of that Clause—and so to qualify or extinguish any planning assumptions which are to be made by reference to the development plan itself.
    I am sure that the House will see that, if a change of that sort were to be made, it would very considerably widen the range of cases under which certificates could be applied for. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is rather enamoured of the certificate device, I think one also has to bear in mind that some local authorities, especially the larger local authorities are already concerned a little at the amount of work in which certificates may involve them within the present limits provided for in the Bill.
    The Bill as drafted leaves it to the valuers to determine the development for which planning permission might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably be expected to be granted, where the information contained in the plan of course can be expected to give sufficient information for the valuers to answer that question without undue difficulty. I am sure it is right that in those cases we should rely on the valuers and upon the information contained in the development plan.
    There is no reason to suppose that information should not be sufficient to give the valuers enough information to enable them to do their work and, of course, the intention of my right hon. Friend is that the certificate machinery should be left for those classes of case where no authority, other than the local planning authority, can be expected to supply the information. That, I think, is the right way to go about this, and I do not believe that the change proposed in the Amendment would be one which would be very widely welcomed among the local authorities or the general public.
    Mr. MacColl: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been most unhelpful. Here is something in the Bill of which we have recognised the value, the certificating procedure. We have, with the greatest good will, pointed out that it

    1179
    could be more effectively used and would, in many cases, lead to greater smoothness in reaching agreement between the vendor and the purchaser, and the hon. Gentleman produces no reason at all why it should not work perfectly well.
    If the Government had any intention of approaching the problems of this Bill in a dispassionate way and were not obstinately determined to have their own way on everything undoubtedly they would have accepted this as a very useful extension of the certificate procedure.
    I am very disappointed, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is even more disappointed because he is warmhearted and wants to think well of the right hon. Gentleman if he possibly can. Therefore, we can show our distaste of the attitude of the Government towards this only by taking the matter to a Division.
    Question put, That "section" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 195.

    Division No. 73.

    AYES

    15.46 p.m

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Macdonald Sir Peter

    Aitken, W. T.

    Glover, D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Godber, J. B.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield W.)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Macmillan Maurice (Halifax)

    Ashton, H.

    Gower, H. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maddan, Martin

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (woodside)

    Maitland, Cdr.J.F.W.(Horncastle)

    Barter, John

    Green, A.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Batsford, Brian

    Grimond, J.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Grimston, Sir Robert (West bury)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Marshall, Douglas

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mathew, R.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr., S, L. C.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'fd)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hay, John

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Bishop, F. P.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Body, R. F.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bowen, E, R. (Cardigan)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Nioholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bryan, P.

    Hicks-Beach, Ma]. W. W.

    Nicolson, N. (B'nm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    Carr, Robert

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Channon, H. P. C.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmth W.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Cole, Norman

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Cooke, Robert

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hornsby-Smlth, Miss M. P.

    Osborne, C.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Page, R. G.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hughes-Young M. H. C.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Partridge, E.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

    Peel, W. J.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Davies,Rt.Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pitman, I. J.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pitt, Miss E. M

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Pott, H. P.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kershaw J. A.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Langford-Holt J. A.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    du Cann, E. D. L>

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Redmayne, M.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Leavey, J. A.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Elliott, R. w. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A, T.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Fell, A.

    Lloyd Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Fisher, Nigel

    Longden, Gilbert

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard

    Freeth, Denzil

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Russell, R. S.

    Gammans, Lady

    Lucas, P.B.(Brentford & Chlswick)

    Sharples, R. c.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Speir, R. M.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Webster, David

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Storey, S.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Woollam, John victor

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Vosper, Rt, Hon. D. F.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Teeling, W.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Temple, John M.

    Wall, Patrick

    Mr. Chichester-Clark

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    and Mr. Finlay.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Pentland, N.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holman, P.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Holmes, Horace

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Balfour, A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Benson, Sir George

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Probert, A. R,

    Beswick, Frank

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Randall, H. E.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Reeves, J.

    Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S. w.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Reid, William

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Ross, William

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Royle, C.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Champion, A. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lewis Arthur

    Sparks, J. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Cronin, J. D.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stonehouse, John

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McCann, J.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Swingler, S. T.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Diamond, John

    McLeavy, Frank

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Mahon, Simon

    Timmons, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mason, Roy

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Monslow, W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Moody, A. S.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moss, R.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Grey, C. F.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Neal, Harold (Boisover)

    Hale, Leslie

    Noel-Baker Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Oswald, T.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Owen, W. J.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hannan, W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hastings, S.

    Palmer, A. M. F,

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parker, J.

    Heeley, Denis

    Paton, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Peart, T. F.

    Clause 4.—(CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end to insert:
    Provided that, if the said first-mentioned authority is the local planning authority, any application for a certificate under this section may be made to the Minister and in that event references in this section to the local planning authority shall have effect as references to the Minister.
    It may be that in some cases the acquiring authority and the local planning authority are one and the same. As we said in the Standing Committee, it is desirable in such a case that the owner of the interest should not get the impression that he is being unfairly dealt with. If he is in dispute with the acquiring authority and is told, "You can settle this under the law by applying for a certificate", and then he finds he is making application for the certificate to the local planning authority which is also the acquiring authority, he may feel that he is getting a very raw deal.
    The Amendment would make it possible for him to take his application for a certificate direct to the Minister. It goes without saying that there should be no unfairness in the treatment of these matters by local authorities, but we are anxious that it should be clear that there is no unfairness.
    When this matter was considered earlier, it was thought to be open to objection on the ground that the Minister and his Department should not be burdened with all the work involved if references were made direct to the Minister. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out that the difficulty could be avoided by the method, proposed in the Amendment, of making it discretionary for the owner of the interest to go to the Minister in a case where the acquiring authority and the local planning authority are the same body.
    In many cases the owner of the interest, when in dispute with the acquiring authority, will be content to have the matter referred to the local planning authority. He will appreciate that in such cases that consideration will be borne in mind by the adjudicating authority and he will be quite content that it should go there for it to settle the matter; but in other cases, where the owner of the interest might
    1184
    want to go direct to the Minister—there will be a minority of cases—it will be very desirable that he should do so. We believe that the principle embodied in the Amendment is important.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bevins: An Amendment on broadly similar lines was considered at an earlier stage. The present Amendment is not quite identical with that one, which was rejected by my right hon. Friend.
    This Amendment would give the parties directly concerned in a transaction the choice of applying for a certificate either to the local planning authority or to the Minister, in cases where the local planning authority happened also to be the acquiring authority. I have noted that the Amendment now has "may" in substitution for the earlier "shall". The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has explained why that change has been made. I do not think that that substitution would have more than a very slight effect on the number of applications made direct to the Minister, but I agree that that is a matter of opinion.
    My right hon. Friend undertook to re-examine this proposition when it was debated in Committee, and that we have done. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend does not feel that he can accept this proposal. There is no doubt that in principle there was force in the argument that an authority should not be the judge in its own cause, but the applicant enjoys the right of appeal to the Minister. Any owner of land which is being acquired by the local planning authority has his interest completely safeguarded by the right of appeal to my right hon. Friend.
    Local planning authorities are well aware that if at times they contemplate issuing an arbitrary decision—they cannot be wholly perfect all the time—on a planning application or an application for a certificate, as the case may be, it is more than likely to be upset by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on appeal.
    There is within the Department, as we know from time to time, evidence of that happening, but generally local planning authorities are responsible bodies and may be relied on, as the hon. and learned

    1185
    Member rightly said, to make impartial decisions. In many cases, perhaps in most cases, it is to be expected that the certificate which the planning authority will issue will be to the satisfaction of the owner and there will be no need to trouble the Minister at all. I am bound to say that I do not think that the Amendment would really increase the protection for the owner's interests. On the other hand, without a shadow of doubt it would place a very considerable burden upon the Minister.
    I have already said that I do not think that making this revised procedure optional would have a large effect on the number of cases which would come forward to the Minister, but it would mean that the Minister would have to deal with a very large number of applications for certificates where land was being acquired by county boroughs or county councils and of course by the largest local authority of all, London County Council.
    The mere fact that an attempt was made to limit the cases liable to come forward to those where the acquiring authority was also the local planning authority with no question of delegation would still mean that we could have this flood of cases from the bigger county boroughs, county councils, and so forth, which, in many cases, do not delegate their planning powers to subordinate authorities, very often, of course, because there are no subordinate authorities.
    As my right hon. Friend aptly said at an earlier stage, applicants would certainly dislike the prospect of quick decisions being taken behind closed doors in Whitehall. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that if applicants were to have the choice of applying either to the local planning authority or the Minister of Housing and Local Government it certainly would not be possible on grounds of fairness, or for the sake of giving the impression of fairness, for those applications to be considered in Whitehall purely as paper applications, as they might be considered by local planning authorities with all the knowledge they have of local conditions and circumstances, which knowledge is not available to the Ministry in London.
    For those reasons we feel this Amendment will not achieve anything appreciably worth while for applicants and
    1186
    landowners, but, on the other hand, it would thrust an enormous burden of work on the Ministry. I know that the hon. and learned Member will think that perhaps we are being a little inflexible in this respect. I hope he will take it from me that we have already deferred, and rightly, to a number of points of view expressed by hon. Members opposite. I do not think that we have yet reached the end of the road, but this is one which we cannot commend to the House.
    Mr. Mitchison: There was an old battleship called "Inflexible". I am sure that it is concealed somewhere inside the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend draw their inspiration from it every day. What is worse than inflexibility is this habit of producing contradictory answers. The Parliamentary Secretary did it this time.
    He first told us that everyone would prefer to have his case decided by the local planning authority than decided in Whitehall, but he also told us that the effect of giving such an option in the matter, that is to say, of allowing them to go to the Minister instead of obliging them to go to the Minister, would be very small indeed. It appeared that it would follow that the vast majority of people would prefer to go to Whitehall than to the local planning authority.
    I trust that the hon. Gentleman, whose look of repentance I welcome, is now realising the contradictions inherent in his remarks. The fact is that if the considered opinion of the hon. Gentleman, which he gave us several times, was that there would be a vast flood of cases coming in under this option, the majority of cases would be coming in under the option. There would be all the more need for the option because those would be the people who need not go to the Minister, but exercise their option to do so because they do not think it quite fair that their cases should be decided by the local planning authority when that authority is the same as the acquiring authority.
    If, in fact, there is a widespread sense of grievance resulting in a flood of cases, it may be more troublesome to the Ministry, but it is a much better argument for accepting the Amendment. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that it was his own speech which made me so uneasy about the consequences of not accepting the Amendment. It is this

    1187
    flood of cases which worries me. The question is: which do we prefer—the old question of administrative convenience or social justice? In this case, the hon. Gentleman came down with a plomp on the side of preferring administrative convenience. It would be a troublesome flood of cases and it did not matter that in every case there would be a feeling of grievance of some sort—otherwise they would not have exercised the option—that did not appeal to him at all. What appealed to him was that it would create a lot of trouble in the Ministry. That is what upsets me.
    I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman is right. In my inability to make any attack worth talking about on "Inflexible", I take leave to comfort myself a little in this way. The local planning authority does not, of course, mean an authority exercising delegated powers under some limited scheme. It must mean either the county council or the county borough council.
    Both county councils, even in Rutland-shire, and county borough councils are large authorities and their powers are exercised separately. Nominally, the planning committee and the committee concerned with acquiring property of this kind are committees of the same council, but in practice their membership, functions and all their actions are distinct. The planning committee, in particular, has a status of its own which perhaps does not quite attain to the independence of an education committee or even of a finance committee, but still is very considerable.
    We may have to be content with the existence of this grievance in some cases—it certainly will exist—and rely on the independence of these various committees of a large council, whether it be a county council or a county borough council.
    I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am a little disappointed in him and his right hon. Friend. Their original objections were to a compulsory application to the Minister. I see the force of that, but I do not think that they have appreciated the significance of what will happen if there is a flood of applications. It will mean that in a very large number of cases a great many people, whether justice is done or not, will feel that justice is not being done.
    1188
    In a Bill the substantial object of which is to do both justice and apparent justice in cases of compensation for compulsory acquisition, it is very inadvisable to introduce or preserve the obvious possibility of apparent injustice. I sometimes feel that lawyers are perhaps almost too keen on not allowing apparent injustice, but if it is an error it is certainly one on the right side. It would be only too easy to let this kind of thing slip into a Bill and for an obstinate Department to say that it will cause them a great deal of trouble and then to find that one has done something which brings down on the head of the right hon. Gentleman even more obloquy than he naturally deserves.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I rise to support the Amendment and to express my disappointment with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The doctrine that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is one that we cannot depart from lightly. That doctrine was very well developed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Therefore, I do not intend to repeat arguments which, I believe, are quite unanswerable.
    I want to speak on this subject from the local government point of view. I am exceedingly anxious that in all these important matters the county council and not the committee should be recognised as the authority, whether it is the acquiring committee or the general planning committee. If there are two committees of one local authority finally appealing before the authority and there is a dispute, if there is some disagreement on the council, it will be a very disastrous thing for county government if it is thought that the voting on a popularly elected body will settle matters of justice. After all, that is what we are concerned with.
    If we rely on the appeal to the Ministry, I am of the opinion that what will be felt by the landowner will be that, having obtained a decision from the local authority, it is very unlikely that that will be upset on appeal. He will feel that he has already lost a good deal of his case because it has already been once adjudicated upon by the authority. If he likes to say that he does not want it to go to the Ministry, he need not exercise his option of going there. I think that the option should be open to him, where the

    1189
    authority is both the acquiring and purchasing authority, to be able to say that he would sooner have a first decision given by a body which is at least not divided within itself on the issue on which adjudication is to be made.
    I sincerely hope that the Ministry will have some further thoughts on this matter before it departs from the sound principle that nobody should be allowed to judge his own case. In both cases it is the authority and not the committee which is vested with the decision to be made. It seems to me to be quite anomalous that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should have been greeted in the way it was by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bevins: It would be discourteous if I were not to make two short comments on what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).
    There may be a little misunderstanding, and perhaps it was my fault because of the way I expressed myself. When I referred to the possibility of a flood of applications to the Minister, what I had in mind, as one naturally would have in mind, was the very large number, for example, of planning appeals which normally find their way to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The planning appeals which come to the Ministry probably represent a very small percentage of the total number of applications which go to local planning authorities.
    I would not presume to give the House a figure, because nobody knows precisely what the figure is. From the point of view of the Ministry and of the burden of work which would fall upon it under the arrangements proposed in the Amendment, that would represent a flood of applications to the Ministry, although the proportion of cases to the whole might be relatively small.
    On the main point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields, he had in mind that some owners of land might feel that, because their case had been considered by a particular committee of a local authority and they had lost their case with the local planning authority and had not got What they wanted, they
    1190
    might in some ways be prejudiced in the ultimate result.
    I assure the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House that that simply is not so. As in the case of planning appeals, these cases are considered by my right hon. Friend on a completely impartial basis and, no matter what the decision of this authority or that authority may have been, the case is looked at entirely impartially and afresh. I beg the House to bear in mind that no matter what the merits or demerits of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment may be in principle, in cases where the applicant does not get his way with the local planning authority he is completely uninhibited from appealing to my right hon. Friend. Nothing can deprive him of that right.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of his reply. I am concerned with what is in the minds of those persons. They will not have had the great advantage of hearing the Minister's elucidation, but they will have a grave suspicion that if they are up against the authority and get a decision from which they want to appeal, they have already encountered one reverse from which it is difficult to recover. Many of those who get involved in this kind of difficulty are quite small people, with great fears as to what will happen to them. I am thinking of their minds, not of the perfectly pure mind of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the nearly as pure mind of the Minister, when they have to deal with any appeal.
    Mr. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the flood of planning appeals that would come before the Minister. Is that true of Scotland? We have been told that conditions are rather different there and that there the Bill's impact is not so great. Will the same arguments hold good? I am quite certain that had this Bill gone to the Scottish Grand Committee, as we wanted, the Minister would have found great difficulty in resisting this Amendment.
    Where a local authority such as Edinburgh or Glasgow is involved, the applicant for a certificate will feel that once the local authority has turned down his application an appeal to the Secretary of State against that decision will be a very formidable job. There are a great number of owner-occupiers in Edinburgh—

    1191
    the owners of the dominium utile—and a large number of them will be unaware of their right to appeal to the Secretary of State. In fact, they seek our advice about this now. As conditions in Scotland may be rather different, it would be good to be given some information as to the likely number of applications, and whether the Scottish Office would be unable to deal with them. We have not been told anything about that.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: It is undeniable that the number of applications would be very much less. The country is smaller, so the number of transactions is proportionately smaller. I understand that there are about 200 appeals per annum at present which is very much less than the number in England. Nevertheless, that does not alter the main argument. It is still better for these applications to go, in the first place, to the planning authority, and afterwards, if necessary, to appeal.
    The planning authority is on the spot and has the machinery for investigating on the spot. Even in a comparatively small country like Scotland, it is more difficult to investigate from the centre. I quite realise that a stronger case could be made out in Scotland than in England but, on balance, I think that it is better to have the same procedure in all cases, whether or not the planning authority is also the acquiring authority.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is there not this difference between Scotland and England, that, save in exceptional cases, the acquiring authority in Scotland will be the same as the planning authority, because of the different position of county councils as housing authorities?
    Mr. Macpherson: That is true, of course, and that in a sense, enhances the value of my argument, namely, that there are a smaller number of cases at present but that the Amendment would mean a proportionately larger number of cases coming to the centre.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, as has the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that people will be afraid to appeal. I can only say that the evidence we have is that in ordinary planning applications no disposition is shown of fear to appeal, and there is no more reason why there should be in this case. In any case, of course, information
    1192
    about the right to appeal would be printed on the notice, so that there would be no doubt that the person receiving a refusal would be well aware of his rights. As I say, in planning applications there has certainly not been any disposition whatsoever for people not to avail themselves of the right to appeal, and we think that that would apply also in the case of certificates.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, after "section" to insert:
    "made by one of the parties directly concerned—
    (a)".
    With this Amendment, the House might think it convenient to take those in page 6, lines 21 and 24, and the three consequential Amendments to Clause 7, in page 9, lines 7, 8 and 9.
    I hope that this group of six Amendments will be generally acceptable as they give effect to my hon. Friend's assurance in Standing Committee, when he accepted the principle of a very similar Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). They provide that when one of the parties directly concerned applies for a certificate under Clause 4, he must state that he has notified, or is notifying the other party on a particular date, and the local planning authority must not take a decision on the application until 21 days after that date.
    That deals with the Amendments to Clause 4. The House will bear in mind that what is now Clause 7 contains various supplementary provisions relating to the certificate system. As I have said, the three Amendments to Clause 7 are purely consequential on the changes we are proposing to make in Clause 4.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 21, at end insert
    "and
    (b) shall be accompanied by a statement specifying the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served upon the other of those parties".
    In line 24, after "shall", insert:
    "not earlier than twenty-one days after the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with paragraph (b) of the last preceding subsection".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, after "granted", to insert "or refused".
    In my submission, this Amendment will improve the machinery of certification. This is a comparatively small procedural point, but I believe the change will be of advantage and possibly it will save a good deal of time and trouble in future years.
    It may be that the acquiring authority and the owner of the interest are engaged in a disputation about the amount of development likely to be permitted. The owner of the interest may be contending for a more variable use—let us say a light industrial use. The acquiring authority would inform the owner of the interest that he would not get permission for light industrial use but would get permission only for residential use, residental use being for this purpose a rather less valuable use of the land.
    It would be possible in such a case for the owner of the interest, who might possibly be dog-in-the-manger about it, to refuse to apply for a certificate. In that hypothesis, what the acquiring authority would want—and would be justified in wanting—would be a certificate by the local planning authority that a light industrial use would not be permitted. That is the form of adjudication to which it is entitled.
    It does not meet the case for the local authority to apply for a certificate that the land could be used for residential purposes because the affirmative answer to that does not exclude the possibility that light industrial use may be an appropriate alternative use.
    The only other way that difficulty can be overcome is by the acquiring authority putting forward an application in which it formally goes to the local planning authority and asks for an adjudication that a use which it does not want to see attached to the land is one which the local planning authority would be likely to permit.
    Surely the Government will yield on this small though not unimportant point which, if it is accepted, will save trouble in the future and give the local authority the opportunity to put forward its application for a certificate in a form of words which will be both convenient and suit the case.
    Mr. Edward Short: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Brooke: This, as the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said, is a small point. He has argued persuasively, but I must put it to the House that it would not improve the Bill to make the Amendment.
    The hon. Member has omitted to mention what really must be the guiding principle here. We are seeking to make this certificate procedure run as nearly parallel as we can to the procedure for applying for planning permission. The hon. and learned Member seeks by his Amendment to enable the planning authority to state in a certificate not only those classes of development for which permission might in its opinion reasonably have been expected to be granted, but also those classes in which permission might reasonably have been expected to have been refused.
    No applicant for planning permission can ever obtain from a local planning authority a statement of the permissions which will be refused. There is no machinery for doing that. He can apply for the grant of planning permission but not for the refusal of planning permission. Applications can be made to a planning authority for any sort of development the applicant cares to put down, and those applications must be considered, and either granted or refused, individually, but there is no machinery by which an applicant can obtain a general statement of the permissions which would be refused in relation to the site or property he proposes to develop.
    As the House is aware, certificates under the Clause are intended to take the place of the planning permission an owner might reasonably have expected to get were the land not being acquired for some public purpose, and to provide for a certificate which would be refused—in other words, to provide for an entirely negative certificate—would be contrary to the principle we are trying to establish.
    Although I may have been too optimistic on a previous occasion in saying that the Committee was agreed on something, I believe it was generally agreed that the certificate system was an ingenious expedient for solving an undoubted problem. If we have this certificate procedure at all, and if it is to be

    1195
    operated by planning authorities with an appeal to the Minister, surely it is wise to keep it as nearly parallel as may be to the system of applications for planning permission.
    It is on those grounds that I would advise the House not to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I cannot help getting the impression that the right hon. Gentleman has not paid enough attention to the other provisions of his own Clause. We are concerned with cases where an application for a certificate is made specifying one or more classes of development which the applicant considers to be appropriate. The subsection we are dealing with provides:
    "Where an application is made … the local planning authority shall issue to the applicant a certificate stating … that, in the opinion of the local planning authority, planning permission … of one or more classes specified in the certificate (whether being classes of development specified in the application or not) might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted …"
    That procedure does not parallel anything in an ordinary planning application, because there there is an application, various uses are specified by the applicant as being in his opinion suitable, and at the end of the day the local planning authority can express its opinion on that application that other classes of permission might reasonably have been expected to be granted, and there is no limitation to what they might put in.
    In addition, the next paragraph permits it to say one thing in the negative, namely, that no planning permission would be granted except for the development which the acquiring authority proposes to carry out. That, again, is much more than a negative to the application. In fact, the planning authority is allowed to express a negative intention, or a refusal, in one case only, whereas it is allowed to express an expected grant in an almost unlimited field. Why should it not similarly be allowed to express its opinion, if it thinks it relevant, as to an anticipated refusal?
    The Clause rightly leaves it to the planning authority to express its opinion not merely on what is in the application but on what it thinks to be relevant to all the circumstances of the case. Why the Government should give that wide liberty to the planning authority and then refuse to allow it in the case of a refusal passes my comprehension.
    I cannot help feeling that in this part of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is wavering about. At times he thinks that he has found a complete answer to every question, and then, when we seek to complete the matter for him, he says, "No, you must not have that." That would interfere with some mysterious scheme he has in his head. I can assure him that this part of the Bill is profoundly illogical; it is incomplete, and it calls all the time for the exercise of a certain amount of knowledge, experience and common sense by valuers, for instance. Surely the same latitude might be allowed to planning authorities. I cannot help feeling that my hon. and learned Friend's simple Amendment raises a question of principle of some importance, and that "H.M.S. 'Inflexible'" is wrong again.
    Mr. Irvine: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is quite untenable, on examination. Subsection (4, b) provides for the negative decision, and that surely takes away the basis of the Minister's argument. That being so, I hope that he will express a readiness to consider the matter again. The parallel between the procedure under the Bill and the application for planning permission is not a close one, in any event, but quite apart from that there is provision in the proposed procedure for the negative adjudication by the local authority, and I cannot see why it should not be extended in the manner proposed.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 220.

    Division No. 74.]

    AYES

    [6.43 p.m.6

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    BraddocK, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Brockway, A. F.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Balfour, A.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Carmichael, J.

    Benson, Sir George

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Champion, A. J.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Janner, B.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Reeves, J.

    Cliffe, Michael

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Reid, William

    Coldrick, W.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Ross, William

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Davies, Stephen, (Merthyr)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Diamond, John

    Logan, D. G.

    Slater, J, (Sedgefield)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McAllster, Mrs. Mary

    Sorensen, R, W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    McCann, J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Edwards Robert (Bilston)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Steele, T.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mahon, Simon

    Swingler, S. T.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mason, Roy

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Monslow, W.

    Timmons, J.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Tomney, F.

    Grey, C. F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Vlant, S. P.

    Hale, Leslie

    Moss, R.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Weitzmann, D.

    Hannan, W.

    Mulley, F. w.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hastings, S.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Healey, Denis

    Owen, W. J.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paget, R. T.

    Hewltson, Capt. M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Holmes, Horace

    Paton, John

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pearson, A.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pentland, N.

    Woof, R. E.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Probert, A. R.

    Hynd J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Randall, H. E

    Mr. Simmons and Mr. Short

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Aitken, W. T.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Cole, Norman

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Cooke, Robert

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Ashton, H.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Glover, D.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Godber, J. B.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Barter, John

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Gower, H. R.

    Batsford, Brian

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Cunningham, Knox

    Green, A.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Grimond, J.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Gurden, Harold

    Biggs-Davison J. A.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Body, R. F.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Duncan, Sir James

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Brooman-White, R. C,

    Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Bryan, P.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Carr, Robert

    Fell, A.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    1198

    1199

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

    Russell, R. S.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Mathew, R.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Shepherd, William

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Medilcott, Sir Frank

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Speir, R. M.

    Hope, Lord John

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Howard Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Storey, S.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'Gh)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Kaberry D.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Teeling, W.

    Kerr Sir Hamilton

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Temple, John M.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Osborne, C.

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Page, R. G.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Partridge, E.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull)

    Peel, w. J.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Longden, Gilbert

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Wall, Patrick

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pott, H. P.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    McAdden S. J.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Webster, David

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Redmayne, M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Rees-Davies, w. R.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Maddan, Martin

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Woollam, John victor

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Mr. Hughes-Young and Mr. Legh

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 6, line 47, at the end to insert:
    (6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, a local planning authority may formulate general requirements applicable to such classes of cases as may be described therein; and any conditions required to be specified in a certificate in accordance with that subsection may, if it appears to the local planning authority to be convenient to do so, be specified by reference to those requirements, subject to such special modifications thereof (if any) as may be set out in the certificate.
    Perhaps it would be acceptable, Mr. Speaker, to take with this Amendment that to Clause 7, page 9, line 28.
    Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker indicated assent.
    Mr. Bevins: These Amendments fulfil the object of Amendments which were moved earlier by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and Clapham (Mr. Gibson). Their intention was to make less onerous the obligation placed upon planning authorities to specify conditions in certificates.
    The first Amendment enables a planning authority, instead of always
    1200
    having to state in detail the conditions which apply to the development specified in a certificate under Clause 4, to formulate general requirements applicable to particular classes of cases and to specify any such conditions by reference to these general requirements with or without modifications.
    The second Amendment empowers the Minister to provide by a development order that a copy of any general requirements relevant to a certificate must be supplied with the certificate unless those requirements have been published. The system is optional. It will be open to any planning authority which wishes to do so to prepare a statement of its standard requirements, but my right hon. Friend took the view that provisions of this sort would no doubt be helpful to the larger local authorities, including the London County Council.
    Mr. Mitchison: I feel sure that these Amendments will meet the difficulties anticipated by the London County Council and mentioned by my hon.

    1201
    Friend in Committee. The difficulties may have been anticipated by other large authorities. We are grateful to the Government for the Amendments.
    Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is better versed in these matter than I am, and I am glad to know that he is grateful to the Government. However, I should like to know what the five and a half lines of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved really mean. I have never read an Amendment so wrapped in doubt. Vagueness, generalities and qualifications are all incorporated in it, starting with the word "may". We also find the words,
    "general requirements applicable to such classes of cases as may be described therein".
    There is no indication as to who is to describe them. We them get the curious words:
    "if it appears to the local planning authority to be convenient to do so."
    What is that phrase doing in the Amendment? It could well be done without. There is no meaning to it and nothing that is being done would be changed if that phrase were left out. There are qualifications, permissive powers, ifs, buts, conditions, and all the rest of it.
    Mr. Willis: And the inevitable "if any".
    Mr. Ross: Yes. These five and a half lines might have been drawn up by Robert Benchley. I doubt whether the words mean anything at all.
    Mr. Bevins: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), whose claims to legal knowledge are so great. The meaning of the Amendment is perfectly clear to any hon. Member who cares to apply his mind to it. I do not want to deal with all the questions which the hon. Gentleman raised, because that would be a ridiculous exercise, but the hon. Gentleman asked who was to formulate the general requirements. The Amendment says "a local planning authority", and I assume that the hon. Gentleman knows what a local planning authority is. This is a perfectly straightforward piece of drafting.
    Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak
    1202
    more than once in relation to an Amendment?
    Mr. Speaker: On consideration of a Bill which comes from a Standing Committee there is a relaxation of the rule in the case of a mover of an Amendment or the Member in charge of a Bill, but not in other cases.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 15, leave out from beginning to first "and" in line 18 and insert:
    "authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause 6.—(EXTENSION OF SS. 4 AND 5 TO SPECIAL CASES.)
    Mr. Speaker: Would it be convenient for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to take the Amendment in page 8, line 29, with the two following Amendments, in line 38, to leave out "both" and to leave out lines 39 to 46?
    Mr. Willis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would it be convenient to take also the Amendment in page 10, line 42—
    Mr. Speaker: I am speaking of the Amendment in page 8, line 29.
    Mr. Willis: I agree that they go with the preceding Amendment, but I was suggesting that a fourth Amendment might be taken at the same time, namely, that in Clause 7, page 10, line 42, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 6 on page 11. It deals with the same point and is consequential on the other three Amendments.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out from "may" to the end of line 34 and to insert:
    "only be made by the person entitled to that interest".
    This Amendment was phrased during the Committee stage and seeks to eliminate the ground superior or the owner of the ground annual from the certificate procedure. We had a fairly long discussion on this matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made a learned speech and gave us an historical account of the growth and development of the present system of feuing in Scotland.

    1203
    During that discussion, we found that the Government were putting something additional in the Bill. When the Bill was introduced, we were told that its purpose was to enable the fair market value to be paid to the owner of land that was compulsorily acquired. In the words which we seek to delete, however, we find that the Government are not only doing that, but are providing an opportunity for the ground superior to put in an application for a certificate which will have the benefit of increasing the capitalised value of the feu that he holds. The Government are slipping in by the back door something with which we do not agree and which is outside the scope of the Bill.
    I do not want to go into the question of how these people came to possess these rights. A great deal was said about that in Committee. In some cases, we do not know how they derived those rights and in other cases they have bought them. In many cases, they have bought them as an investment. I suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that the people who have bought feus or ground annuals as an investment have taken a normal business risk. I cannot see why we should pick out these people because the value of their interest has gone down and say to them, "Under the provisions of the Bill, we will allow you to recoup yourselves."
    I say that because the examples given by the hon. Gentleman in Committee were examples of that character. He quoted one in which the value of the land in question was about £60 and the capitalised value of the feu was £400 or £500. I do not suggest that that is generally applicable in Scotland, but if it is the case it seems to me that the feu charged has been much too high and that the person who holds it has been enjoying a considerable income to which he was not justly entitled.
    In the case quoted by the Joint Under-Secretary, who quoted other cases yesterday on another Amendment concerning the sum paid by Glasgow Corporation when it was buying out certain feus in Scotland, I cannot see any justification for the amount being increased. In the first place, other people take business risks and if they are failures, they have to bear the loss. That is the ethics of the party opposite. Why the Government should
    1204
    suddenly come along and say that we must not continue this in the case of the ground superior, or why he should be selected for preferential treatment, I cannot understand. It is unfair and it should not come into the Bill.
    In the second place, it seems that in the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the ground superior has for too long been enjoying an income far above what he ought to have been enjoying. Why we should now say, "You will lose something if the local authority wishes to acquire your interest in this land as the ground superior", I do not know. We should not do this. Why it is so unreasonable is that the public are asked to pay. It is the taxpayer and the ratepayer who now have to compensate these people for a loss which they have made as the result of taking an ordinary business risk. We have to compensate them on the basis of something which, on the face of it, appears to be exceedingly unjust over a very long period.
    In Committee, the hon. Gentleman made no case in justification of that. He told us the purpose, but he did not endeavour to justify it. He did not point out why it was right that we should do this or why the taxpayer or ratepayer should he called upon to foot the bill. We will be very glad if he will do so now. If he cannot, we must consider whether to divide the House on our Amendment to delete this part of the Bill.
    Mr. James McInnes: I beg to second the Amendment.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, the Amendment seeks to eliminate the ground superior from the provisions of the Clause. As the Joint Under-Secretary will be aware, in Committee we gave classic examples of the extortionate demands being made by ground superiors to local authorities who seek to acquire these feu duties and ground burdens to which the ground superior becomes entitled. I quoted many instances.
    Unfortunately, I must say, also, that the largest ground superior in Scotland is, perhaps, the Churches. In some instances, they have found this to be a rather profitable form of investment. Local authorities are confronted with the position that when they seek to buy

    1205
    these feu duties or ground annuals, the demand made against them is extortionate. In some cases, the capitalised value is estimated at £700, £800 or £900. The hon. Gentleman will tell me that in the case of compulsory acquisition, the local authority can bring in the district valuer and that between the ground superior and local authority, some better arrangement might be possible.
    If the Bill has demonstrated nothing else, it has demonstrated that there is now need for a complete overhaul of the whole feudal system in Scotland. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will take this to heart. I assure him that if the Government were to bring in a Measure of that kind, he would get the backing of the Opposition.
    There is every justification for the Amendment, in view of what is taking place throughout Scotland and the manner in which local authorities are being held to ransom when they come to acquire feu duties, ground burdens and matters of that kind. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give us more satisfaction tonight than he did during the Committee stage of the Bill.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that I can give him more, or indeed any, satisfaction by my answer. What I shall try to do is to give him an explanation. It would be going much wider than the Amendment, and the purposes of the Bill, if we were to consider tonight a complete overhaul of our land tenure system in Scotland.
    This Amendment would have two effects. In the first place it would have a negative effect in preventing a superior or similar interest from applying for, or appealing against, a certificate under Clause 4. It would also have a positive effect, which is to confer a right on persons with an interest in land to apply for a certificate. I would say in passing that the Amendment would be unnecessary for that positive purpose, since persons with an interest in land are already empowered to make an application under Clause 4, and therefore the Amendment would add nothing to what is already in the Bill.
    The essence of this matter is that we are trying to reach fair market value, and we come back all the time to what is fair market value for the land to be
    1206
    acquired. The object of the Clause is to ensure that fair market value will be paid. As I explained at a previous stage of the Bill, it may be that for some reason or another the owner may not apply for a certificate. If he does not do so where a certificate would have been available had he applied for it he will not be getting fair market value for the land.
    Mr. Willis: Why does it matter?
    Mr. Macpherson: It matters because, as I explained before, in some cases it will not be the owner who will suffer but the superior, because the latter will not then be able to get the full consideration to which he is entitled. So we come back to what the Bill is designed to achieve. If the owner is not interested in fair market value because it is the superior who will get the advantage of fair market value being paid—the consideration being related to compensation which in turn is confined to the market value of the land to be acquired—it is only right that the superior on his own account should be able to apply for that certificate.
    Mr. Willis: Why?
    Mr. Macpherson: If the owner is not prepared to defend the rights of the superior—in other words, to make it possible for the owner himself in a sense to meet his obligation to the superior—then the superior must be put in a position to do it for himself. That is the purpose of allowing the superior to apply for a certificate.
    The hon. Gentleman said that this was slipped into the Bill because it will increase the consideration which the superior will receive. As I explained yesterday, it cannot increase the value of the consideration, the capitalised value of the feu, beyond what is the capitalised value of that feu. In other words, if the number of years' purchase of a feu at a given period—assuming the credit of the feuar or owner is adequate— is, say, sixteen years, the capitalised value of that feu would be sixteen years' purchase.
    7.15 p.m.
    If, on the other hand, the credit of the feuar is less, the market will relate the value of the superior's rights to that position, and the market will also relate the value of those feu rights to the value

    1207
    of the land over which the superior's rights are held. So there is a market for the superior's rights and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, they are freely bought and sold; but they are bought and sold, as they should be, on the basis that the market value of the land will be paid if it is acquired. Therefore, there again the superior ought to be entitled to apply for a certificate.
    Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the problems that confront local authorities when they acquire the feu? The owner, in the first instance, demands a figure which approximates to thirty or forty years' purchase price. Then, when the local authority brings in the district valuer, invariably the agreed figure is a twenty years' purchase price.
    Mr. Macpherson: The reason for that is that the superior tends to regard his right to receive feu duty as a right in perpetuity. He may take the view that over a period of years that right will be maintained, though the land at one time may go down in value and it may go up in value at some other time. Here, the hon. Gentleman is dealing with cases not where the land has been bought compulsorily, but possibly in anticipation of a sale by agreement, or even in anticipation of the property being taken over from the owners, because the owners just hand it over, as has happened fairly often in Glasgow; in anticipation of that, the superior rights are being acquired. It is natural that the superior should say, in the first instance, to the acquiring authority that he has feu duties of, say, £50—
    Mr. Willis Mr. Willis rose—
    Mr. Macpherson: The obligations are there. He may say he has a right to receive £50 on that property. The purchase value is twenty years and therefore his price is £1,000. However, as I pointed out previously, although it might have been possible for the superiors to do that before 1954, and for the amount received to come close to that, they now know that they are limited by Section 62 of the 1954 Act to the market value of the land. The total consideration plus compensation must be the unburdened value of the land, and it cannot be more than
    1208
    that. Therefore, while they may demand in the first instance the full capitalised value of their feu duty, when the district valuer comes along he will assess it on the basis of the market value of the land, as he is bound to do, and naturally a settlement will approximate to that.
    Mr. Willis: Surely this point would enter into consideration. In the example given by the hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage of the Bill, the value of the land was £60, with an annual feu duty of £25. As I said then, that is out of all proportion to the value of the ground, even with a certificate, which would increase the value perhaps to £100 or £200. Why should the local authority have to pay that inflated value?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the local authority does not have to pay the inflated value. The feu duty in the case which the hon. Gentleman mentions is £25. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said—I think I heard him murmuring—
    Mr. Ross: I did not say a word.
    Mr. Macpherson: I forgot; the hon. Gentleman does not murmur.
    Mr. Ross: It is brooks that murmur. Mr. Willis: They babble.
    Mr. Macpherson: The feu duty may be £25, and it may or may not be the case that feu duty is being received in full, but the market value that will be put upon the superior's rights will be related to the value of the land and also to the credit of the owner. It may be £100, or only four years' purchase. That might be the market value, but if an additional certificate is available for a new planning use, then, of course, it may well be that that will add to the value of the land. In that case, there will be more chance of the superior getting somewhat nearer to the capitalised value of the feu. If the owner did not apply for a certificate, that chance would be lost to the superior. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the superior should himself be put in a position to apply for the certificate.
    I should like to deal with one other point which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, because it is a point about which

    1209
    many people in Scotland feel very keenly. He talked about the extortionate demands of superiors, and went on immediately, almost in the same breath, to mention the Churches in this regard.
    Mr. McInnes: No.
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman went on, almost in the same breath, to mention the Churches, and talked about their having a profitable form of investment. The fact is that the Churches were compelled by law to invest in that form of investment. They had no option but to do so, and it is a fact that Section 62 of the 1954 Act has severely limited the amount which they can obtain if the local authority exercises its option on compulsory purchase to buy them out. If, on the other hand, it is a question of their being bought out in an ordinary transaction, they know very well that, with Section 62 of the 1954 Act on the Statute Book, the amount which they are able to get is rigidly limited in relation to the total value of the land. Therefore, I would deprecate very much any suggestion that the Churches are involved in this form of investment in any oppressive way. That is certainly not the case.
    Mr. McInnes: I did not suggest that the Churches were. What I said was that it was unfortunate that the Churches were perhaps one of the biggest holders. That is what I said, recognising that by Statute they were more or less compelled to invest in that form of investment. The point I am making—and there are isolated examples of the Churches—is that, outside the Churches, the private speculator who invests in this form of investment has undoubtedly indulged in considerable racketeering, and I particularly emphasise that statement because we have had experience of it, I can tell the Solicitor-General for Scotland, in Glasgow—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member should make a second speech.
    Mr. Macpherson: I am assured that, since the 1954 Act was passed, at any rate, the private speculator has practically disappeared from this market. Indeed, it is not very easy to realise assets of this nature in regard to some of the properties which are being acquired in Glasgow.
    1210
    The whole point of this—and this is the central point—is to try to relate what the superior gets to the real market value of the land, and it is in order that the real market value can be established that the superior is given a right to apply for a certificate which, in almost every case, he will not exercise, except in default of the owner himself applying for it. In any case, he is most unlikely to exercise it if the capitalised value of his interest is already fully covered in the market value of the land.
    Mr. Ross: We have had a very interesting sixth or seventh attempt by the Under-Secretary to justify what the Government are trying to do. If it has not become clear to anyone else, it should have become clear to the Under-Secretary that the trouble lies not at all in this Bill but in Section 62 of the 1954 Act, and that what we are trying to do here, probably in line with the whole artificiality of the assumptive nature of this Bill, is quite unrealistically to drag in the land superior.
    In this Clause which we are now amending, we are dealing with the case in which what is being purchased is not the rights of the land superior at all but the rights of the vassal. There are two rights in land in Scotland. There is the perpetual right of the land superior of dominium directum. The sole purpose in life of the land superior and his descendants, as it was of some of his ancestors, is to collect the annual feu duty in respect of land which, somehow or other in the mysteries of the past, was acquired by his family. It is true that certain investment changes, to which reference is being made, have taken place, but the historic fact is that under him is the man who owns the land—the person who pays the feu duty.
    The actual fact is that, in ordinary circumstances, if the owner of the land sells the land, the land superior has no right to intervene in that sale—none whatever. I own a piece of land in Scotland on which my house is built. If I sell it tomorrow the land superior to whom I paid my annual tribute is not the slightest bit interested. His feu duty still goes on with the next owner. In fact, what we are doing here is conferring on the land superior the right to interfere in negotiations in which he has no direct interest. He has no interest in the land, and I have

    1211
    no less an authority for saying this than the Solicitor-General for Scotland. I do not quote him because he is Solicitor-General for Scotland but because in this case he was himself quoting a higher authority, and so, probably, there is much more certainty about it. On 29th January, in one of his irascible interjections, he interrupted one of my own not quite so short speeches, in which I said:
    "It leaves it open to the land superior to apply for a certificate because he has an interest in land."
    The Solicitor-General said:
    "He has not. On the authority of Lord Dunedin, in the House of Lords, as I have said, he has not an interest in land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 29th January, 1959; c. 449–50.]
    What we are doing here is conferring upon him an interest in land. In other words, we are changing the law of Scotland—
    Mr. Willis: By the back door.
    Mr. Ross: As my hon. Friend says, by the back door, in one of the craziest Bills that any Scottish lawyer has ever set his eyes upon. That is exactly what is happening. When we went through the Clauses on which this is hinged—Clauses 3 and 4—we limited the right of application for a certificate to people who were directly concerned. What we are now doing is to widen that and give to someone who, by the law of Scotland and by the declaration of one of the Law Lords of Scotland, has no interest in land, an interest not in any private negotiation that relates to the ordinary everyday sale of land, but only when a local authority or some such authority buys land under a compulsory purchase order.
    7.30 p.m.
    If there is something wrong with the present system, the law of Scotland should be changed and the Law Officers and the Secretary of State should justify the change in the general position of the land superior. The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as I that he would get little, if any, support in Scotland for that. The position has become burdensome and anomalous and resented by the people of Scotland, who do not like the position of the feudal superior who has only rights and no obligations. I expanded that aspect of the argument in Committee,
    1212
    and it would be wrong to go over that ground again.
    The hon. Gentleman said that it was only fair that we should have this provision in respect of compulsory purchase. He said that the local authority would not pay an inflated value. But the whole purpose of this provision is to ensure that in some cases the local authorities will pay more. The hon. Gentleman went out of his way to suggest that and gave example after example.
    In Section 62 of the 1954 Act, which was passed while the hon. Gentleman was in office, there was laid down an inflexible formula relating to the consideration to be paid by a local authority seeking to discharge its liabilities for feu duties, that is to say, when it calculates the capitalised value of the annual toll of feu duty. It was the hon. Gentleman's Government which made that provision. If there are some difficulties about it, it should be changed. I am not convinced that there are any difficulties. Even if there were, this would not be the right way to change them. The Government should be bold in this matter. It may well be that they are not very anxious to let the people of Scotland know what they are doing.
    Now I come to the justice of the case. I have all along deplored that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should have insisted, on this and other matters related, on dragging in the Church of Scotland. I do not think that the Church of Scotland would wish to be considered in any way different from anyone else holding a feu duty. It was easy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to quote what the Church of Scotland had said. I can only say that he was more anxious to quote the Church of Scotland on feu duties than on what it said about Nyasaland.
    It is obviously the position that in calculating the compensation and market value one is driven to the conclusion that the ground is overburdened. The passage of time has proved that and has shown that in any private sale of land or property the price is always related to the burdened value of the land.
    Why should we go out of our way deliberately to confer on the land superior, during negotiations in which he is not directly concerned and which concern not him but the owner, a right which is conferred upon him at the expense of the local authority and which permits him at

    1213
    a later stage to inflate what he gets when the local authority exercises its optional right of seeking discharge of the land from feu duty? That enables him to get an additional sum of money outwith the market value of the land, which is most unfair.
    I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will come clean on this matter. It is the ratepayers and not the Government who will have to pay. The Government are being generous to the feudal landlords of Scotland, not at the expense of the Treasury but at the expense of the ratepayers. Local ratepayers will cake some convincing before they believe that it is fair to confer a right which has been decisively declared to be nonexistent and to do so in this obscure subsection in this obstruse—
    Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Abstruse.
    Mr. Ross:—and complicated provision.
    I hope that we shall hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There is no justification for introducing this new right only in respect of negotiations related to compulsory purchase. There is no justification for conferring a right on the land superior in ordinary sales of land. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I will gladly give way.
    Mr. Speaker: Not by way of intervention. Has the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) finished his speech? The Question is—
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry that I did not rise at once, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), as usual, appeared to be rather uncertain of his ground and of his seat.
    I want to make it clear that it was not I who brought in the Church of Scotland, either tonight or on a previous occasion. On the first occasion, I mentioned in passing, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) rightly did tonight, that the Church of Scotland was the largest holder of feu duties in Scotland. That is a matter which ought to be before the House.
    I went further when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is not with us tonight, accused me—and
    1214
    I quote from memory—of "giving way to vested interests; the landlords again; giving way to representations by the superiors and the landlords". I pointed out, to correct the hon. Member and to get the truth on record, that the only representations which I had received had been from the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, and the Episcopal Church of Scotland. That is a statement of truth.
    Mr. Ross: And nothing to do with the Bill.
    Mr. Willis: This was on a different Bill.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I know, but reference was made to me bringing in the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) brought up this matter in Committee and if he is entitled to say in Committee what I said on an earlier Bill, I am entitled to bring it up at this stage, little though he may like it.
    The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, with his usual charm and persuasive gentleness, has been saying that the Bill will give the superior something which he has never had. He would still be getting far less than he got before 1954. It is true, as I explained in Committee, that the superior does not have an interest in land under the Land Clauses Act, 1845, which entitles him to a notice to treat. But under that Act he was entitled to get full consideration for the value of his feu duty and, as I have explained before, that was interpreted in most cases up to 1954 as being the full capitalised value, or something like twenty years purchase.
    The 1954 Act altered that, and in this case all we are doing by this Clause is saying that if by an oversight or by the failure of the owner to ensure it the market value is not properly assessed, the superior can come in and have full market value assessed by the issue of a certificate and get his appropriate share of the payment made, just as he would if the owner had applied for a certificate. For the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to say that this is giving to the superior a right to exact from a local authority more than the actual market value—
    Mr. Ross: No.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member said it was "outwith

    1215
    the actual market value", which I took to mean beyond. If he wishes to correct me, I will give way and deal with him later.
    Mr. Ross: I was correcting what was stated by the Under-Secretary, who said that by this means the land superior would not get more. I was saying he would get more than he would otherwise get were this Clause not in the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member may have said so, but if I remember rightly—if I am wrong, I apologise but I made a note of the words—the hon. Member said "out-with the actual market value." I wish to make clear that the superior cannot get more than the market value as at present laid down in this Bill.
    Mr. Willis: But this is a qualification. Surely in any case under the 1919 rules the valuer is bound to assess at the market value. What we are putting into the Bill is something additional.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: What we are putting in is the fair market value.
    Mr. Ross: Really!
    Mr. Willis: This is a new fair market value.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If it is fair market value—we have dealt with this already for the owner—to assess it on the certificate basis for the owner it is equally fair to assess the fair market value on that basis for the superior. I see no reason why not. What I wish to make absolutely clear is that the total payment by the local authority to the superior and to the owner combined cannot exceed the fair market value under the Bill.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 161.

    Division No. 75.]

    AYES

    [7.43 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Deedes, W. F.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Aitken, W. T.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hope, Lord John

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Dodds-Parker, A, D.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Arbuthnot, John

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh S.)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Astor, Hon, J. J.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Elliott,R. W,(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Barter, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Batsford, Brian

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Fell, A.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kirk, P. M.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Gammans, Lady

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Glover, D.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Godber, J. B.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihulll)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gower, H. R.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Body, R. F.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Green, A.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Grimond, J.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Brooman-White, R. c.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bryan, P.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Carr, Robert

    Gurden, Harold

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Cole, Norman

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Maddan, Martin

    Cooke, Robert

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maitland.Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Mathew, R.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Redmayne, M.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Russell, R. S.

    Wade, D. W.

    O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co, Antrim, N.)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Shepherd, William

    Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Osborne, C.

    Speir, R. M.

    Wall, Patrick

    Page, R. G.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Partridge, E.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Webster, David

    Peel, W. J.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Williams R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Storey, S.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Woollam, John Victor

    Pitman, I. J.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Pott, H. P.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Teeling, W.

    Mr. Chichester-Clark

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Temple, John M.

    and Mr. Whitelaw.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hoy, J. H.

    Price, Philips(Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Probert, A. R.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Randall, H. E.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Brock way, A. F.

    Janner, B.

    Reeves, J.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Reid, William

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C, W.

    Ross, William

    Champion, A. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Short, E. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwiok)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McCann, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    de Freltas, Geoffrey

    Mclnnes, J.

    Steele, T.

    Delargy, H. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Storehouse, John

    Diamond, John

    McLeavey, Frank

    Stross, Dr,Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edelman, M.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mason, Roy

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Timmons, J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Tomney, F.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fletcher, Eric

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Viant S. P.

    Foot, D. M.

    Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert (Lewis'm,s.)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Forman, J. C

    Mort, D. L.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moss, R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moyle, A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hale, Leslie

    Owen, W. J.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinbugh, E.)

    Hannan, W.

    Paget, R. T.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hastings, S.

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parker, J.

    Zilliacus K.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Paton, John

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pearson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Holman, P.

    Pentland, N.

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)
    Amendments made: In page 9, line 7, after "prescribing", insert:
    "(subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of section four of this Act".
    In page 9, line 8, leave out "section four of this Act" and insert "the said section four".
    In page 9, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
    In page 9, line 28, at end insert:
    (e) for requiring a local planning authority, on issuing a certificate specifying conditions by reference to general requirements in accordance with subsection (6) of the said section four, to supply a copy of those requirements (or of so much thereof as is relevant to the certificate) with each copy of the certificate, unless before the certificate is issued, the requirements in question have been made available to the public in such manner as may be specified in the development order.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 26, after "effect", to insert:
    "as if after the words 'to be made and dealt with respectively' there were inserted the words 'and other procedural matters ancillary to such applications and appeals' and".
    At an earlier stage, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), whom I do not see in his place at the moment, said, when talking about the words at the beginning of Clause 1 (1) that they had nothing whatever to do with the certification procedure in so far as paragraphs (e) and (f) of Clause 7 (4) relate to them. In saying that, he went a little far, because they have to do with it in that both these two provisions are related to making it possible for the superior to apply for a certificate. At the same time, he was on quite a good point.
    This Amendment seeks to give effect to the idea which he had in his mind at the time. It is true that paragraphs (e) and (f) do not strictly regulate the manner in which applications are to be made and dealt with, and it is for those reasons that the words on the Notice Paper are proposed to be inserted:
    "and other procedural matters ancillary to such applications and appeals'"
    which will, without doubt, cover paragraphs (e) and (f).
    Mr. McInnes: While the Joint Under-Secretary has said that he is giving effect to the desires of my hon. Friend the
    1220
    Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I must say that he has not done so in a very intelligible manner. We have frequently referred during our proceedings, and particularly during the Committee stage, to the complicated and unintelligible phrases contained in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) have talked about the legal verbiage and frequent use of words and phrases which they regarded as redundant. We have had mention of some this afternoon. In giving effect to this Amendment, I want to direct the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary to just how it will read. I hope that the House will bear with me and endeavour to follow me:
    "In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (1) shall have effect as if after the words 'to be made and dealt with respectively' there were inserted the words 'and other procedural matters ancillary to such applications and appeals' and as if there were added at the end thereof the following paragraphs, that is to say—"
    I submit that that is most unintelligible.
    I should like to quote from the Faculty of Advocates, who sent me a communication protesting against the provisions of the Bill being spatchcocked into English legislation. It says:
    "It is desirable that the law, however complicated and unintelligible, should at least be readily accessible. Should the present Bill be passed into law in its existing form, it will be necessary for a member of Faculty, before endeavouring to construe a particular statutory provision, first to ascertain from the Scottish application subsection what is the equivalent provision of the existing Scottish Acts, and thereafter to read such equivalent provision subject to the relevant amendments. Those who have to construe the English provisions will at least be spared the first part of this jig-saw puzzle."
    The point which I want to put to the Joint Under-Secretary is that during our proceedings yesterday he said:
    "I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were now to say that consideration has been given, and I can now definitely state that the Government intend to promote a re-enacting Bill immediately this Bill receives the Royal Assent. The re-enacting Bill will be in Scottish terms and will contain everything in this Bill which applies to Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 995.]
    Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure when re-enacting the Bill after it has received the Royal Assent—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)I am having a little difficulty in connecting the hon. Member's argument with the Amendment.
    Mr. McInnes: I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake to gibe us an assurance this afternoon that when re-enacting the Bill he will amend this provision in its application to Scotland, without in any way altering the sense of the Bill, so that it will be readily understood by the legal and other professions in Scotland.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: I thought, at first, that the disappearance of the Solicitor-General for Scotland from the Chamber was due to the very violent, fighting speech which he made having exhausted him, but, confronted with the Amendment that we are now considering. I think that, possibly, that might not be so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might really he ashamed of what he is perpetrating in respect of Scottish law.
    I have no objection to the Amendment going into the Bill, because it seems to me to make a little sense of the provisions that follow. It is an example of the exceedingly difficult task that the Government are placing upon people in Scotland who have to try to interpret the law. The Minister ought to be apologising to the people of Scotland for doing this and not coming to the Dispatch Box in a manner suggesting that he is conferring a great favour upon my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
    The Amendment does nothing of the kind. While it might be necessary, it makes the Bill more involved than ever. When asking us to accept the Amendment the Minister should apologise for the great inconvenience that he is causing not only to Scottish Members but to the Scottish people when he inflicts this kind of language upon them.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(MODIFICATION OF RULES FOR ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 13, line 10, to leave out from "to" to the end of line 14 and to insert:
    "the fact that (whether by way of designation, allocation or other particulars contained in the current development plan, or by any other means) an indication has been given that the relevant land is, or is likely, to he acquired by an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies".
    1222
    The Amendment is designed to meet an interesting point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that the reference to "proposals" in subsection (6) of what it now Clause 8 might give rise to confusion with subsection (2)—at least I took it that that was in his mind. He said, if I remember rightly, that there was a puzzling relationship between the table in subsection (2) and the words to which I have referred in what is now subsection (6).
    The object of subsection (6) is quite distinct from the object of subsection (2). It is to remove the depreciation that is caused, not by the actual proposals for development but by the threat hanging over of future acquisitions by a public authority. The words in the Amendment get rid of that word "proposals" which might have been ambiguous, thereby removing the trouble to which the hon. and learned Gentleman called the Committee's attention. I trust that if he has been able to study these alternative words he will be satisfied that the Government have paid attention to the valid point he raised and have made the distinction clear.
    Mr. Mitchison: This Amendment meets the point I raised.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 13.—(LONG-STANDING NOTICES TO TREAT.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 16, line 29, at the end to insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply if, before the end of the said period of one year, the acquiring authority have exercised a right of entering upon and taking possession of land in pursuance of the notice to treat.
    The Amendment is to deal with a point which occasioned notice in relation to the Clause. Subsection (4) provides that, where a notice of what is called "intention to proceed" has been served, if at the end of a year from the date of the service of that notice compensation has not been agreed and no proceedings have been begun for the determination of any question relating to that compensation, the notice to treat shall cease to have effect. The object of the provision is to ensure that these old, long-standing notices to treat which have been a bear garden for many years will be finally disposed of.

    1223
    The Amendment deals with a contingency which might arise if a local authority has entered upon land in pursuance of the powers it has following the service of a notice to treat. If it has done that before the end of the year in question, it causes great difficulty if the notice to treat ceases to have effect. The authority will be in possession of the land without having power to proceed with acquisition. That clearly is a situation for which Parliament ought to provide.
    The Amendment therefore would ensure that the subsection will not apply where the acquiring authority has exercised the right of entering upon and taking possession of the land. This is not inconsistent with the general purpose of the provision in the Bill which is designed to get these long-standing notices to treat wound up. In the case envisaged in the Amendment the owner has lost possession and has therefore the incentive to get the matter settled. That incentive should be sufficient to ensure that the whole question is wound up.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31—
    Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we not to be allowed to move our Amendment in page 29, line 15, at the end to insert a new paragraph?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I was informed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not want to move it.
    Mr. Mitchison: That impression arose out of a Ruling, with which I respectfully agreed, that there are grave objections to the Amendments immediately preceding the one to which I have referred, and I understood that they would not be selected. I hoped, and I still hope, that the Amendment in page 29, line 15 and the further Amendment in page 29, line 40, to add another new paragraph, will be selected.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Very well.

    Clause 22.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS OF DISPOSING OF LAND.)
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 29, line 15, at the end to insert:
    (a) land shall not be sold or let for a term exceeding ninety-nine years except to an
    1224
    authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies or with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which may be given generally as regards land sold at a price not exceeding one hundred pounds or let at a rent not exceeding five pounds and otherwise may be given specially.
    I am glad that it has been possible for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to see your way to call this Amendment, because it has the one unusual characteristic that everybody can understand it. It will be the one point in the Bill where it will be possible for everybody to see the meaning.
    Clause 22 is one of a series of Clauses which we very much welcome on this side of the House and which is designed to give local authorities freedom of action without having to come to the Ministry for permission to buy and sell land, and so on. In general, we entirely agree that this is a right step, and we welcome the Clauses.
    One of the proposals in the Clause deals with the question of alienating land which is already in the possession of the local authority. Although we accept the general principle, it is never wise just because one accepts a general principle to assume that it covers every case, and we think that this problem of sales of freehold and long leases is one which requires looking into rather more carefully.
    The history of the matter, which is one to which the right hon. Gentleman drew our attention in the Standing Committee, is that the Uthwatt Committee said that once any interest in land has passed into public ownership it should be disposed of by way of lease only and not by way of sale and the authority should have the power to impose such covenants in the lease as planning requirements make desirable, a breach of such covenants to be enforceable by re-entry.
    As a result of the Report of the Uthwatt Committee—I have no doubt there was a strong motive in the House at the time—the Eleventh Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act provided that the consent of the Minister would be required for any disposal or appropriation of land under the relevant Section, and paragraph 19 (5) went on:
    "The consent of the Minister to a sale by a local authority under this section of the freehold in any land, or to a lease by them thereunder of any land for a term of more than ninety-nine years, shall not be given unless he is satisfied that there are exceptional

    1225
    circumstances which render the disposal of the land in that manner expedient as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section."
    That is the law as it is at present. There is a similar requirement in the New Towns Act dealing with new town corporations. The result of it is that it is not only a question of local authorities having to apply to the Minister for consent to sell freeholds or to make long leases, but the Minister may not give his consent unless there are very special reasons for doing it. Therefore, it is going a very long way indeed from that care in husbanding freeholds for the situation to arise in which no consent at all is required and the local authority is completely free to alienate land if it wants to.
    When we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was no longer necessary to have this careful control because of the actual working of the 1947 Act. Referring to the Uthwatt Committee recommendations, he said:
    "That was before the present system of planning control was introduced under the 1947 Act and control of the sort with which we are concerned has been largely removed by the very complete system of control which has followed from the 1947 Act. I sometimes wonder if hon. Members opposite ever reflect on how effective their Act has been over controlled land use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 3rd March, 1959; c. 1054–5.]
    That is a very great compliment to the 1947 Act and its architects, but I felt a little aggrieved with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he realised that he was completely destroying the case for the preservation of the leasehold system. I speak as one of the members of the Labour Party who has fought a rearguard action to some extent against leasehold enfranchisement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) must be a very jubilant man because he has found a powerful ally in the Minister.
    8.15 p.m.
    One of the great arguments which has always been used against leasehold enfranchisement is the fact that leasehold control enables a landlord having an interest in a whole area to lay it out and plan it and see that communal amenities are preserved by enforcing covenants. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that that is not necessary. I think he is probably wrong. From what I have seen
    1226
    of attempts to enforce the Town and Country Planning Act, I should not think that it was the precise and swift machine that he suggests. I think that even my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, however pleased he may be with this new ally, would agree, as an old and experienced member of the London County Council, that it is not very easy to enforce a town planning condition. We have only to look at the problem of the use of land in London for clubs, which defies all efforts at adequate planning control.
    One of the important reasons why local authorities should hesitate very much before they sell freehold is that they have control over a wide area of land, and they should not split it up into the hands of a number of small freeholders.
    The next important point is that anyone who has ever been a trustee of a charitable trust and has had to argue the point with the Charity Commission knows that land is an appreciating thing, that it is something in which one can to some extent ensure against changes in the value of money, and that there is always a tremendous reluctance to allow charities to sell land in which they have their assets invested
    The same kind of principle arises in the case of a local authority. A local authority faced with the prospect of selling land may find itself confronted with a choice between the advantage of the moment and the long-term disadvantages of losing a valuable asset. It may well be that there is a temptation for a council which is not very prudent and farsighted to give in to pressure from speculators and property developers who want to get hold of the freehold and say to the local authority, "We will not do this work unless you are prepared to give us the freehold." That is a very facile argument often used by developers, and the temptation may be for the local authority, with the greatest good will, to slip into getting rid of a valuable asset which it would he wiser to hold. It is not just a question of the district valuer fixing the full market price. He does that as well as he can; but he cannot judge the political, geographical and town planning factors which enter into the decision as to whether it is wise to hold on to one's real property or to get rid of it.
    This is an extraordinary change of front. Previously, we have had very strict

    1227
    control under which the Minister could not even exercise his discretion to give permission. Now there is to be complete freedom for local authorities, without taking the advice of the Minister, to alienate valuable assets. I should think that is unwise.
    Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there was a good deal of difference between, on the one hand, a large holding of land and, on the other hand, small pieces of land left behind as a result of the completion of some operation, which should, in the general interest, be sold off, cases in which it was foolish to ask a large local authority to ask for permission, which would create red tape and delay.
    In this Amendment we have endeavoured to meet that point, for what we say is that the
    "land shall not be sold or let for a term exceeding ninety-nine years except to an authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies"—
    which means a more or less public authority—
    "or with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which may be given generally as regards land sold at a price not exceeding one hundred pounds or let at a rent not exceeding five pounds".
    In other words, it would be possible under the Amendment for the Minister to give a general approval for the sale of small parcels of land, but there would still remain for him a duty with respect to the larger parcels of land because his consent must be given specially if they are to be sold.
    It does not seem to me that this is an unreasonable thing to ask. After all, the right hon. Gentleman, I myself and even my hon. and learned Friend are frail human beings, and before long we go to our last account. On the other hand, the local authority goes on for a long period; its assets remain with it; the trust to the people remains. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that we should try to preserve the assets of local authorities. We have had at times in our discussions of the Bill to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being rather drunk wih power. I am pleading with him this time to take a wider view and to see himself in the context of history and to realise that the decision he is taking now may have results quite a long time ahead.
    I am always pleading with the right hon. Gentleman just occasionally to make
    1228
    a concession. I put it to him, would it not be perfectly reasonable to say, when dealing with something as vital and fundamental as the sale of freeholds, or long leases of over 99 years, to keep the requirement of the permission of the Minister, and to abandon it only in the case of the smaller pieces of land or m the case of shorter leases? If only the right hon. Gentleman would do that it would, at any rate, ensure not an absolute prohibition, of course, on sale, but that there would be a period for reflection.
    It would be necessary for the local authority, if it decided to take this important step, to go to the Minister for permission, and that would give a little time for reflection of what it was doing and would enable the Minister, even if he were not to refuse his consent, to say, "Have you considered this and that?" and give the local authority an opportunity to deliberate on the full significance of what it was doing. I should have thought this just the kind of gentle, fatherly supervision, which is not dictatorship, which the right hon. Gentleman ought to keep.
    It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman who talks about the obduracy of local authorities and how they have to be made to do this, that and the other on a matter like this is so tender towards their susceptibilities. I would suggest that it is not unreasonable to ask him to accept this Amendment, which he may not like altogether, but which is a reasonable compromise and which would enable the matter to be looked at a bit longer, before we make such a drastic change in what has been the law of the land now for twelve years, if not more.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said that the trust to the people remains. However, trust in the people does not seem to be a characteristic of the Opposition, if they support this Amendment, because this shows a clear distrust of the elected local authorities. The hon. Member said, further, that I might not like the Amendment very much, though he hoped that I would accept it. I can assure him that the local authorities would dislike it even more than I do.
    When we as a Government—and, I hope, as a Parliament—are seeking to entrust a greater degree of responsibility to the local authorities, it would seem

    1229
    strange now, by this Amendment, to withdraw from them a power which in the Government's view they ought to have and which they have been allowed to look forward to by the provisions of this Bill.
    I outlined the case against this Amendment in Standing Committee. It is quite clear that the hon. Member read what I said. Indeed, he was there at the time. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he has certainly read what I said, and the overwhelmingly cogent argument which I adduced on that occasion. This Amendment is slightly different from the one we discussed in Standing Committee, because this is what I might call a de minimis provision which is designed to let out certain small transactions—though I must advise the hon. Member that, judging by experience, the limits would have to be put considerably higher than they stand in the Amendment if they were to carry out what I presume is their intention, namely, not to catch small pieces of land which are surplus to requirements.
    However, the main question before the House is to what extent local authorities can be trusted to reach a decision relating to the disposal or long leasing of land which they have acquired by agreement. There is no question about it that a local authority cannot acquire land compulsorily and then sell it off under this Clause as it stands. The normal case here is the land which has been acquired by agreement. There are certain categories of land which are excluded from the Clause, land which has been bought compulsorily, as I said, and land which it is proposed to dispose of at less than the best price obtainable.
    Perhaps I may say, in passing, that the relaxations which are embodied in the Clause have been agreed with the local authority associations, and the Clause is drafted on the basis that ministerial control should be retained only where it can really be justified. Frankly, this Amendment extends a grandmotherly control to transactions where, in the view of the Government as well as of the local authority associations, there is no reason to fear that the local authorities would act irresponsibly.
    8.30 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Widnes quoted paragraph 147 of the Uthwatt Committee
    1230
    Report. He mentioned that I had demolished in Committee the case arising out of that paragraph, but, as he referred to it, perhaps I should explain the position again. That passage in the Uthwatt Committee Report was written long before the 1947 Act was passed. It was written because it was believed—and, maybe, rightly believed—at that time during the war that control by the terms of a leasehold disposal was the most satisfactory way of ensuring the proper use of land. The need for control by a public authority through such methods as that has very largely been removed by the complete system of planning which the 1947 Act has brought into use. I venture to say again, even if it upsets the argument of hon. Members, that the Opposition seems sometimes to be unaware of 'how effective the 1947 Act has been in controlling the use of land.
    I also said, in reply to the Amendment in Committee, that my Department's estate officers have considerable experience in these matters, experience gained particularly with the redevelopment of war damaged central areas since the war. That, I know, was one of the methods very much in the minds of the Uthwatt Committee. All this experience indicates that it depends on the circumstances of the case whether leasehold or freehold disposal is more advantageous.
    It is the considered view of the Government—we have not reached this conclusion lightly —that in any particular case, the choice whether disposal should be made by way of lease or by way of sale should be left to the local authority concerned so long as that local authority is fully apprised of the respective advantages of the two systems. Perhaps I might repeat in the House what I said in Standing Committee, that I have in mind the issue of a circular to local authorities when the Bill is through, giving them such guidance as can be gathered together on the basis of all the experience that they and my Department have had since the war.
    Frankly, it comes to this. Do we still think it right that ministerial control should be retained over a wide range of local authority transactions which would be caught by this Amendment, but would be released by the Clause as it stands? I am glad to say that in the Standing

    1231
    Committee, which had a similar Amendment before it, the matter was not pressed to a Division. I believe that it was because there was a desire to raise the matter again on the Floor of the House on Report, so I am not making anything of that point, but we have argued this matter out twice now, and the Government stand firmly to their view that local authorities are responsible bodies in the sense that it should be left to them to reach their own decision, without ministerial intervention, on the classes of case defined in this Clause.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am not altogether surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not read his own Bill. It is both dull and long. I am rather more surprised that he has not read his own speeches in Committee, which were not so long.
    The figure of £100 comes from the right hon. Gentleman's own comment. He raised two objections to the Amendment we then put forward. One of them was on the question of small plots of land. This is what he said in one of those sentences which always attract my admiration:
    "With the small plot it seems out of keeping with the modern conception of the responsibilities of local authorities that they should have to seek Ministerial consent before selling a small plot for, say, £20 or £50, or something of that sort, before granting a lease of that Iand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 3rd March, 1959; c. 1054.]
    However expressed, that point seemed to me to have some substance, and it was solely to meet it, as I said at the time, that the Amendment was withdrawn.
    We then put in an Amendment, thinking that for once the right hon. Gentleman might not have overstated the matter, and put it up to £100. More than that, we put in another Amendment to provide that the right hon. Gentleman could alter it. If he is not content with that, I do not know what he is content with on that point. He has clearly forgotten his own speech in Committee. I do not blame him for forgetting the reason why I withdrew the Amendment. There is no particular reason why he should pay the attention to my speeches which I reverentially pay to every word which drops from his Ministerial lips. It may be due to the fact that we were told the other day that Ministers never make mistakes but the Opposition may.
    What I complain about is that we had a bit more of this stuff about Tory
    1232
    freedom. I am getting rather tired of Tory freedom, but I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten his own Bill. What we begin with is to remove the need for Ministerial consent. Then we go on to certain exceptions. The third of those exceptions is:
    "land shall not, except with the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, be sold, exchanged or let for a price, consideration or rent less than the best price, best consideration or best rent (as the case may be) that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to any restrictions or conditions subject to which it is sold, exchanged or let:"
    Therefore, Tory freedom does not apply to the price. It applies only to the questions whether one can sell.
    Exactly what the political philosophy is that says that one can trust local authorities to sell or let land which they have acquired, but one cannot trust them to do it at anything other than the highest price and for that purpose Ministerial consent must be obtained, completely passes my understanding. If there is anything in the plea that we should trust local authorities, sub-paragraph (c) ought to be out of the Bill and ought never to have been in it. On the other hand, if there is anything in what we are putting forward there still remains the question whether sub-paragraph (c) is necessary.
    Local authorities, so far as I know, have never had any very great grievance. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us that they have any great grievance. Moreover, I wonder whether he has considered the effect of the second of the two Amendments which we are now discussing. It is up to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the figure of £100, if he likes, to £1,000, £5,000, £10,000 or £50,000, and to make a corresponding increase in the figure relating to long leases. He can do that. When he does it, he will be answerable to questions in Parliament.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were elected. We have been telling him so all along. We had to remind him of that in connection with new towns. We shall probably have to do it in connection with many other matters. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he, too, is elected and answerable to Parliament?
    We think that the disposal of land, certainly on any large scale, has been the subject of Ministerial consent because it is recognised as involving questions that

    1233
    go beyond the ordinary scope of a local authority's dealings, and especially so in relation to sizeable pieces of land.
    There has been no great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman told us with pride that his Departmental officers knew all about it and had given most valuable advice in connection with sales of this sort and other matters relating to land. It is a very remarkable proposition that a Government which insist on controlling local authorities in relation to the price of the sale should then say that they absolutely decline to control them in the fact of the sale and that, provided that it is the higher price, local authorities can sell £1 million worth of land without any leave from the Government.
    On the other hand, if it is the wrong price even the £20 or £50 plots of land about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in Committee are subject to Ministerial control. If, instead of the £20, all that they are to receive is £19 19s. 11½d., the right hon. Gentleman's consent is required. It is a fantastic line to draw. In face of what was said by the Uthwatt Committee and in face of the considerations which have moved this legislation for a long time, I must decline to accept the kind of argument advanced today.
    There is another side to it. It may be that local authorities sometimes do and
    sometimes do not require formal consent from the Minister to buy land. In the case of a compulsory acquisition, I think that it is right to say that they always, or at any rate almost always, do. Even in cases of purchases by agreement, those purchases are specifically described in the statutes relating to the functions of local authority. They can be made only for certain purposes and within certain limits, and above all there is the financial check that the Ministry still exercises on the activities of local authorities.
    I do not say that it is wrong, but it is true to say that whether by that financial check or by statutory provisions relating to compulsory purchases local authorities are very considerably controlled in the buying of land, and are further controlled in the price at which they sell land. It is only on the "aye" or "no" of the sale itself that the right hon. Gentleman feels that Tory freedom is involved. It is a distinction that I do not appreciate. I do not know his reason for this change, and he has not told us, except in such general terms as to be wholly inapplicable to the case we have to consider having regard to the other provisions of the Bill.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 211.

    Division No. 76.]

    AYES

    [8.40 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Janner, B.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Blackburn, F.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Boardman, H.

    Foot, D. M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Lawson, G. M.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Grey, C. F.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hale, Leslie

    Logan, D. G.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hannan, W.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Champion, A. J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    MacCann, J.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hastings, S.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Hcrbison. Miss M.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Holman, P.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Holmes, Horace

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Mason, Roy

    Deer, G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Diamond, John

    Hunter, A. E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Dugdale, Bt. Hn. John (W. Brmwich)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon, J. C.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm.S.)

    Edelman, M.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Mort, D. L.

    Moss, R.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Moyle, A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Neal, Harold (Botsover)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Timmons, J.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Tomney, F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Ross, William

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Oswald, T.

    Royle, C.

    Viant, S. P.

    Owen, W. J.

    Short, E. W.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Padley, W. E.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds W.)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Parker, J.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Paton, John

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Pentland, N.

    Snow, J. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Probert, A. R.

    Steele, T.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stonehouse, John

    Woof, R. E.

    Randall, H. E.

    Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Reeves, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Reid, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fisher, Nigel

    McAdden, S. J.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Freeth, Denzil

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Gammans, Lady

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Maddan, Martin

    Ashton, H.

    Glover, D.

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Godber, J. B.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Gower, H. R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Barter, John

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Batsford, Brian

    Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Green, A.

    Mathew, R.

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Grimond, J.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Gurden, Harold

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Body, R. F.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Brooman-White, R, C.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Bryan, P.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Carr, Robert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Osborne, C.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Page, R. G.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hope, Lord John

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Partridge, E.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Peel, W. J.

    Cole, Norman

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Peyton, J, W. W.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Cooke, Robert

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Corfreld, F. V.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pott, H. P.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Crowrter, Sir John (Finchley)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Redmayne, M.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kirk, P. M.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Shepherd, William

    Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Longden, Gilbert

    Speir, R. M.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Spence, R. H. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Fell, A.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    1236

    1237

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Webster, David

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Storey, S.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wade, D. W.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Teeling, W.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Temple, John M.

    Wall, Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

    Thomas, P. J M. (Conway)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Mr. Gibson-Watt.

    Clause 23.—(APPLICATION OF CAPITAL MONEY ON DISPOSAL OF LAND.)
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31, to leave out "one hundred pounds" and to insert "the relevant limit".
    If you agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that it will be convenient to take the next three Amendments, in lines 41 and 46, and in page 33, line 8, with the Amendment that I have just moved.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker Mr. Deputy-Speaker indicated assent.
    Mr. Bevins: When the application of capital moneys on the sale of land was considered in Committee my right hon. Friend expressed the view that the proper financial principle which ought to be reflected in the Bill was that the proceeds of money derived from the sale of land should be applied in a way which was consistent with the permanent character of the assets which they replaced. He accordingly argued that it would he wrong in principle for capital moneys which stood in the place of long-term assets, such as the ownership of land, to he applied to very short-term purposes. At the same time, there was a feeling among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the provisions then embodied in the Bill were perhaps slightly grandmotherly, and too restrictive in their impact upon local authorities.
    The effect of the Amendments can be described briefly. First, the period which determines whether a loan has a sufficiently long period outstanding to qualify as a purpose to which capital money may properly be applied is to he reduced from twenty years to fifteen years. The other relaxations to which we are proposing to give effect are, first, to delete the present limit for the de minimus provision for £100 and to substitute the relevant limit which is now defined in a new subsection (3). The limit for counties, county boroughs or the City of London is raised to £1,000, and in the
    1238
    case of all those authorities the product of 1d. rate would well exceed that sum.
    For county district councils or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the limit is to be £1,000 or the product of 1d. rate, whichever is the less, and for any other local authority, as defined in the Fourth Schedule—which includes such bodies as statutory water undertakings, joint boards, and so forth—the relevant limit is to be £500. This is a compromise figure. The product of 1d. rate would not be appropriate for most of these bodies but, on the other hand, £1,000 might he too high. In drafting the Amendments my right hon. Friend has tried to meet the sense of the criticisms expressed both by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
    Mr. Mitchison: As the hon. Member has said, the previous arrangements were rather grandmotherly. Although granny, in recognition of the spring, is a little more frisky, she is still a very staid old lady. The Amendments do not go very far. In Committee, we suggested that in this matter the Scots have a far greater freedom than the English, and that there was no reason why granny should look after the English in this assiduous way while allowing the Scots to run free. That argument did not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. They have one firm principle, which is never to accept any suggestion of substance made by the Opposition. We get little bits of chicken feed from time to time, but that is all.
    We have argued this point in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has frankly said that this is a compromise suggestion. He has come some of the way. I do not suppose he can tell us without reference what the product of a 1d. rate in the County of Rutland is, but it would be quite interesting to know.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 41, leave out "twenty" and insert "fifteen".
    In line 46, leave out "twenty" and insert "fifteen".
    In page 33, line 8, at end insert:
    (3) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection, the relevant limit shall be ascertained as follows, that is to say—

    (a) in the case of capital money received by the council of a county, county borough or metropolitan borough, or by the Common Council of the City of London, the relevant limit shall be the sum of one thousand pounds;

    (b) in the case of capital money received by the council of a county district, or by the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the relevant limit shall be whichever is the lesser of the two following amounts, that is to say, the sum of one thousand pounds, and the amount estimated for the purposes of subsection (2) of section nine of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, to be the product, for the financial year in which the capital money is to be applied, of a rate of one penny in the pound for the rating area consisting of that county district, or of the Isles of Scilly, as the case may be;

    (c) in the case of capital money received by any other authority to whom this Part of this Act applies, the relevant limit shall be the sum of five hundred pounds.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause 31.—(RIGHTS OF OWNERS WHERE APPLICATION MADE FOR PLANNING PERMISSION.)
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 45, line 15, at the end to insert:
    (d) the local planning authority may decline to deal with the application if it is of opinion that the applicant has no legal or equitable interest in the whole of the land which is the subject of the application or does not produce the written consent of a person who has such an interest to the application being made.
    We had a long argument in Committee on a rather similar Amendment. Very shortly, the point is that local authorities are perturbed about the extent to which individuals who have no legal interest or rights in a piece of land can nevertheless, submit a planning application. Such applications have to go through the normal machinery and the Departments, and every one has to be separately considered in relation not only to the site for which permission is required but in connection with all the relevant matters on adjacent sites. This may involve quite a number of visits to the place of prospective development, and yet everyone knows,
    1240
    including those dealing with the application, that there is not the slightest possibility that it will be followed by any real development.
    I do not know whether London attracts more cranks than other places, but I know that, over the years, the London County Council has received a number of propositions which never had a chance of being turned into real developments. A planning application was submitted to create a market garden on top of Covent Garden. One has only to think of what this would involve to realise how absurd such a proposition would be. This application was put in without any reference to the lessees, the owners of Covent Garden, or anybody else. The proposer had no legal right in Covent Garden, or, indeed, in any adjacent land. Yet, it was necessary for that application to be considered in the normal way, because appeal could be made to the Minister and it would be necessary for the planning authority to be able to give concisely and conclusively its reasons for dealing with the application.
    Local authorities therefore think that there should be a limit to this right and that they should have some discretion in regard to planning applications which, on the face of it, are either farcical or so remote from any possible development that they ought not to waste the time of planning authorities, who will be heavily occupied.
    9.0 p.m.
    It is thought that the most practical way would be for the local authority to have the right not to proceed further with an application if the applicant has no interest in a site or if he cannot produce the written consent of the person who has an interest in it. This would give all legitimate protection to anybody who might have an interest. At the same time, it would prevent a great deal of unnecessary work which can never lead to development by the hard-pressed planning authorities. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he acknowledges the point of the Amendment and will either accept it or have a provision inserted in another place to prevent this abuse of planning powers.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.

    1241
    I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). The Amendment deals with a commonsense point which should be accepted if we are to have some sort of order in the procedure for the giving of planning approvals. As my hon. Friend said, anybody can make an application to a local planning authority for permission to develop a piece of land for a certain purpose when he is not the owner of it, and has no real interest in it, and when it may well be known that the owner of the land would not be prepared to sell it at any price for any purpose. Nor is the number of applications limited to one. Local planning authorities may well have in their files concerning a site a number of applications of this kind for planning permission to develop the piece of land for a number of different uses. Eash application may be different from the one which preceded it.
    When a local planning authority gives a planning permission, it cannot revoke that permission without incurring the liability for compensation. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the Amendment, to say whether there is any limit in time to the validity of planning permission being given to persons who are not the owners of the land and who have no chance whatever of acquiring it.
    To take an extreme case, if for one site there are, say, five or six applications—or there might be as many as ten, fifteen or twenty applications—it would be possible in course of time for a variety of uses to be applied for. When these planning permissions are given, how long will they remain valid? Will it be for five years, ten years, fifteen years or twenty years? Once the planning permission is given, it cannot be revoked by the local planning authority without incurring the liability for compensation.
    I know that the only person who can claim compensation is the owner of the land and not the person making the application. Nevertheless, a large number of local authorities are placed in considerable difficulties where these planning permissions are given to people who do not own the land, who have no interest in it and who have no prospect whatever of acquiring it.
    There is another factor. As we all know, the designation of the uses of land
    1242
    may well vary with the passing of time. A development plan is valid for five years, after which it is revised. Although no great or substantial variations might be made in the revised plan as compared with the previous plan, nevertheless adjustments from time to time are made. In a revised development plan it might well be that a piece of land which previously was planned for residential purposes is shown as having a use for open space. It might be shown for industrial use. It might be shown for some other use. It might be an industrial piece of land which, in the revised development plan, may be designated for open space or residential. There are a number of connotations which could be considered in connection with the designated use of the land over a period.
    It makes the question of sensible planning complicated to follow, because if a series of planning permissions have been given to a person who is not the owner of the land, and is never likely to have it, and then the use of that land is changed in the revised development plan, what is the situation of the local planning authority which has planning permission outstanding for a piece of land over which, in the revised development plan, those uses would no longer apply? It is not clearly understood whether the previous planning permissions have ceased to have any effect when the revised development plan comes into operation.
    These are all important points which the hon. Gentleman should explain when he answers this debate. Whether he accepts the Amendment or not, I feel sure that the time is drawing near when some sensible procedure must be adopted about planning permissions. They are being stacked by the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, in the offices of local planning authorities, and in the case of many of them there is no hope of carrying them out because the owner of the land does not want to sell it and may, indeed, want it for a purpose of his own.
    Therefore, I feel that when applications for planning permission are submitted to a local planning authority they ought to be accompanied either by an indication from the owner of the land that he himself is interested in the form of development or that he is prepared to dispose of the land. Or perhaps we could insist that application for planning permission should come only from the owner of the

    1243
    land. That would be far the better way of laying down this procedure.
    In Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman inferred that if this were done new development would be retarded, but he did not advance any reasons in advance of that contention. As a matter of fact, I do not think anything of the kind would happen. I cannot see how development would be retarded because, in the first place, if the man who owns the land is not prepared to sell it no development takes place—that is, privately if, of course, the local authority wants to acquire the land it is a different matter.
    So I feel that there are good and substantial reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should accept this Amendment. If he is not satisfied with its form, then he should suggest some amended form of words which will restrict planning applications to realistic applications which, if granted, can be carried out or developed on the land concerned. I do not think anyone who has no interest in the land ought to be entitled to put forward application for planning permission for the land of some other person. It is not necessary even to see the owner of the land and ask, "Do you mind if I make application?"
    There are cases in which the first knowledge which the owner of the land has about this is from the local paper. He sees it reported that somebody he has never heard of before,—it may be an individual from Timbuctoo or somewhere else—has made an application to the local planning authority to put a garden above Covent Garden or something ridiculous like that, or it may be an application for a reasonable form of use about which, nevertheless, he knows nothing whatsoever. I am sure there are lots of planning permissions registered in the files of local planning authorities for the use of certain pieces of land which are unknown to the owners. That seems to be an absurd and ridiculous situation.
    I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to throw a little light on this matter and will agree to make some change in this procedure in order to cut out these superfluous and fictitious applications which are cluttering up the files of the local planning authorities and limit applications to genuine projects which have a reasonable chance of being carried out if and when approval is given by the local planning authority.
    Mr. Skeffington: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, may I put another point about this Amendment? We arrived at this Clause more speedily than I had anticipated.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is the safeguard of the certificate under Clause 3 but a number of instances have come to light in which the information on the certificate was either misleading or false. In one particular case of which I know there was an application to build a helidrome—a place where helicopters can land—at one of the railway stations—I think it was Charing Cross. The information given on the certificate was quite valueless and in this particular case there was an objection. British Railways were strongly opposed to the proposition but nevertheless it had to go through all the planning machinery. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could deal with this certification process which is not really a safeguard at all.
    Mr. Bevies: I think that perhaps the House might be well advised before we come to a decision on the terms of this Amendment to have regard to the fact that Clause 31, as it is now in the Bill, was put into the Bill to meet a recommendation of the Franks Committee. The recommendation of that Committee was simply that owners and others directly interested in land should be informed of third party planning applications, and should be allowed to state their views.
    The object of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, as I understand it, is to enable planning authorities to avoid dissipating their time and energies in dealing with schemes that are put forward either frivolously, or, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said in Committee, by "naked speculators", and, generally speaking, putting forward applications which are never likely to lead to schemes which materialise.
    What the hon. Gentleman is trying to do in the Amendment is to give planning authorities the discretion to refuse to deal with applications for planning permission if, in the opinion of the planning authority, the applicant holds no interest in the whole of the land, and does not produce the written consent of the owner of such an interest, that is to say, of the whole of the land.

    1245
    9.15 p.m.
    A number of hon. Members will remember that a not dissimilar Amendment was debated and rejected in Committee. It is equally true that this differs from the earlier Amendment in the sense that this refers to "the whole of the land" instead of to "the land". Those words are probably used to meet the point made by my right hon. Friend in Committee, that the applicants could satisfy the conditions by getting the consent of the owner of only a minor interest.
    The new version goes from one extreme to the other and the owner who gives written consent under the terms of the present Amendment must hold an interest in the whole of the land. The House will see that in many cases, especially with big schemes, there might not be a single owner with an interest in the whole of the land. In such a case, the planning authority would enjoy a very wide discretion on whether to deal with the application.
    That might be a criticism of the drafting rather than the principle which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is perfectly true that a similar proposition has been considered by my right hon. Friend, as he promised earlier. However, it is still the feeling of my right hon. Friend that the objections to attempting to do something on these lines are far greater than the advantages which would flow from it.
    What is proposed would go a good deal beyond the Franks recommendations, but the most important and cogent reason against attempting to do anything of this kind is that to require developers not only to notify owners, but also to get their consent will be a brake on development.
    There is, no doubt, the odd case of the chap who wants to build a forest on Covent Garden, but let us keep a sense of perspective. There has been a considerable amount of worth-while development, certainly in my time, in the last ten or twenty years, by people who, when they made their planning applications, were not the owners of the land, but who succeeded in their planning applications and subsequently were able to negotiate the ownership of the land.
    I am not gainsaying for a moment that some of these applications may have been
    1246
    made by speculators of a not very good type, but there are plenty of people in the building trade and a great variety of other trades who do a worthwhile job. It would be quite wrong to frustrate their work by saying that they would not only have to notify the owner of the land, but get his consent before making an application for planning permission.
    Mr. Sparks: Why not?
    Mr. Bevins: If they succeed in getting planning permission for, say, building, they will have to negotiate the ownership of the land as well.
    Mr. Sparks: Is there something in the application which a prospective applicant would not want the owner of the land to know about? Is he trying to get permission to do something with the land which he wants to withhold from the owner? It seems a fair proposition that the owner should be advised that an application is to be made and that he should be asked to give consent, whether he agrees to sell or not. That seems to be the sensible and moral thing to do.
    Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Bill a certificate has to be produced stating that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to the owner. The owner is in no way prejudiced because a planning application is made by a third party. The owner is a perfectly free agent, whether planning permission is granted or refused—
    Mr. Sparks: But he may object.
    Mr. Bevins:—to sell or not to sell the land to a particular person for a particular use. If the owner objects, he is under no compulsion whatever to sell the land to A, to B or to C.
    Mr. Sparks: But he cannot stop the application being made, which is probably what he would want to do.
    Mr. Bevins: There is no reason in equity or common sense why he should be free to do so—
    Mr. Sparks: Oh, yes, there is.
    Mr. Bevins:—and moreover, my right hon. Friend takes the view that this Amendment is objectionable because under its terms everything would rest on the opinion of the planning authority.

    1247
    The authority would have unfettered discretion to decide that an applicant had no interest in the land and thereupon decline to deal with the application. Of course, there would be no right of appeal.
    It is conceivable that the Amendment could result in embarrassment to a local authority such as the London County Council, if the L.C.C. wished to develop land in the area of another local planning authority. If its proposals happened to be unpopular, under the terms of the Amendment they could be frustrated. Or it is conceivable that a nationalised industry might wish to develop land and be unable to get the consent of the owner. A local planning authority might dislike the proposal and refuse to entertain the application.
    I make no attempt to conceal the fact that this is a difficult matter and there are many facets to it. But we should be most unwise to accept the proposal which is inherent in the Amendment. I feel it would act as a brake to what very often is perfectly fair and legitimate development of one kind or another. My right hon. Friend has given a lot of thought to what has been said in our earlier deliberations, and he cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point about what happens upon the revision of a development plan which may provide for a change of use of a piece of land for which planning permission has already been given under the original plan. When planning permission has once been given, it cannot be revoked by the planning authority without the payment of compensation. What happens in a situation where the development plan is revised and no development has been carried out on a piece of land, but the proposed use is changed? What is the position of a local authority regarding compensation?
    Mr. Bevins: I cannot see what possible relevance that can have to this subject.
    Mr. Sparks: It has great relevance.
    Mr. Mitchison: I think that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have been a little hard on my hon. Friend and on the local authorities for whom he is speaking. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that if the London County Council met the sort of difficulty he
    1248
    described, nothing would be simpler than for the authority to come to the Minister and ask him to call in the applications, which I am sure he would do in the circumstances. May I warn the hon. Gentleman of the dangers which may come upon him? I have been examining the planning legislation and I find that there is no reason why planning applications should not be made by outside persons in respect of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
    Plots are in the air and they should not be confined only to Colonial Office ones. As a matter of fact my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and I have a plot. I can give it away to the hon. Gentleman now because that will not prevent us from concocting another on a larger scale. That is something that happens with plots. My hon. Friend proposes to get a planning application to put a café bar on top of the Ministry, but I am going to do something far more sinister. I am going to provide for the erection of a home on top of the Ministry to house tenants evicted under the Rent Act, and that will prove very awkward for the Minister.
    These are, of course, absurd instances, but so were the instances given by my hon. Friend. It is a little rough if steps cannot be taken to prevent busy local authorities having to deal with what are quite obviously frivolous projects. If, in fact, a local authority cannot be trusted to exercise a certain amount of common sense and discretion in a case of this sort, it ought not to be there.
    As to the naked speculator whose only resemblance to the bare trustee is that neither of them has a beneficial interest in the property in question, does one want to encourage this nude gentleman? What is the point of doing so? He can upset all the previous provisions of the Bill about compulsory compensation on compulsory acquisition. He may get a whole lot of planning permissions which would confuse the issue beyond words and all of which would have to be taken into account when it came to assessing compensation if the property was going to be acquired, and he might do it having no interest whatever in the property, as the Bill stands at present.
    We are told that planning permissions may make a lot of difference, sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Be that as it may. We have been talking

    1249
    about them for hours on the assumption that they had, at any rate, some importance in the question of compensation to be paid. What is the position if this naked speculator comes in and gets a whole collection of planning permissions and thereby upsets, in one way or another, the amount of compensation payable to the person who actually owns the land? There ought to be a little more application to this problem. I can see that the Amendment put forward might or might not fully meet the case, but the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that he and his right hon. Friend have given deep and constant thought to it, or whatever the standard expression for this kind of light meditation is, and at the end of it produces precisely nothing. He recognises the difficulty, does nothing to help the local authorities, and he runs the risk of planning permission for a stable of elephants being obtained in respect of his own Ministry. Ought he not to think better of it?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 46, line 19, to leave out "three" and to insert "ten".
    This Amendment fulfils a promise given in Committee to amend the definition of owner in its Scottish application for the purposes of this Clause which deals with the duty of applicants to certify they have notified owners and the right of owners as defined by the Clause to have their representations heard by the planning authority. It includes in the definition only lessees with an unexpired tenancy of not less than ten years in place of lessees with tenancies with not less than three years to run. In Committee a similar Amendment was accepted for England and I gave an undertaking that it would be applied to Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: We cannot allow the Amendment to go by quite so easily without drawing attention to the fact that this is, once again, an example of how we have been dragged along at the heels of England in this matter. That does not make it any the better. The plain fact is that the Scottish draftsman and officials, considering this in the first place, thought that three was quite sufficient to meet Scottish conditions. We have never had, neither in Committee nor in the House up to the present, an explanation of why it must be altered for Scotland.
    1250
    The hon. Gentleman gave us no reason at all in Committee. All he said was that he was going to do it. He gave no reason why he was making a change and he has given no reason tonight.
    9.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised a number of questions in the Committee about the Clause, and referred to the Long Leases (Scotland) Act and other Acts. He asked what effect the Bill would have on tenants holding tenancies under those Acts. There was no reply to that. The Joint Under-Secretary of State ought to give us something better than we have had. Otherwise, we are bound to feel that we are being trailed along at the heels of England and that we are not legislating in the interests of Scotland but in the interests of uniformity.
    Mr. Macpherson: I can give a further explanation. If we are being trailed along at the heels of England I can only say that the original Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley). It can hardly be said, in view of that fact, that we are being trailed at the heels of England.
    Mr. Willis: He did not quote Scotland.
    Mr. Macpherson: We had time to consider the Amendment before it was accepted and then we considered it for Scotland, although we did not actually move the Amendment for Scotland in Committee. That is what we are doing now. The reason why we accepted the Amendment is that this is not a question of vital importance to the owner. The mere fact that an owner is not notified under the Clause does not diminish his right to refuse to pant with his land for the development permitted by the planning permission.
    The rights conferred on owners are fairly limited under subsection (1, b). They may receive notification, which is equal to conveying notification by publication in the local newspaper. On the other hand, it gives the owner, as defined in the Clause, a right to be heard by the local planning authority. That does not mean either that it will only be the owner as defined in the Clause who will be heard by the local planning authority. The difference is simply that it is only the owner as defined in the Clause that is

    1251
    given the right to be heard by the local planning authority.
    This is a question of degree, of how far we are to extend the burden on the prospective developer in the way of notification, and of how far we are to extend the burden on the planning authority in the way of obliging it to consider representations. We consider that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns made the case for ten years. He said, if I remember aright, that it was difficult to reach an exact figure and that it might be seven, ten or twelve; at any rate, it was certain that three years would be too small a period. We accepted that view, and we took ten years.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) now asks about the other Acts that were mentioned in the Committee. The Long Leases (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1951, was mentioned, but that was a stopgap Measure and it was overtaken by the Long Leases (Scotland) Act, 1954. The position might arise a little later that it will be a very tight race whether that Act expires before this Bill actually comes into force. The period between the two is so small that, for the purposes of the Clause, it is utterly negligible.
    Year to year leases, as I explained in Committee, would not come in, in any case. Whether for houses, shops or any sort of property, they would be excluded in any case. We think that fixing the time at ten years is about right. One cannot talk with any certainty in this matter, but there is no reason why there should be any difference between Scotland and England on this point. There is no difference in conditions of law or anything else—
    Mr. Willis: Yes, there is.
    Mr. Macpherson: Not on this particular point. This is a question of administration, the principles of which would apply equally in Scotland as in England.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Joint Under-Secretary apply his mind once again to the question I put to him about people who are presently holders of leases in particular parts of Scotland but who are covered by the terms of the Long Leases (Scotland) Act, 1954? That Act gave
    1252
    the right to holders of particular leases if they made application within five years—and the five years will not be up until about July this year—to have their leases even with one year or two years to run. They are denied the right of ownership under this interpretation. They were given the right to become owners if they so wanted merely on application. It is the leasehold reform which many English and Welsh people would like to have applied to England and Wales.
    I do not think it good enough for the Joint Under-Secretary to say that the race will be so tight and the number of people concerned utterly negligible. We should consider the Clauses affecting Scotland that are being put into the Bill and remember that the Solicitor-General for Scotland could not trace an actual case. We are told that this is purely academic for Scotland, yet the Government insist on legislating for something which is purely academic. Here is something which we know is to happen. These people may be denied the right of ownership even though their lease is less than ten years and probably before the end of five or six months the number probably will be extended. They will be owners.
    It is not good enough for the Joint Under-Secretary to ride off the argument in this way. When the matter was raised in Standing Committee, the Solicitor-General and he were taken quite by surprise. They had forgotten the existence of these people. I do not think there are any in Ayrshire, but I know there are some in Lanarkshire, and there there is a marginal constituency. In Stonehouse, of all places, we have a position which might well sway the Lanark seat. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) is not present to defend the interests of these people. I think that a scandal, but I think it more of a scandal that the Joint Under-Secretary, after the Government had promised to look at the matter, and having recognised the difficulty, should now say "There will be this difficulty and injustice, but it will not affect so many people." I hope that he will have another look at the matter before the Bill passes through another place.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 32.—(OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE RESIDENT OWNER-OCCUPIER'S IN TEREST AFFECTED BY PLANNING PROPOSALS.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 47, line 17, leave out "(d)" and insert "(f)".—[Mr. Bevins.]
    Mr. MacColl: I suppose that the paragraphs got into the Bill in Committee.
    Mr. Bevins Mr. Bevins indicated assent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 48, line 5, to leave out "or part".
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has a number of other Amendments on this page of the Notice Paper. I suggest that we take them together, with the exception of the Amendment in line 10, to leave out "three" and insert "ten", which we could take later.
    Mr. Skeffington: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there are three separate sets of Amendments. The first Amendment which I have just moved and the Amendment in line 6, after "dwelling", insert:
    "or in the case of a hereditament of which part only is used as a private dwelling occupies the whole of that part"
    can go together, and then the Amendments in line 16, to leave out "or part", and in line 16 at the end to insert:
    "or in the case of a hereditament of which part only is used as a private dwelling occupied the whole of that part".
    That is one point. There is the separate point covered by the Amendment in line 10, to leave out "three" and insert "ten". The Amendment in line 13, to leave out "that" and insert "the relevant" would go with the Amendment in line 18, leave out from first "the" to "the" in line 19 and insert "relevant date". I might, for the convenience of the House, speak on the first four that I have indicated and then subsequently deal with the others.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must act as he thinks best. He has now moved the Amendment in line 5. If he will indicate to the House which Amendments he discusses with it I shall mark them off and see that we keep matters straight.
    Mr. Skeffington: I propose that we take with the Amendment I have moved
    1254
    the Amendments in line 6, in line 16 to leave out "or part", and in line 16, at the end to insert:
    "or in the case of a hereditament of which part only is used as a private dwelling occupied the whole of that part".
    The Clause as drafted enables a resident owner-occupier of the land affected by certain planning proposals specified in subsection (1), which has been as a result rendered unsaleable or saleable only at a very considerably reduced price, to serve on the appropriate acquiring authority notice asking it to purchase its interest. The resident owner-occupier is defined in subsection (6) as a person who
    "(a) occupies the whole or part of the hereditament as a private dwelling in the right of a freehold interest therein or in right of a tenancy granted or extended for a term … of which not less than three years remain unexpired …"
    and has been in occupation of the hereditament or that part of it, as the case may be, during the whole of the period of six months ending with the date of the service of the notice, or (b) has occupied in such capacity the whole or part of the hereditament for
    "a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service by him of such a notice …"
    the premises having been occupied since the end of that period.
    The local authorities view with some concern the inclusion of a resident owner-occupier of part of the hereditament in the Clause having regard to the definition of a hereditament in subsection (7) as being
    "… the aggregate of the land which forms the subject of a single entry in the valuation list for the time being in force for a rating area."
    It would, therefore, appear that the Clause would cover the case of an owner of a large house which has been let off to persons in a number of single rooms and of which the owner occupies one or two rooms.
    9.45 p.m.
    The Clause as drafted would enable the owner-occupier in cases to which it applied to serve a notice on the authority concerned to require it to purchase the premises with vacant possession of one or two rooms only. In other words, it would have possession of a property which would be no use whatever to it. In addition, the Clause could saddle a

    1255
    local authority with a large number of houses occupied by a number of people and scattered all over an area, with consequent additional expenditure for maintenance and management quite unjustified by any of the statutory duties which the authority would have to fulfil.
    It is clear from our discussions upstairs that the Clause is not really designed even by the Government to further the interests of owner-occupiers of this kind. It would seem both wrong and unjust if such owners could take advantage of the Clause as drafted. The four Amendments to which I am speaking now would, if accepted, ensure that owner-occupiers of property falling within the Clause would be only owner-occupiers of the whole hereditament. That is the purpose of the Amendments. They would not exclude the owner-occupier of a shop-cum-dwelling house. That is, at any rate, the intention of the Amendments, but in a subject of this complexity one is never quite certain that one has covered every possible complication. It would, I think, still include the owner-occupier of a shop-cum-dwelling house.
    I hope that the Minister will feel that it would be quite wrong to allow the provisions of the Clause to be abused in the case I have mentioned, for which it was never intended, and will agree that it cannot be in the public interest that such a development should occur.
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
    My hon. Friend referred to the example of an owner who may occupy one or two rooms in a 10-room house. I came across a case the other day in a redevelopment area where a man and his wife owned three such houses and in each had reserved two rooms for their occupation. How they managed to reside in two rooms in three different houses at the same time, I do not know. Each house, apart from the two rooms reserved for the owner, was let, single rooms to some tenants, two or three rooms to other tenants, and so forth.
    The Amendment is designed to introduce a much fairer definition of "owner-occupier". It is quite obvious in the case I have mentioned that such a person could not be a genuine owner-occupier. He is making a business out of letting
    1256
    rooms in large houses. It was never intended that such a person should be regarded as a genuine owner-occupier. There might be something to be said if he resided in only one house, having his residence in a part of that and sub-letting the remainder. We know that there are cases where there would otherwise be a surplus of accommodation not used.
    We ought to be quite sure, when considering whether to admit the owner-occupier who occupies a part only of his dwelling-house, that we are dealing with a real owner-occupier who is genuinely living in a reasonable part of the house, and not living in one room himself and letting out ten, fifteen or more rooms to someone else. The Clause as it stands appears to leave the door wide open to bring in a range of people who are not the genuine owner-occupiers we all wish to help in this connection.
    The Amendment endeavours to prevent such an abuse arising. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be sympathetic in his attitude towards this series of Amendments, because I am certain that unless there is a much more clear definition in the Bill as to who is a genuine owner-occupier it will let in many—I will not say undesirable people—but people whom I am sure we do not intend to benefit by the Clause in cases where they are running a business and are not genuine owner-occupiers in the sense that we expect.
    Mr. Bevins: What the House is currently discussing is the definition of "owner-occupier" for the purpose of empowering certain people to dispose of their interests under Clause 32 in cases of blight. It would appear from the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen that they feel that the present definition in the Clause is too wide. If one is to go by the speech of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), the Amendments are directed against the wicked landlord who lives in one part of the house and lets off the rest of it at exorbitant rents.
    Mr. Sparks: Or lives in three houses.
    Mr. Bevins: Or, to add the rider of the hon. Member for Acton, lives in three houses and lets them all off at exorbitant rents. I do not see that that matters.
    The question to which the House has to address its mind is whether the group

    1257
    of Amendments would achieve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman quite clearly had in mind. These four Amendments say that an owner-occupier would qualify under Clause 32 only where, first, the whole of the hereditament is a private dwelling and he himself occupies the whole of that private dwelling—that is a perfectly simple case—or, secondly, where part of the hereditament is a private dwelling and he occupies the whole of that part.
    What would the Amendments do? To begin with, they would exclude from the scope of Clause 32 any owner-occupier if he sub-let simply one room. He might have a house which contained ten rooms altogether occupied by a middle-aged gentleman and his wife who had let off one bedroom to a third party. In those circumstances, under the terms of the Amendments, the owner-occupier would be prevented from disposing of his interests under Clause 32.
    What I think is worse is that the effect of the Amendments in practice would be inconsistent. If, for example, a hereditament consisted partly of a house and partly of a shop, the owner would be entitled to sell his interest in the whole of the hereditament even though the shop portion was sub-let. That follows from the second leg of the Amendment. On the other hand, if the part sub-let was not a shop but was part of the dwelling, the owner would be excluded from the provisions of the Clause.
    For those reasons, I cannot honestly feel that the Amendments achieve anything that is by any stretch of the imagination desirable. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) cares to analyse their detailed effects he will probably agree that the Amendments are ill-conceived.
    Mr. Willis: The Parliamentary Secretary has told the House why these Amendments should not be accepted, but he has not replied to the very pertinent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). My hon. Friend quoted a specific case in which it was quite clear that certain difficulties arise, and the hon. Member might have addressed himself to it. Surely he could have admitted that this was a real problem and could have said that, even though he was unable to accept the Amendments because of certain
    1258
    difficulties, he would look at the matter again.
    Mr. Bevins: It is wise when discussing Amendments to discuss them. That is what I have tried to do.
    Mr. Sparks: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what an owner-occupier is? Is he a person who lives in one house, or is he a person who may live in more than one at the same time?
    Mr. Bevins: I think it would be abuse of the privileges of the House at this time of evening to give the definition of owner-occupier, which is quite clearly stated in Clause 32.
    Mr. Skeffington: I must concede that for one or two of the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to indicate I may have failed to attain the object of these Amendments, but I should like to impress upon him that when we originally discussed Clause 32 the case was that the ordinary resident occupier should not have to suffer as a result of planning. That was generally accepted on both sides.
    On the other hand, if the definition of the resident owner-occupier of land is as wide as it is now we may saddle the local authority with the acquisition of a large number of houses occupied by many people. That seems to me to carry the compensation proposals far beyond anything contemplated in the Clause. However, if I am right at all—and I am supported by the valuers of the London County Council—I hope that some Amendment or modification may be made in another place.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 48, line 10, to leave out "three" and to insert "ten."
    This is a separate point, and perhaps I may briefly address myself to it. As I indicated when speaking to the previous series of Amendments, in order to fall within the definition of "resident owner-occupier" in subsection (6), the person can be tenant of the premises with a term of not less than three years remaining unexpired.
    Many local authorities consider this unexpired period to be too short for a person to serve on the appropriate authority a notice to purchase. Such an

    1259
    interest might well couple with it a heavy liability for repairs. The premises may be worth very little quite apart from any result of planning proposals. The period which would appear to be appropriate, being the sort of period which would occur in a commercial transaction, would be ten years. It is for that reason that I am suggesting the Amendment.
    10.0 p.m.
    If the Bill becomes law in its present form it would enable a resident owner-occupier with a very short lease to require a local authority to take the property with this very considerable liability for dilapidations. It would also mean in a great many cases that money spent on repairs would be useless. The lease might well have fallen in before the local authority was actually in a position to acquire the remaining interest and proceed with the development.
    It places on the local authority a heavy responsibility which to a large extent could be avoided if the Government accepted the period of ten years instead of three years.
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There is a point I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Amendment. The Clause is headed:
    "Obligation to purchase resident owner-occupier's interest affected by planning proposals."
    It means that until the development plan has been approved there can be no planning proposals in this kind of case. It is only the introduction of a development plan that sets in motion the provisions of the Clause.
    The area concerned may well be included in the development plan for slum clearance or some other form of comprehensive redevelopment. The comprehensive redevelopment may not be undertaken for some years. It may be ten years or longer before the local authority has the resources to put into operation its proposals for redeveloping the whole area.
    I could understand it if the Clause provided that at the time when the development plan designated this area for redevelopment persons who had been resident there for a minimum period of
    1260
    time should be entitled to ask the local authority to take over their houses if they could not sell them. In many cases, however, it will be found that owner-occupiers in residence at the time of the approval of the development plan may be able to dispose of their houses, in a short time at fairly reasonable prices.
    Is it fair that an owner-occupier who comes into a redevelopment area for one, two, three, four, five or even eight years, after the area has been designated for redevelopment should, after having been in residence there for three years, be able to serve on the local authority a requirement to purchase his house at the market value as though there were no planning proposals in relation to this site.
    Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Surely he can do that only if he has made reasonable attempts to sell the house and has been unable to do so except at a price which is unreasonable in the circumstances.
    Mr. Sparks: That is quite true, but where redevelopment is not likely to take place for a long time it is reasonable to expect that a property could be sold in the early years. There may be exceptions but, generally speaking, in the first year or two of designation it Should be possible—indeed, I know of many cases where it has been possible—to sell the house at a quite good price.
    In such cases, the new owner-occupier should be thoroughly aware that redevelopment is to take place in the future and that he may not be able to sell the house for the price he paid for it, or even at the market value, for some years to come. Is such a person to be entitled to receive the benefit of the Clause? The owner-occupier at the time when the development plan designated the area for comprehensive redevelopment has a sound case, but I would not have thought that people moving into the area subsequently ought to expect to benefit. The present period of three years, in circumstances where redevelopment is likely to take as long as ten years, may allow many people to benefit whom I would have thought ought not to be entitled to do so.
    The right hon. Gentleman ought to try to clear up this point. The period of three years is far too short. The provision must have some regard to the time

    1261
    when redevelopment is likely to take place, and under the present proposals there may be a constant succession of people coming into a redevelopment area. We should know whether the provisions of the Clause relate solely to owner-occupiers in possession at the time when the planning proposals are made, or include all people who subsequently enter into possession of such houses.
    Mr. Brooke: I am in some difficulty because the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) addressed himself almost exclusively to the next Amendment. I hope that it will not be necessary for him to make the same speech when we come to the next Amendment, if it is selected. I hope that he will forgive me if I address myself to the question before the House, namely, whether the term of years should he three or ten. It is a question whether riot less than three years or ten years remain unexpired. I think that I understand what is in the mind of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), but I wonder whether he has probed the repercussions of the Amendment deeply enough.
    In practice, it is unlikely that a person holding the end of a short lease could prove that he was suffering from blight unless the redevelopment was likely to take place before the lease expired. Far from putting undue burdens on local authorities, I submit that it will be wiser, from the local authorities' point of view as well as everybody else's, to keep the Bill as it stands. The shorter the limiting period the harder it will be for leaseholders to show that they are blighted, because it will be extremely difficult for anybody to show that he is suffering from blight if the redevelopment is not to take place until some time after his existing lease expires.
    Frankly, that is the reason which activated the Government in inserting the three-year period rather than a longer period in the Bill. If people want to take advantage of the Clause to try to get rid of embarrassing ends of leases, they are more likely to want to do so when there are very few years to run. The shorter the period the harder it will be for them to give evidence that they are suffering from blight.
    The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will appreciate that it is inherent
    1262
    in the Clause that there will not be an obligation on a local authority to purchase unless the owner of the interest in the property can prove that blight is affecting the market value of his interest.
    Mr. Mitchison: I do not want to follow the Minister far in probing the repercussions of a blighted leaseholder. I think, however, that there is inconsistency between keeping three years in the Clause for the purpose of defining a resident owner-occupier and putting ten years instead of three years into a preceding Clause for the purpose of defining an owner. On the other hand, I know, and I am sure that the Minister and many other hon. Members know, that the Clause is largely directed to conditions in Wales. It has had a great deal of support from my Welsh hon. Friends, and I know, also, that in Wales there are a great many long leases expiring about now.
    I feel a little anxious that in trying, to be logical and perhaps fair to people in London, we may involve ourselves in being rather hard on the Welsh. This is especially a Welsh problem, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) recognises that. He will perhaps feel that the other provisions, to one of which the Minister referred, namely, proof of damage, are sufficient safeguards in all the circumstances. Moreover, ever since the Parliamentary Secretary told us that hardly any owner-occupiers would be affected by the earlier Clauses about compensation, I have been waiting for the moment when the resident owner-occupier would get something out of a Bill which professedly was intended to give him quite a lot. Here it is, and I hope that we shall not be too stingy about it.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: I referred to the fact that if the owner of the fag end of the lease was able to ask the local authority to acquire the property, the local authority thereby takes over liability for dilapidations. This is a serious point. The money would be spent on dilapidations even though, when the leases actually fall in, the local authority may not be able to enter the land because it is not yet at that phase for the next stage of its development plan. In these circumstances, does the Minister not think that

    1263
    there is a problem that dilapidated property may be passed on to a local authority and public money wasted because a local authority is not in a position to enter the land for some period after the lease has expired?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not consider that there is a genuine danger here. I was obliged for what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said. The owner of the interest cannot take advantage of the Clause unless he can show that he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to sell if it was unblighted.
    I seriously doubt whether many of the owners of fag ends of leases would he able to show that, because the probability is that blight will not affect the value at which they could dispose of the fag end of their leases. In any event, their interest is an interest that must he valued in relation to everything that attaches to the interest, and it seems to me most unlikely that under the ordinary provisions of compensation law they would be able to establish a high value for such a fag end if the fag end of the lease carried with it the sort of onerous obligations to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has referred.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 48, line 13, to leave out "that" and to insert "the relevant".
    To complete this series of my Amendments, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House for me to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in line 18, to leave out from first "the" to "the" in line 19 and to insert "relevant date".
    Briefly, it is considered by a number of local authorities that the powers given by the Clause to a resident owner-occupier should be available only in cases in which the land was occupied before the relevant date as defined in subsection (7), that is, the date when the proposal affecting the land is formally confirmed.
    If a person purchases property already affected by any of the proposals specified in subsection (1), it does not seem right that he should be able to take advantage
    1264
    of the Clause. The Bill, however, provides in subsection (6) for a qualifying period of occupation of six months before the service of the notice and, in the case of unoccupied property, a period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of the service of the notice. Neither of these periods specified in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (6) bears any relation whatever to the question of whether the property was occupied with knowledge about the proposals.
    These two Amendments, taken together, would provide for a clarifying period of occupation of six months prior to the formal confirmation of the proposals affecting the land. It is considered that the usual inquiries to designate or allocate the land, if made six months beforehand, would be practicable and possible, but inquiries earlier than that would probably not produce the necessary information. It would seem, therefore, that this redefinition of the clarifying periods would both improve what I am sure is the intention of the Clause and would make the proposals much more readily workable by the local authority in applying them.
    Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has had the advantage in support of his Amendment of the speech made in seconding the previous one. I hope that I shall answer both of those speeches if I address myself to the speech made on this Amendment.
    I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not want people to be able to take advantage of the provisions in this Clause in a way which seems to him to be unfair. Broadly, he wishes to establish that if an occupier has come in and taken possession of the property after the date of the event from which the blight stems, then he should be regarded as having taken on his shoulders voluntarily the risk of blight, and, therefore, should not be able to get advantage from the Clause. Again, I venture to say that I believe on further analysis he will find that it would not be wise to make a provision of this kind, and I cannot help thinking that there would be a risk of causing hardship unwittingly if we were to accept this Amendment.

    1265
    Let us take the case of land which has been defined in a development plan as a site for a school, but where the land is not expected to be required for school purposes for perhaps fifteen years from the date of the development plan. He and I, having both had some connection with the County of London Development Plan, will appreciate that this is a case which might easily arise in London. Then we might find an owner-occupier wishing to move three or four years before the land was required for school purposes. He finds that owing to the blight he cannot sell. Yet if the Amendment were accepted he would not be able to take advantage of this Clause unless he could show that he had been the owner-occupier of the property at the date when the development plan was approved, which, by then, would be ten or twelve years before.
    In fact, it is in the later years that the blight settles. Indeed, my expectation would be that when the basis for compensation has been changed, as it will be by this Bill, and when Clause 32 is on the Statute Book, it will lead to a much freer market in all this property; and, if the blight settles at all, it will be much slower to settle. My fear is that if these Amendments were made, the blight might come down at a much earlier stage, because then there would be the two classes of owner-occupier property, that is to say, the classes where the owner-occupier had been in possession at the time of the development plan, and the other classes of property which would suffer under this Amendment because the owner-occupier had not been in occupation at that date. Certainly, the Amendment would thereby increase the amount of blight. It would make it more likely, in my judgment, that the local authority would have to purchase.
    The most desirable result of this Clause is that properties will to a considerable extent be saved from being blighted at all. That is what would suit everybody. It would suit the owners, and it would suit the local authorities, because the local authorities would not have the obligation to purchase imposed upon them; but I cannot help thinking that if we were to make these Amendments, they would ensure that any property affected by a proposal under a development plan, however, remote in the future, would be blighted
    1266
    from the date of approval of the plan so soon as a new owner moved in.
    I cannot think that that would be to anybody's interest, and on those grounds, having thought about the matter as well as I can, I would advise the House that nobody would gain by introducing this further complication into this Clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 50, line 19, to leave out from "and" to end of line 20 and to insert:
    "for the words from 'a freehold interest' to the end of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the words 'the dominium utile in the land, subject to any feu duty, any ground annual and any servitude or other restriction affecting the land at the relevant time, but otherwise free from burdens.'"
    This Amendment is put forward to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who asked why the words explaining the phrase
    "such an interest in the land as is mentioned"
    were included in respect of England, but not for Scotland. The Amendment fills in that gap, and explains the words, as he wishes.
    Mr. Ross: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary for what he has done. I think that this Amendment serves two very useful purposes. The first is that it makes it a little more clear to anyone reading the Bill exactly what is being done in relation to Scotland, and, at the same time, it demonstrates the great difficulty that Scots hon. Members have had over the way in which this Bill has been dealt with.
    Undoubtedly, an English Member reading the Bill would know exactly what was intended by the reference to a particular Section of the Act of 1954, but the Scots were left completely in the dark. Even with these Amendments, anyone who tries to do it would find that it takes some little time to work it out, put the whole thing together and get an intelligent result. I hope that the Minister will at least have learned that Members from Scotland do not like to be treated in this off-hand and inconvenient way, and that he will not repeat that performance.
    The second thing is that we now have in the Bill, and they will remain enshrined for all time for English legislators, the

    1267
    words dominium utile. These words had, at first, an air of mystery, and were never reasonably well explained to the satisfaction of anyone during the Committee stage. Now, we have side by side the English term "freehold interest", and that explanation, and our dear friend dominium utile enshrined in the English Bill. We know that we are to get a separate Scottish Bill and that everything Scottish will be extracted from this Bill, but the English will be left with dominium utile in their town and country planning legislation for a long time.
    I am sure that in accepting this Amendment at the suggestion of my hon.
    1268
    Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, the right hon. Gentleman has provided a key to the actual meaning of the phrase.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I add my plea and hope that the Minister will introduce a Bill to remove this Scottish jargon from an English Bill. "Freehold interest" I can understand. The rest does not convey much to me and I do not see why, because of the confusion which the Government have caused by introducing one Bill instead of two, we English should be afflicted with this unintelligible stuff.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 38.—(RECOVERY OF CERTAIN SUMS FROM ACQUIRING AUTHORITIES.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 52, line 30, at the end to insert:
    (2) Section fifty-two of the Act of 1954 shall also have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if the following subsection were inserted after subsection (2) of that section:—
    "(2A) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, where the interest was acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served, or a contract made, before the eighteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and on the date of service of the notice to treat, or on the date on which the contract was made as the case may be, the land in which the interest subsisted was used wholly or mainly for agricultural purposes, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to so much of any payment referred to in that subsection as is attributable to any part of the land in respect of which it is certified by the Minister that he is satisfied that the acquiring authority have no intention—

    (a) of using it (otherwise than temporarily) for purposes other than agricultural purposes, or

    (b) of disposing of it by way of sale, exchange or letting with a view to its being so used."

    This Amendment is designed to implement an undertaking, which I gave in Committee, to exempt local authorities from the obligation to repay payments by the Central Land Board under Part I of the 1954 Act in respect of agricultural land.
    I am very willing to explain it to the House, if desired. It arose originally from a case affecting Banstead Urban District Council, on which I have had some correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head). I wrote to my right hon. Friend saying that I was desirous of finding a means of relieving that Council from what appeared to me to be a hardship and that the right way was by suitable Amendment of the Bill.
    There might be three or four other cases which will be affected by the Amendment and where the councils will gain exemption. But the total number will be small and I think that it will commend itself to everybody that we should exempt this small class of case.
    Mr. Mitchison: I moved an Amendment, dealing with the Banstead Council, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member
    1270
    for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who had been asked to do so by the Urban District Councils' Association. We thank the Minister for having done what he said he would do, to give some relief in these cases.
    This is retrospective legislation and I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that we regard retrospective legislation differently when it relieves hardship and imposes a burden. As a whole, the Clause imposes a burden on certain local authorities, including both Kettering and Widnes, upon which we had a discussion in Committee. I would not wish to repeat that discussion, but my objections to retrospective legislation, when it imposes a burden or solves a difficult point by legislation instead of making it necessary to go to the courts, remain as strong as ever they were. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes would like to say a word or two on behalf of that great borough.
    Mr. MacColl: I cannot refrain from responding to an invitation of that sort from my hon. and learned Friend. I warmly welcome the fact that the Ban-stead case has been met. I merely deeply regret that it has been necessary, in meeting it, to introduce the words:
    "shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect …"
    It is an extraordinary thing that no way has been found to deal with this problem except by stating that the law is what it probably was not.
    This is a Clause which, on the whole, is one to which my hon. and learned Friend and I have the strongest objections, for precisely the reason that those words appear in it. Our complaint is that our constituencies have been cut off from access to the courts because we dared to stand up to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman talked about local authorities being free agents and about interference with them. But as soon as he is frustrated he alters the law to suit his own ends and to avoid being challenged in the courts. It is a shameful thing and I deeply regret it.
    Mr. Brooke: Bearing in mind the attack which hon. Members opposite launched on me during the Committee stage on the issue of retrospective legis-

    1271
    lation, I am a little surprised that they do not take exception to the words:
    "… and shall be deemed always to have had effect …"
    in this Amendment which, apparently, they welcome.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 54, line 3, at the end to insert:
    (c) subsection (2) of this section shall have effect as if, in the subsection (2A) set out therein, for the words "the Minister", there were substituted the words "the Secretary of State"; and
    This Amendment applies to Scotland the provisions of the Amendment which has just been made in respect of England.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 39.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO CROWN.)
    Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 54, line 30, to leave out Clause 39.
    This is the Clause which was replaced by the second new Clause on the Notice Paper.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 42.—(PROVISIONS AS TO INQUIRIES, NOTICES AND REGULATIONS.)
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 55, line 10, to leave out "section" and to insert "sections."
    It might be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discussed the following Amendment in the same line.
    This point was raised rather hurriedly in Committee because we were getting towards the end of the proceedings, but it is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) attaches great importance. I hope that I can explain it on his behalf, although I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters.
    This Clause imports certain parts of the 1947 Act into the Bill, but one of the Sections of that Act which is not imported is Section 106, hence the mystic figure in the Amendment. That Section gives power to require information about ownership of land to the Minister, the Central Land Board, or a local authority. Experienced authorities, such as the London County Council, regard this as a
    1272
    valuable power which it would help them to have.
    When the matter was discussed in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary was unable to meet us, and we are raising it again in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will have been able to give more consideration to it and be in a position to help local authorities in this rather complicated matter by meeting their genuine wish to have these facilities contained in the Bill. I should have thought that Section 106 of the 1947 Act could be imported into this Bill without any serious complication arising.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for his short explanation of these two Amendments which, as he said, we considered in Standing Committee. We undertook at that time to look again at this proposal and that we have done, but I must say to the House that the two cases we were considering in Standing Committee, and are still considering in the House, are quite different.
    The proposal in the Amendment which has been moved is that Section 106 of the 1947 Act should be applied within the context of this Bill, but the two cases which the House is considering are quite different. In the first case, the local authority, where it enjoys the powers of Section 106, is carrying out functions as a local planning authority. Admittedly, those powers are very valuable to it as a local planning authority, but here we are dealing with the obligation which rests, not on local planning authorities, but on all applicants for planning permission, whether they be local authorities or private persons.
    Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, all parties are in the same position and we feel there is no adequate reason for singling out one type of applicant for a more favourable and advantageous procedure. In those circumstances, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. MacColl: I am very disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary. I have now to break the news to my hon. Friend that he has been turned down in this way and he will know that it is through

    1273
    the inadequacy of my advocacy. I had hoped that at the end of this long and weary Bill I should at least be able to say to my hon. Friend with a happy smile that at last reason had triumphed and that the Parliamentary Secretary had seen reason, but, now I can only report back to him that we are no further forward than we were.
    Mr. Mitchison: With the leave of the House, may I add another plea to the hon. Gentleman? Section 106 has a penalty attached to it and I agree that it would be inappropriate in relation to this Bill, but it enables a local authority to get information about owners of land which might be required for the purposes of this Measure, in particular, for serving some of the notices required to be given, which we have been discussing earlier today.
    I suggest this is not a case of putting one person on one side of a bargain in a better position, but merely removing the type of disparity from which a local authority is bound to suffer. I do not ask either the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend to give us any undertaking at this stage, but I wonder whether they would consider the Section minus the penal clause, simply in the light of facilitating the work of the Measure. Local authorities will find the discovering of some of the people they have to discover rather difficult and they should not be deprived of this power for that purpose. I do not ask for an answer now.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 44.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Amendment made: In page 56, line 15, at end insert:
    "authority to whom the Act of 1919 applies" means a government department or local or public authority within the meaning of that Act, or a person or body of persons to whom that Act applies as it applies to such a department or authority."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

  Fifth Schedule.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVI SIONS AS TO PURCHASE OF RESIDENT OWNER-OCCUPIER'S INTEREST.)
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 70, line 25, at the end to insert:
  (b) that the appropriate authority (unless compelled to do so by virtue of section thirty-two of this Act) do not propose to acquire any part of the hereditaments in the exercise of any relevant powers.
  1274
  The House may be pleased to hear that the next five Amendments are linked with this Amendment and could conveniently be taken at the same time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Brooke: As a group of Amendments, they are formidable, and I am ready to explain them at length if the House desires. At this hour of the night, perhaps, it will suffice to say that paragraph 4 of the Fifth Schedule may not be wide enough. Paragraph 4 applies where notice is served under Clause 32 (1, b) as a result of a road proposal shown in a development plan. It is possible that a notice may be served under other provisions of Clause 32 (1) where the land will not be required for the scheme which is apparently causing the blight, and it may be possible to prove this by reference to information other than the limited range of orders, schemes and plans described in paragraph 4.
  The main purpose here, therefore, is to insert in paragraph 2 of the Fifth Schedule an additional ground on which the counter-notice may be served, namely, that the authority does not propose, apart from the provisions of Clause 32, to acquire any part of the hereditament in the exercise of any relevant powers. This new ground for the service of a counter-notice will go wider than paragraph 4, and that paragraph is, therefore, deleted by one of the Amendments.
  The other Amendments all deal with consequential matters arising out of that major change. I say "major change". It is a major change so far as this group of Amendments is concerned, but it is not a major change in relation to the Bill as a whole. I would gladly seek to explain what each Amendment does, if the House desired me to do so, but it may be that that brief explanation will suffice. So far as I am aware, there is nothing controversial in any of these Amendments.
  Mr. Mitchison: The Amendment in page 70, line 39, provides for a method of treating objections which are now introduced. In paragraph 3 (2) of the original Fifth Schedule, I find what appears to be an opposite treatment for other types of objection. Is there some reason for that distinction?
  Mr. Brooke: Yes, there is. It seemed to the Government that, unlike the other counter-notice under the existing headings in paragraph 2, the onus of proof in these cases, if the counter-notice is served on the new ground, should rest upon the authority and not upon the owner.
  Mr. Mitchison: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why?
  Mr. Brooke: Because in this case it is the local authority which is seeking to show that the land will not be required for the scheme.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 70, line 32, at end insert:
  (3) Any reference in this paragraph to relevant powers—

  (a) in relation to land falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable by reason that the land is designated as mentioned in that paragraph;

  (b) in relation to land falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition for the purposes indicated in the development plan in relation to that land;

  (c) in relation to land falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable for the purpose of constructing, improving or altering the road indicated in the development plan;

  (d) in relation to land falling within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable by virtue of the special enactment referred to in that paragraph;

  (e) in relation to land falling within paragraph (e) of that subsection, is a reference to a power of compulsory acquisition exercisable in respect of that land by reason that it forms part of a road, or of the site of a proposed road or of the site of a road as proposed to be improved, as mentioned in that paragraph; and

  (f) in relation to land falling within paragraph (f) of that subsection, is a reference to powers of compulsory acquisition exercisable for the purpose of constructing, improving or altering the road shown on the plans referred to in that paragraph.

  In page 70, line 37, after "and" insert:
  "subject to the next following subparagraph".
  In page 70, line 39, at end insert:
  (3) An objection on the grounds mentioned in head (b) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last preceding paragraph shall not be upheld by
  1276
  the Tribunal unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the objection is well-founded.
  In page 70, line 44, leave out paragraph 4.
  In page 71, line 32, at end insert:
  5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect where the grounds of objection specified in a counter-notice under section thirty-two of this Act consist of or include the grounds mentioned in head (b) of sub-paragraph 1 of paragraph 2 of this Schedule, and either—

  (a) the objection on the grounds mentioned in that head is referred to and upheld by the Tribunal, or

  (b) the time for referring that objection to the Tribunal expires without its having been so referred.

  (2) If a compulsory purchase order has been made under the appropriate enactment in respect of land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the hereditament to which the counter-notice relates, or if the case falls within paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act, any power conferred by that order, or by the special enactment, as the case may be, for the compulsory acquisition of the interest of the claimant in the hereditament or any part thereof shall cease to have effect.
  (3) If the case falls within paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section thirty-two of this Act, then (without prejudice to the effect of any subsequent designation) the development plan shall have effect as if no part of the hereditament were designated therein as land subject to compulsory acquisition.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 72, line 1, at the beginning to insert:
  "Subject to the next following sub-paragraph".
  If you agree, Mr. Speaker, I think that the following Amendment could be taken with this one.
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Bevins: Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to explain what the effect of the Amendments is. Shortly, it is this. It is possible that an authority, having decided not to counter a blight notice, may wish to take possession of the land before compensation has been settled. If an authority were to do so, were to carry out work on the land, and the owner then withdrew notice under Clause 32, the deemed notice to treat would disappear and the acquiring authority might find itself to be a trespasser. That would be wrong, and the Amendments correct that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 72, line 9 at end insert:
  (2) A person shall not be entitled by virtue of the preceding sub-paragraph to withdraw a notice after the appropriate authority have exercised a right of entering upon and taking possession of land in pursuance of a notice to treat deemed to have been served in consequence of that notice.—[Mr. Bevins.]

  Seventh Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS AMENDED.)
  Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 77, line 48, at the end to insert:
  "and in paragraph (c) of the proviso to that subsection, after the word 'authority' there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers'".
  This, and the next four Amendments, are all consequential on Amendments which have already been made to the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 78, line 1, leave out "and".
  In line 5, at end insert:
  "and in subsection (5), after the word 'authority' in paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers', for the words 'or authority' there shall be substituted the words 'authority or statutory undertakers', and for the words 'and authorities' there shall be substituted the words 'authorities and undertakers'".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  In page 78, line 13, after "and", insert:
  "in paragraph (c) of the proviso to that subsection, after the word 'authority', in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers' and after the word 'authority', in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or, as the case may he, those statutory undertakers';".
  In page 78, line 18, at end insert:
  "and in subsection (5), after the word 'authority' in paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the words 'or statutory undertakers', for the words or authority' there shall be substituted the words 'authority or statutory undertakers', and for the words 'and authorities' there shall be substituted the words 'authorities and undertakers'".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  After 25 sittings of the Standing Committee on the Bill and two full days on
  1278
  it in this Chamber I propose to be brief. The main purpose of the Bill is to restore, in assessing compensation for public acquisition of land, the system which gives the seller the same compensation as he would have obtained had his land been sold in the private market. I should like, at this stage, at once to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for having raised this matter last year.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on Second Reading, the Bill is the second stage in dealing with the problems left by the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. It may not have been the intention of that Act that the owner of land taken by a public authority should get a lower price than he would have got in a private sale. In practice, however, it was its effect that land continued to change hands in the private market at a figure above its existing use value, in spite of the fact that the purchaser had still to pay a development charge to the Government before he could use the land for the purpose for which he had bought it.
  The first steps in undoing the practical difficulties and injustices resulting from the 1947 Act were taken in 1953 and 1954 when the private market in land was set entirely free from the system of development charges. At that time it was still reasonable to retain compensation for public acquisition on the basis of existing use value, with the addition of development value as established in 1948. Five years have now elapsed and there has been the further development of a two-price system, and the difference between these two price levels has now become such that the maintenance of the system does not do justice to the owner of the land acquired by public authorities.
  In the discussions which have taken place on the Bill, both upstairs and in the Chamber yesterday and today, we have concentrated largely on the mechanics of arriving at market value. We believed that directions should be written into the Bill so as to ensure that market value is in future assessed on a reasonably precise basis in the circumstances of the present day—that is to say, in a world where land use, and, therefore, the market in land, are greatly affected by the generally accepted system of planning control under the Town and

  1279
  Country Planning Acts—Acts which are now generally accepted sometimes gladly and sometimes with resignation.
  The basic rules are still the rules established by the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act so long ago as 1919. What the Bill does is to supplement these rules with enough, but no more than enough, guidance about their operation in a planned world where the valuers have to know the uses to which it would be permissible to put any piece of land, and thus the kind of demand for the land that would exist in the private market if those uses were permitted. Indeed, if there were no such guidance there would be no real basis for appeal. What we have attempted to secure is a fair deal for both the public buyer and the private seller in the assessment of market value.
  Another important aspect of the Bill is the provision which it makes for dealing with the difficult problem of planning blight. Clause 32 seeks to protect resident owner-occupiers of property which has become unsaleable at a reasonable price because some public authority has made known its intention of purchasing the property at some later date. The scope of the Clause has been extended and, while certain aspects remain restricted to certain owner-occupiers, the Government have undertaken to look at this aspect further, because we are all anxious to safeguard the position of the small man whose livelihood or means of survival may be at stake.
  Even without further extension of Clause 32, I am sure that much good will result from the more ample provision now made in Clause 37 for advance purchase, with the appropriate grant aid to local authorities, where, in their discretion, the authorities think it reasonable to buy property in advance of their actual requirements and thus help people not covered by Clause 32 out of any difficulty resulting from planning blight.
  A special form of blight settles on a house when it is declared unfit, especially if it is owned by the family who live in it. Under the present law such a family may, for the best of public purposes, be deprived of its home and receive only nominal compensation. The various aspects of this problem were discussed in the course of our proceedings, together
  1280
  with the planning and valuation situation which lies behind it. I am glad that there was a welcome on both sides yesterday for the Government Amendment to ensure that owner-occupiers receive at least a minimum compensation in all cases and never a purely nominal payment.
  While this has been, and is, essentially a Great Britain Bill, there have been a few points, though not many, peculiar to Scotland. During Committee and other proceedings, we have heard a good deal about Scotland and her land tenure system from Scottish Members, who made up for their lack of numbers by their industry and vigour. Our discussions have clearly shown that the compensation provisions rest on the same bases of planning and valuation principle in both countries and that it has been perfectly proper, and, indeed, desirable, to debate them in common session with English Members.
  The Bill is, however, an intricate Bill and I was happy to have had the opportunty yesterday of expressing our definite intention to ask Parliament to re-enact it in Scottish form as soon as possible. We hope that this can be achieved soon after the Bill becomes law. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading, there is a precedent for re-enactment. The precedent is the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947. The desirability of re-enactment in any particular case is not in any way a confession that it was wrong to have had a Great Britain Bill in the first place. My right hon. Friend was the first Scottish Member to speak on Second Reading and he indicated then the reasons why he considered it right to have a Great Britain Bill.
  Despite the vigorous and, at times, prolonged efforts of Scottish Members of the Opposition to demonstrate their disagreement, we are still of opinion that it was right to have the Great Britain Bill. My right hon. Friend also undertook, however to consider re-enactment and we now have definitely decided to re-enact at the first opportunity. I trust, therefore, that before long we shall have on the Statute Book two Acts of great importance which clear up the town and country planning legislation in a very satisfactory way.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. MacColl: For anyone who finds himself, as I do, rather fortuitously, on the Front Bench after many years in the

  1281
  past, and, I hope, a good many years in the future, on the back benches, it must always be one of the most satisfying parts of the experience to feel that one is keeping some of one's less fortunate hon. Friends from taking part in the debate. That, however, is not a feeling which I have tonight.
  The one thing on which I can agree with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is that we had a wide-ranging debate upstairs. We spent a great deal of time discussing the Bill. If the Scottish Members learnt as much about English jargon as we learnt about Scottish jargon, there may have been some profit in it. We had some far-reaching, imaginative discussions. We had the Minister of Housing and Local Government brooding in almost perpetual vigil over a hypothetical sewerage farm. We even discussed the development value of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) as a Privy Councillor. Of all the happy metaphors that arose, however, that left by the right hon. Gentleman tonight will linger longest in my memory. I refer to the picture of the right hon. Gentleman probing the repercussions of blight floating on a fag end.
  After that, there is little that I can say in favour of the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary nobly tried to reconcile it with the 1954 Act. Of course, the two cannot be reconciled. One of the few good things that the Bill does is that it dismantles "Macmillan's folly." It is a rather gloomy thought, but to dismantle the 1954 Bill has taken even longer than it took to erect it, and we thought that that took long enough. The truth is that the Prime Minister was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, and he made a major blunder in his attempt to dismantle the 1947 machinery. We warned him that it would lead to difficulties for people outside and to grave political difficulties within his party. It did that. We had the humiliating experience of the right hon. Gentleman being left alone and deserted one Friday by his own party, and now, as a result, here we are with the attempt to answer the problem.
  Another thing about the Bill is that it is very wide in scope. We have had a great deal of talk about the owner-occupier, but the Parliamentary Secretary
  1282
  rather let the cat out of the bag a bit too soon, because it was early in our proceedings when he told us that as a general rule the owner-occupier does receive the market value from the acquiring local authority. So, from that moment, a lot of the appeal to the little man went by the board. It was the old, old story. We soon found that the Bill was really not designed to help the little man, or the owner-occupier. That was merely a stalking horse, behind which the paying out of more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to big property owners was the real object of the Bill.
  This was done under the guise of restoring something which is called "market value". The more one has looked at" market value, "the clearer it has become that" market value has no meaning at all. It is a complete myth. It is a kind of complicated and highly abstract game, embodying a great deal of crystal gazing, the result of which would bear no relation to what the ordinary person thinks is meant by "market value."
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were supplementing the 1919 rules. That was an understatement, because what they are doing is departing in a major point from those rules, by introducing for the first time since 1919 the conception of extra compensation for compulsory purchase because the purchase is compulsory, and that is something we have never had before. It is not a grant out of goodness of heart, to some particular hardship case. It is to be made to everyone who is to be affected by Clause 15 of the Bill.
  Clause 15 is the most vicious part of the Bill, because it says that when the acquiring authority and the property owner have reached an agreement, or when a price has been fixed by arbitration on the basis of the facts as they are at the time when the transaction is completed, when the property and the land has passed, years afterwards there may be a change in the situation, owing to the facts and conditions having changed. If the land is to be used for a different purpose, the whole transaction is to be opened again, and the property owner is to be brought back into the picture and handed out extra compensation.
  Why? Because he has lost more than before? Of course not. The loss he has

  1283
  incurred is precisely the same two or three years later as it was at the time when the original compensation was fixed. The only justification for doing it is that the new use to which the land is being put by the public authority is more remunerative than the old use. In other words, the private property owner is to be given the right to share in the profits from the development undertaken by the public authority.
  That puts in its right context the whole attitude of the Government. as shown in all these discussions, to the question of development by public authorities. There is a deep resentment against the idea that local councils and other bodies should develop land for the common good. There is a feeling that it is something to be discouraged and obstructed, a feeling that, on the whole, the local authorities will act in a way that is unfair and wrong, and that the situation has got to be watched carefully. As I say, although the Government never dare say that they thought the local authorities were acting in bad faith, in fact that is the only justification for this—that they were engaged in a cheap swindle, although the Government would not accept that that was the real reason behind it.
  On the other hand, there are those who hold that the local authorities are developing land for the common good, on behalf of the ratepayers and taxpayers who are just as poor as property owners and have as much right to be treated fairly and honestly, and therefore it is just as wrong to make ratepayers and taxpayers pay more compensation than is necessary for the loss incurred by the property owners, as it is to do the opposite.
  Our real objection is that all along there has been this confusion, and the Government have not been able to make up their mind what they are trying to do, whether they are trying to ensure that the loss incurred by the property owner is fully compensated, or whether they are trying, on the other hand, to see that he gets a share in the profits that will ensue from the activities of the community.
  After all, the effect of the principle that is enshrined in the Bill—that when market value is calculated one of the things that have to be assumed is that
  1284
  planning permission would be given for the development by the acquiring authority as much as for any other development—is immediately to raise the compensation which is given based not on the use to which the owner might have put the land and not on the loss which he has suffered, but on the fact that the community is to get some gain out of what is done on the land, and, therefore, the private property owner has to be given a share of what ought to be the gain of the community as a whole.
  That leads me to the next comment, which I do not want to develop because we discussed it on Second Reading, that the Bill does not, except in a minor way. face the whole problem of betterment—the problem that a great deal of the improvement in the value of a piece of land that will come from development will not be created by the work of the landowner nor from anything done on that piece of land, but is possible only because of what is being done by the community as a whole.
  A great deal of the value that will arise from the planning permission, in many cases, is not intrinsic or inherent in that particular permission, but arises because other pieces of land have got permission and because the local authority is throwing out roads and drains. including my right hon. Friend's hypothetical sewerage farm and all the other essentials of hypothetical development which can become complicated and difficult when one is trying to build a picture in order to get an idea of the basis of valuation.
  I would like to say again what was said on Second Reading. I quite agree that it may seem incongruous, having said what we have said, that we shall not vote against the Bill. My reason for not voting against is perfectly simple and clear. There are certain Clauses which we welcome, but the main reason why I personally would not vote against the Bill is that if I did so I would not be voting for the 1947 solution of these problems, which, on the whole, I still think was a wise and prudent solution; we are voting for the preservation of the 1954 attempt to solve the problems which we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, was a most crushing failure. Therefore, because it would be foolish to blind oneself to the fact that something

  1285
  has to be done about the 1954 Act, the wisest thing is to let the Bill pass with all its faults and injustices, because it will provide something a little better and a little fairer than that Measure.
  We can only regret that owing to the follies of the 1954 Act and of the Prime Minister so much of our time, of the time of the House and of the work done by lawyers and surveyors outside the House, has been wasted during the past five years.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was kind enough to suggest that I may, to some extent, have been responsible for 25 sittings upstairs in Committee and three on the Floor of the House, I hope that I shall not be considered impertinent if, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I offer a measure of appreciation and congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friends for the way in which they have managed to steer the Bill through its long course, hampered throughout by the fact that a very large number of those who have contributed to it have quite clearly missed most of the point which they were supposed to he discussing.
  I do not want to leave out of the compliments with which we end these debates the Opposition Front Bench. I think that the acrobatics of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have perhaps been the cause of very considerable admiration, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has time and again had to assure the Committee that his party is really devoted to fair compensation, and sometimes even to market value, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Indeed, we have almost heard the suction of the mud as the hon. and learned Gentleman has pulled his back benchers out of the mire into which they had dug themselves.
  We admire that, but the only effect has been to show the superior Parliamentary skill and understanding of my right hon. and hon. Friends who, we have no doubt, will be back after the General Election with more progressive legislation.
  11. 18 p.m.
  Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I had not intended to speak on Third Reading, and I can promise the House that I shall not do so at any length. I have been provoked into rising by two references made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in Committee as well as by what he called dismantling "Macmillan's folly."
  Legislation is a continuous process. The 1953 Act stopped the development charges and the simultaneous and inflationary pay-outs of the £300 million compensation. Something had to be done then to provide a proper system of compensation for land which was compulsorily acquired.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Housing and Local Government introduced the 1954 Bill which provided compensation for land which was compulsorily acquired at existing use value plus what had been set up under the machinery of the 1947 Act. the unexpended balances of the claims under Part VI of that Act for the development value of land acquired compulsorily.
  That, I think, was the only possible solution at that time. I have always felt that it would have been wrong if my right hon. Friend had proceeded straight to market value. I do not think that he could have done that in the circumstances which applied in 1954. and I am quite sure that had he attempted to do so the Opposition would have been the first to protest.
  We have passed from that, and the evidence that a new system was required was seen when my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) introduced his Private Member's Bill on the subject in February of last year. It became apparent that there was widespread demand throughout the country for a return to fair market values where land and houses were being compulsorily acquired against the owner's wishes and in many cases to his great disadvantage.
  It was then right that my right hon. Friend should have undertaken legislation, even though it cannot have been easy for him to do so in—I will not say "the last two months"—the last year of office. To embark on legislation of this kind in those circumstances was a courageous thing for him to do. We

  1287
  should recognise that. I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the splendid, untiring and courteous way in which my right hon. Friend attended all our proceedings over the 25 sittings in Committee upstairs.
  I very much welcomed the announcement made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that there is to be separate enactment of the Scottish provisions of the Bill. No one could fail to have sympathy with Scottish legal practitioners who have to extract the Scottish provisions from a United Kingdom Bill which is not only of great length but is also of considerable complexity, and those hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies must have been pleased, on Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that consideration would be given to the possibility of re-enacting the Scottish provisions of the Bill when it reached the Statute Book. My right hon. Friend has been as good as his word, and I warmly welcome the fact that quite soon there will be a Scottish Bill dealing with the purely Scottish applications of this Bill.
  I hope that that may soon be followed —of course not in this Parliament—by what Scotland and, I believe, the remainder of Great Britain needs—a consolidation Measure for all the town and country planning legislation which we have placed on the Statute Book in the years since the war.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Brooke: I do not intend to defend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister against the gibes of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The Prime Minister is well able to look after himself. Indeed, at a time of day when we thought that we might have become rather more non-political the hon. Member tempts me to remark that there were times when I found it difficult to square the attitude of the Opposition on Second Reading, when they at any rate paid lip service to the principle of market value, with the determined efforts which they made in Committee to try to ensure that the owner of the land did not receive market value when it came to the point. At this hour, however, I do not want to stress our differences.
  1288
  There is, indeed, little more to say. But I believe that the whole House wishes me to express thanks to that body of civil servants in many different Government Departments and to Parliamentary counsel, all of whom devoted long hours of work and their great skill to the shaping of the Bill under Government direction. They work with equal loyalty for all Governments, and Parliament could not do its job without them.
  I fully recognise—and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) need not have reminded me of the fact from time to time, as he did—that a Minister is greatly advantaged in dealing with these complicated matters by having the work of Government Departments behind him. Nevertheless, I trust that the hon. and learned Member will accept it from me when I say, in all sincerity, that a number of us on this side of the House have watched with respect the care with which, on behalf of his party, he has examined the Clauses of the Bill, the skill with which he has drafted Amendments, and the knowledge with which he has expounded them. We might think his efforts misguided, but there should unquestionably be an Opposition at work on a Bill of this kind, and the hon. and learned Member has played his part in the Parliamentary achievement of taking it through the House of Commons.
  I express my thanks to those Members of the Standing Committee who took an active interest in the Bill, particularly my two hon. Friends who have spoken in this short debate. Naturally, my mind goes back to that somewhat awkward Friday when it fell to me to deal with a Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), some long time ago. A great deal of water has passed under the bridges and a great deal of value has floated down the streams since then. Though none of us claims that this legislation is necessarily perfect, I am convinced that it brings us a great deal nearer to doing justice than did the state of legislation which that Private Member's Bill criticised and sought to remedy.
  I have also to thank my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretary and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the

  1289
  their help I could not possibly have piloted the Bill through. I think that everybody was impressed by their knowledge and patience through long hours of debate.
  As Minister for Welsh Affairs, I now realise that I have an advantage over the Secretary of State for Scotland. In Wales, everybody at any rate speaks English nowadays and it must be perfectly clear to all hon. Members who have taken part in the proceedings on this Bill that Scotsmen who have anything to do with property emphatically do not. You, Mr. Speaker, have listened to these long hours of debate on a subject with which you yourself have reason to be very closely acquainted. In the light of the Bill, I think that you must have been conscious that it is now proved, whatever the text books say, that Parliament is bilingual.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: I shall not repeat what I said on Second Reading. I stated why we did not divide against the Bill, and our reasons for not dividing against the Third Reading are the same. We feel that the Bill has not been altogether improved in Committee, and I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, having not divided against the Bill, we have in fact in Committee attacked the principle of open market value. This is obviously a matter upon which people will take different views. What we have been trying to do has been to secure fairness between the two parties to a compulsory sale.
  I thank the right hon. Gentleman, quite sincerely and in the spirit in which he spoke, for the very kind words which he was good enough to use about me. I hope that he will allow me to say that in Committee we had a very great deal of help from my hon. Friends. By the end of the Bill, I think I am beginning to understand a little, but not much, about it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, SHEFFIELD
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
11.30 p.m.
Sir Peter Roberts: This debate concerns the finances and operation of the Sheffield telephone area. At the start, I should like to pay tribute to the Post Office and telephone service in Sheffield. We are proud of the way in which that service is run, and we were glad when my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General visited Sheffield recently in his official capacity.
I last raised this matter five years ago, and at that time there were 2,500 people waiting for telephones. I am glad to say that the figure is now less than 200. That reflects great credit on those who run our affairs. A friendly telephone service is already a fact in Sheffield. I raise this matter again because I feel that my hon. Friend did not give me the necessary figures for my argument about the income and expenditure in the Sheffield telephone area. After a great deal of trouble I have been able to find them out for myself. They are figures which were given to the Post Office Advisory Committee, to the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and to other bodies. If these figures have been published in this form, I cannot understand why they could not have been given to me.
These are the figures so far as I have been able to work them out, and I should like my hon. Friend to confirm whether they are right. Up to the year ending March, 1957, the expenditure figure was £711,000 and the revenue £2,228,000. For 1958–59, the expenditure is likely to be £780,000 and the income £2,500,000. In November of last year I asked the Postmaster-General what were the receipts and outgoings. I did not ask for a profit and loss account but for these particular figures. I was told I could not have the figures because they were misleading. I was not even allowed to decide whether or not they were misleading, I was just not allowed to have them. I made that request in the form of a Written Parliamentary Question, and in January I put down another Question asking for the receipts and outgoings, when my hon. Friend said that I could not

1291
have the figures because they were not compiled.
If these figures can be given to the Post Office Advisory Committee, why cannot they be given to a Member of Parliament? I hope—I say this more in sorrow than in anger—that it is not because my hon. Friend thinks he cannot be bothered to give these figures to the House. It would be a sad thing were that the case. I would point out to him that in my constituency there are 75,000 Sheffield people and I feel that he should go out of his way a little to get these figures for them. In any event, I hope that tonight he will not continue to frustrate me.
The main point of this debate so far as I am concerned is to take the figures I have given and relate them to the question of the shared telephone service. If I am right in my calculations, making allowances for the payment to the operators which are paid through the head postmaster's account, and making certain allowances for overhead changes from Leeds and in London, I should say there is a surplus in the neighbourhood of £200,000 to £300,000 coming from the Sheffield telephone area. If I am right. I should have thought it prudent business to see that that area was encouraged and extended.
At the moment, 12,000 people have residential telephones on a single line and 8.000 are sharing a line. I suggest that that proportion is too high. The main object of this debate is to ask my hon. Friend if he cannot do something further to help those who are on shared lines. I admit that many of these people want to be on a shared line. I am not discussing those but only those who do not wish to be on a shared line. I ask if he has any idea what those numbers are. I have been given a figure of only 5 per cent., in which case it would amount to only 400 people.
From the point of view of the Post Office it is good business to have a shared line. A single line costs £12 and a shared line twice £10, so the Post Office gets £20, but this is a public service and that is not the criterion by which the mind of the Postmaster-General should operate. I ask that some immediate action should be taken to assist us in Sheffield in view of the figures I have
1292
quoted to see that those who wish to have a single line and are on a shared line should be given this opportunity.
I am not alone in this. I will quote from the very good publication in Sheffield called "Quality" in which the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce has expressed a fear that, in spite of the declared intention of successive Postmasters-General ultimately to provide freedom of choice of the single line, the telephone authorities might come to regard compulsory sharing as an established policy merely because it has been in operation for so long. Unless the administration were reminded that compulsory sharing should be abolished as soon as practicable the matter might ultimately be overlooked.
I wish to re-emphasise that and hope that the Postmaster-General and my hon. Friend will not overlook this point and let it run on indefinitely. I hope my hon. Friend will not hide behind the rule of uniformity—that the country as a whole must be kept at a level. I suggest that some areas are more go ahead than others and some staff teams are more go ahead than others. The engineering staff in Sheffield is one of the most efficient teams in the country. We are very proud of the achievements of that team and do not feel we should be handicapped or held back.
If we are a profitable area, as I suggest we are, we should be encouraged. If Sheffield is in this fortunate position the public of Sheffield should get some of the benefit. I ask my hon. Friend to speak to the Postmaster-General and ask him to give what I believe in telephone terms is called a flexible route and not hold back the efficient areas because other areas are not so far forward. I also ask the Minister to clear up the problem of shared lines, particularly where they are wanted, and that if in future I ask for similar figures of this kind, my hon. Friend will allow me to have them if they are available.
11.39 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I hope to deal with the specific points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts). First I take the question of the figures for which he asked and over which I am sorry to discover he is so aggrieved. I suppose it

1293
would be possible to produce a set of figures for any or all operations to prove any or almost any of a number of contentions. It would not be difficult to abstract from the trading figures of the Post Office something which would satisfy my hon. Friend's intention, namely, to have a figure which would lead him to believe that he had been confirmed in his suspicion that Sheffield was a profitable telephone area. I beg him not to fall into this trap of his own making.
Although it is possible to provide figures of one kind or another, they would not he figures which would enable my hon. Friend to proceed further from them. The Post Office is a national undertaking. It operates in every town and village in this country, both in postal and telecommunications matters. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or approves of it or not, the Post Office operates on a basis of uniformity of charges, as directed by this House. It operates from a headquarters here in London, from regional headquarters at nine centres over the country, and for its telephone operations it operates from 57 telephone areas. But the telephone areas are divided again into 600 groups of telephone exchanges, and the groups themselves contain in all 6,000 exchanges.
Some may be more profitable because of their greater use. Some may be less used than others, perhaps because of their remoteness. perhaps because of the sparsity with which the telephone users are scattered about a big area, or perhaps because there are a few long lines in an area compared with a greater concentration of short convenient lines. It may he that an area is profitable because it makes a lot of use of trunk circuits and provides a large trunk revenue for the Post Office. Another area may make only little use of the profitable trunk lines.
It may well be that Sheffield, taking any one of these criteria, is better than some other areas. But if my hon. Friend wants to proceed from that to conclude that the Post Office should enter with wild enthusiasm into an expansion of the telephone service in Sheffield. let me caution him with a warning. Sheffield may be all these things. I know his city and admire it well. It may be all these things, and perhaps the Post Office is making
1294
a handsome profit out of telephone transactions in Sheffield. But there are other areas in the country which, taking my hon. Friend's own basis, are doing even better. Suppose that there are ten areas which are in front of Sheffield, or, perhaps twenty such areas. There are Liverpool, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff—all bigger areas, more highly concentrated, and perhaps more active areas. There is certainly London, in which all the telephone areas will be more active and profitable than Sheffield. Sheffield might not be at the bottom of the list, but it would not be at the top. If the Post Office is to concentrate its available resources on the basis my hon. Friend suggests, Sheffield might do worse. not better, than it has done until now.
Sir P. Roberts: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate and give credit for the operations in Sheffield, which I understand to be, even on his own admission, highly successful.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, I am coming to that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying his tribute to those who operate our service in Sheffield and to the results which they have achieved in recent years. It is a striking fact that the waiting list has been reduced as it has, and new subscribers have been joined, and continue to be joined, to the system at the present rate. We hope to join 2,500 new subscribers during 1959–60. It is a striking tribute to the policy of the Post Office to develop this area that we have it now entirely mechanised, with the exception of about eight exchanges. It is a striking fact that we have invested £3½ million in the area during the last five years. That is hardly starvation diet for one telephone area out of 57 telephone areas in the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that we have been able to do a great deal.
The fact is that we have to try to devote our resources, which are not unlimited, not merely on the basis of fairness but on the basis of the developing telephone service of the nation as a whole. We try to do it in a way which will produce the most fruitful results not only in terms of profit but also in terms of service to all the people of the country.
What my hon. Friend suggests would, I am sorry to say, be a retrograde step.

1295
My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has devoted great energy and imagination to bringing the telephone servise from its position of a collection of 6,000 separate exchanges, each operating its own list of charges, each working more or less in its own area as if it were isolated from its neighbours and the rest of the network, into the conception of groups of exchanges covering, for a basic local call charge, an area averaging about 900 square miles; and subsequently to the conception of the nation as a whole served by one vast local call network.
We initiated this in December last in Bristol, when Her Majesty the Queen made the first subscriber trunk dialled call for 2d. from Bristol to Edinburgh. The development of the service is to be on those lines so that the whole country becomes a local call area where charges will be simplified, bills will be rendered in simplified form, and the whole of the operation of keeping in touch with one another from Sheffield to London or from London to Sheffield or from Sheffield to the remotest hamlet in the land will be easy, convenient and cheap.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend, bearing in mind the motto of the great city he represents here, "Work flourishes with God's help," will believe that we in the Post Office are doing our very best to give to his constituents a satisfactory and economic service and to himself an opportunity of feeling that we are doing our best with the resources at our command and in the time available.
Sir P. Roberts: I hope my hon. Friend will deal with the question of shared lines and will give some hope to those 400 people I mentioned.
Mr. Thompson: I wish to deal with that most important question my hon. Friend raised.
That shared service should be visited upon someone who does not want it as distasteful to the Post Office as it is to the customer. We have no desire at all that any of our subscribers should have this inflicted on them if they do not want it. Nevertheless, we are driven by the necessities of the situation every now and then to ask people to share a line in order that someone else can enjoy the facility of the telephone which otherwise would not be available to him. It is not unreasonable. There are 600,000 people in the country today linked by the telephone service who are, therefore, in touch with everyone else, who, without shared service, would not be able to be linked in that way.
Whenever we can, as we have stated in a White Paper on telephone policy, we hope people will be offered and will take advantage of the choice of having either shared service or exclusive service, whichever they want. If we are some distance away from being able to make that as widely available as we should like, as we whittle away the waiting lists in various areas it becomes increasingly possible for us to do so. I should like my hon. Friend to feel that the day is not so very far away when that choice will be available to his constituents. I am happy to tell him that there are fewer people in Sheffield telephone area sharing lines today than was the case twelve months ago, and we intend to go on trying to produce the situation which my hon. Friend so ardently and properly desires.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Royal Parks (Wire Fences)
  Royal Parks (Wire Fences)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Geological Museum, South Kensington
  Geological Museum, South Kensington
  Electricity
  Electricity
SCOTLAND
  British Transport Commission Workshops, Inverness
  British Transport Commission Workshops, Inverness
  Universities (Report)
  Universities (Report)
  Western Isles
  Western Isles
  Industrial Development
  Industrial Development
  A.77 and A.78 Roads, Ayrshire
  A.77 and A.78 Roads, Ayrshire
  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Rural Electricity Supplies
  Hospital Facilities, East Kilbride
  Hospital Facilities, East Kilbride
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Nurses, Fife (Recruitment)
  Nurses, Fife (Recruitment)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Bristol
  Compulsory Purchase Orders, Bristol
  Clearance Order, Halesowen
  Clearance Order, Halesowen
  Colne Valley Sewerage Scheme (Inquiry)
  Colne Valley Sewerage Scheme (Inquiry)
  Building Operations (Noise)
  Building Operations (Noise)
  Broadlyne Scheme, Ashington
  Broadlyne Scheme, Ashington
  River Tyne (Pollution)
  River Tyne (Pollution)
  Barwick Park, Somerset (Obelisk)
  Barwick Park, Somerset (Obelisk)
HOUSING
  Bracknell (Middlesex Families)
  Bracknell (Middlesex Families)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  I.L.O. Convention (Forced Labour)
  I.L.O. Convention (Forced Labour)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Information Department (Expenditure)
  Information Department (Expenditure)
NYASALAND
  Commission of Inquiry
  Commission of Inquiry
  Governor (Press Conference)
  Governor (Press Conference)
CYPRUS
  Banned Organisations and Newspapers
  Banned Organisations and Newspapers
NYASALAND AND NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Minister of State's Visit
  Minister of State's Visit
KENYA
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
WEST INDIES
  Technical Education
  Technical Education
  LEGAL AID SCHEME
  LEGAL AID SCHEME
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Legislation
  Legislation
NYASALAND
  Communications
  Communications
COAL
  Private Opencast Sites
  Private Opencast Sites
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Scottish Gas and Electricity Boards (Report)
  Scottish Gas and Electricity Boards (Report)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factory Building, Fife
  Factory Building, Fife
  Industrial Development, Merseyside
  Industrial Development, Merseyside
RAILWAYS
  Hull-Barnsley Line (Closure)
  Hull-Barnsley Line (Closure)
ROADS
  Improvements, Hertfordshire
  Improvements, Hertfordshire
  Great North Road
  Great North Road
  Hunter's Bridge, Welwyn Garden City
  Hunter's Bridge, Welwyn Garden City
  Land
  Land
CIVIL AVIATION
  London Airport (Access Tunnel)
  London Airport (Access Tunnel)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Archbishop of York

CALVINISTIC METHODIST OR PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WALES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR ROADS
2.36 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government: (1) whether all conveyancing of land required for trunk and special road purposes is handled by the Treasury Solicitor; (2) whether the present arrangements in this connection are not responsible for undue delay; (3) whether matters could not be expedited by decentralisation to local solicitors and, if so, whether steps can be taken to work out an appropriate scheme in conjunction with the Law Society.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is that all conveyancing of land required for trunk and special road purposes is handled by the Treasury Solicitor. On the second and third parts of the noble Lord's Question, I assume that the noble Lord is concerned at the length of time which may elapse between an owner losing possession of his land and his receiving the compensation for it. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation shares his concern and is actively engaged in seeking a solution to what has turned out to be a difficult problem.
Without accepting the implication in his Question, that there is any unneces-
192
sary delay in the Treasury Solicitor's office, I can inform my noble friend that his suggestion that conveyancing should be done by private solicitors is one that has already been examined as a possible means of alleviating the increasing load on the Treasury Solicitor's conveyancing division. The conclusion we have reached is that this method would not provide a satisfactory answer. It is unlikely that private firms would be prepared, owing to the unremunerative and temporary character of the work, to use their experienced conveyancing staff for the purpose, and it is very difficult to recruit competent conveyancers for a temporary period. It is most unlikely that the results would show any improvements in the time taken to bring these conveyances to completion.
Accordingly the Government have been looking at this problem from a wider point of view, and we are seeking a solution along somewhat different lines. My right honourable friend hopes to be able to make a statement in the near future about his intentions in regard to this difficult problem.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his satisfactory reply, may I say that I hope that the statement of his right honourable friend will be made in the very near future?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to convey to his right honourable friend that, in the opinion of some of us at any rate, he has rejected much too readily the idea of employing private solicitors? I hope that he will be prepared to give further consideration to it. I myself do not accept the view that this could not be done more expeditiously in that way.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will gladly convey to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's remark. I think, however, that the noble Lord may think somewhat differently when he has heard the terms of the statement my right honourable friend will make.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether any inquiries have been made, and whether any discussions have taken place with the Law Society?
THE EARL of GOSFORD: Yes, my Lords; I understand so.

PARKING METERS AND GARAGES
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government: what procedure will be adopted to give details of receipts and expenditure in connection with parking meters in the areas where these devices are being operated; whether the returns will indicate in the case of each area what steps are being taken to comply with the condition that the net receipts are to be used to provide off-street garage accommodation; whether it is intended that these reports should be presented to Parliament annually, in detail, and under what Vote.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the procedure to be adopted in regard to details of receipts and expenditure in connection with parking meters, is a matter for the local authorities concerned in areas where they have been installed. Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which regulates the financial aspects of parking meters, does not require local authorities to make, or empower my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to require, returns such as those to which the noble Earl refers.
Broadly speaking, Section 23 of the 1956 Act lays it down that, after certain necessary prior charges, such as debts to the general rate fund, have been met, the surplus accruing shall be devoted to the provision and maintenance of off-street parking accommodation. The responsibility for the allocation of surplus revenue of this kind is a matter for the local authorities concerned. The separate accounts which they are required by the Act to maintain are, however, subject to the normal processes of audit.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Earl's Answer that Parliament is not to have any sort of information about how the money is to be spent in order to provide for off-street parking? Have we to go round to every single local authority in turn? Surely, that will not work. Could we not be given some simple statement showing exactly what has been done?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I have no doubt that I shall be able to answer any question or give any information the noble Earl may ask in future.
EARL HOWE: Well, my Lords, that does not answer it at all.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERA TION'S IMMIGRATION POWERS
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish the precise terms of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister of the Rhodesian Federation as to the exercise by him and his successors of the powers claimed under the Statutory Order 1199 over immigration to and emigration from the Federation.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWELATH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I quoted the precise terms of the undertaking in my reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, on March 5. I have since confirmed this to the noble Viscount by letter.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean to say that the supreme authority for controlling the admission of visitors or Members of Parliament to the British Colony of Nyasaland remains in the hands of the Prime Minister of the Federation?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I explained to the noble Viscount and to the House the other day that immigration and emigration are federal subjects; and to that extent that is so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is exactly the point. It was a surprise to most people, including The Times, to find that the words "immigration" and "emigration" provide the Prime Minister with power to exclude journalists, Members of Parliament or others, and I am asking whether the position now is that no one can enter this British Colony without permission of the Federal Prime Minister.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, before my noble friend the Leader of

195
the House answers that question, may I ask him whether it is not the fact that this power comes inside the Constitution, which was fully debated in Parliament and which Parliament approved—both the Act enabling the Constitution and then the Order in Council?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, whatever else the noble Viscount is, he ought not to be surprised, because this has been in the Constitution for many years. Theoretically, of course, it would be possible for the Federal Government to keep anybody out of the Federation; but in fact, like any other Commonwealth country, they exercise this power in a reasonable way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl say that this matter was ever brought to the notice of your Lordships' House? The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that it was fully approved. Not one word was heard in debate about immigration and emigration including the exclusion of Members of Parliament and journalists.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, this is important, and I should like to ask this question. Was not the whole of the Constitution laid in ample time before Parliament, and fully debated by Parliament—I myself was responsible for presenting it to Parliament—and was not the Order in Council laid before Parliament? Was it not up to any Member of either House—and there was plenty of debate on this Constitution—who wished to draw attention to any particular point to raise it in either House?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is so, my Lords.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is it not a fact that the words "emigration" and "immigration" were never understood to cover visits by Members of Parliament or others to a British Colony?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this legislation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is comparable to legislation in otherCommonwealth countries. But Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Commonwealth Governments exercise responsibility given to them by Parliament here; and when once Parliament has given responsibility to an overseas Com-
196
monwealth country in this way, it cannot take it away without further legislation. What interpretation the noble Viscount may put on these clauses I do not know, but they went through Parliament, of which he was a Member.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl is most patient on this matter, but the fact is that Nyasaland is not a Commonwealth country: it is a Colony; and powers are being assumed in Nyasaland which properly belong to the home Government.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, not according to the Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to one of the answers given so patiently by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, would he not agree that the use of these powers in the case of Mr. John Stonehouse was not a reasonable one?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if the noble Viscount wants an answer to that question he must put it on the Paper and I will give him a considered reply. My immediate reply is that the use of the Federation as a place to make speeches in is a dangerous procedure.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in that event, I shall be glad to put down a Question, especially in view of what has happened in the other place since Mr. Stonehouse's return.

DETENTION OF MR. CLUTTON-BROCK
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any further statement to make concerning Mr. Guy Clutton-Brock.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am glad to be able on this matter to give the noble Viscount a more satisfactory reply. Sir Edgar Whitehead, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, stated in a broadcast speech yesterday evening that approximately fifty detainees, mostly

197
from rural areas, but including the only European detainee—that is, Mr. Guy Clutton-Brock—would be released within the next forty-eight hours.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, seeing that Mr. Clutton-Brock has a dual nationality, being a British subject as well as a Rhodesian subject, has the noble Earl inquired whether any conditions were laid on his release; whether any charge was laid against him; and whether any compensation will be paid to him for some weeks of imprisonment?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that, so far as I know, no conditions have been applied, and no charge has been laid. I cannot give an answer to any question of compensation or anything of that kind. That would be a matter for Mr.Clutton-Brock to take up with the Southern Rhodesian Government.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, does the noble Earl repudiate any responsibility for this treatment of a man who has partial British nationality?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Southern Rhodesian Government acted in this case within their powers; and it is within their power to release Mr. Clutton-Brock, as they have decided to do.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether there is to be any charge made retrospectively in regard to Mr. Clutton-Brock?
The EARL OF HOME: Does the noble Lord mean any charge by the Southern Rhodesian Government against Mr. Clutton-Brock?
LORD REA: Yes.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not know about that, but I will obtain the information for the noble Lord and for the House.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

UNREST IN NYASALAND
2.48 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to draw attention to the unrest in Nyasaland, and to the urgent need for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission to consider and report upon this situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Opposition have put down this Motion for to-day owing to the serious situation in Central Africa and, in particular, in the Protectorate of Nyasaland. I am sure the events that have transpired in the Protectorate are regretted on all sides of the House and that the people of Nyasaland have our full sympathy. Much anxiety has been shown by the public in this country over these events, and I personally hardly ever remember a case where so much anxiety has been shown and has manifested itself so quickly. On March 3 I moved, on behalf of the Opposition, a Motion on the Adjournment. That is a rather rare event in your Lordships' House, but it was necessitated by reason of the fact that that day a state of emergency had been declared in Nyasaland.
In the course of the debate I urged the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to go forthwith to Nyasaland in order to bring to bear his calming influence on the situation there. I am glad to say that although he did not accept our invitation at the moment it was given, he did so shortly afterwards. We are grateful to him for going to Nyasaland; we welcome him back, and we await with eagerness his report.
It is our wish to-day that the debate in this House should be objective and reasoned. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the Lord President of the Council, has accused the Opposition of being hysterical. I can assure the noble Viscount and his colleagues that there is no hysteria whatsoever on these Benches. The allegation is that there have been plots in Nyasaland to carry out violence and the massacre of Europeans, Asians and moderate African leaders, such plots having been the work of the African

199
National Congress; that, as a result of these plots, widespread unrest and disturbances have occurred, but that the massacres were forestalled by a declaration of a state of emergency. There are, therefore, certain issues at stake. First, what injury to persons and what damage to property has, in fact, taken place, whether by the rioters or by the security forces? Secondly, to what extent was the African National Congress implicated in these events? Thirdly, what were the causes of the unrest; and, fourthly, was there in fact a massacre plot?
Nyasaland, as your Lordships know, is a land area roughly the size of Scotland. It is land-locked, so far as communications with the sea are concerned. It lies in a belt along the western shore of Lake Nyasa. It has a population of 2,648,000, of which some 7,000 are Europeans. It might almost be called a Scottish Colony, if there were such a thing, because for some sixty years and more Scotland has been intimately concerned with this Protectorate. The first contact Scotland and we had with Nyasaland was in the figure of David Livingstone, that great Scotsman. After him came the Church of Scotland and its missionaries. For a time the missionaries found that they had not only to preach the Gospel—which, of course, they did, and continue to do—but also to act as traders and administrators, because there were no others. But in time some of their compatriots in the business community in Scotland followed, and there was thus not only a spiritual connection with Scotland but a material one as well. Undoubtedly the missions saved Nyasaland from the slave trade, and I am glad to see to-day that quite a number of Scottish Peers are to speak. No doubt they will emphasise the long connection that Nyasaland has had with Scotland.
Unfortunately, in spite of all their efforts the people remain poor. The country is a poor country. The exports are mainly agricultural, and the labour force which leaves every year for work elsewhere brings a considerable contribution to the economy of the territory. In 1957, the revenue was £8,267,000 and expenditure £8,420,000. There is need for economic development and for training of leaders.
200
In fact, I understand that only one barrister and one physician are at present qualified from Nyasaland. There are no other professional men. No district officer comes from the African community, and there are no business executives. So it does not seem that we have overdone higher education in Nyasaland.
The background to the trouble is this. There has been unrest—there is no question about that; it is admitted on all sides—and a state of emergency was declared on March 3. As a result, the Nyasaland African Congress was proscribed and its leaders detained. In all, 447 have been detained under the Emergency Regulations; and of those people some were detained in Nyasaland and some were sent down to Southern Rhodesia. In the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, I protested at the removal of these Africans to Southern Rhodesia, and in this I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I should like to know under what authority they were so deported. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that they would remain under the Governor's control, but how can this be? How can the Governor control them in a territory over which he has no jurisdiction? It seems to us as if both the Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies have lost legal control over these men. But whatever the legal position may be, in our view it was a grievous blunder, owing to the known antipathy of the Africans in Nyasaland to elements in Southern Rhodesia. Arising out of the disturbances, some fifty Africans have been killed by the security forces, and an unknown number injured. Some of the security forces have been injured.
As to the reasons for unrest, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is reported to have said in Africa—and I quote him:
"Among Africans I found a great deal of opposition to federation."
In 1953, African opinion was averse to federation, as is stated in paragraph 6 of the White Paper which the Government published yesterday. In both Houses the Opposition at that time informed the Government of this fact, and warned them not to go on with their federation proposals in the teeth of African opposition. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition in your Lordships' House in April, 1953—and I quote it because it was at that time the view of

201
the Opposition—I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 181, col.512]:
"In conclusion, I beg the Government to pause while there is yet time, and not to blunder on with this plan, irrespective of African wishes. And I say to the Government: 'Pause until you can take Africans with you. If you cannot do that, drop the plan.' It would involve no loss of prestige—indeed, the Government would gain prestige. To go the other way means disaster: disaster for the Africans and disaster for us."
Those were our views in 1953. The result of forcing federation on the Africans has undoubtedly been a loss of confidence in the United Kingdom Parliament by them; a feeling of betrayal by the United Kingdom Government; a lessening of friendship for the British people; an intensification of their fear of Southern Rhodesia and an enormous quickening of political feeling and organisation. This last is admitted in paragraph 6 of the White Paper to which I have referred.
Now we come to the alleged massacre plot—a very serious allegation by the Government in Nyasaland and the Government here, as stated by the Secretary of State in another place on March 3. As to this alleged massacre plot, the onus is on the Government here and on the Government of Nyasaland to prove it. It is not on the Africans or anyone else to disprove it. We all know that it is practically impossible to disprove a negative. Some preliminary thoughts occurred to us in this field before we actually saw the White Paper, but they have been re-emphasised since reading it.
First of all, let us consider Dr. Hastings Banda, the leader of the Nyasaland African Congress. To me, Dr. Banda seems rather an unlikely revolutionary leader. We have known many revolutionary leaders in the last twenty years, but none of them has been remotely like Dr. Banda. He left Nyasaland when he was twelve, a very poor boy, and walked down to the Union of South Africa, where he received certain further education and then he went on to the United States, where he completed medical training. He practised for many years in this country, in Kilburn, which, as your Lordships may know, is a district to the North of Oxford Street, reached by the Edgware Road. I understand that his patients were almost entirely European and that they found him a kind and considerate physician. When he arrived back in
202
Nyasaland, Dr. Banda, it seems, was unable to speak in public in his original language and had to address meetings in English. Taking him all in all, he does not seem the type of person one would expect to lead a revolutionary plot and engage in activities of a bloodthirsty kind involving the murder of Europeans, including the Governor and moderate African leaders.
And then we come to Mr. Kanyama Chiume, a member of the Nyasaland Legislature and publicity secretary of the Nyasaland African Congress. As your Lordships will know, Mr. Chiume was one of the four leaders who were said to have been named, if Dr. Banda was arrested, as the leaders to run Congress in his absence and to fix the day when violence was to begin and massacres to start—that is, according to the White Paper, "R-Day". Mr. Chiume has said that he knew nothing whatever about this plot. He had never heard of it. If there had been such a thing he would have heard of it; and in any case they would not have been so inept as to conduct a massacre campaign of this kind and turn world opinion against them. My Lords, it may be said that deeds speak louder than words, and there is one curious deed on the part of Mr. Chiume, which we ought to recognise. At this important time, when Dr. Banda was about to be arrested and Mr. Chiume was to be the leader to conduct this massacre plot, where was Mr. Chiume? He was on a slow boat taking a five-weeks' voyage from London to the East Coast of Africa. When these events broke out Mr. Chiume had reached Mombasa. He got off the boat and wisely flew back to this country. It seems odd that if he was to occupy this important place he should put himself on a boat which would take five weeks to get to his home port.
The next point I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that for eight whole days the Northern Province was in the hands of Africans. Police were withdrawn, but no one was killed; few were injured, and there was no massacre of anybody. It is admitted in the White Paper, in paragraph 37, that Congress activity has been most violent and effective in areas such as the Northern Province where Congress organisation was strongest. Yet in that place, where the police had been withdrawn and the

203
Africans had full authority for eight days, no massacres whatever took place. The airport was retaken by the Tanganyika police before a state of emergency was declared; and the fifty Africans have all been killed since the state of emergency. Lastly, we come to the attitude of the Church of Scotland and its missionaries. We shall hear more about this in the course of the debate, but such reports as I have seen have not supported the case for a massacre plot.
The attitude of the Opposition, as in all such cases, is to criticise the course of action the Government are taking if we consider thatcourse of action to be wrong. We have been strongly condemned for criticising the Government in this case, again by the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council. He criticised in strong terms.But I should like to make this point. The criticism of the Government's action by the Opposition, so far from weakening Britain's position abroad, actually strengthens it. It certainly does a great deal to bring a salutary effect on opinion overseas, not least in the country affected. It does to some extent redress the appalling effect of statements like that of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Jeffreys who, speaking in the debate on the defence plan on March 10, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 214 (NO. 48), col. 889];
" When all is said and done, in spite of nuclear weapons, conventional armaments are necessary, if only for minor operations or for policing work. Take, for instance Cyprus or Nyasaland. We do not want to annihilate the inhabitants but we do want to teach them a good lesson which will not be forgotten."
I regard that as a very shocking statement to make at a time like this, and I do not regard the British Army's job to be to "teach people lessons." The Army hate being called in to aid the civil power, and when they are it is to restore order or to maintain it. It is not to teach lessons, with or without weapons.
We are glad that the White Paper is before the House, and we are grateful to the noble Earl and his colleagues for getting it out so quickly. The great interest in it was shown by the queues at the Printed Paper Office—the first time in my experience that that has happened. It was like waiting for hot cakes. What we have to ask ourselves is, first, whether the White Paper contains sufficient evi
204
dence to satisfy the imposition of a state of emergency, and secondly, whether there is in it sufficient evidence of a massacre plot. In the view of the Opposition it is a most unconvincing document to put before the House and the country. The so-called massacre plot is based on circumstantial evidence unsupported 'by any verifiable fact. What is more, the plot is quite inconsistent with the events that have occurred in Nyasaland during the past two months. It is remarkable, if the Africans are so anti-European, as is alleged, and intended to massacre Europeans, that no such murders or attempted murders have taken place. There are large areas of the territory where district commissioners, planters and their wives and children are living in isolation and no serious assaults have been committed on them. Of that we are, of course, all very glad.
We shall all agree, whatever our views have been in the past, that there is a great need to restore confidence among the Africans of Nyasaland in the United Kingdom Parliament and Government, and in the good will of the British people. In order that this may be broughtabout, the following events should, in our view, take place. First the return of the Southern Rhodesian troops and police and the Federal troops to Southern Rhodesia; and, secondly, the bringing back of the detainees from Southern Rhodesia to Nyasaland at once. Thirdly, as soon as practicable the publication of the new Nyasaland Constitution, as the Government have been pressed to do by the Opposition since October, 1957, and again definition of the Government's attitudeto the 1960 Conference.
I think I ought to say a word about that, because undoubtedly this will form some part of our consideration to-day. The Labour Party hasgone on record as to the preliminary steps which should be taken and as to the attitude towards the 1960 Conference over Central Africa, and this is what the Labour Party have said:
"The Labour Party regards itself as completely bound by the Preamble to the Constitution, which declares that the people of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue to enjoy separate government under the special protection of Her Majesty for as long as their respective peoples so desire. Labour believes there should be a review of the powers of the federal and territorial governments so that theposition of the protectorates is safeguarded. We reaffirm the pledge that

205
dominion status shall not be conceded until all the inhabitants of the Federation have expressed a desire for it through the exercise of full and equal democratic rights.
In older to enable African views to be more effectively expressed at this Conference and as a step towards full democracy, the Labour Party believes that Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland must now be given opportunities for much greater participation in their governments. To this end it urges immediate constitutional reforms to ensure a majority of elected Africans in the Nyasaland Legislative Council and the appointment of African Ministers equal in number to those of other races. In Northern Rhodesia there should be parity of representation between Africans and other races in both the Legislative and Executive Councils. Labour also believes that the franchise in both territories should be broadened immediately as an instalment of progress towards a common roll and full adult suffrage."
So far as Northern Rhodesia is concerned, the Government have a very great opportunity this week to put African Ministers on the Executive Council there.
Last, but perhaps most important of all, certainly a very important matter at this stage, so far as Nyasaland is concerned, is the appointment of a Commission of inquiry. We of the Opposition believe that the sending of a Commission of Inquiry to Nyasaland in the very near future is essential for the reasons I have already given. Various types of Commission have been suggested and various precedents have been canvassed, but we believe that every case is different and every case must stand on its own feet. I suppose that there are three types of Commission, all of which have certain factors in their favour: the judicial Commission, the Parliamentary Commission, and what one might call the mixed Commission, some judicial personages and some not. The Labour Party, after considerable consideration and discussion, came down on the side of the Parliamentary Commission, because they felt that from the Africans' point of view they would welcome a Parliamentary Commission, as it would appear to them less aloof and formal than a judicial Commission. We felt that their pride had undoubtedly been hurt; they felt to some extent we had abandoned them, and for those reasons and because many of the considerations were likely to be political ones, the Labour Party considered that it would be better to have a Parliamentary Commission than a judicial one.
Furthermore, it is essential, I believe, that now or perhaps at a later stage—
206
at all events at some stage well before the constitutional conference—Parliamentarians should have the opportunity of going to Nyasaland and considering these matters, because in 1960 Parliament in this country, in conjunction with the other authorities concerned, will have before them the whole question of the future of Central Africa including Nyasaland. The mare Parliamentarians get to know of the problems before 1960 the better. It was for those reasons that the Labour Party felt that of the various types of Commission, all of which have things to be said for them, in all probability the Parliamentary Commission would be the most suitable in those particular circumstances. I would emphasise that the main point is to get the Commission of Inquiry out there as soon as possible. It is not in this case, I feel, only a question of getting to know the facts; just as important, if not more important, is the need to know the feelings which lie behind the facts. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I think first we should all welcome the objective way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has moved this Motion. After all, this is not, I feel convinced, a matter of Party politics. Rather have we all got to try to get to the bottom of things and find out what is the right course. I have been wondering how best I might help your Lordships in this debate. I have wondered about that quite a lot, not only in the aeroplane when I was coming over but also on the ground when I was trying to get here and was being delayed between my flights. I came to the conclusion that it would probably be most helpful if I divided my speech into three parts, the past, the present and the future.
First, the past. Many of your Lordships will have read the White Paper. I do not think that, broadly, it is appropriate for me to comment on what is there; the record speaks for itself. I would, however, make just one remark. I am quite clear that, apart from the issue of the massacre plot, events, as shown in the White Paper, were getting completely out of control in Nyasaland. It was clearly the duty of the Governor to take measures to restore law and order.

207
To this end, as we have read, he sought the help of the Federal Government. The Federal Government, as we should expect, responded to this call and sent up Federal troops, and police also. At that time many people in this country accused the Federal Government of a deliberate plot somehow to take over control of Nyasaland. No one can now substantiate that. But, my Lords, the harm has been done. Many people in Africa, and more particularly in Southern Rhodesia, are bitterly resentful of such accusations. Southern Rhodesians are loyal Britishsubjects, and I think that these accusations are both wrong and damaging to all our interests. I want to take the opportunity to thank the Federal Government and the Southern Rhodesian Government for providing the troops and the police. Without them there would undoubtedly have been grave trouble, grave disorder and loss of life; indeed, this was already happening.
Now let me come to the present. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, says, only three weeks ago that we had a debate in this House on the Adjournment when, as he has recalled, he urged that I should go out to Nyasaland. Her Majesty's Government said that if they thought conditions were right they would be only too ready to arrange for that to happen. In due course I got my instructions, and I went there.I remember that in that debate Lord Ogmore said he thought it was important for a Minister of the Crown to go out, so as to show the people of Nyasaland that they were not a forgotten people. I must say that I did find in one memorandum put to me the phrase, "Britain does not take Nyasaland seriously." So I was glad to be there, and I took special pains, in the four days that I was there. to travel widely over the country.
I went to all the three Provinces—the Northern Province, the Central Province and the Southern Province. I saw not only such people as district commissioners or provincial commissioners but many of the military forces, not in action but on active service, trying to protect the people and to keep things under control. I also saw many of the police. If any of your Lordships had had the good fortune to be there and to have seen the troops, he would have known that they did not treat their job in any punitive
208
sense; rather were they there performing essentially a police operation. There was no spirit of vindictiveness or any such thing—very much the opposite.
Then I saw several of the African Chiefs. I saw many other Africans, both politicians and civil servants. I saw them as individuals and not as Party members, because at that time it was clearly not appropriate to discuss Party matters. I also saw representatives of theChurches—not of all the Churches that I should have liked, but representatives, in particular, of the Church of Scotland. Unhappily, as I shall show later in my speech, I was not able to get up to Livingstonia, but I was in contact with Mr. Macpherson, of Livingstonia. Last, and of course not least, I saw the Governor and those around him. I would take this opportunity of saying that he and they were doing what one would expect —a quiet, efficient and good job. I also went to visit three of the detainee camps. I thought it was important to see how they were run. Remember, my Lords, the whole thing was done very hurriedly. What I saw filled me with satisfaction. Those who were looking after the detainees were volunteers. They were men of humanity, who did not like the job but were there to do it. In the circumstances, the conditions were, I am sure, satisfactory to one and all.
What did I learn from my visit? First of all, it became clear to me at the time —and this has been confirmed since—that, broadly, we can hope that the situation now will be under control. It is true that there will still have to be certain operations to establish authority in one or two of the areas; but, on the whole, I think there is a fair chance that no new serious incidents will occur. There can be no certainty on this. After the events that have occurred, matters could suddenly flare up again; but I think we can hope for better things. The Federal Government are now wanting to withdraw their troops which have been in Nyasaland only for the purpose of reestablishing law and order; and that as we know, is already in hand: not all the troops at once, of course—one cannot do that, because one has to go steadily and carefully.
In talking to many of the Africans, I found how widespread had been the intimidation of them. A peculiar fact

209
was that almost everyone I talked to had had this threat in one form or another, and particularly those who were ordinary Government servants. Several of them I talked to had been stoned; others had had their families threatened. Many of them had feared to go to work. That was true not only of those working in the Government, but it was also true of many ordinary villagers and country people. There were various gangs—young "teddy-boys" is perhaps the best way of describing them—who gathered together and if they saw any body in their way, stopped them, interfered with them and intimidated them. There was no doubt of the great relief that ran through the country when the emergency was declared and this type of activity was stopped.
Then I found that there was undoubtedly widespread support of one kind or another for Congress. I asked myself why. I came to the conclusion that it was for perhaps three main reasons. One of these was the intimidation about which I have already spoken. It may seem strange to your Lordships here that intimidation by a relatively small group of people can be effective. Here, we think in terms of order—we have the police at hand to whom we can appeal, and so forth. But it is not the same in Nyasaland; and there the fear caused by one man, riding around a village on a bicycle, saying: "You had better be careful or something terrible will happen to you", is extraordinary, and real.
The second reason for the widespread backing of Congress is, I think, that quite a few of the young who have been educated, not to top but none the less to reasonable standards, are extremely ambitious. They had the feeling that here was a chance for them if they supported Congress—that very soon they were going to find jobs at the top; that is what they were after. The third reason was undoubtedly the fear of federation. That, I believe, was the widest fear, and I will come back to it, if I may, in a moment.
We all deplore the tragic incidents that occurred, the loss of life that we know about. In certain cases we were desperately unlucky. I well recall the incident at Nkata Bay. I understand that no fewer than twenty people were
210
killed. The district commissioner when faced by an angry crowd, showed extraordinary courage. He was trying to stop them breaking through to overwhelm a boat which was waiting to set sail, and on which there were various prisoners. For an hour and a quarter, while the crowd grew ever more threatening, he parleyed with them and kept them from advancing. He did all he could to play for time, because he knew, since he had sent for them, that a relieving force was on the way to try and establish order. But when, finally, he could no longer hold out, his few troops—I think they numbered eight or ten altogether—had to open fire. At that moment there came over the hill, not more than 400 yards away, the relieving force. It was tragic bad luck. Two minutes more and the disaster might have been avoided. That is the kind of thing which has bedevilled us; but I would pay great tribute to the courage of so many of the district commissioners.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF PERTH: Lastly, my Lords, I would say one word about the Chiefs. I saw several of them, and I remember well one of the older ones saying to me with pride, "We are British Chiefs." He went on to talk about a leader whom he did not mention by name, but he was talking of Dr. Banda. He said that he did not understand how this leader could do these things to his people; that he had caused great upset and unrest in the country, and that was not the way for a Chief to behave. He could be no Chief if he did that. That is the simple faith of these Chiefs and that is the simple way in which they reason. I am sure that it is a reasoning which will appeal to all of your Lordships. Our policy at the present time is to do all we can to restore the authority of the Chiefs which is seriously threatened by Congress activities. As a matter of policy, troops or police are going to the district of every Chief in every area for the purpose of being seen and of making clear that authority is once again restored.
Now let me turn to what is the most important thing—namely, the future. First, whenever we can, we are going to prosecute the wrongdoers; and I have seen in the Press to-day that those prosecutions have already started. That will

211
take time, for it is difficult to make all the arrangements for such prosecutions. One thing which the Governor particularly asked was whether we could supply one or two additional magistrates. That will show that we want to get on with it. There is no doubt that British justice is very highly regarded in the territory and we want to do nothing to weaken this belief in British justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me about the detainees, suggesting that they should be brought back from Southern Rhodesia straight away. But Nyasaland is a small country, and the prisons for these detainees are not available there. We have seen that when detainees were known to be in one place or another there were demonstrations, organisation of crowds, rioting and so forth. Is it seriously suggested that at this moment we should risk all that happening again? Surely we should wait. At the right time the Governor will decide when they should come back, and, as I said three weeks ago, they can comeback at that time.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl forgiving way. If these detainees had to be sent out of Nyasaland, why send them to Southern Rhodesia?
THE EARL OF PERTH: It was a convenient place to which to send them, because the prisons were available in Southern Rhodesia.
Next, as to the future, let us turn to what is going to happen in the political field. Our aim is to advance, and we intend to go as fast as we can in the Africanisation of the Civil Service. I saw quite a few Africans in positions of responsibility, though not so many as Ishould like, for things cannot always go as fast as we should like;but we certainly intend to have more Africans gaining administrative experience with all possible speed and we hope, although it may not come at once, that we shall soon have some as Ministers in the Government.
Already there has been a start in the resumption of normal political life. We have had Mr. T. D. Banda—who must not be confused with Dr. Banda—and Mr. Wellington Chirwa, who is a member of the Legislative Council, joining forces; and it is right that we should see political
212
Parties coming together and actively pursuing their policy—even if one does not agree with it—so long as it is not a revolutionary and subversive policy. In fact the policy of these two people is also against federation but that we do not mind. What we do mind is any resort to terrorism to prevent federation.
Why is there this great fear of federation which I found, not only in Nyasaland but also in a lesser degree in Northern Rhodesia? People may ask, "Why, if this opposition to federation is so widespread, do we force it upon the people? Why give them something that they do not want?" My answer to that would be that if the people fully understood the issue then I have no doubt they would think differently, and I will try to show your Lordships why I have that belief. We mustgo back a little in history. Unhappily, about 1950 or 1951 when the idea of federation was first mooted by the Labour Party, it got off to a bad start in Nyasaland for a curious reason. When the proposal was put forward the Governor was instructed to ask the people, through his district commissioners, what they thought of federation;but he was not asked to give any indication of whether the Government thought it was a good thing.
Always before in the history of the country when a district commissioner put forward a proposal the Chief and others of the country would ask his opinion, saying, "Do you think this is a good thing?" Knowing the integrity of the overseas Civil Service, when the answer came they were satisfied. On this occasion many of the Chiefs asked that question but got no answer, for the district commissioners were under instructions to give no answer, and the result was that the people immediately become excessively suspicious, for they said, "If you do not say it is a good thing then it must be a bad thing." From that moment opposition to the idea of federation become widespread. That is the history and there is no doubt that we got off to a very bad start.
What were the two reasons which made people so fearful at that time? They were told that the land of the country was to be grabbed by the Europeans. What are the facts since that time? Whereas then there were, I

213
believe, one million acres in European hands, there are to-day 500,000 acres. So much for that fear. The other fear was that in some way or other Salisbury would take over the running of the country under federation and would swamp the Civil Service and so on. But that has not happened either.
Now let us look on the other side. What are the benefits that have come from federation? First let us remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, that while Nyasaland is a country very lovely to look at—it might well be Scotland—it is also a small and a poor country. It is over-populated and there is already unemployment. If numbers of the people of Nyasaland could not go to Southern Rhodesia or Northern Rhodesia to work it would be disastrous for them. The country could not survive for it could not support the Government services that it has to-day. Its medical facilities, its transport and many other things are provided by the Federal Government from revenues which would not otherwise be available to Nyasaland. It is roughly true to say that nearly a half of the total revenues which are spent in Nyasaland come from the Federal Government as a result of federation. Can we imagine the situation if the Federation were to end? It may be said that material benefits are not important; that what counts are the moral issues, the fears; and in some degree I would accept that. But it is also important for the people to know just how serious would be their material position if federation came to an end; and I am quite sure none of them has that appreciation or realisation.
What is it that they fear? As I say, it is somehow a fear of the unknown, a fear that they are going to be swamped, taken over by Southern Rhodesia. But there is no ground for that fear, any more than there was ground for the fear that they were going to lose their land. Let us look at the pledges contained in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland of 1953. Let us remember that again and again Government spokesmen have, without qualification, said that they stood by the Act. What is perhaps the key pledge is in the Preamble, which states the following:
" Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue under the special protection of Her
214
Majesty to enjoy separate Governments for as long as their respective peoples so desire."
What could be more specific and more binding, more of a protection for the peoples who are all the inhabitants of those territories, as my noble friend Lord Chandos made clear?
It has been suggested at one time or another that we should state now how the desire of the people should be ascertained, if there was any question of withdrawing Her Majesty's special protection. But I am sure that your Lordships will agree it is not practicable at this stage to try to lay down what method should be adopted for ascertaining this. The pledges are specific; they are enshrined in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution; and we accept the Act in its entirety, not just one part or another. So fear of the Federation, fear of the 1960 talks, again seems to me unreasoning and without foundation.
I may be asked, what does the future hold for the two States which are under our special protection? Nyasaland, your Lordships will know, has some 2,700,000 African inhabitants and a handful of Europeans and Asians. Can anyone doubt that in due time the Africans will be in the majority in the Government? Mr. Wellington Chirwa, in a memorandum which he submitted to me, speaks of a "Black State". For my part I greatly prefer not to think in terms of "black" and "white", but of a Nyasaland State in which all are in a working partnership and make their contribution to the welfare and progress of the country. Mr. Macpherson of Livingstonia, whom I was unhappily unable to see—I tried to get up to him and he tried to come to me, but it just was not possible—sent me a message as to their views; and after asking that there should be an increased African participation in the Legislative Council and Executive Council, he went on to state that it was essential that there should be a guaranteed way open for self-government within a stated period without the threat of the whip-hand from Salisbury.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF PERTH: There it is again, my Lords; fear of the threat of the whip-hand from Salisbury. But I

215
have already tried to say that there is no foundation for that, either in practice as to the past, or in the future in the light of the pledges.
Let us just look at Salisbury, which is the seat of the Federation as well as of the Southern Rhodesian Government. Other noble Lords will know far better than I can about the position there. I know that my noble friends, Lord Malvern and the Duke of Montrose, have both especially come over for this debate. This is more than welcome. I would say only one thing: that the policy there is essentially different from the policy of South Africa. In South Africa, unhappily, the policy is one of segregation and of keeping the Africans out of the political arena; but in Southern Rhodesia and in the Federation, the position is absolutely the opposite. Their purpose is to bring the Africans into partnership. Maybe some will say it is not fast enough. Bat the fears I have referred to above generate other fears, and the cry that we should get on with things faster than is prudent very naturally creates the opposite fear in the minds of other people, who resist progress just because of such a fear.
I will say just one word on Northern Rhodesia, because I think that one wants to get the whole of this pattern. I was there for two days at the very end of the election campaign. I only wish that many of your Lordships could have been there at the time. It was a most remarkable experience. It has not been written up very much, as far as I can see, in the papers; but there one really found the whole community all working to the one end of winning an election. It did not matter whether you were an African or whether you were European; one found the Africans addressing meetings of Europeans; one found Europeans addressing meetings of Africans; one found Africans and Europeans both on the same hustings, talking to an audience which would be made up of both races. It was a most heartening experience. It was the beginning of what we all hope for: partnership in the political and the creative work of developing the countries. To me it was a tangible and exciting proof of what we should all wish for and hope for. I will say one other word on Northern Rhodesia. There your
216
Lordships will remember that the Zambia Congress was banned. The Zambia Congress also threatened intimidation and was broadly favouring violence, and when they were proscribed the relief throughout the country was remarkable. They had been following the same pattern as the Congress Party in Nyasaland; but action was taken in good time, and I did not find one person, African or European, who was not immensely relieved at the removal of the threat.
My Lords, I do not believe that this question of federation should be one for Party politics. At the same time I cannot help but be puzzled when I find some strange bedfellows advocating secession from the Federation. I have particularly in mind some of the members of the Labour Party—I am not saying that this is official Labour Party policy—and many others (perhaps I should say) of the Left; many people who I know believe sincerely that it is a right policy but who believe it for the wrong reasons; and then we get others of a quite different Party, of the extreme Right, I think one might say, also advocating it. I have in mind The Dominion Party of Southern Rhodesia. That is something which is very curious and I cannot help but feel that there is something wrong there.
It is only six years since this experiment began. I am reminded, when I think of how little time it has been going, of Pilgrim's Progress of Timorous Mistrust, who turned back, and even more of Pliable.
"If we have such ill speed at our first setting out, what may we expect between now and the journey's end?".
Like Christian, I feel I must venture. Are there any great things which have been achieved in a short time! Let us think for a moment,for example, of the Trade Union Movement in this country, or of universal suffrage. These were not achieved in six years. If people lose heart at the end of a short period, I believe we must go on and hopethat, in time, people will understand just what is of value, and what is the meaning of federation. I am confident that our policy must continue to be federation.
I am convinced that it is for the good of the people, and I have tried to show why I have this conviction. At the same time, we are deeply concerned with the fear of federation that prevails in Nyasaland;

217
and, in view of past history and present events, we face a most difficult task in restoring the confidence of the people—and, indeed, in satisfying opinion in this country.
Towards the end of his Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has called for a Parliamentary Commission to consider and report upon this situation. Others, in the Press and elsewhere, have called for a Commission of Inquiry. Her Majesty's Government, for their part, have equally, over the last two weeks, considered what can be done. Indeed, one of the first topics I discussed with the Governor in Nyasaland was this very matter. The Governor is now satisfied that conditions have improved to such an extent that, with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, he is setting up a Commission of Inquiry into recent events in Nyasaland, whose terms of reference are as follows:
" To inquire into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them, and to report thereon."
Mr. Justice Devlin has agreed to serve as Chairman; and there will be three other members—Sir John Ure Primrose, a former Lord Provost of Perth, Sir Percy Wyn-Harris, formerly Governor of the Gambia, and Mr. E. T. Williams, Warden of Rhodes House, Oxford. I am sure that I voice the opinion of all your Lordships in expressing our gratitude to them for having been ready to undertake this important inquiry at such short notice. I do not doubt that, with such eminent men of such wide experience, we shall get to the heart of things: and it is for that reason, my Lords, that I have not thought it appropriate to go into any detail on the White Paper, or to answer in detail the doubts that have been expressed or charges that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
The Commission will be concerned only with the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them. There remains the issue of the future of the Federation and the 1960 constitutional talks. Regarding this, Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Federation Government and the other territorial Governments concerned, and are considering the best way of preparing for the 1960 review of the Federal constitution. When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals,
218
they will do so— and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might be set up.
My Lords, we are all in this together, and together we must, and we will, find the right answer.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask a question about what is obviously the official Government statement which was made at the end of the noble Earl's speech, with regard to these terms of reference:
" To inquire into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them, and to report thereon."
That seems a little limited; but, in view of the composition, are the Commission to be entirely judicial? Are they to inquire only into disturbances in Nyasaland? If that is so, we can understand the terms of reference, but the noble Earl said just now that they were to go into the heart of things. I should like some guidance at this stage of the debate as to what exactly is to be covered by the terms of reference, and to have much later on from the noble Earl a little more explanation of the end of the statement.
THE EARL OF HOME: Not now? You would like us to deal with that later on?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like the terms of reference to be made known before my noble friends speak.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am sorry; I misunderstood. Perhaps I might read out the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission will be concerned—and these are the terms of reference—with the disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to them, and will report thereon.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But a number of charges of foul behaviour and proposed assassinations have been laid and published in the White Paper, and we all expected the noble Earl to come back and tell us whether he had examined those charges or done anything to verify them. That is the difficulty: he has said not one single word about them.
THE EARL OF HOME: What the noble Viscount asked for, and what his Party

219
asked for, was a Parliamentary Commission to examine the situation. What we have done is to appoint a judicial Inquiry composed of independent persons. They are the people, I should have thought, to look into the charges. If my noble friend had expressed an opinion on the charges, he would have been accused by the noble Viscount of taking sides.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: These charges have been laid and printed, and the names of men have been mentioned. The noble Earl has been there; he has been on the spot; he has seen the Governor; and he has had an opportunity of seeing the detained people, and we want to know what he thinks about the charges, whether they are true or whether they are false.
3.58 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, are these not points which will come before the Commission of Inquiry?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD REA: After that slight digression, may I be permitted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Perth? First of all, I should like to welcome him back to this House after his slightly hesitant departure from these shores, though not due to his own fault, and slightly hesitant arrival—also, I gather, by no means his responsibility.
My Lords, it is about seven years, I believe—it was in July, 1952—since this House had its first big debate on this matter. The two chief speeches then were made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; both of whom, if I may say so, I seem to recall, set a very high tone of restraint and reasonableness on a very touchy and difficult problem. There were particularly difficult and explosive possibilities in this matter then, as there are now, but I trust that during those years we have learned to see the whole matter in a little more proportion, and that some of us who were perhaps considered extreme, either on the right or on the left, have come to a more middle line of view.
I feel that, when this matter was discussed in the earlier stages, there was a little too much intolerance, and that those who were suspected of being more than normally pro-African were sometimes automatically expected to be anti
220
white: the sort of person who says that this country is always wrong, and that the foreigner is always right. Nothing is further from the truth; but that is sometimes said. Similarly, those who are interested in prison welfare are sometimes accused, quite wrongly, of looking after the welfare of the accused but of forgetting all about the victim. Those are far-fetched and puerile arguments, which I hope no longer exist. There is also a feeling, on the other side, that most white people in Africa are overbearing, irresponsible, and take advantage where they should not do so. I do not think that either of those arguments bas the least force nowadays; and I hope that this debate will be conducted on the same high level as that on which the last debate finished.
We must, of course, take the long view of things that happen rather suddenly; and it is difficult, at such very short notice, to review them, and to take up the points made in the speech by the noble Earl. I am in a particular difficulty because until a short time ago I thought that I should be speaking before him, and I had prepared a series of questions, which I am now unable to put because the noble Earl has more or less given me the answers. At least let us keep the debate off Party lines, and let us look at it from the long view and not from the short. It is because we did not have a long enough view on the last occasion we discussed the matter that this tragic position has come about. In those days, there was the rather curious situation that noble Lords on these Benches and on the Labour Benches took what might be termed a conservative view. They begged the Government of the day not to hurry too far too fast in this matter of federation, when the two countries of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia were really not ready for it, did not want it and had expressed their unwillingness. Many arguments were put forward on both sides, and, if I may, I would touch on one in a humorous, though not in a critical, way. I remember one noble Lord indicating that he represented the underprivileged people of Nyasaland because he was an absentee landlord in Northern Rhodesia.
I am not going to keep your Lordships now, because there is a long list of speakers, but I should like to make one or two points thatI had noted to ask

221
the noble Earl, Lord Perth, if he had not anticipated some of them. First of all, with regard to the Governor's dispatch, which is an appendix to the White Paper, noble Lords on this side of the House are not fully convinced by its tone. It is a good report, and I am sure a sincere report; it gives a very clear view of one side, but it seems to us not to give both sides of the picture. Therefore, we want to have the other side more closely investigated. We know, of course, the extreme difficulties in this matter, particularly in the matter of security, and I think we all appreciate the great difficulty the Governor had in making a report on matters of this nature, in skating round security problems. We have the greatest sympathy with him in that. At the same time, think we should point out that we do not like a mystery created by security problems which are deliberately put up, and we do not like to have the issue befogged by points which may not really exist.
I am sorry that the noble Earl did not touch at all upon the question of detention without charge and without trial, but perhaps the noble Earl who leads the House will touch on that matter when he comes to wind up. I think that all noble Lords are most anxious to know how it came about that these people could be detained without proper charges being made and can now be released without any charges being withdrawn, because they were not made, and with no explanation of why they were put under detention.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this is not Nyasaland—the noble Lord is talking about Southern Rhodesia?
LORD REA: Yes, I am talking about Southern Rhodesia.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that is not a matter I can answer at the moment.
LORD REA: My Lords, I think that we all welcome the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry which has been announced from the Government Front Bench. We had felt that it was not suitable that the Commission should be purely a Parliamentary one. We should have welcomed a mixed Commission. But the eminent names which the noble Earl has given us will give great satisfaction, and I am sure that the work the
222
Commission do, so long as it is undertaken very quickly, will be excellent.
I hope that special investigation will be made of the authenticity of the plots which are referred to in the Governor's report: how widespread they were, how co-ordinated they were, whether there really was one centre of organisation dealing with this sort of thing, and whether Dr. Banda was actually in charge. I do not know anything about Dr. Banda, but I heard on what I consider reasonable grounds that when he was in this country he was regarded as a high Tory and that his politics were definitely of the Right. It seems rather extraordinary that he should have switched over, unless his disappointments in this country were such that he changed his allegiance. He also should be brought under investigation, and those who have been detained in Southern Rhodesia. The investigation should not be confined merely to matters in Nyasaland itself.
I am not going to detain your Lordships further. I would tell the Minister and the noble Earl the Leader of the House that, in spite of our criticisms, they have our sincere good wishes for a happy solution of this tragic situation, which some of us think could have been avoided; but, since recrimination does us no good, we hope for better things to come.
4.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, like the two previous speakers, I welcome back the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who went to Africa on a mission on which we had particularly urged him; and we are grateful to him for the full report with which he has returned. In the course of my remarks I shall deal with various things that he said, but I should like to begin by referring to the alleged lack of interest which the people of Nyasaland feel exists in this country. The noble Earl made the remark. which is quoted in The Times, that he thought that his visit would have dispelled that feeling. I certainly agree that it must have played some part. but I doubt whether a three-to-four day visit to Nyasaland would really dispel the feeling that they are somewhat isolated and that we are not taking the fullest interest in them. Perhaps. if they read the OFFICIAL REPORT in Nyasaland, they may feel encouraged at the end of the day by the

223
fact that there are twenty-five speakers to-day and that we have an unusually full House to discuss their affairs.
One of the things that has come out is the White Paper, which gives the grounds on which a state of emergency was declared by the Governor. We had that last night and most of us have read it with care. Although I have some reservations, I accept the fact that the Governor acted with sincerity, and that on such facts as he had available to him he was right to declare a state of emergency. He carries a great responsibility, and whether, in the result, those facts are justified or not, I think that a responsible Governor was bound to take note of them and, as a precautionary measure, declare a state of emergency. Therefore, no criticism arises against the Governor for the action that he took. I understand that he was in touch with the Secretary of State here, and that his decision was supported by the Secretary of State. I make no complaint about that. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I think that the White Paper does not really make out a powerful case.
I have a number of apprehensions about it, but I do not want to go through the White Paper in any detail. I imagine that the Commission who has been appointed will have as their responsibility the investigation of all the allegations that have been made, and that it will be for them to say to what extent there was, in fact, a plot, and for them to answer the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, so properly put.
I have, however, gained a general impression about this White Paper. Most of the incidents that are referred to are incidents where there was unlawful assembly. That can mean a lot or a little. It can mean a few people getting together in the market place and talking things over—as is the case in one of these instances—orit can mean an official public meeting at which large numbers of people attend. I canot help feeling that rather heavy weather has been made of these unlawful assemblies; that large numbers of people have been arrested through attending these meetings, and that a good deal of the trouble has arisen because those attending have been resentful of the fact that their friends were arrested merely for having attended.
224
That is the feeling I have, and this question of unlawful assembly constitutes a large part of the justification for the incidents which have caused the Governor to declare a state of emergency.
I cannot help thinking that the authorities have been somewhat heavy-handed over this business; and I certainly cannot accept the fact that the persons throwing stones, or even trying to rescue their comrades, should have been arrested, as if they justly deserved it, and killed for their pains. If anything of that sort happened here the whole country would be up in arms and resentful against the action of authority in dealing with events of that kind. We ought to take the same line in this case: that there can be no justification for the shooting and killing of fifty people following these unlawful assemblies.
The whole of this story does not hang together. Up to the stage when there was the declaration of emergency, and Banda was arrested, there was no real violence. The whole plan depended on the rejection of the constitutional demands made by Congress, and no rejection had so far taken place. If the plan was being carried into effect, the time for these murders had not yet arisen. Dr. Banda, as my noble friend Lord Ogmore said, was not even present at the meeting at which the plot was supposed to have been made. He has never been guilty of incitement to violence; and, so far as I know, no statement of his has been put forward in justification. Furthermore, if the key to the putting into operation of Plan "R" was to be the arrest of Banda, why was it necessary to arrest him at all? By not arresting Banda the Government had it in their power to postpone indefinitely the events which were going to follow his arrest. However, as I say, I hope all these things will be investigated fully as the result of setting up the Commission.
While my noble friends and I would have preferred the setting up of a Parliamentary Commission, because we think it would have created greater confidence among the people of Nyasaland, we nevertheless welcome this Commission. I want to say at once, as is, I think, fairly obvious, that we all have complete confidence in Mr. Justice Devlin, whom many of us know, and we are quite satisfied that we shall get from him an objective Report. Frankly, I do not know the

225
other members of the Commission, but I have every reason to belileve that they will he equally objective. I accept the fact that the Government have gone out of their way to try to find people who will give an objective Report. Therefore, I am satisfied that if there is to be a Commission of this kind the Government have undoubtedly chosen a body which will command general support.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think that perhaps I misled the noble Lord. It is not technically a judicial Commission, but it is a Commission of independent persons with a judge as its head.
LORD SILKEN: That puts a rather different light on the situation, because a judicial Commission—and no doubt the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: A judicial inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: I had in mind that this was to be the sort of body which could compel the attendance of witnesses and where witnesses would give their evidence on oath; where they would get complete immunity in respect of the evidence they gave, arid could be represented by counsel, if they so desired; and the whole atmosphere would be one of judicial inquiry. If that is not to be the case, then I am bound to say that I should like to give further thought to the desirability of a Commission of this kind.
I should be grateful if I could be informed in what form and in what way this inquiry will be conducted. Will they have power to compel the attendance of witnesses? If not, how is it expected to get at the truth of the matter? It may well be that the people who are alleged to have given the information to the Governor upon which he acted are people who were actually present on the occasion of the meeting out of which the plot arose. If they were, and they took a solemn oath that they would not disclose anything, they might be in serious difficulty if they came out into the open and gave evidence voluntarily. It would be a different matter if they had been compelled to give evidence. I should be grateful if we could have some further elucidation of this point, because this rather changes the flattering tone of what I have been saying into a somewhat critical one.
226
I want to ask the noble Earl who is to reply why, instead of imprisoning Dr. Banda, it was not thought desirable to make a charge against him. If in fact he has been guilty of conspiracy to murder, and if those who have been associated with him have been similarly guilty of conspiracy—and that is what the allegation amounts to—would it not be more satisfactory to put them on trial; to formulate charges against them and give them the opportunity of vindicating themselves? As it is, I always have the fear in regard to these inquiries, and especially the type of inquiry now contemplated, that it will be for these people to prove their innocence rather than for the authorities to prove their guilt. As my noble friend Lord Ogmore said, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative than to have to defend, as is the normal thing, a definite and clear charge made. So I hope that it may be possible for the noble Earl to satisfy us on the point of this inquiry, or, alternatively, that it may be possible for him to reconsider the form of the inquiry if it is not in a form which we on this side of the House regard as desirable. We are all prepared to forgo our view that this should be a Parliamentary inquiry, but we certainly feel that the alternative should be a judicial Inquiry.
The Commission are to consider the events leading up to the disorders. I do not know whether the noble Earl can elucidate exactly what that means. As my noble Leader indicated, we have some doubts whether that goes far enough. For instance, will the Commission feel able to inquire as to the causes of the disasters? Events leading up to them may be interpreted as meaning just events preceding them but not necessarily the causes of the disorder. We feel that it is most important and relevant to the whole thing that we should get a clear investigation into the facts as to the disorders and the causes of them.
In the course of his remarks the noble Earl gave us some of the causes, and I think the main one was fear. Incidentally, I suppose that fear is, at bottom, the main cause of every disorder. It is the cause of the cold war that exists, and it is the cause of most of the disturbances that exist in the world. But the question is: how far is their fear justified? The noble Earl tried to convince us, and, of

227
course, the people of Nyasaland, that these fears were without justification. But are they? If one has to go by statements that are made by prominent people—for instance, Sir Roy Welensky and the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern (I have given him notice that I was going to refer to him in my remarks)—one cannot help coming to the conclusion that there is a good deal of justification for the fears which they feel at the present time.
I have a host of quotations from speeches made by Sir Roy Welensky, but I will quote only two; I think they will give an adequate idea to the House as to his outlook on federation and what the people of Nyasaland have to fear. Before I quote, I should like to emphasise the fact that the people of Nyasaland are a Protectorate and are relying on protection by this country. What they fear is that this protection may disappear and that they may be placed under other control, particularly under the control of the Federation. It is in the light of that that I wish to quote two statements that have been made by Sir Roy Welensky. The first is a quotation from the Johannesburg Star of August 14, 1957, when he said:
" The pledge that independence should not be granted before the majority of the inhabitants wanted it "—
that is, independence as regards the Federation—
" did not mean that the natives had a right to veto anything which would be in the best interests of the Federation."
Who decides what are in the best interests of the Federation?—Sir Roy Welensky. If it is not to be the natives themselves, who have a preponderance in the Territory, who does decide what is in the best interests of the Federation? Surely they are entitled to understand by that that when Sir Roy Welensky decides that it is in the best interests of Federation then he will demand independence.
The other quotation I wish to make is from the Financial Times of April 18, 1957:
"I have not been demanding independence for the Federation forthwith. By this I do not want you to assume that we are not determined to claim independent status within the Commonwealth. We are. But I believe the time to settle this is in 1960."
We are now getting towards 1960. There again, I am not arguing that the people of Nyasaland are completely justified in
228
their fears. But I do submit that they have very good ground for their fears, and that unless they have far more reassurance than we have been able to give therm—
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I am obliged to him for giving way. Does he regard it as wrong that a large European community overseas should organise independence at some future time?
LORD SILKIN: I am not suggesting whether it is right or wrong. All I am trying to prove at this moment is that the fears of the people of Nyasaland have some ground—that is all—andthat the fears are imminent, because the demand for independence is going to be made before 1960. If the noble Earl would like a discussion on whether it is right or wrong that people should demand independence, I am perfectly prepared to discuss it. But that is not the issue at this moment, and I hope he will accept that as a fair reply.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said—and I think he said it very fairly—that, as a result of his inquiries, he thought the people of Nyasaland were not in favour of federation; in fact, the majority of them were against it. He pointed to the great economic advantages of federation, and nobody would dispute it. I have no doubt at all that Nyasaland would find herself in great economic difficulties if federation ceased to exist. On the other hand, the noble Earl said, and said quite clearly, that the economic considerations were not the only ones: that there were moral considerations also. One consideration is this. Just as the people of Southern Rhodesia are entitled (if the noble Earl likes) to press for independence, so those in Nyasaland are entitled to say that they object to federation. They may be wrong-headed, and they may be working against their own interests; but they are entitled to take that view if that is what they feel. I am not at this moment suggesting whether they are right or wrong in that view, but if that is their view it is a view which must be taken into consideration and cannot be brushed aside.
Without wishing to gloat or in any way express a feeling of "we told you so", the fact is that we did warn the Government in 1953—and my noble friend quoted from what he said—that this is the kind

229
of thing which was likely to happen: that however desirable federation was, it was not a thing one could force. I think the noble Earl recognises that, because he said that the people of Nyasaland were inadequately prepared; they were not sufficiently educated up to the blessings of federation. I hope it may be possible that that can be done in the course of the next few months, but I am bound to say that I do not think the events of the last few weeks are the best form of education. We shall have to take a very different line.
I said that they have grounds for their fears, and I quoted a statement of Sir Roy Welensky. I now want to come to the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern. After all, he is a very important person in the history of Rhodesia and has rendered great service to that country, and we are very glad to have him in this House. But he has made statements which hardly tend to reassure the people of Nyasaland. I want to make one quotation of what he said. He said:
" You cannot make people do things unless they wish to "—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN:—
"except by force. One of the curious things about our Constitution is that we have complete control of our defence forces. I can only hope we shall not have to use them as the North American colonies had to use theirs. Because we are dealing with a stupid Government in the United Kingdom."
Would noble Lords like to cheer that? That speech was reported in East Africa and Rhodesia on August 30, 1956, soon after the last election. He means that "Our job is to consolidate our position economically, to advance our people as we do so, and when we are strong enough we do not care, because nobody can stop us doing what we like". I have no quarrel with that as such. The noble Viscount is entitled to have these views, but I am bound to say they are not very reassuring to the people of Nyasaland.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: That is the point I am trying to make. There is another statement the noble Viscount made more recently, as the House will know, and there is no reason why he should feel in any way ashamed of it. The noble Viscount is a director of the British South
230
Africa Company and on March 19 last he was re-elected as a director of that company. No doubt in the exuberance of that achievement he made certain statements. I should like to tell the House what some of those statements were. First of all, he referred to certain upheavals that had taken place in Nyasaland—he had only recently comeback—and prophesied that they would all be over in about a fortnight. He had to explain why his prognostications had been wrong. Well, we all make prophecies, and I do not grumble that he was over-optimistic. But he went on to say:
"One of the outstanding impressions I must say I have derived from certain groups in this country"—
Great Britain—
"is that they are very disappointed there are no European casualties yet."
I think that that is a shocking thing to say.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: I make no apology for using strong language about it. There is nobody in this country who is disappointed because there have been no European casualties.
A NOBLE LORD: Your Party.
LORD SILKIN: That is an utterly improper thing to say. I hope that when the noble Viscount comes to speak he will be able to tell us that these remarks do not really represent his views but were put forward in the excitement of his reelection as a director of the British South Africa Company.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord does not want to be unfair, but earlier on he said, I think, that it is all wrong that natives should be killed for throwing stones. Those of us who have in years past served in the civil power in India and many other places know what a lonely moment it is when you are facing an angry mob.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD GRENFELL: And it is one of the biggest decisions of your life that you have to make when you consider that in the rights of the case you should order your men to open fire. I am sure the noble Lord does not mean to be unfair.

231
But I thought, as he is stating a case, that I should be allowed to make that comment.
LORD SILKIN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that interjection. I do not mean to be unfair, and there might well be extenuating circumstances when troops open fire on a mob. Nevertheless, the remark I made is perfectly true; fifty lives have been lost among people whose main crime was throwing stones. You may make light of that, but I think it is a serious matter.
But I come back to the noble Viscount. I can understand that a person may make a statement like that on the spur of the moment, without preparation, but the noble Viscount was so pleased with the remark that he repeated it. He said later on:
"They would be happier if the policy of partnership had been implemented more by a few European deaths."
I am sure that the noble Viscount is much too goodhearted a man to mean that really, and much too generous a man to say that about his opponents. We may disagree, but none of us—I need hardly say this—would wish to have European deaths merely to further his advocacy of a particular cause. That is what the noble Viscount was saying. That sort of statement would not commend itself to the people in Africa. But I want to make one further quotation. He says it is a pity that these outbreaks took place at the present time. If they had taken place in the winter the law-breakers would have been under cover of something like, he says, six or seven to eight feet of grass, and he says,
" Of course, had it happened in the middle of the winter, a few matches used with a favourable wind, and all that cover would have disappeared in two or three days.'
A NOBLE LORD: In other words, burn them out.
LORD SILKIN: That is of statement to commend people of Nyasaland.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SILKIN: When we talk of fear, I want to emphasise that there is some justification for fear, and we have a great deal to do to remove that fear—a great deal. What does it all amount to? As
232
my noble friend Lord Ogmore said, there are 7,000 white people and over 2½ million Africans. Is it unreasonable that the Africans do not wish to be dominated by their own white people, still less by the white people of Southern Rhodesia, and that they fear it? Does one need to look further than this fear—and, as I hope I have established, this reasonable fear—to understand the root cause of the trouble?
And so I hope that the Commission will be able to examine this matter in the widest possible way. I do not know whether it is necessary that the terms of reference should be widened. Perhaps it is a question of how these terms of reference should be interpreted. Perhaps the noble Earl, when he replies, will give us his view as to the proper interpretation of those terms of reference. I am very glad indeed that there is to be in addition a political inquiry, which I imagine will be greatly helped by the findings of this Commission. I am not suggesting that the Commission should in any way make any recommendations; I do not think they should. I think the Commission we are talking about should merely find facts.
THE EARL OF HOME: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I could not understand him when he said that in addition there would be a political inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: I understood that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, had said that in his statement—I do not mean immediately, but at some time before 1960.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps I may read it again. It is very important, when we are dealing with other Governments and peoples, that there should be no misunderstanding. What my noble friend said was:
"Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Federal Government and with the Territorial Governments concerned, and are considering the best way of preparing for the 1960 review of the federal Constitution. When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals on this they will do so, and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might be set up".
It is a little dangerous to use words like "a Parliamentary Commission."
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Earl will acquit me of desiring to misinterpret what he said. He has left the matter deliberately vague and open. I gather

233
that there may be some sort of political examination into the matter before the time comes to make the decision.
I want to say a word in conclusion about the attitude of the Opposition. I am very glad that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is here, because he generally accuses us, the moment we happen to disagree with the Government, of being unpatriotic and trying to make Party political capital. I want to assure him and the House that that is not true. We regard this as much too serious a matter to make Party political capital out of. If the Government want a bipartisan approach to this matter they must carry out all the implications of a bipartisan approach. That implies that the Opposition should be fully informed before events happen, and taken into consultation and their approval obtained. But no Opposition—even if noble Lords opposite were in opposition —could agree to accept whatever the Government do under pain of being called unpatriotic, and we should 'be seriously abrogating our functions as the Opposition if we just swallowed whatever the Government said in order to avoid being accused of being unpatriotic and using events in order to further our politics.
The problem of Nyasaland is, I am afraid, an aspect of a world problem. It is the problem of the second half of the twentieth century. It is how peoples of different colours and races and traditions can live together in harmony and friendship. It confronts us in every continent and in almost every country. It confronts us even in London and in Nottingham. For years white nations have dominated by reason of their superior education and power. But there is evidence everywhere that the other peoples are growing up. They are no longer prepared to accept domination or an inferior status, either politically or socially—and I want to emphasise "socially". It is not sufficient to give people the vote. They want the right to belong to clubs and to be treated on equal terms with other people, 'whatever colour they are.
We must learn to accept this dramatic change—and it is a dramatic change—just as we have one day to accept the fact that our children have grown up and can no longer be treated as children.
234
If we accept this graciously and willingly, and not grudgingly and reluctantly, there is hope for the future. We are greatly outnumbered in most of these territories and we cannot hope to dominate indefinitely. On the other band, white people who have long settled in these territories, for generations perhaps, and who have a considerable stake in the country, have their rights, and they should not be overridden. We must, therefore, be prepared for a genuine partnership and offer it immediately, in name and in fact. We have surely learned from our experience that delay only aggravates the position; it never gets better; it always gets 'worse. In the end if we do not accept and grant partnership the alternative will be domination by the black people, certainly not domination of 'black by white.
I am glad that the Government intend in due course to have further inquiry well before the Constitution is due for revision, and I welcome that all aspects of it will be examined. I promise that so far as my friends are concerned the Government will have complete co-operation. This is a human problem and we have no desire to make a Party issue out of it. Our one hope is that we may arrive at a wise solution in accordance with the best interests of all parties and in accordance with their wishes, and so enable this lovely country —and it is a lovely country—which, given peace, could well become a world-famed international resort, to live in prosperity and in happiness.
4.47 p.m.
LORD ROBINS: My Lords, I must seek the indulgence of your Lordships in addressing you for the first time, saying immediately that I welcome the opportunity of speaking on a Motion relating to a country and a people among whom I have spent the last thirty-one years of my life. No one who has had that close association and who has, in a sense, grown up with these people can fail to have sympathy for the aspirations of the African people to progress economically, socially, educationally and politically. I put the importance of their progress in the order I have stated, because without economic advancement and the benefits of education it is quite impossible to give the vote to an African or, indeed, to anybody in these territories. I hope I

235
may be forgiven for giving some emphasis to this point, because in the utterances of Dr. Hastings Banda and his staff of agitators we invariably find put in the forefront pressure for freedom: they ignore the fact that this can come only in the train of economic and educational progress.
The Motion with which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has initiated this debate begins by drawing attention to the unrest in Nyasaland and goes on to voice the urgent need for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission. That unrest exists is, of course, quite obvious, and that it has been accompanied by violence is equally obvious. That violence is regretted by no one more than myself. The progress of events which has followed on that unrest has been reported fully in the public Press; it has been reported in this House and in another place, and the White Paper we are discussing to-day has given a factual statement bringing the situation up to date. Force and violence have resulted from the necessity to put down violence, and, as I have said, no one regrets this more than I do, as, knowing the good-natured, good-mannered and naturally peaceable Nyasalander pretty well, I am convinced that this unrest is confined to a handful out of the 2½ million inhabitants of that country, and that violence has been resorted to by only a hard core of agitators and self-appointed leaders, whose aims no one can describe as disinterested.
We have been told several times, and again to-day, that this unrest was initially a revolt against the inclusion of Nyasaland in the Federation with the Rhodesias and that Nyasaland wished to remain under the direct control of the Colonial Office. I emphasise this, in particular, to one certain group of our fellow-countrymen in the United Kingdom, who seem only too happy to belittle and destroy everything that those of us who are working in Central Africa for the advancement of its inhabitants, black and white, have been endeavouring to achieve over the last seventy-five years. When it had been shown, over and over again, that in all matters affecting the internal affairs of the people of Nyasaland, they were, and still are to-day, a territorial entity under the direction of Her Majesty's Government inthe United
236
Kingdom; and, further, that when the constitutional changes now under consideration come into force they will increase the influence of its African population in those affairs, then things would seem to be fairly clear. Once the true nature of the agitation became apparent, Dr. Banda and his lieutenants came out into the open and declared that their objective was to throw off British control and set up an independent African State, on the lines of the West African model. So, my Lords, we need now be under no illusions as to the aims of these self-appointed leaders.
May I refer to a book published recently under the title, His Own Oppressor? The author is one B. G. Paver, a gifted writer and editor in Central Africa, and a trusted friend of the African people. One chapter in the book deals specifically with this unrest in Nyasaland. I will quote two or three sentences from it:
" One of the most tragic factors of the situation is the emergence of black politicians prone to a Bhudda-like contemplation of their navels. What they sec is a black skin; no more and no less. So the surge of advancement becomes political and ignores the fundamental sociological and economic factors of the black man's future."
There is no doubt that this hard core of politicians has played upon the ignorance, superstition and fears of the people of Nyasalandto such an extent that unrest and violence have been the result.
I think that it is often necessary to remind people in this country that it is only seventy years ago that slavery and the slave trade were rife in Nyasaland, and that disease, starvation and intertribal strife kept the people of that Territory in a miserable and unhappy state. It was the followers of Livingstone, missionaries, traders, and, subsequently, representatives of the "Great White Queen," like Sir Harry Johnston, who brought to Nyasaland the benefits of British example and of its administration.
May I refer again to what we have been repeatedly told: that the people of Nyasaland were opposed to federation from the start and were forced into it, and that that is one of the causes of this unrest. There is, unfortunately, some foundation for that statement; but though I am most anxious in my maiden speech not to tread on controversial ground. there are some facts of which it

237
is only fair to remind the House. They have already been referred to in part by my noble friend Lord Perth.
It is a fact, which I have never seen denied, that in the period preceding 1953, under the Government then in power, the negotiations for federation were proceeding, and it was made clear by that Government that Nyasaland must be included in the scheme. There then emerged a small band of Nyasas who declared their objection to it. The situation was greatly worsened by the instruction given by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, that Colonial civil servants were not to offer any advice to the Chiefs, to African Native Authorities or to individuals as to whether federation was a good thing or the reverse. They were told to say that the African must make up his own mind. Could any instruction have been more calculated to cause doubt in the mind of ignorant, though well-intentioned people, as to whether they could gain or lose by a change of this sort? The African in Nyasaland has always regarded the district officer as his mother and father. He goes to him for advice on every subject—domestic, public and economic. To be told that he must make up his own mind on an important question of this sort only created a doubt which made him think that this must be a bad thing for him. That this course of action did have the effect I have indicated, I have ample evidence from my own experience.
Unrest in Nyasaland will not subside, nor will these doubts be removed, until we are able to convince the people of that country of the sincerity of the planners of the Federation and to gain their co-operation in that partnership which is one of its cardinal aims. Partnership has had many definitions, but when it conies down to bedrock it embodies the principle enunciated by Cecil Rhodes many years ago, of "equal rights for all civilised men". We must never lose sight of the fact that it is civilisation and not colour that will decide the contribution that each partner will be able to make to it.
My Lords, I wonder whether it will be thought out of place if, as a citizen of the Federation, as well as a Member of y our Lordships' House, I say one word of appeal for the support by people in the United Kingdom, and particularly by
238
Members of the Mother of Parliaments, to whom Africans in all parts look for guidance and advice, for the British administrations in those countries who are endeavouring to restore order and to make of the Federation the successful entity which it is designed to be. I mean, in particular, the Governors of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland, the Prime Ministers of the countries in the Federation of Southern Rhodesia, and the troops and police whose duties have been particularly trying; also the civil servants and the citizens of these territories. Their task and responsibilities have been extremely heavy, and I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that they are entitled to the support of all their fellow subjects in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I had intended to finish my remarks by referring to that portion of the noble Lord's Motion which calls for the setting up of a Parliamentary Commission, but from what we have heard from the noble Earl. Lord Perth, I feel that there is nothing for me to say except that I am very happy that the nature of that Commission of Inquiry is such that it will be free from any tinge of Party politics, and that the members of that Commission will not be called upon to take part in any legislation which may be required to give effect to their recommendations. I feel that the Commission which has been suggested will go far to restore the confidence of Nyasaland in the United Kingdom and to help the progress of the African people there and I, for one, welcome it very warmly.
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, it is very agreeable to me, as an old friend of Lord Robins, to he the first to congratulate him on a model maiden speech. He has had a very long experience of Rhodesia and Nyasaland—the whole of the Federation—and its people. He has always shown himself a man of wise and unprejudiced judgment, and that is just the kind of man we need, both in this House and out there. I believe that this is a very timely debate. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government are just as anxious as any of their critics to ascertain and appraise the true facts, and just as anxious as any of their critics to do what is right and wise. Her Majesty's Government, of course, have a special responsibility, but as the noble

239
Lord, Lord Robins, has said, that is a responsibility which we all share because, by word or action, we, certainly in both Houses of Parliament, can all help or prejudice both the present and the future.
It is a great advantage to have had my noble friend Lord Perth back for this debate. If I may say so without impertinence, he seems to me to have got an extraordinary amount into a few days, as a man seeing things for himself. Obviously he has behaved out there without any prejudice, with complete objectivity, and I feel that the account he has given to the House to-day could not have been more fair, more objective or more understanding. It is also a great advantage to have the White Paper. I am not going to say anything about the details of that White Paper except to make a point on which we can all agree, even before the inquiry starts—and it is rather an important point: that all the action which was taken by the Governor of Nyasaland was action taken entirely on his own initiative and responsibility, no doubt subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but what is abundantly clear is that it was in no sense action pressed upon him from outside, from Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia or anywhere else, and that his demand for such troops and police as were required to support the civil power was made as a personal request. After all that has been said, I believe it is a good thing that that should be cleared up.
I must admit that I have a strong inclination to trust Her Majesty's Government, not merely because I am a supporter of them but because the Government—and not only this Government but any Government that is in office —have means which none of us can have to the same extent to get full and accurate information; and also because the Government are and must be the best judge of timing—and in this matter timing is very important.
This debate has ranged pretty widely, and no doubt will range wider, but I believe it should be recognised that there are here two quite separate and distinct issues, and they are issues which it is important to keep distinct. First, there is the subject matter of the White Paper—
240
this plot for subversion, violence, sabotage and, as it is said, of murder, no less, and the action which was taken by the Governor to suppress that plot. On that I am going to express no opinion, but I want to say to the House that that is a separate issue from the future Constitution in the Federation. Those are matters of fact, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government have taken exactly the same view. It is a view which I believe we all share that those are matters which are very suitable for a judicial inquiry.
I am not going to ask Her Majesty's Government to lay down almost a "book of rules" on how this Commission are to proceed, and I believe that on consideration the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will feel that it is probably not wise to try to persuade Her Majesty's Government to do so. The Commission seems to me to be a good body, and, what is very important, it is headed by an extremely able Judge. I am sure that it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government and will be the purpose of the Commission to make the most thorough investigation that they can; and that Her Majesty's Government will put all possible information at their disposal. I may add that I have no doubt that the Government will be able to put at the disposal of the Commission evidence which they could not possibly disclose to Parliament or to anybody else. I say that with a full sense of responsibility, and I am quite sure that that view will be endorsed by anybody who has ever held responsible office. When in government one always has at one's disposal information which one is bound to assess and then to act upon, but if one were to disclose the sources of such information one would be completely hamstrung for the future. It is all right to make a claptrap about it outside, but among responsible people there cannot be any doubt about that.
At the same time, where we have a Judge of the High Court, with responsible men sitting with him, it is quite possible to disclose to those people and to put at their disposal evidence which has been before the Governor, and no doubt the Secretary of State. so that they may evaluate that evidence for themselves. I have no doubt that that will be done. Further, I would not try to lay down just how the Commission are to conduct their business, for it seems to me much better to let Mr. Justice Devlin and his

241
colleagues be masters of their own procedure, with the broad direction, "You shall have at your disposal everything which is relevant to your inquiry; do it as thoroughly as you can." That is one issue and I am glad I carry both sides with me on that.
The other issue which is quite distinct is the development and possible variation of the Federation Constitution. That is a matter of policy and a matter, if you please, of opinion. It is under the Constitution itself to be the subject of discussion and conference again next year; and I would say, obviously (and I should think this view would be echoed as much in Africa as here) the formal conference will, I take it, be the kind of conference which my noble friend Lord Salisbury and I took part in before we introduced the Federation. But before that, there was great preparation, and no doubt there will be again, and there must be a great deal of preliminary preparation both in Africa and here.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, say that in that matter the Government would be able to rely upon leaders of his Party for the fullest co-operation. That, I am sure, is the right way. Meantime, of course, there is on the constitutional side the territorial Constitution of Nyasaland; and that is a matter, as soon as circumstances will permit out there, for Colonial Office discussion and for proposals from the Colonial Office, which no doubt will be put to Parliament. But to-day I am sure the House will also agree with this: that the first and immediate duty of the Government is the restoration of law and order. Trusteeship has always been the policy of the Colonial Office. It has not only been its policy; it was the practice of colonial administrators all over the Empire long before Trusteeship became a dogma. They have acted as trustees and, above all, as trustees for the common man; and the greatest benefit that that trust has brought to a dark continent has been security and justice and the rule of law; and therefore law and order must be restored.
There is something else which must be restored, and that is confidence. On this question I thought that my noble friend Lord Robins spoke very wisely. For any of us who through the years have
242
travelled the Empire and seen colonial administrators at work, it has indeed been remarkable and gratifying to see how not only experienced governors but young district officers have inspired confidence and trust; and that confidence and trust have been a priceless boon to ignorant men, often suspicious, often superstitious and easily misled.
I hope that we shall not attempt to pass judgment to-day; judgment needs full knowledge. But I hope we shall all realise that in the Federation, which many of us in both Parties have helped to create, we have an experiment in racial partnership which is unique and, I believe, full of hope. Remember for one moment the inter-racial University in Salisbury, the direct offspring of that Federation. Some noble Lords will remember that when we were debating federation in this House the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury said, "If I were to apply"—I paraphrase his words—"the acid test of whether this is going to succeed or not—and I pray it will—I would say that if you can get an inter-racial university going, then I think that will be evidence of real partnership."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will the noble Earl say a word about the black professor at the University who wanted to marry a Canadian girl?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, no, I will not. The noble Viscount is really a most extraordinary person. He is always great on a little point and little on a great one.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl might answer the question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: No; I am not going to give way. He gets more mellow, perhaps, with old age, but he certainly does not get more responsible. But what I will tell him is this: that the standard there is as high as that in any university in this country. Black students and white students are living together in the same hostel—and I am proud to say that I believe the first hostel was called "Swinton Hall". That is a pretty good success. I do not know what has happened about somebody's marriage lines and I think that, compared with that great achievement, it is not very important.

243
My Lords, in this federation, this great experiment, the black and the white races must live together in Rhodesia, which is their home. It is the home of both of them; and to anybody who knows Rhodesia (even those who do not know it as my noble friend Lord Robins does, but nevertheless who know it), to talk about settlers and natives just does not make any sense at all. They are all natives of that country. It is the home of both of them and both have to work out their future together. Is it too much to ask that both those races, whose home it is and will continue to be, shall be able to look to us, all of us, in this country for understanding and encouragement? For we are all responsible. Governments may change, but any Government will have to handle the same problem; and the nearer we can come to a common understanding and a continuous policy the better it will be for federation and for this country and for all of us.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken has reminded your Lordships of the speech made from this Bench by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury when federation was first debated in your Lordships' House. On that occasion speeches were made from this Bench both in favour of federation and strongly against it, and it was obviously admitted that it was impossible to say that opposition to it per se was the Christian policy or that support of it per se was the Christian policy. What Christian conscience demands is that policy shall be followed consistently such as promotes genuine partnership between the black and white races.
I am glad that the noble Earl referred to the University of Salisbury. Some things have gone wrong, as the noble Viscount has mentioned. That may indeed be so; but that University of Salisbury has evoked great enthusiasm in many parts of the world, both from white people and from black people, who want partnership in education and who, by "partnership in education", mean sitting side by side, working together and doing all things together in intellectual life and comradeship. Whatever else happens, let it be hoped that as regards its achieve
244
ment the University of Salisbury will stand out as a beacon for great good things to come. The tragedy is that in the minds of the Africans in Nyasaland that achievement, and many other achievements, such as, I believe, the threefold increase in the Nyasaland Territory of expenditure upon education and public health generally, is overshadowed by their deep fear. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to that fear very fully, but I feel that we need to probe it more deeply than he did.
It is not a question of whether the fear is reasonable or unreasonable, justified or unjustified. If you have said that it is unreasonable, you have not dismissed it: you have reached the point where the formidable problem really begins—at the dark and irrational levels. In speaking of the fears felt at the initiation of federation, the noble Earl said, "If they fully understood, they would have thought differently". That may be so. And in the same spirit the noble Earl dealt with a number of existing fears and summed them up by saying that these fears are "unreasoning". So they may be; but I believe the noble Earl will agree with me that, with many kinds of fear, that is the very point where we begin.
It is unavoidable that a speaker from this Bench should refer to the testimony of missionaries, and noble Lords are always very tolerant when we do so. The fact is that missionaries do live extraordinarily near the population, and, whatever their defects as statesmen, they are often good judges of feeling, as well as of thought and reason, among the people. Much testimony has come from Nyasaland of the nature of the fears that are felt; and, as is so often the case, while these fears are in one way vague and broad, they have a way of piling themselves round particular points—which, in our sophisticated psychology, we might call a "complex". Here are some points around which there is a great deal of testimony that fears focus.
First, there is the fear that in 1960 there will be a determined effort in the Federation to get independent Dominion status. The fear may be groundless, but it is there; and there are made from time to time political statements which nourish it. Secondly, we are told that another fear is in connection with the

245
franchise. It is a fear that, whatever extensions in franchise are made to Africans, it is the ultimate intention that Africans shall always be in an inferior status in voting power within the State. Again, the fear is there. Then, thirdly, there is a widespread fear about the meaning the Federation will ultimately give to the word "partnership". When the word "partnership" is used, people soon begin arguing about its definition. An illustration of it was that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was this afternoon, I think, giving the word as lightly different meaning from that which I give it. That proves nothing: it merely illustrates that the word of itself is liable to diverse interpretations; and fears are fostered among the Africans of Nyasaland that ultimately partnership will mean not individual partnership in social participation in the same affairs, but rather the juxtaposition of groups within the State, groups always to be made liable to some sort of colour bar. The fear is there—of course it is there —and its removal is a very long-term task. Its removal means the abolition of every sort of colour bar that has fanned the flames of that fear.
My Lords, those fears being there, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government cannot do more to probe them and to meet them by a certain giving of assurances. The noble Earl who is to reply may say: "Ah, but assurances are abundant in the Constitution and in previous statements by statesmen". But in dealing with this sort of irrational background of fear, more than that is needed. What is needed is assurances that go to very great lengths indeed. For instance, an assurance specifically about the franchise —an assurance, that is, that the status of Protectorate for Nyasaland will not be withdrawn until Africans have, in federation elections, equality of voting power. Again, what is needed is an assurance that will make clear something that may be entirely self-evident in the world of calm reflection, though it is not self-evident in the heated atmosphere of emotion in Africa—namely, that Dominion status in 1960 is just unthinkable. The legitimate steps that might lead to it simply are not there.
Let me say a word, my Lords, about federation itself. The future of federation has, indeed, seemed at stake during the terrible events of recent weeks. On this matter the advice that has come from
246
churchmen in Africa, men of long experience and great authority, disagrees. A Bishop working in these territories, who has been there for many years and who has an immense knowledge of the Africans, writes this:
"I do not think that the Africans of Nyasaland will ever now accept federation with anything more than a sullen acquiescence, ready to break out into active opposition at the first opportunity."
I quote that judgment, not because I agree with it but because it is a part of the background with which we are dealing. But, in fairness, I quote a judgment from another Prelate of long standing within the territory of the Federation. He writes:
"Difficult though times may be, I do not feel pessimistic, and I think that the shock of it all may do good and make future progress possible."
My Lords, let it be hoped that he is right, and let it be hoped that the steps which Her Majesty's Government are about to take will take us forward towards that end. The noble Earl who spoke last emphasised that we are all in it. The solution rests upon the working out of spiritual forces, deeper and more long-term in character than political decisions.
One mare word in that context about partnership, if I may. We should probably be no nearer to agreement about its definition if we started arguing about it, but the last few years have made it more and more clear that partnership involves the learning of a great deal on the part of both sides participating in it. It is not just a question of the Africans becoming fully cultured and civilised for partnership to be a reality. It is as hard for a white man to get inside the thought, the mind and the feeling of an African as it is for an African to get inside the thought, the mind and the feeling of a white man. It is in a very comprehensive sense indeed that we are all in it. Let it be hoped that the appointment of the Commission which the Government have announced will have immediately a healing effect. It is good to remember that following the disturbances in the Gold Coast eleven years ago the mere fact of the appointment of a Commission had a rapidly healing effect upon the situation in that Territory. But dare I ask that Her Majesty's Government may do still more by the giving of assurances and the conveying of assurances to the African people

247
of things about which at present they are bewildered and distrustful.
5.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I will speak briefly on two points. The first point is this. We have all read in the newspapers of substantial charges made against a number of leaders in Nyasalandof criminal behaviour and criminal conspiracy. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, went to the country. I suppose I am too inexperienced, but I certainly expected that in this debate he would come and say, "I have been to Nyasaland; I have seen the persons who have prepared these charges, and although I cannot go into details, at least I can assure your Lordships that these charges are well-founded." These are two of the most terrible charges that can be made against anyone—charges of murder and assassination. Nobody else has raised this point, but I think that, in the face of these charges against named men, it is all very well to say that the Government may have secret information and feel it necessary to act (I know something about that from the India Office), but to charge named men with offences, then to send a Minister out and not produce one tittle of support for those charges is an astonishing affair.
Did the noble Earl find evidence? Did he find police evidence? Did he go and see any of the detained persons and ask them? Have the detained people seen the White Paper? These would be interesting things to know. It is customary to present to prisoners the charges on which they are arrested. Have the detained people seen this Paper or had any opportunity of making an answer to it? I think that these are questions which the sense of justice of our country would permit me to ask. There is another curious thing. These are named people. I think that that is rather unusual in an issue of this kind. And one of these persons is at liberty in this country—he is a secretary of something or another; I cannot remember his name and I do not pronounce African names very well. Here is a man at liberty in our country under a charge by the Government of conspiring to murder and assassinate men, women and children—and nothing is being done about it. The matter could easily be brought into court; the evidence could be produced. The man concerned has
248
all the protection of our own sense of justice and law. Yet nothing is done.
Now we are told that we are to have a Commission. That is very good, and Mr. Justice Devlin is respected very much by those who know him. But it is not quite clear whether this Commission are to investigate these charges. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, seemed to think that they are. I do not want to interrupt the debate, but no doubt somebody who answers for the Government will tell your Lordships whether this Commission will call the accused persons before them, put them on oath, produce the evidence and ask them to reply. What is the good of having a Commission which says only that there was a disturbance, and so on? What differentiates this debate from all other debates I have seen on this matter is that we are dealing with a printed published charge against a number of leaders of African opinion, and no effort whatever has been made at this stage to support it. Whether or not that will be done later, I do not know; but in the meantime—
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, since the noble Viscount has said that he felt it wrong of me not to report to the House what I might have seen and what I might have heard, I would say this, quite deliberately: whatever I might have seen, or whatever I might have heard, it seemed to me quite inappropriate that at this time, when we are to have a Commission of Inquiry, that I should give what are, after all, only my personal views.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is so. In that case we might just as well have had the White Paper by post. We could read it and see everything in it. Are the police to be brought forward? Are witnesses to be brought forward and put on oath? He says that that is not his job. Then it must be somebody's job, and in that case it must be a matter for the Commission. If that is so, a great part of the cause for complaint on this ground will disappear. But from the debate so far I am not clear that any such assurance has been given.
My second point is that people of experience in Africa do not believe in this murder plot. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, who is going to speak after me, whether he believes that there

249
was such a plot. At the famous British-South Africa meeting at which he, as it were, "took his hair down" and let himself go on the South African question, he said that he had to come to this country in order to find out what an alarming state of affairs there was in South Africa. He said that of course there was some anxiety, but he pooh-poohed the idea of a tremendous emergency. I should like him to tell your Lordships this evening whether he really believes that these five or six eminent African leaders are guilty of the charges laid against them. I am sure that his view on this matter would be most valuable.
As the most reverend Primate pointed out, the real trouble is that the people of Nyasaland believe that they are going to be put into a Federation. Therefore everything the Federation does is relevant to the question. We cannot take this just as a question of Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia; we must take it as a whole. Therefore we must follow the sequence of events, the sequence of emergency proclamations in the Federation.
The first man to move was Sir Edgar Whitehead. At the end of February he said that there was a tradition that we did not act against people until they had done wrong or created a disturbance, but that he did not believe in that tradition. He believed in acting in advance. And he did so. He was the first person to issue an emergency order—that was about February 27. Under that order, he arrested a great many people, including— a most remarkable thing—Mr. 'Clutton-Brock. Mr. Clutton-Brock is well known. I do not imagine that anyone would suppose he could possibly be involved in any way in a plot for assassination or murder. The man appears to me to be the most dangerous man to white domination in South Africa, because he is a passive resister—he is a Gandhi. The reason why Gandhi beat us in India was not that he could mass forces, but that our conscience could not stand repressing him. Similarly that is the reason for the influence of Mr. Clutton-Brock and the mission he conducts. This man was rolled into jail; he is now to be rolled out of jail. Nothing is said as to whether he has been charged, and nothing is said as to whether he has been compensated.
250
I do not know—perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Perth, could tell me—what is Mrs. Clutton-Brock's condition. Is she better? It seems that the noble Earl does not know. But Mr. Clutton-Brock and his wife are British subjects. They have Rhodesian nationality, which permits the Rhodesian Government to deal with them; but they also have British nationality. There is a British Minister who takes an eminent and saintly man like this and permits him to be put in jail and chucked out again, with desperate damage to his wife's health—she is in hospital at Bulawayo—and the noble Earl disavows any responsibility for the whole thing. That, I think, is a shameful episode.
The next thing, after Sir Edgar Whitehead had made his declaration, was that he said he hoped the other Governors would follow his example. Now there is a great argument as to whether they were under pressure or not. It is true that a day or two after Sir Edgar Whitehead had issued his proclamation the spokesmen for the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland said that, so far as their territories were concerned, there was no emergency. Various reasons were given for that, and one rather subtle reason was that they were waiting for the troops to arrive. I discard that; I do not think they would be so dishonest as to say that. But they did follow the example a few days after the emergency was declared. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the Nyasalander, who sees the clock moving day by day and the fatal moment arriving when he may be put into the Federation—which the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, is determined to get him into when he can; and he says he has enough force to compel opinion in this country, if necessary—can you wonder that this man in Nyasaland is very alarmed and that Dr. Banda has meetings?
And can you wonder that he is the more alarmed when you find that Sir Edgar Whitehead does not satisfy himself with an emergency order, but proceeds to put into Statute all those things in the emergency order, so that they may become permanent? I have asked the noble Earl several times if he would give us a copy of the Unlawful Organisations Bill and of the Preventive Detention Bill. He has been unable to do so. Yesterday I did

251
secure a copy of the Unlawful Organisations Bill, and I will tell your Lordships what it does.
THE EARL OF HOME: There is another copy arriving for the noble Viscount by post. He asked for it only yesterday.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Earl, who is always so courteous. I had a copy handed to me by somebody who is a friend of Africa. What is this Unlawful Organisations Bill, to which, in the event of Nyasaland coming into federation, the natives of Nyasaland will be subject? It is copied exactly from the South African legislation dealing with these matters. That is to say, the Minister puts down on a list organisations that he proscribes, and if you are (at one time it was said, in Clause 9, if you could not prove that you were not; but that is rather difficult, and Clause 9 has now been omitted) a member of any of these organisations which the Minister has written as a Schedule to the Bill—and Parliament approves his actions—you are subject to the Preventive Detention Bill. And all this is without appeal to anybody. The noble Earl will know if my detail is wrong, but the broad principle of what I say is absolutely right.
Now what happens to you if you come under the Preventive Detention Bill? You are put away. Once a year you are allowed to make a petition to five Members of Parliament (I believe that now there is to be an alteration, but the principle is going to be maintained), and these people, whoever they are, look at your petition. They may or may not hear evidence; they may make a report; but it must not be challenged and must not be debated in Parliament. If they reject your petition, you are back again for another year.
Are you surprised, my Lords, that Africans in Nyasaland, who in their own country, at least, are free from all the degradation of the pass laws, are afraid of being brought under the tyranny of legislation which I say is almost indistinguishable from South African legislation and converts the Federation into a Police State? That is the situation. If Mr. Justice Devlin examines the truth of the charges made against these people, that is all to the good. But if he is looking about for the cause of unrest in
252
Nyasaland, it is quite simple to see: they are afraid of the shadow of Salisbury.
I have one further word to say. Are we really going to continue discussing this African question as if we were in the days of Jamieson raid? Things are happening. Even since the Federation was started, there is the French policy: every French African colony is free to be independent or to join the community, as it wishes—and one at least, Guinea, has become independent. Since the Federation we have a powerful, rich and determined black Dominion of which we are proud—Ghana. Can we ignore the opinions of these people? The Ghana Assembly met the other day and stood in silence for a moment or two in sympathy with the detainees.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is very dangerous ground. The noble Viscount is making comparison with other Commonwealth countries. If he would look at the Preventive Detention Acts of the other Commonwealth countries, he will not find a great difference. I would ask him to be a little less reckless and a little more careful before he makes comparisons within the Commonwealth, because it is very dangerous and inflammable stuff.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Nothing that the noble Earl could say to me would prevent me from making my protest against the class of legislation which is being passed at Salisbury in imitation of the legislation that exists—
THE EARL OF HOME: I do hope the noble Viscount will examine other legislation in other Commonwealth countries and, if he feels so inclined, make the same kind of charges. But I do not think he will make them.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has made his point several times, but what he always overlooks is that these powers would be exercised over territories which are not Southern Rhodesia at all, but are territories under the special protection of Her Majesty. That is the point. They are afraid that they are going to have this sort of legislation brought to them as permanent legislation.
It may be said: what evidence is there? The first evidence is this. If I wanted to go to Nyasaland I could not go without permission of the Prime Minister of

253
the Federation. He has the ultimate authority; and of course he would exercise that authority reasonably. But what does that mean to the Nyasalander? Suppose some sympathiser wants to go and see for himself, he can be told, as Mr. Stonehouse was told: "You are a prohibited immigrant." That is the first point. The second point the Nyasalander looks at is that when order is to be restored it is Rhodesia which supplies the troops. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke of that as a good thing. But why should not British troops from Kenya have been used, if it was necessary to use troops? 1 should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, if he will answer that because he is the most expert man on this matter in this building to-day.
Is it a fact that an Afrikaaner can join the Territorial Forces in the Federation without becoming a citizen; and is it a fact that there is a considerable Afrikaaner element in the Territorial Forces? If so, it is a material thing when you think of the sharp bitterness that exists between the Afrikaaners and the natives. That is the first thing. The Nyasalander finds that the gate-keeper is the Prime Minister; secondly, that the people who keep order are the Rhodesians; and, thirdly, that the people who are locked up under this order are shipped off and imprisoned in another country over which his own Governor has no control. These things all tend to make him fear that he is going to come under the same control himself; and I think it is a fear with which many of us will sympathise.
My last word is this. What is the crime of the Nyasaland African? His crime is simply that he pleads to be left directly under the protection of Her Majesty. He is not somebody who wants to break off and become independent. He pleads to remain the ward of the British Government, and that is a plea which I believe will appeal to most people in this country. I hope that that plea will be borne in mind when the fateful hour of 1960 comes to revise the Constitution.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT MALVERN: My Lords, if the Motion before your Lordships' House asking for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the state of affairs in Nyasaland had been granted by the Government, it would have
254
been the biggest insult and the greatest slap in the face the Europeans and the British people in the Federal area would ever have had. Your Lordships must be well aware of the immense damage that has been done to race relations in the Federal area by itinerant politicians, sometimes paid by newspapers. They have done more harm, I think, than even Dr. Hastings Banda. In case I should forget it, I should like to say that the last newspaper correspondent, who was a Member of a Parliament, was really quite harmless, except that he was extremely ignorant. He addressed 3,000 members of the African National Congress in the native urban area of Salisbury and he made quite a good speech—if it was listened to only by intelligent people of any race it was quite a good speech. But this is where he blundered; he could not speak a word of the native language or any of their dialects, and he got a member of the African National Congress to interpret for him. I think your Lordships would be surprised at the difference between the speech as delivered and the speech the interpreter put over to that mixed collection of Africans. That was the trouble, and it is not the first time it has happened.
These people are often "taken in". One has to remember some of the habits of the African people. They are, for instance, essentially a pleasant and polite people, so, unless they have been trained in politics, if you ask them anything they will always tell you what they think you would like to hear. Now this may shock some of your Lordships. These Africans, until they are very much advanced, are all liars. I can explain that to your Lordships. It is not anything wrong in their world; it is one of the defensive mechanisms provided by their Creator to be used as and when required. We were not brought up like that. But your Lordships must remember these things when you are looking for facts and a real description of what is happening.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the way in which he cleared the air. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place had been called a liar, I knew that doubt would be thrown on anything he might say. However, the fact remains that I think your Lordships

255
now have a pretty clear picture of what was happening in Nyasaland. If your Lordships wished, I could give you one or two more details. First of all, it must be understood that the African National Congress was formed originally, just after the war, by young men who had come back from the war, by others who had been engaged in war industry and others whom we had deliberately indoctrinated with the idea of supporting Britain and achieving victory. Like the Europeans, they thought they were coming back to a brave new world.
The two Protectorate Governments did their best. They absorbed a large number of them in various ways and created work for them. But there was the usual aftermath of war—a residue of restless people who could not settle down. In the first instance, they were more or less a welfare society, and the first one was formed in Kit we in the Copper Belt. Shortly after that it spread to Nyasaland, where I regret to say it was fanned and assisted by the Indians. Therefore it grew quickly. It had some superior people to help it. In the southern part of the Federation, the African National Congress started at the same time and faded out almost at once. It was resuscitated at the end of 1957, and since its resuscitation and indoctrination by the boys from the North, and following a visit to Accra, it had become, if anything, the more dangerous, because it was using all the criminals in the Colony as its action group. The other Africans were terrified for their livelihood, and even their lives.
I was there when the Southern Rhodesian African National Congress was swept up, and you should have seen the relief on the faces of all the other Africans who had been threatened with the most dire consequences if they would not put up their shilling and take out a Congress card. The same thing was happening in Nyasaland on a big scale. There the people are more addicted to witchcraft than they are in the Southern part, and they were told, "If you do not support us now, when we are the Government we will see that your body is not buried", and that is the most dreadful thing that could happen to Africans in that part of the world. Intimidation and threats and everything are quite impossible, and are being supported by some of the noble Lords on the other side.
256
I think the history of the fear in Nyasaland was not taken back quite to the beginning; or, if it was, I should like your Lordships to know where the blame lies. The then Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs—there was another Government in power—decided, before we had our first Federal conference, that he would visit the place himself. So far as I know, he could speak no native language other than Welsh. He went round and formed his own opinion, and thoroughly frightened the Nyasaland African, who wondered, "Where is the nigger in the woodpile?" We have never been—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On a point of order—
VISCOUNT MALVERN: I know this is not pleasant, but I am not giving way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am making a point of order.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I must remind the noble Viscount that we do not have rules of order and it is not a point of order. The noble Viscount has to decide whether or not he will give way. I understand the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, has no wish to give way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is the practice of this House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: —if a point of order is raised, to decide it. I would point out to the noble Viscount that he has been breaking one of the chief rules of this House by making an attack on a Member of another place.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am here as Leader of the House to see that the House observes its usual practice, and the practice is that the noble Viscount himself decides whether he wishes to give way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is also the practice that it is not customary to make an attack on a Member of another place.
VISCOUNT MALVERN: My Lords, I should now like to continue exactly where I left off. When I saw what was happening in Nyasaland, I cabled to the

257
Government in the United Kingdom and strongly recommended that the Conference on Federation should not be held. The opinion of the Government in the United Kingdom was that the Conference should go on. And as I have been interrupted I will say a bit more. The Conference went on, in spite of the fact that the negotiator for the United Kingdom knew that there was going to be a General Election in England in five days. That was the bit I was going to leave out.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: A gross breach of the practice of the two Houses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
A NOBLE LORD: Do not take any notice. It is quite irrelevant.
VISCOUNT MALVERN: We can leave the quarrelsome part for a few minutes, but I shall obviously have to revert to it. No doubt an Inquiry will have to be held. It is not a peculiar action, but among all these democratic Governments now it has become the custom to spend taxpayers' money on inquiries to tell the Government what they already know. That is going to be so in this case. But it does serve another purpose, I agree, because all democratic Governments now are suspect. Therefore, I think the Inquiry which is about to proceed to the place where trouble has occurred, is a necessity.
A good deal has been said about the wicked people from Southern Rhodesia, with their troops, their guns, and their police, and perhaps I should explain that the territorial forces of the Federation are recruited in Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The only difference is that, at the special request of the then Governor of Nyasaland, I promised him, as he had so few Europeans and practically no police, that I would allow the Nyasaland territorial troops to remain as special constables in Nyasaland. Of course, they would be available again, as in the past, if this country should get into trouble. We have always given every one we could.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT MALVERN: The territorial troops in that part of the world are extremely efficient. That seems to be rather a grievance. But I was in office
258
for quite a long time, and never had to use my police for a "rough-house"; and, being asked fairly frequently by the Protectorate Governments to send police to help them, I naturally felt that under federation we might be dealing with a more complicated situation than we should desire. Therefore, we passed a new Defence Bill and altered the training of our troops, and when they had done a year I was quite satisfied that we could deal with any situation so long as it arose in only two territories at a time. Of course, if you have trouble and the civil power has to ask for help, you do not go to another country and ask them to provide troops; you ask for the troops of your own country. I cannot see anything extraordinary in that.
One point was raised early in the debate which I might as well answer, as I come from that part of the world. Police and detention camps are a Federal responsibility and not a Territorial one. I should like to deal with my old friend Clutton-Brock, because really, I agree with the noble Lord, he is pretty harmless. But he does silly things. The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Mr. Todd, told him he was very stupid to join the African National Congress. However, when it was decided that the Southern Rhodesia African Congress must be put behind wire so that they could, not create a diversion and prevent the sending of necessary police to Nyasaland, there could not be this racial discrimination of leaving out their one and only European. It was quite impossible.
Certain noble Lords have been kind enough to tell me they were going to raise points which involved my name this afternoon, and I wish to thank them for doing what I believe is customary in your Lordships' House. I did not hear all of it, as usual, but the remark about no Europeans being killed is a case for an appeal to the noble Lords on that side of the House to try to influence their friends in another place and their Press so that such an impression would never be created. Then one would never suggest it and therefore their Lordships' feelings would not be hurt. It was an impression I got. In regard to the question of casualties in particular, I got the impression that there was some disappointment.

259
Then I come to the remarks I made in the Federal Parliament after I had failed to persuade the Secretary of State to substitute a treaty for the three reservations in the Federal Constitution. I may say that the reason for doing that was that I expected a good deal of trouble out there, because I knew that Ghana was about to receive its independence and I thought that even if there could be a pseudo-independence through the treaty there would be less disturbance. As things turned out, they took no notice of it at all; they expected it to be a failure and there was no reaction locally.
That brings me to the future of independent African States. There is no doubt that, however cleverly their Constitutions may be worked out, after a few years they will be nothing like what one hoped. That is why, having accepted what might almost be called the burden, at any rate the mission, of looking after Nyasaland, we intend to see that she is thoroughly educated, so that when she has a majority in her Parliament there will be no tendency to relapse and go back to something like a South American republic. The fact that we accepted responsibility for Nyasaland is known to everybody. The fact that most of the people in Southern Rhodesia did not waft it is also known. I personally never opposed it. Because they are overcrowded, their labour has to create wealth in Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa, and it seemed to me only fair that they should share in a common treasury and get the benefit of the work they were doing.
What has happened in Nyasaland since the Federation has been a fait accompli? I know, of course, the vote is much more valuable than a bun, but on the credit side the fact remains that we have increased the amount available for their expenditure. We filled the gap in their budget of £3¼million, we have enabled them to borrow money more easily, and there is prosperity such as Nyasaland has never known before. It was a poverty-stricken place. At the time of federation there was one European in the Northern Province of Nyasaland; they could not afford any more. Shortly after federation they had three, so they were really growing up. For the first time in their history they have got the franchise.
260
It is true it is a limited one, but they have started on the right road.
Now on the other side, what disabilities have they suffered from? I presume you do not think the fact that the doctors and hospital nurses are paid by the Federation instead of by the Territorial Government is a disability. There are certain services like that. In dividing up the functions of these States, we did, at times, get into quite a ridiculous situation. There was the occasion on which a dispute occurred as to whether a Federal veterinary surgeon could attempt to stop the spread of cattle diseases, and, as I remember, finally it was decided that the Federal veterinary surgeon might do it, but that if he had to inoculate the animal he must use a Territorial syringe. I know something about this problem. I have lived there for forty-eight years, looking after Africans, Indians and Europeans as a doctor, and I claim to know something about the Territory. But I am quite well aware that the man and woman who are so confident they are right are generally the people with the least knowledge on which to base their opinion. That is a common state of affairs.
As far as the suggestion of dismembering the Federation is concerned, my noble friend, the Duke of Montrose, belongs to a Party which would not mind doing it, but I am speaking for the people who form the Government and are likely to do so for very many years. Their view is that at the Conference it was decided that no clause allowing anyone to contract out could be put in the Constitution, because in future any money raised for public purposes would be to the credit of the whole and not of any part. But in case there might be a change of Government—I do not want to do any threatening, but I know you are very indignant that we have a little Army of our own, and Air Force, and so forth—I should like to say that the people in the Federation have not the slightest intention of surrendering Nyasaland to destruction by its own people, but are perfectly willing, as they come on, to welcome them as a dominantly black State within the framework of the Federation.
6.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I find myself in a difficulty, because, owing to a dinner engagement in the City, I shall have to leave almost immediately after

261
making my speech, which is contrary to the normal good manners current in this House. I will not follow the noble Viscount who has just sat down, but I feel hound to say that, eminent as he is and as his career has been in South Africa, and great as his qualities are, one that he lacks is courtesy, common courtesy. I had been hoping in the course of his speech to hear him withdraw some of the things, the quotations from his speech that had been made by my noble friend Lord Silkin. I waited in vain. And other things that the noble Viscount said seemed to me, with my limited experience of Parliament, to be directly contrary to the traditions that govern our proceedings.
The noble Viscount is not renowned for courtesy, because it was at the time of the Victoria Falls Conference, eight years ago, that he made some rather similar remark—a slighting remark—about Cabinet Ministers from the United Kingdom Government. I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he would not confirm that the Commonwealth and the well being of the Commonwealth depend at least as much on common good manners and good feeling between the leaders of the different Governments in the Commonwealth as they do on the legal constitutions that govern the component parts.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spent a good deal of time explaining that the reason why the Nyasaland Africans were opposed to Federation was because they did not know—because they were unreasonable and ignorant. With great respect, I would put it that most of the Nyasaland Africans know more than the noble Earl does himself about Southern Rhodesia and the conditions under which Africans live in that country. Many of these people have for generations been going to spend their working lives in the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. They know the attitude to Africans. They were told that partnership would be the watchword, and they have had nearly seven years to see the results and to see partnership working out in practice. It crossed my mind that I could scrap the whole of this part of my speech, after what we have heard from the noble Viscount, because if his speech is transmitted to Central Africa, I cannot think that it will leave any African in any doubt as to the
262
kind of attitude of certain of the Europeans to the African inhabitants of those countries. There was a case, not many years after federation came about, when the African member of the Federal Parliament, Mr. Hovey, who called for a parcel at the Post Office, was treated roughly by the Post Office staff and asked to show his registration certificate "as all other 'boys' do." That is the sort of contempt in which Europeans in Southern Rhodesia hold Africans, no matter what their educational, personal or moral qualities are—just by the colour of their skins.
We know that the Africans have seen things happening over the years that do not remove their distrust of coming under the control of the Rhodesians. The question of land, which is uppermost in the minds of all Africans, is one on which there is great anxiety. That anxiety has been increased in recent months by attempts to get territorial agreement to transfer non-African agriculture in Nyasaland to the Federal Government. The non-African agriculture in Nyasaland consists, for the most part, of large estates, tea and others, and the fear of the African—and nothing that has happened has dispelled it—is that if that subject came under the control of the Federal Government there would be the greatest threat to their land, and the process that Lord Perth tells us about, by which European-owned land has been reduced, would be likely to cease altogether. That is one example.
They then read also in the Press that in Southern Rhodesia an enlightened system has been introduced by which Africans can qualify for an identity card which exempts them from carrying a pass. The qualifications for that identity card have been reduced. But by how much? What is the effect? Up to the end of the year, we believe, 188 Africans had qualified to be exempt from the pass laws. We read also that the Southern Rhodesian Parliament has passed an Amendment to the Land Apportionment Act which permits multi-racial hotels to be erected in European areas. That has been passed. It is a good sign. But there was considerable opposition to it. The Africans are not so foolish or so ignorant as some people think, and they do not miss things like that. We also know that the Northern

263
Rhodesian Police Force has been expanded. We do not quite know, but it appears that an expansion plan is in hand to increase the European strength by 15 per cent. and the African strength by 33 per cent. by June. 1959. There is an ominous sound about the expansion of the security force before 1960.
Then we have some of the statements made (I will not weary your Lordships with quotations) by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, and other Ministers of the Southern Rhodesian or Federal Governments. They are all on a record, and the tone of some of those quotations is enough to convince any African that he would have little chance of improving his political and social status if Southern Rhodesian influence were strengthened in Nyasaland. We have had talk about itinerant M.P.s; but I have seen a quotation by an itinerant ex-M.P. from the United Kingdom Parliament, Captain Waterhouse, who made a speech in Salisbury in which he said:
"Be careful before you apply democracy and the principle of 'one man, one vote.' It should be made quite clear that there is never going to be any question of ruling this country by counting heads."
So much, my Lords, for the prospects of democracy !
Only just before Christmas, Sir Edgar Whitehead, the Prime Minister, said that the aim of Southern Rhodesia in 1960 would be to remove the last restrictions on their complete self-government. When the emergency had been proclaimed, and the Governor of Nyasaland asked for troops and police to assist him, who decided to send the Royal Rhodesian Regiment, which is European, and the British South Africa Police, which is European, to reinforce his forces in Nyasaland? Why were the Rhodesian African Rifles not sent?—though I believe that a small detachment was sent ultimately—and why were the Northern Rhodesia Police not sent? That was a piece of sheer stupidity on the part of somebody, which was bound to increase the fears and suspicions of the Nyasaland Africans. Then we have the classic case of ineptitude in the rounding up of the leaders of the St. Faith's mission. Something has been done, by releasing Mr. Clutton-Brock, to undo the harm that was done to the reputation of the
264
Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, though I am not sure whether all his assistants have also been released. A blow like that to confidence seeps far deeper into the consciousness of Africans, not only in Nyasaland but in other parts of Africa, and probably other parts of the world as well.
I will not keep your Lordships longer than to ask the noble Earl, who mentioned in his speech that it was important (if I got his words aright) to build up the authority of the Chiefs, whether he could say if the policy of the Colonial Office is, in fact, to build up the authority of the Chiefs or to build up the machinery of local government under Native Authorities, which is different from the authority of the hereditary Chiefs. I wonder if the noble Earl can say whether or not the policy is not to restore the authority of the traditional tribal government but rather to set up Native Authorities according to the plan that the Colonial Office have had for some time.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I believe that I may say it is a mixture of both. One has to have some measure of authority over the Chiefs and also, of course, to restore the authority of the native districts and of the district commissioners.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that explanation.
Many other things could be brought into this debate. The debate was widened very considerably by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, on the whole subject of independence of Commonwealth countries, but I do not think this debate on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Ogmore is the occasion to do that. I do say, however, that one must try to keep this matter off the emotional level to which it so easily gets in a debate of this kind. Those in power in Southern Rhodesia have displayed many extra-ordinary traces of a split mind. They have carried out a certain number of enlightened liberal measures, but have then spoiled the effect by reverting to what one might call primitive reaction. My noble friend Lord Stansgate was talking of some of the legislation which has been introduced. Some attempt has been made to remedy the harm that has been done, and I understand that one of the Bills has been withdrawn, but not the others.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the Preventive Detention Bill is to be reintroduced.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, even if the Bill in its original form is not reintroduced, a Government which introduces a measure like that, apart from being accused of taking panic measures, labels itself as thoroughly reactionary. Why cannot the Government choose a reasonable liberal policy and stick to it? We know that leaders of liberal opinion in Southern Rhodesia, small body of opinion though it is, are men of great influence, and their reputations are well known and respected all over the world.
I should like to end by quoting a short passage from a speech made by Sir John Moffat not long ago, in Salisbury, on the subject of federation. He said:
"The Africans opposed federation five years ago and would oppose independence now for the same reason. They consider that their future is made less secure but the difference is that while it was possible for us to go ahead with federation in spite of African opposition, for Dominion status this is not so. The moral approach to this quesion is so clear that there can be no difference of opinion on it. We have pledged ourselves not to proceed until the majority of the inhabitants of the Federation agree. Our task"—
and by "our task" Sir John meant the task of Europeans in the Federation—
"is accordingly to go ahead and win that support by creating conditions here in which the African's future is secured to him. If we do not do this, and if we get Dominion status by any means other than in honouring our undertakings to the full, we shall demonstrate that we are unfit to govern a multi-racial State and our disappearance from the political scene would be a tragedy to no one but ourselves."
6.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I feel very honoured to be the third Rhodesian to take part in your Lordships' debate, but any nervousness which I had already has been added to by having to speak after two such eminent fellow countrymen. However, maybe I can contribute usefully to this debate, perhaps as one rather more of the earth earthy than the two previous Rhodesians who have addressed your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Robins, as your Lordships know, in addition to the very wide interests in Rhodesia that he is able to represent, is perhaps more able than anybody else to speak from the angle of big business enterprise and big mining enterprise, whereas the noble Viscount, Lord
266
Malvern—our much-loved elder statesman—can give your Lordships the history of the country politically, from a very early date. I cannot claim to have been as long in Rhodesia as the other two speakers, for I have been there only for twenty-eight years; but it is my home. It has been my home for all those years, with the exception of the war period, and if your Lordships will forgive me for a few moments I should like to say why I feel that I may be able to contribute to this debate from a real Rhodesian angle.
My wife was born in Africa. All my children were born in Rhodesia and they are all being brought up, and will be brought up, to consider themselves Rhodesians and to consider Rhodesia as their homeland, just as much as the inhabitants of any other colour whatever. In the course of my life as a farmer out there I have been in the closest day-to-day touch that one can be with African people. I employ and have employed, as my farming business grew, from sixty to one hundred Africans. I have often spent the livelong day working with them in the lands. I am able to talk to them and understand what they say to each other, sometimes speaking with the intention that I should hear, and at other times not knowing that I knew what they said. So I feel that I have a pretty good insight into their minds and into what they desire. I have looked after them in sickness, and in health I have tried to help them solve their problems. I have written letters for them. I have even ventured so far from my own calling into that of my fellow countryman, Lord Malvern, as to have attended at a birth. I claim that I know the African people and, in common with all the people I know who call themselves Rhodesians, I can say we know and like the African people. How much more important is it, then, to us who live in this way, to find a lasting solution to the problems that your Lordships have been discussing to-day! As I have listened to your Lordships' debate I have realised that I chose well to sit on the Cross Benches, because I quite honestly could not decide from listening to your Lordships which side would approve of what I have to say.
We think that none are better able to find the solution that we desire than those of us who have lived out there and know the people with whom we are trying to

267
come to terms. I think that the other two noble Lords who have come from Rhodesia, too, will be in agreement with me on that point; and I am sure we are all agreed, too, in the great regret we have felt about the uninformed denials as to the necessity for the emergency powers to be taken, and about the vitriolic attacks that were made on the Government and the steps they took to preserve the safety of the people of the country.
Some of the speakers, I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, among others, mentioned the extraordinary way in which intimidation of the many can take place by the few. That I am very glad he realised. It is abundantly true. During the last strike we had in Salisbury exactly that happened, not on my farm but on a neighbour's farm, where all the workers struck. They were asked why, and they said that an agitator had come round and told them that if they did not strike something would happen; and, exactly as the noble Lord said, they had no idea what could happen. I wonder whether your Lordships realise the extent to which the belief in supernatural powers still exists. Not long ago five native children died on my farm—a few years ago, certainly—and suddenly one Sunday the whole village settlement arrived, dragging one member whom they said they had found burying poison in the path down to the water; and he was quite ready to say yes, he had done that and that this had caused the death of the children. That sort of threat is what we have to cope with. It is a very real weapon used by these agitators; and so, although I have quite rightly been named by the noble Viscount as a member of the Opposition Party, I do want to say that in the Opposition over there we have been 100 per cent. behind the Government in the steps they have taken to end the fear that had been roused in the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned the legislation in regard to detention; but I am glad to say that that has gone on the scrap heap for the moment and is being re-drafted. There were many of us—though we are supposed to be an illiberal element, I think as I go on you will find that we are by no means so illiberal—who did not like that particular rather panic legislation that was being put forward.
268
It must be realised that those of us who live there have a great faith in at least 99½ per cent. of the African people among whom we live; and we have been, and still are, quite prepared to entrust our wives, our children and ourselves to living in remote parts of the country, far from any fellow European neighbour—twenty, thirty, maybe fifty miles away; myself only one—and we are prepared to go on trusting these people. If our trust should prove misplaced and our families become the victims of violent deeds we feel then that that is our own look out. But we are not prepared to be made into sitting ducks by agitators, egged on by people living 6,000 miles away in perfect safety. We know that there is that characteristic in the African people (that I know, at any rate) where even the oldest and most faithful of the people among whom we live could, with the right amount of beer, the right amount of tom-tom beating, the right amount of witchcraft and intimidation, the right amount of inflammatory speech, be for a few hours whipped up to committing acts of violence that I, who know them, would be quite sure the following day they would weep for and regret.
Now to come to Nyasaland, which is really the object of this debate. A great deal upon which I had made notes to speak has already been dealt with much more ably than I could have dealt with it, but I think it would not be out of place to tell your Lordships of one or two other things that may have led up 40 the state of mind that existed in Nyasaland. Your Lordships know and have been told of the mistake that was made by advising the district commissioners to say that they did not know whether federation was good or bad. I need not deal with that matter.
However, when federation went through, the people of Nyasaland were told that it would be all right; that they would have two representatives in the Federal House—two African representatives of African interests. These two representatives were to be elected by a sort of electoral college composed of Chiefs and native councils and native representatives, but their appointment had to be "O.K.'d" by the Governor of the Territory. Immediately the Africans thought that these chaps may well be stooges. Then, as time went on, the Electoral Act was changed, the Federal

269
House was enlarged, and there were to be two more members of the Federal House from Nyasaland; and again the people in Nyasaland were told, "This time you will elect your own representatives."
As your Lordships are aware, there are certain qualifications that have to be complied with in regard to education, and so on, to get on the common voters' roll, and so a special voters' roll was brought in with very much lower qualifications, the intention being that considerable numbers of Africans would get on to that special voters' roll, and that then the two voters' rolls, voting together, would elect these two new members of the Federal House. But the Africans boycotted the special voters' roll, and when the election came they did not even put up candidates. To us, who know the African mind, it was no good trying to explain to them: "It is your own fault; you boycotted the special voters' roll, and you have got nobody to thank but yourselves for the fact that you virtually played no part in the election of these two members"—which was the case, because, with the exception of a dozen or so Africans on the special roll, these two new African representatives were virtually elected by the common voters' roll alone, and this was almost entirely composed of Europeans and Indians. So that, once again, the Africans have felt that they are not represented in the Federal House: and although your Lordships and myself may think that they got no more than they deserved on account of their boycott, they do not look at it in that way.
A very unfortunate thing was that it was not until some months—I think nearly two years—after this new Electoral Act came into force that the Prime Minister of the Federation, Sir Roy Welensky, went up to Nyasaland to talk it over with the African leaders. By that time they had decided that he was not one with whom they wished to discuss the matter in any case, and they refused to see him. That was a very unfortunate thing to happen at that stage. With the 1960 talks looming ahead, still no plan, no blueprint, has been given to the people of Nyasaland as to what their Constitution will be and as to what is going to happen to them. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, used the phrase, which is indeed a very apt one, that fear of the unknown was one of the main causes of the state of mind that exists in Nyasaland today.
270
More important than recriminations for the past, and even more important than investigating what has led up to it, is that we should put forward some definite plan for the future.
If I may digress a little, I would say that it is very important that we decide what exactly it is that the African people want. I do not think it is at all what long-haired enthusiasts in far-off countries think that they want. Let me say here that the African community that we have to deal with is not a mixed-blood Negro population such as there is in America. The population of black Africans that we are talking about is a more or less racially homogeneous group with its own pride of race, and I believe that what they really want is to be an African, if possible a prominent African, in an African State, conducting things in an African way. If Dr. Banda has been said to be of the Right by one noble Lord, is it not perhaps because he is of the same sort of opinion, that he is not really a multi-racialist? He wishes to see his country—and he has said so—an African country run by African people.
My Lords, when that type of State comes about, I am sure that the African who has adopted European ways—and enjoys the type of set-up and State that we visualise as a Western State transported to Africa—will be swept on one side if we cannot find a solution, at the very same moment that the European is swept on one side. In regard to the African States that have already got independence, the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, also indicated that he felt that there was some sort of recession from the European set-up that had been bequeathed to them. I do not use the word "recession" in a derogatory way: it is a moving back, if you like, from a 100 per cent. European way of doing things to a more African way of doing things, a way easier for the African to understand but more difficult for us to understand.
I would go a little further, even, and refer your Lordships to the Mau-Mau. There you saw a non-warlike tribe suddenly become ready to fight and die for something; and it certainly was not for the right to be allowed to live as Europeans and to have a European type of Government. If your Lordships want to know what it was for, you should read Jomo Kenyatta's book, Facing Mount

271
Kenya, where you will see that he gives them a blueprint for an African-type State. What they fought for was to get rid of the Europeans entirely and to build up some sort of modern African State along the lines that Jomo Kenyatta had set out for them.
I have mentioned all that because there is no doubt that the Nyasalanders have made up their minds that it is going to be an African country; it is going to be a black man's country. I got the impression that noble Lords on my right thought that it was only domination by the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia, or the Europeans of Nyasaland, that they feared. I have here a letter from none other than Dr. Hastings Banda. I am not going to read it all out. He refers to a plan which I wish to speak to you about in a few minutes; but, relevant to this topic with which I have just dealt, he says:
"But I can say that one of my major criticisms so far as we are concerned is that you assume that we, the Africans of Nyasaland, would accept anything the British Government decides for us."
So he does not want to be governed by the Europeans of England, either.
I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he used the phrase in the Federation the other day that we must "sell the Federation to the Africans", was very wide of the mark of what is possible. I, who know the African well, will tell you that one thing you can never get him to do by argument—"never" may be a strong word, but I still use it—is to change his mind once he has made it up. Arguments that appear very cogent to any of us here just go like water off a duck's back with the African who has made up his mind that he does not like something. It has been suggested that we could point out to the African people that they never really understood what federation meant. It has also been made very much a point that they would not be an economic unit; and that that could be explained to them. Also that they should be told that from the Federal Government to-day they get a boost to their budget to the tune of around £4 million. I have read in the debate in another place that they say they would rather be poor and independent. There again, that sort of remark is made, with no appreciation of the fact that the population of Nyasaland is doubling itself every twenty years. Enough has been said to-day of the fact that already the people
272
of Nyasaland cannot support themselves without going to work in the surrounding Territories.
I have heard their leaders say that Southern Rhodesia depends and will depend for ever on Nyasaland labour. One thing that has to be mentioned among the restrictions we are supposed to impose upon the Africans in Southern Rhodesia is that in the towns passes to seek work are now being given only to Africans who belong to the Federation, because we have large numbers of unemployed in all the towns of Rhodesia. That has had a tremendous effect on farms like mine, where Africans from Angola, Mozambique and Bechuanaland now come to look for work. This is something which should be understood by Nyasaland Africans. In the course of time, it could very well happen to them.
It also happened that the night before I left Rhodesia an African Member of Parliament rang up to wish me well on my trip over here. The only remark he made beyond that was, "Tell them we do not want federation." That was the remark of a Southern Rhodesian African. Naturally they do not want federation, because it means competition; it means labour coming in and competing with them. As I have said, we canput up all these arguments to the Africans and it will make not the slightest difference. We shall never "sell" federation and anything it means to the African now. He has made up his mind that he will not have it, and I can assure the noble Earl that it will not now be accepted.
If politics is the art of the possible, we have to accept the fact that either this word, "Federation" will have to be changed for something else, or a new setup will have to be gone into. Secondly, when we are thinking about what is impossible, we must include the fact that Nyasaland is not an economic unit and cannot be left unsupported. Thirdly, at the moment, there are only two Africans with university degrees in Nyasaland. They have not the people to form a Territorial Government at the moment, so they will have to go on being administered by the Colonial Office. In other words, Protectorate status will have to remain for quite a long time. I believe that this is something we must accept. I believe that any people who

273
are going to have their status quo uprooted like to be told something about what the future bolds in store for them. They like to have their fear of the unknown allayed. In this case it is vitally important that this is done as quickly as possible after the present emergency powers have brought back order to the country.
I have heard no real suggestion from either side of your Lordships' House about any sort of new set-up. It may be premature at this point of the discussion, but f hope your Lordships will bear with me fora few minutes longer, as I shall be returning to Rhodesia and shall not have an opportunity perhaps for a very long time of addressing your Lordships again. I was accused by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, of belonging to a Party that wished to break up the Federation. The plan that I wish to put before your Lordships is, I believe, the only plan that will keep the territories of the Federation under one umbrella at all. Those of us who have worked on it have called it The Central African Alliance.
In this we accept the fact that Nyasaland and Barotseland, with whomthe United Kingdom Government have these treaties, must continue as Protectorates; but we think that the rest of the Central African Territory should now become an independent Dominion, and that the United Kingdom, as the protecting Power of Nyasaland and Barotseland, should enter into an alliance with the new Rhodesian Federation that we should like to see formed. Of course, there would be a High Commissioner for Central Africa, responsible to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and he, together with the Dominion Government, would be responsible for trade agreements and controls, and for revenue. The whole area would form a customs union, and the Dominion would be fully responsible for running posts, telegraphs, civil aviation, railways and services of that sort. The costs of all these services, of course, could be apportioned between the three territories.
I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, dealt with the fact that at the beginning of the conception of some kind of Federation or amalgamation with the North, even he did not really mind very
274
much whether Nyasaland was in it or not. I have advised him that I was going to reply on this point and that I was going to read a short extract from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Federal Assembly, when they were dealing with the Electoral Bill in January, 1958. Referring to the Conference he had over here, the noble Viscount said:
"That meeting was arranged and the two Territorial Governors from the North were called to the Conference and that was the only Conference where we really all took our hair down and told one another our fortunes and in the course of remarks that were made the Nyasaland representative, having been very obstructive and difficult, he then said they could only provide four Europeans at the maximum from Nyasaland to be Federal Members of Parliament and I said in that case Nyasaland seems to be so difficult, why not cut her out altogether. That was the famous occasion when the then Secretary of State banged the table and said, 'All or nothing'."
I do not think that at that time any of us really would have minded at all if Nyasaland had been left out of it altogether. To-day, if a referendum were held in Southern Rhodesia on the question. I do not think that more than 10 per cent. of the people would be anxious about keeping Nyasaland in.
My Lords, I am not going into great detail on this plan. I intend to leave some copies of it in the Printed Paper Office, and I hope that if anything I have said has stimulated the interest of noble Lords, they will get a copy and have a look at it. But an important point under this Treaty of Alliance is that we propose that the new Dominion we should like to see formed in Central Africa will continue to contribute to the Nyasaland budget for a period of years to be agreed upon in the same sort of proportion as we at present contribute, but in the form of a grant in aid. In view of the table being banged as it was in the Conference referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, I think that that might be important to your Lordships in this country, because the reason why the table was banged was that it was then costing the British taxpayer about £3 million a year to finance Nyasaland, and the Colonial Secretary was most anxious that we should carry that burden. We took it on, and in these new proposals we are quite prepared to go on carrying it.
There is an area in the proposed Dominion that we have designated a special area, and that is the territory

275
lying to the north-east of the sort of waist caused in Northern Rhodesia by the Congo Pedical. We feel it should be a special area, because it is a large area, very backward—far more backward than either of the two Territories—and it would be quite impossible for it to govern itself. It would be difficult at this stage to organise an administrative body along the lines that the Colonial Office have in Nyasaland, and we believe that this area should remain part of the Dominion. But we propose to include in the Treaty of Alliance the promise that when the time comes—again after a specified number of years—it would be able to opt out of the Dominion. We hope that by that time Nyasaland, Barotseland and this particular territory will have found that to be allied with the Dominion is of great advantage and that they will not consider leaving the Alliance. The new territory, if it did opt out of the Dominion, would be in a position to enter into a Treaty of Alliance, just as the other two would then be in with the Dominion.
It now remains to find out if in the Dominion we could not form some sort of body to which the reserved powers that the United Kingdom Government still have in regard to legislation, and that they fear one racial group might impose on the community to the detriment of one of the other racial groups, could be handed over with confidence by the United Kingdom Government. To this end it is suggested that a Senate should be formed, to which members would be elected on a racial basis. They would be elected by people who were on the common and special voters' rolls, but for the purpose of electing members of the Senate they would be divided up into racial groups. There the Indian community would send its representatives, the Europeans would send their representatives, the Africans would send their representatives and the coloureds—well, perhaps I might explain that again.
There is a division caused by themselves. We have always referred to the coloured people as people of mixed parentage, and they have further divided themselves into coloureds and Eurasians. "Coloureds" now refers to Cape coloured people, who are largely of Malay descent or Hottentot and European admixtures. They now differentiate
276
themselves from those who are of Bantu-European stock, who call themselves Eur-Africans. So there are two more communities which would both get individual representation in the Senate. Provided the numbers could be agreed upon with the United Kingdom Government, as to what proportions they should be in and how those proportions should be arrived at, we believe that we would have a body representing all races capable of safeguarding the interests of all.
We in the new Dominion, if it was formed, would, as I say, be responsible to administer this northern territory, and we should very much like it to be known that we feel that we could administer a backward territory like that every bit as well as the Colonial Office; and we would as fast, and perhaps faster than they, bring such a territory forward towards a sound economy and a sound political stability. It is the area in which the whole experiment of the Federation could be carried on, where an effort is being made to establish an African State completely on Western lines.
Before I sit down I should like to add to what has been said about the difference between the policy we have in the Federation to-day and that of South Africa, and how we intend to carry the present on if we get this Central African Dominion formed. In the Central African Dominion we believe that everybody should advance entirely on merit. We do not believe that that is what they want in Nyasaland. In Nyasaland they want to be Cabinet Ministers because they are black. It has been suggested that a gesture could have been made, and can be made now in the new territorial Government in Northern Rhodesia, by putting members in the Cabinet just because they are black. That will be the difference in the new Dominion. We have absolutely no objection to having Africans in the Cabinet, or anywhere else, but in the Dominion we visualise they will get there on merit. And there are a lot of Africans to-day who are doing well both in business and in politics and who are quite prepared to take a chance in that type of set-up. They do not want the umbrella held over them by competition from Europeans being removed from their State. Thus you will have in the Central

277
African area territories that can accommodate all shades of opinion.
There were one or two points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, which I might answer. He referred to the statement that had been made by Sir Charles Waterhouse that you could not govern the country by a counting of heads. As an example of the stage of development at which we have arrived in the Federation, I may say that we have, as your Lordships probably know, a fine new £1 million hospital in Salisbury. But if you go there you will find that on the doors of the rooms where the doctors sit are painted giraffes, crocodiles and elephants, because the Africans going to that hospital are still at the stage where if they want to see a particular doctor, it is no good writing the name of the doctor on the door; you tell them to go to the door with the elephant on it, or the crocodile, and so on. So to start thinking at this stage about forming a Government to be elected by people who, instead of a candidate's name on the voting paper, would need to have him designated by an animal, is out of the question.
On the matter of the Rhodesian African Rifles (I am sorry the noble Viscount was not here when it was brought up, because he might have had a different answer from mine) my answer is enough: that is, that if you had sent a bunch of Matabele policemen up to where there was a row in the Mchewa area, there would have been not only fifty killed, but 500 killed; they would have "got stuck into them" and British law and order would have gone by the board. The only possible force you could send up to another territory was a European force. On the question of Chiefs, I may say that they are not hereditary. They are generally chosen by the system that used to exist many hundreds of years ago in Scotland; they are chosen from a noble family. They choose the man they think is best for the job, and they have the greatest respect for the Chief when they have chosen him.
We are agreed in the Dominion Party, just as much as in any other Party, that there is need for first-class multi-racial hotels in any major centre. There may be need for more. In Salisbury there are now something like five hotels where, if you wish to take an African to dinner, you can do so. But we believe in freedom of choice and of association, and we
278
believe that there should also be hotels—and I think the African is very much in favour of this—where, if he is not wanting a multi-racial dinner party or a drink with a member of another race, he can be among his own people. That is what the majority of Europeans feel, too. In all sections of political life there we now recognise that there is a necessity for association and for first-class accommodation for the advancing African, but we also insist that in our leisure time if we so desire we may get away and spend it among our own people.
The plan that I have outlined to your Lordships was the subject of this letter from Dr. Banda. He said:
"As to the plan, I cannot pretend that I agree with everything said in it, but it is far more realistic than anything Welensky has ever said or produced."
I think, therefore, that it is not the final plan, but it is a basis for discussion. It is far more than I have heard put up by any political Party in Rhodesia, and it is far more than I have heard put up by either side of your Lordships' House. I should like to thank your Lordships for your great indulgence to me, and I hope that you will find what I have said of some use.
7.23 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very happy that it should fall to me to congratulate the noble Duke on a most successful maiden speech. If I may say so, it was a first-rate performance and brought a breath of fresh air into our discussion. The sincerity and intimate knowledge of his subject which he displayed will, I am sure, have given great pleasure to us all, and especially to those older ones of us who remember the forthright and robust speeches which used to be delivered to us by his distinguished father. I am only sad to think that the opportunities we shall have of hearing the noble Duke again will be comparatively limited. However, I hope that he will come and see us and take part in our discussions whenever he can.
It is a proud boast in this House that whatever subject is raised, with whatever part of the world or whatever aspects of our life it deals, we are always able to produce some of the foremost living authorities on that subject. Certainly this debate has been no exception to that rule. Indeed, with contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the noble

279
Viscount, Lord Malvern, the noble Lord, Lord Robins, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in addition, if I may say so, to the extraordinarily effective and moderate speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth—I think the best I ever heard him make in this House—so great is the weight of authority and experience which has been shown that I think anyone might hesitate to intervene. If I do it is not because I am nearly so much an authority on these countries as the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Robins, or the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, but because I have known parts of the Federation on and off now for upwards of fifty years, and I was there myself only a month ago. So I think I can claim to have some practical experience of the country and of its affairs.
Of the recent distressing events in Nyasaland itself, which are dealt with in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, there is not much that I can say at the present stage. I am sure that, before we pass a final judgment on this, we shall all want to consider what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said. Of course, the announcement of an appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, and of the terms of reference on that Inquiry, make the whole question, to some extent, for the moment sub judice. But it had occurred to me that it may be possible for me to sketch in some of the background to present events, so as to give a rather more balanced picture of the position there than can, I think, be obtained by reading the organs of the daily Press. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will allow me to do that.
In particular, I should like to say a few words in defence of a body of people who have hardly been referred to, except obliquely, in our discussions. I refer to the settlers. If I may say so, with all deference, the whole picture of the settlers which is to-day being displayed to the horrified eyes of the British public is, I must confess, one that would make anybody who knows them wonder what has come over us to cause us to regard as an object of shame and reproach what used to be our greatest pride. By a great many people in England at the present time the word "settler" has come to be regarded as a term of opprobrium, hardly to be mentioned without a sneer. I wonder whether those who take this
280
rather prejudiced view ever reflect that almost all of the British Commonwealth derives from settlers. It was settlers who founded Canada; it was settlers who founded Australia; it was setters who founded New Zealand, and it was settlers who founded the United States, too. All these great, free nations who fought against tyranny, and defeated it, during the last two world wars sprang from settlers. Without settlers the free world would not exist to-day.
Nor, my Lords, were those settlers any better welcomed by certain sections of the indigenous population when they first went there than they are being by certain sections of the population in Africa to-day. Yet would anyone with common sense say that it would have been better if those far-off settlers had not gone there, and if the countries had been left to primitive savagery? I wonder whether those who attack settlers so easily, and with so little knowledge, ever consider these things?
Nor are the settlers in the Federation of Central Africa to-day any different from those to whom I have referred. They are the same ordinary men and women, with ideas and ideals just the same as our own. If one goes out into the streets of Salisbury, in Rhodesia, as I have done quite recently, in an evening, when the shops are closing, one sees just the same men and girls, decent people with decent ideas, as one sees at any London railway station at the end of a day's work. Nor is there any difference outside the towns. If one goes out into the countryside, into the largely untamed countryside, one sees—and I must confess I find it very moving—little isolated houses, miles from any other white habitation, miles from any habitation except a native village and a native school, where some of the older and more experienced Rhodesians, or some English boy, with an equally young English wife, and perhaps one or two children, are living quite alone, making the land more fruitful and teaching their African neighbours how to make the land more fruitful.
My Lords, that is not the stuff out of which Simon Legrees are made. No; slowly and steadily the leaven is working. Each time I go I see some advance in the status of the Africans. There is the University College at Salisbury, which has

281
been referred to. There, Europeans and Africans are working side by side, eating together, living side by side in the same hostels; and the interesting thing about it—and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, would agree—is that both races are growing year by year. Neither race is being put off by the presence of the other. That I believe to be a very encouraging sign.
Then there is the legalisation of the multi-racial hotels, to which reference has been made, the rapid increase of African schools and the extraordinary popularity of these schools with the Africans themselves. I speak with great deference in the presence of experts, but I went to two farms, and they told me they had a better chance of getting African labour if they had schools. The Africans are anxious to learn. If I were asked: "Could the change going on be more rapid?" I would say that I personally believe that it could; and the more quickly unnecessary differentials between white and black are removed, the better, I am sure, all round. After all, the basic aim of our colonial policy, as I said in Salisbury only a few weeks ago, is to help backward races forward in the light of our experience.
As a result of that policy the Africans are moving forward, and we must clearly not continue to treat them as though no change had taken place. If we were to do that we should he confessing that our whole policy had failed, and I am sure that that view would receive the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House. At the same time, we must not fail to recognise that they have still a very long way to go. There are, of course, as the noble Duke said, some extremely intelligent Africans occupying responsible and highly paid jobs. I met some when I was there. But the great majority are still extremely primitive, and they are not yet ready for full Parliamentary democracy. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, would agree if he knew the country better.
Full Parliamentary democracy is perhaps the most difficult political system to operate ever devised by the wit of man. It took us nearly 600 years to learn, and the British people in the 13th century, when our Parliamentary system started, were already far more advanced than the
282
Africans in Central Africa were when we went there in the 'nineties of the last century. In this matter I feel that both Europeans and Africans must surely recognise what I think Sir Winston Churchill once called, "the inevitability of gradualness". To use the very wise words of a Methodist missionary, reported in the Daily Telegraph the other day, if we have true faith and patience I still firmly believe we can succeed in creating in Central Africa a multi-racial State based on partnership between black and white, and, in Nyasaland, with far greater emphasis thrown on the black.
But, unhappily, there is a hard fact which has already had to be faced by the Federal Government and the Territorial Governments in Central Africa, and I believe must be faced by us too. A multiracial State, partnership between black and white, is not, I am afraid, what the leaders of the African National Congress want to-day. Whatever their original aim may have been, they are no longer interested in a multi-racial State. They are not even interested in the preservation of the status quo, in a direct relationship between the Northern Territory and the Colonial Office or the Protectorate treaties negotiated between Queen Victoria and the Chiefs. That was underlined in the letter from Dr. Hastings Banda read just now by the noble Duke.
What they want now, especially since the Accra Conference; what they are determined to get—and they make no secret of it—is something far more simple and drastic. They want, to use Mr. Tom Mboya's forceful phrase at the Accra Conference, to make the Europeans "scram out of Africa", and have been enjoining Dr. Nkrumah to "keep the pot boiling." That is the môt d'ordre which went out from Accra. That is the instruction Congress leaders carried back to their respective territories. We have already seen the fruits: disturbances in French Equatorial Africa, disturbances in the Belgian Congo, and now disturbances in Nyasaland. Ministers from Ghana, I have read in the Press, denied that there had been a plot, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was sceptical. But whether one calls it a plot or a phased campaign, the result is exactly the same. At some point there was to have been a massacre of Europeans and loyal Africans in Nyasaland; and that point had been

283
almost reached. That, as I understand it, was the information that reached the Territorial Government and the Federal Government, and the information, I understand, which has been transmitted to Her Majesty's Government here. I gather that, by the Governor of Nyasaland anyway (I cannot speak to-day for Her Majesty's Government), that information is regarded as dependable.
In such a situation, my Lords, what must any responsible Government do? It must surely take whatever steps are necessary to maintain law and order. For a main function of the Executive in any civilised country is not so much to restore law and order once it has been broken, as to ensure that it is not broken at all. Indeed, a doubt which rises in one's mind is not whether the Nyasaland Government moved too soon but whether they moved soon enough. We must honour their patience and restraint, but if an emergency had to be declared anyhow, earlier action might well have saved African lives. However, any delay may well have been due not to hesitation or to vacillation but to a much more simple reason—that they had not the necessary forces.
In any case, the important question before us all to-day is not what should have been done, but what ought to be done now. In Central Africa itself, as has been emphasised by more than one speaker, the first step must be to restore law and order. What after that? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned certain steps which have already been taken by the Southern Rhodesian Government and was critical of those steps. I imagine that we all, in whatever part of the House we sit, hope very much that the Government, whatever their provocation, will not go beyond the bounds of what is absolutely necessary or take measures which could only tend to weaken their case in the eyes of moderate opinion, both in their own country and in the rest of the world. Indeed we are all glad, I am sure, to have seen from the Press this morning that they seem to have reached that view themselves.
But we on our side must, I feel, equally recognise that those Governments there in Central Africa have problems and responsibilities from which we are mercifully free. This, I would emphasise,
284
is not necessarily a brief emergency—in fact, I doubt very much whether it is. It may well be a continuing condition. They are engaged—or they may well be engaged—in what may be described as a tepid war, something, between a cold war and a hot war, with ruthless opponents who are determined to subvert by any methods within their powers the existing system of government. It may well be that if those Governments, who, after all, stand for law and order, are to stand up to that subversion which is continually being preached, they must have some additional powers which go beyond what is normally necessary in a country like our own. We must, I feel, take factors of that kind into account in forming a balanced judgment.
My Lords, what are we to do here in this country to help? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, expressed the view—indeed, it was the whole effect of his Motion—that it would assist the people of Britain to form a right judgment of these events in Nyasaland and reach balanced conclusions if Parliament sent out a Commission to look into the facts. When I came down to the House I must confess that I had myself been doubtful about this, for I should have thought that all the relevant facts were already at the disposal of the Government; and if they have not published them up to now it is not because they do not know them but because to divulge their sources of information would only be to put the people who had given that information into imminent danger. I felt that the same would presumably be true of all the information that was made available to a Commission. They could not publish it; they could study it; and I hope that they will be given all the information that is available so that they may come to a right judgment. But, as I say, they could not publish it. However, that is already decided: the Government have made up their minds, and I expect rightly, to appoint a judicial Commission; and a very good one it is, if I may say so. I am sure we should all be very ready to accept the Government decision. They, in fact, by what they have announced this afternoon, have already done their part.
But is there anything that any of us who are not members of the Government can do? I suggest that we can reflect on

285
recent events, both in Nyasaland and in other parts of Africa, and that we can come, even at the present stage, to certain broad conclusions. There is just one—and this is the last thing I want to say—that I should like to submit, with great diffidence, to the consideration of noble Lords this evening. One continually reads nowadays of Africa's fight for freedom and independence—and here I am treading on some of the ground which I think has already been covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern. But, my Lords, do not let us make the great mistake of assuming that freedom and independence always mean the same thing. That is an error, as I see it, into which a great many of our intellectuals are falling to-day.
We all know what we mean by freedom. We mean what we are able to describe broadly as free institutions. We mean the greatest measure of freedom for the individual to speak, to think and to act as he wishes that is compatible with the welfare and security of the community as a whole, and of all sections of it. That, as I understand it, is what we all in this country mean by freedom. It may go with independence, but it is not necessarily at all the same thing. Look at Hungary. Hungary is nominally independent, but freedom in our sense, the sense I have just tried to define, does not exist in Hungary. Or look at Ghana, if I may say so. Ghana had freedom until it got independence. But can anyone he certain it has got freedom now? On the contrary, if one reads the Press day by day one gets the impression that the safeguards of free democracy are being whittled down month by month, almost week by week, and the country is reverting to what may tactfully be described as more old-fashioned methods.
This reflection, I suggest, if there is anything in it at all, has an important bearing on our future policy in Central Africa. Is it freedom or is it independence that we are to regard as the primary object of our colonial policy? Some of your Lordships may reply "independence", and of course you are absolutely entitled to that view. But personally I hold very strongly the other view. I believe it is to buttress and sustain freedom, in the sense I have tried to define it, which must always be our primary aim; for without freedom there
286
can, as I see it, be no real civilisation at all in Africa or anywhere else.
That is why I, like, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House hold so strongly to the view that partnership between black and white is essential to the future of Africa; and that is why I believe it is absolutely vital that the Europeans should stay there. The fear felt by Africans, which was emphasised this afternoon by the most reverend Primate, is not going to be removed by the departure of the Europeans. On the contrary, it is going to be replaced by a new and much more terrible fear which will be felt, above all, by moderate Africans, among them the best of all. The new and terrible fear is that in the absence of the Europeans Africa will soon relapse either into anarchy or into despotism—in fact into the condition in which we found it when we went there sixty years ago.
What is the truth, my Lords? The truth is, as I see it, that, if Africa is to prosper and advance, the European cannot do without the African, and the African cannot do without the European. Both must move forward together. That, I believe, is fully recognised by most moderate Africans in Central Africa today. My fear is that it is not yet fully realised here in Britain; and yet, my Lords, I believe most profoundly that unless we do realise that, and unless we act on it, we shall not only be deserting our own kith and kin in Africa who are upholding our standards in those far-off lands, but we shall be going far to lose the cold war itself, on which our own very existence and the survival of civilisation in the world depend.
7.48 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, this has been a long debate and it has still a long way to go, and I do not want to delay the proceedings to any extent, but I want to say that I feel I have been rewarded in sitting here listening to the different speeches, listening, for example, to the speech that came from the most reverend Primate speaking for the Anglican Church, and listening also to the son of one whom I knew for many years—I refer to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. who came from Rhodesia, it seems, specially to take part in this debate, and gave us a speech, a long

287
speech it is true, but one full with many things that we do not come into contact with very often.
My object in seeking to take part in this debate was in order that a Scottish voice might come from this part of the House about matters which are dear to the heart of Scotland. I say that quite definitely in regard to the relationship of Scotland with Nyasaland. We remember David Livingstone. We think of his wanderings as an explorer, as a missionary in Central Africa, and the fact that he carried the name of Scotland; and we look upon him, of course, as one of the greatest sons that Scotland ever produced. In addition to these reasons, there is the fact that it seemed to me that the interest that the Church of Scotland has shown in the colonial territories, and especially in Central Africa. Would be of some interest to the House. Perhaps it will give some material for the Commission which is being set up; it may give them something of a background to the problem with which they are being called upon to deal.
I am referring to passages in the last report to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland by the Church and Nation Committee. There are a number of passages there which deal with matters that we have been examining in this debate. The Church of Scotland has given great attention to African affairs through the instrumentality of the Church and Nation Committee, of which I am a member. It is, for instance, practically a "hardy annual" in the report of the Church and Nation Committee to make reference to the territories of Bechuanaland, Basutoland, and Swaziland, and to the strong desire on the part of the Church that these should not be incorporated in the Union of South Africa without an express desire for such a merger being clearly ascertained and approved beforehand by the whole population.
The latest available report of the attitude of the Church of Scotland to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is that contained in last year's volume of reports to the General Assembly. That portion is of considerable length and, having regard to the time that this debate is taking. I have cut it down. I wish to make reference to the Constitution Amendment Act, with which the Church
288
and Nation Committee, approved by the Assembly, deal in the following passages from the report. It says that the Constitution Amendment Bill was
"duly approved by the Legislatures of the three countries; but in both Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia this decision was taken in spite of the opposition of all African members…. While making a much desired new provision for the African Protected Person to vote, its other provisions seemed to the African designed to make European dominance more secure. The African Affairs Board referred the measure, as a differentiating one, to the British Parliament. It has to be remembered that this power of reference had not previously been used and the power to do so had been described by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies as an impregnable safeguard'.
"No wonder it came as a shock and as a matter of grave concern when this objection was not upheld, and indeed was dismissed with perhaps less discussion than would have been desirable. Clearly African opinion was not the only factor to be taken into account; but the decision struck at the roots of African confidence in Great Britain.... While everything was done legally, in accordance with procedure laid down in the Constitution, African opinion was not sufficiently consulted nor was there that attempt to win African acquiescence which would have been desirable."
Then there is added the words:
"The Committee would appeal for an even more liberal measure for African voters as urged by the General Assembly of 1954."
That is the quotation in that regard. A later paragraph that shows the interest of the Church refers to the Union of South Africa, and I think it is worthy of notice. I quote:
"A great deal has been done for the welfare of the Bantu and the record of it is very impressive along certain lines, but they are kept under-privileged and denied certain rights. The Church's conviction, however, is still that the policy of Apartheid as it has been practised in the Union offers no permanent solution to the problem and is fundamentally unchristian."
These extracts are from the Church and Nation Committee report. The Assembly pass deliverances on the various reports that are made, and this is the general deliverance relating to Commonwealth interests:
"The General Assembly are gratified to know of the beneficial effects of Central African Federation already perceptible in the industrial and economic spheres, and rejoice in the prospects of greater financial prosperity and a higher standard of living for Africans in Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
"The General Assembly, concerned at the continuing racial tensions in Central Africa, deeply regret the introduction and passing of the Constitution Amendment Act and the Federal Electoral Bill, which, although the procedure satisfied legal requirements, and

289
although one result has been an extension of the franchise to protected persons, have caused serious dissatisfaction and aroused increased resentment and suspicion among Africans in all the three territories. While the principle of widening the franchise is entirely right, what is of cardinal importance at the present time is to establish mutual trust and goodwill between Africans and Europeans; and, if the spirit of true partnership is to be achieved, the utmost tact and patience are called for."
I apologise for the length of these quotations, which may be said to be not quite up to date, but I believe they are useful as a background for the much briefer remarks that I now wish to make.
Here is a letter which is quite up to date, which I received the other day among a number of others which have reached me on this subject, all to the same purpose. I read this letter because it comes from the mission field, and from a missionary with experience. I hope that it will be accepted as authoritative. I will not name the experienced missionary from whom it comes, as I do not know whether the identity of the writer should be made public. The letter is as follows:
"It is with a feeling of urgency that I am compelled to write to you as a well-known Churchman. I was a missionary of the Church of Scotland in Central Africa for 19 years. I spent 10 years in Nyasaland and 9 years in Northern Rhodesia, and it is because of that fact that I would plead with you to raise your voice in the House of Lords when the question of the present crisis in the Federation arises.
"It is a fact that this has not arisen solely because of Dr. Hastings Banda as has been implied by his detention along with the others at the outset of the present crisis. A great deal has been written by people who have no first hand knowledge of these people or what racial discrimination is. I have been in touch with Africans of considerable ability who are respected in Africa for their character and Christian witness, and I have been assured that they realise that the deterioration of race relations which has happened since 1953 is because of Federation and that is why they are determined to get out of it.
"The Nyasaland Africans were a happy people and lived and worked harmoniously with the Europeans until the effect of the Southern Rhodesian attitude permeated the country. The Nyasaland people were told that Federation would work if Black and White worked together in partnership. That partnership has been a mockery as far as the Europeans were concerned and no amount of talk of economic gain means anything to them because it is evident that the Blacks were to be the inferiors in everything.
"It is because of the foregoing conclusions that I would plead with you to see that justice is done. I cannot but feel that it is not British justice to accept only the word of the
290
Europeans about what is happening in Nyasaland to-day. Would it not be in order to send a Parliamentary Commission to Nyasaland to meet with the Africans as well as Europeans in this great crisis? The people of Africa cannot but feel a grievance when their leaders are Imprisoned during the crisis."
It is quite evident that the partnership, which I am sure we all desire on proper lines, does not prevail under the present régime. The noble Earl who so acceptably leads this House spoke of this partnership at a meeting in Edinburgh on Friday night. On reading the report of his speech, my reflection was that partnership was a two way traffic, and I doubted whether the Europeans in South or Central Africa were yet ready to give up their privileged position and to co-operate on more equal terms with their coloured fellowmen.
I have been content largely to allow others to speak for me in my remarks. May I say, in conclusion, that I view the clash of opinion on this matter as arising mainly from fear—the fear of the white minority that they may be overwhelmed by the black majority, who, in turn, feel that the power wielded by the whites will keep them permanently in political and industrial inferiority. Real partnership cannot come about until this fear gives way to faith. I pray that the spiritual nature of the present problem may clearly emerge and that the white attitude of assumed authority, which is not always justified by the facts, may be modified, and that the real partnership which we should all welcome may be achieved.
Arising out of the statement that has been made to-day, a question has occurred to me, and perhaps before I sit down I might ask the noble Earl who leads the House whether he would say, when he comes to reply, what will be the position of Dr. Banda when the Commission get to work. Dr. Banda is accused in the White Paper. Will he be charged with regard to his actions, or will he be one of the persons called to appear before the Commission of Inquiry? I should have liked to see a member of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland as a member of the Commission. That is a wish I express. I feel that the interest of the Church of Scotland in these matters would have made it very desirable to have a knowledgeable member of the Church and Nation Committee sitting on that Commission.
8.7 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope to be very short. I have no information and I would not ask Her Majesty's Government to give me any information they may have as to whether or not the international Communist conspiracy has been involved in any way in the troubles we are discussing; but the Soviet are now showing very great interest in Africa and when one comes to see some of the writings of their major prophets one realises why. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has let us off a good deal of the proceedings of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and I will therefore let your Lordships off a great many of the quotations with which I am armed from Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin.
The argument seems to run roughly like this. Marx said that under capitalism the workers must get poorer and poorer. When Lenin came to examine the position he discovered that the exact reverse was happening. Searching round for the reason, he came to the conclusion that it must be that the workers in the more forward countries were exploiting the workers in the more backward countries, and that these toiling masses in the backward countries could be added to the toiling proletariat of the world upon which revolutionary attempts should be made. They became a weak point in the capitalist world to be attacked and their freedom movements encouraged, though not for the sake of freedom—very far from it! The objectives were to embarrass the mother country and to help destroy the capitalist system in hopes of creating a free Government and, with the help of Left Wing elements in the country, obtaining control of that free Government, the Left Wing elements to be then discarded, the original backward territory ultimately being brought over to be a Soviet satellite.
This process was to be helped by the so-called "innocence societies", which consist of very respectable and reputable people put up as a "front", the policy being wagged by a crypto-Communist "tail". These societies can be particularly mobilised against a Government when, for instance, it suppresses a newspaper or arrests a leader. I sometimes think that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is a one-man innocence society at times—well, perhaps not quite so innocent.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to enlarge on that I shall be very interested. So far, it sounds rather obscure.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Viscount seems to have two sides: one a great love of country; another for sympathising with the enemies of this country, and one seems to take the other off.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, on which particular occasion was I siding with my country's enemies?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have numerous times in this House heard the noble Viscount stand up for people who are either for rebellion against Her Majesty's Government or for attacking the institutions in one way or another.
Well, we know where we stand. The programme has been laid down by the three prophets of Communism, and the whole doctrine is a mountain of cynical hypocrisy in which backward peoples are to be used as pawns in the game to destroy Western civilisation and achieve world domination. It looks as if the events are following the theoretical programme. The penetration of Africa has started. We are already seeing moves to weaken Governments, to accentuate differences between Governments and their people. On October 4 the Soviet recognised Guinea.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has any objection to Guinea being recognised?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I believe the Soviet were the first country to do it that is all.
LORD HEMINGFORD: That is not an answer to my question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
LORD HAWKE: It is a symptom of their interest in Africa. That is what I am bringing out—their interest in Africa. They have set up an African Department in the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and an African Commission, on the international front level, as part of the Soviet Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity, under a gentleman called Professor Potekhin. Broadcasts have started. As yet, I understand, the broadcasts, have

293
not been stirring up revolt, but they are reminders of under-privilege.
Early in December the Afro-Asian Economic Conference was held in Cairo, but many of the delegates refused to talk politics and it was somewhat of a disappointment for its organisers. But later in the month an All-Africa Peoples' Conference met in Accra, with one Russian representative and various observers. Khrushchev sent a message speaking of the "righteous struggle against colonial oppression"; and I understand that the Soviet speaker told the conference that the Soviet was a true and mighty ally of the African peoples in their struggle against imperialist exploitation. This, my Lords, is the pattern of penetration, and I have suggested the motives.
In the circumstances in which the Governor of Nyasaland was placed, and in which the authorities in the Federation were placed, I believe that they acted with great wisdom and resolution, and they have my wholehearted support. But arising out of the events there I would ask Her Majesty's Government to be quite certain that the other colonial territories in Africa have adequate provision for police and counter-intelligence, because sometimes in the past money has been lacking for those very important organs. In this cold war that is going on, news and information are the bullets; and I beg Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost to release all the information they possibly can. Anybody who has worked in Intelligence knows perfectly well that one tends to get a mentality, a squirrel mentality. One collects information for the sake of having it in one's files. But at this particular juncture we know that information in files is no good. It is information that one can broadcast to the world to expose the truth about one's enemies which is the thing that counts; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to release the maximum they can in those respects.
8.16 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, I took in 1953, and I take now, a different view of this matter from that of most of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, and not least, I may say, from that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am a retired teacher, on pension, from Ghana and Uganda, where I
294
taught Africans. I enjoyed it, but life was not always easy. I lived with my wife and my children in both those countries through times of riot. I was in Ghana (the Gold Coast as it then was) at the time when there was rioting and Nkrumah was convicted of sedition, and I had the humiliating task of driving my wife and her little daughter from a school whose badge was the black and white keys of the piano to a military camp where they might receive protection. In Uganda I was headmaster of a school at a time when the Kabaka of Buganda was a pupil. Rioting broke out in the school; staff were stoned and buildings were burnt; and I had the unpleasant task of deciding, on my own initiative, to call in armed police for the protection of persons and property. Your Lordships will therefore believe me when I say that I hold with law and order, and that I have great sympathy with my friend Sir Robert Armitage in the task that he has just had to face.
But through this experience I became also a friend of a class of person who has not, I think, received sufficient justice in this most interesting debate; that is, the educated African—the class from whom the agitators come, the ambitious men about whom the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is anxious; the people who, in the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, I fancy, endanger the common man for whom he is so anxious that we should stand. May I ask whose child the educated African is?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD HEMINGFORD: He is the child of the common man; and for people in this country to fancy that, once he gets education, he will use it simply for his own ambition, and will draw away from the illiterate parents from whom he has sprung, is to introduce into the conception of African society an idea, an outmoded idea, from ancient England, a country which in the past was riddled with snobbery and exploitation, but is not to-day. I wish to speak up for this educated African who is regarded with some fear, and I should like to say how important it is that people should realise the power of African opinion.
My Lords, there is not a division between the urban educated minority and the common man, the uneducated

295
majority. They are, as they have always been, one clan, most strongly united by firm community feelings. I know that there are exceptions to this. I could name among my own pupils rogues whose only intention was to work for themselves; but any of your Lordships who have been schoolmasters or pupils in our schools could do the same. Since I started to draw my pension, I have twice re-visited the countries in which I lived. I had the honour of going with His Highness the Kabaka of Uganda in the aeroplane which took him back to his country from his "irrevocable" exile; and, at the invitation of Dr. Nkrumah, I had the honour of going to see him present to Her Majesty's representative the speech that she would read from the Throne at the opening of the first Parliament of Ghana.
I have been impressed by the strength and power of African opinion. It was for that reason that, before I had the two interesting experiences that I have just mentioned, I opposed federation in Central Africa: not because I was opposed to federation in principle—far from it—but because I was opposed to the imposition of an undemocratic system of government upon an unwilling people. I have never regretted the line that I took. In taking it, I received the greatest courtesy from my noble friends on this side of the House—and not least, of course, from the then Leader of the House, the noble Marquess of Salisbury.
But I was told that I was quite wrong; that I was looking at things through Ghanaian spectacles; that I did not realise that Nyasaland was different from Ghana; that I did not understand, though I had lived in East as well as West Africa, and had been in that continent for twenty-six years, that Ghana was a single society and that the countries which it was proposed to federate were plural or multi-racial societies—something entirely different. I was told that one could not worry about African opinion; that, after all, the educated were in a minority and the majority were uneducated. Therefore, it was said, one could wipe out African opinion; and, in any case, what was perfectly clear was that as soon as federation had been introduced, and the fruits of it began to fall from the tree, then African opinion would at once swing round in favour of federation. My Lords, I have therefore
296
watched very carefully during the past six years to see whether that was going to happen. I have not found that it has done so.
I have been impressed by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. He has been to Nyasaland, and he has realised, and has told us frankly, that there is there a general fear of federation. It has puzzled him—puzzled him very much indeed. He was inclined to attribute it to the fact that a former Government advised the district commissioner a few years ago not to try to influence African opinion, either in favour of federation or against it. He imagines, I presume, that that was an entirely fantastic idea to Africans: they had never heard of a referee, and they could not understand that their father would not tell them what to do. I do not agree with him. I think that the Africans clearly understood that here was a question on which the district commissioner did not wish to persuade them: he wished them to make up their own minds. My Lords, their minds were already made up. They had been made up long before this instruction was issued from Whitehall—and when I say that, I say it in the full knowledge that I have never been to Central Africa.
But, my Lords, though I do not know Nyasaland, I do know Nyasas. I have had Nyasas as my pupils in East Africa. In 1953 I had the honour of accompanying Chief Mbelwa and four other Chiefs from Nyasaland to Edinburgh, to the great assembly hall of the Church of Scotland, to Glasgow, and to Dundee, where they were putting their views on federation; and they made it perfectly clear that they had always been dead against any kind of closer association with Southern Rhodesia. With them, and with me, went Dr. Hastings Banda. I find it difficult to the point of impossibility to believe that Dr. Hastings Banda can have conceived the dastardly plot that we are told of in the White Paper. I have myself heard Mr. Chiume speak on the allegation that he was connected with this plot. He may have been playacting. If so, he put on an emotional performance of a very fine order. My Lords, it may have been a performance. I do not know Mr. Chiume, and it is quite possible that he was deceiving me. I can only say that he seemed to me to be sincere. But, my Lords, while I

297
cannot vouch for the integrity of Mr. Chiume, though I have nothing against it, I can, and do, vouch for the integrity of Mr. Clutton-Brock, a man who has been working for partnership in practical ways: partnership in pushing the plough, and partnership in sitting together in a village community to discuss problems jointly. He has been working in institutions, I am quite convinced, which have had precisely the same objects as those in which I had the honour of working in Africa.
Now what have been the objects of those institutions? First, in a great many cases, to teach Christianity, with its very great emphasis on the value of every single human soul; secondly, to teach the ordinary subjects of a school curriculum in any country, including history, and including the history of Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden, and, yes, of George Washington. They are places where people have been taught that democracy is something worth living for and dying for. Some of my old pupils have risked their lives for the preservation of our democracy here: and Nyasaland, we know, has made its contribution to the defence of our democracy.
In these institutions, my Lords, we teach football; and wherever football is played there are teams, and the teams have captains, often selected by the players. Wherever there is a class in Africa, that class has a monitor, and wherever there is a boarding house it has a set of prefects. Why?—because teachers were determined to subvert the British Constitution? Because they were deliberately setting out to produce agitators? Because they wished to foster the ambitions of self-seeking men? No, not for those reasons, but because Thomas Arnold, Sanderson and others, have taught us that these were the best methods of education that they knew. That is the education that we have given in Africa.
And when I am told that Ghana is totally different from Nyasaland, that a multi-racial State is entirely different from a single society, may I point out that we British people, through our Government schools and mission schools, through the taxes that British subjects pay, through the gifts that British church people make to their missionary societies, have been teaching the same kind of education and
298
fostering in the breasts of the Nyasas, no less than the breasts of the Ghanaians, all their natural aspirations, the aspirations of ordinary human beings? They are also the aspirations of the descendants of people who have had a tragic history. For 400 years, both Nyasas and Ghanaians lived with little contact with people of the outside world, handicapped in innumerable ways, and during that period the rest of the world drew their slaves from that one continent. The world could not do that without leaving in the people of that continent a certain sensitivity, a sensitivity shown nowadays by a burning desire to display to the world what Africans can do and be, a sensitivity which makes them care far more for their status than for any material thing, which makes them acutely sensitive about the respect or lack of respect shown to them by others.
Do you realise that? Do you realise that an African whose spirit has been hurt is not going to have his happiness restored by any number of millions of pounds poured into the Treasury of his country and by the erection of any number of concrete buildings? The fallacy of federation is that it was introduced by British people who have no kind of doubt about their status in the world, no kind of fear of whether other people respect them and who can give their major attention to practical economic things. The African is not like that. He is more interested in his status.
President de Gaulle has shown brilliant recognition of this fact of psychology. He has offered complete independence—a public recognition of utterly free status—to all the French territories in Africa, accompanied by the notification that if his offer were accepted, French economic aid would cease. His offer has been accepted by only one country, a country which I am quite happy to recognise, although the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, may think it is a bad thing to recognise it—namely, Guinea.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? I instanced it as an example of Soviet interest in Africa that they should be the first to recognise it.
LORD HEMINGFORD: It is a great pity that many other people do not follow the example of the Soviet and take a greater interest in Africa. If they did,

299
they would not be so absorbed by Russia. I should like to go on from exactly where I left off; the difficulty is that I cannot quite remember where I did leave off. President de Gaulle's offer has been declined by a dozen countries. Is it because they do not want independence? No; it is because, having been offered independence, their feelings are completely satisfied. Their honour is soothed and they are left free to think of practical problems. Knowing that they may have independence whenever they wish it, they have no kind of difficulty in saying. "Thanks very much. We do not want it now. There are a lot of things we still have to prepare and do before we are ready for it." It would not be a bad thing if this country took a leaf out of President de Gaulle's book.
"All very interesting", I hear some noble Lords say. "but not closely connected with Nyasaland". But I believe it is, because I think that with this background I can explain to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, why there is this deep feeling among the Nyasas about federation. They were told that as soon as the fruits of federation came they would be happy. I have not found that it is so. What happened a year after federation? The noble Viscount, Lord Malvern (and I wrote to tell him I was going to say this), said in the Federal Parliament:
"Let us, for the sake of federation, which was for economic advancement, not for the Preamble, which was forced upon us, have patience."
I quote that from the Rhodesian Herald of July 31, 1954. Was that statement calculated to allay the fears of the Nyasas?
In 1955, a Defence Bill was introduced into the Federal Parliament which was going to bring non-Africans only into certain Defence Forces. The African Affairs Board took the view that this was a discriminatory measure, but they did not recommend that it should be reserved for Her Majesty's consideration. The view that it was a discriminatory measure was not put by an African agitator or by an ambitious young man determined to exploit his own people, but by an old fried of mine and of many of your Lordships—Dr. Alexander Scott. In 1957, a Constitution (Amendment) Bill was introduced into the Federal Parliament and a great many Nyasas feared that this was
300
not going to prove to be in their interests. The African Affairs Board took the same point of view and reserved this Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure. But the Government and Parliament of this country rejected the Board's conclusion. I am not now discussing whether or not they were right to do so; I am suggesting only that their attitude was not calculated to allay the fears of the Nyasas.
In 1958 a Federal Franchise Bill was introduced. The Nyasas did not like it; nor did the African Affairs Board. The African Affairs Board, under the leadership of Sir John Moffat—not an impatient, young, educated, urban African—regarded this as a discriminating Bill. So it came for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Parliament. The Government and Parliament did not agree with the African Affairs Board's conclusions. I am not saying that they were wrong, but I am saying that their rejection of those conclusions was not calculated to make the Nyasas think that the African Affairs Board was going to be the sure safeguard of their interests which many speakers on these Benches said it would be when we debated these matters in 1952. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, in his brilliant speech, spoke—and, in my opinion, rightly so—of dark and deep levels of irrational fear. But are the things that I have mentioned things that can be explained only by going down to that level? Might not rational people think it a pity that the two Bills objected to as discriminatory by the African Affairs Board should both be approved?
What happened after that? The Secretary of State for the Colonies went out to Nyasaland, and he listened, with his usual charm, to all that was said to him. But the principal plank in his message (if messages have planks) was, "Federation has come to stay". We had been teaching these people that democracy was what one should live and die for. But when it comes to deciding on this matter, well, whatever the Nyasas may think, "Federation has come to stay". The next thing was that the noble Earl the Leader of the House went out there—and I will not bring any blushes to his cheeks by reminding him of what he said. But the noble Earl did not do any more than the Secretary of State for the Colonies

301
had done to allay the fears of the Nyasas or to give them any hope that in 1960 there would be a reversal of this imposition of an undemocratic system—totally unrelated to the situation and the facts of population, and so on—upon an unwilling people.
What happened after that? They saw the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia fall from power in that country. Why? Because he held with the kind of things that the Nyasas disliked? No. It was because he was considered by the electors of Southern Rhodesia, who are mostly Europeans, to be much too liberal in his attitude towards Africans. After that the Nyasas learned that the Reverend Andrew Doig, who had been one of the members specially appointed to represent their interests, had resigned from the Federal Government in protest against the way that African interests were being treated.
Meantime, as the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, has already said, the clock was going on; day after day, the calendar was having a page torn off it; 1960. when there was to be a Conference to review the Federal Constitution, was coming nearer and nearer. Who was to attend that Conference? The representatives of five Governments: the Government of this country; the Federal Government, and the three Territorial Governments. What guarantee have the Nyasas that when 1960 comes their point of view will be represented at that Conference? I do not think their fears that their point of view will not be represented are the fears on that "dark and deep irrational level." They seem to me to be the national reaction that one would expect from intelligent people who have interested themselves in political affairs. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to do something to assure the Nyasas that in 1960 they will not be let down, as they were in 1953.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Lord has been talking about various people like Sir John Moffat and Mr. Todd, and saying that he feels the people of Nyasaland can have no comfort from what has happened. Is he aware that at the present time Mr. Todd is head of his Party in Northern Rhodesia, and Sir John Moffat has just been elected as a member of the Legislative Council? I should have thought that those two things
302
might give the Nyasalanders considerable comfort.
LORD HEMINGFORD: Yes, I think so. But I do not think what the noble Earl has said in the least affects the truth of what I say, which is that Mr. Todd fell from the position of Prime Minister because, in the view of the people who elected him, his attitude towards African advancement was too liberal.
I should have preferred a Parliamentary Commission to be appointed, because I should have thought that would provide the best possibility of the formation of a bipartisan policy. In my view, colonial affairs will not be properly treated until there is a bipartisan policy. I see no reason why there should not be. When the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, went to Kenya as head of a Parliamentary Committee formed of representatives of all Parties, at a time when there were many controversies in Kenya, the members of his Committee found themselves, by and large, in agreement with one another. When, in another place, Mr. Aneurin Bevan made a mistake as to which Government was in power at the time that my old pupil, Dr. Nkrumah, was imprisoned for sedition, he too was showing, unintentionally, that there is no essential difference between noble Lords on that side and noble Lords on this side of the House over colonial matters. I hope that before 1960 there will be a Parliamentary Commission going out as well as the Commission about which we have heard to-day.
I have only one thing more to say, and that is with regard to the terms of reference of the Commission that has been appointed. I remember that great comfort was given in the Gold Coast by the appointment of the Watson Commission in 1948 to inquire into the causes of the disturbances there. Unfortunately, I do not remember what were their terms of reference, but, as your Lordships are aware, the Commission found among the causes of dissatisfaction a great desire for further political advancement. Their Report was severely criticised by some noble Lords on this side of the House because it was said that they had gone beyond the terms of reference. I hope it will be clearly understood that the Commission which has just been appointed may deal with political matters

303
as conducted through the normal channels of politics, and not only through riots, for what we want to know is the truth, and the whole truth.
8.51 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, as I am, in a manner of speaking, the fourth Rhodesian to take part in this debate, I must open my speech by making some reference to the other three preceding me. First of all, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robins, on his maiden speech, and for the special reason that I have lived in Southern Rhodesia. I am well aware of the tremendous services the noble Lord has performed for both Northern and Southern Rhodesia, not only in the fields of industry and commerce but in almost everything that has ever taken place in these two countries, in philanthropic and voluntary organisations, in the Services, and in the organisation and creation of what I think was the finest exhibition I have ever seen anywhere in the world, not excluding those in Europe and America: I refer to the Rhodes Centenary Exhibition, 1957, in Bulawayo. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robins, for what he has done in those countries, and his words to-day are worthy of great attention and great respect.
Now may I turn to the speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who, as he said, has farmed for twenty-eight years in Southern Rhodesia and, I feel, brought into your Lordships' House a most welcome breath of fresh Rhodesian air and perhaps a new understanding of what it means to live in that country and to farm, and the conditions in which the Europeans live cheek by jowl with the Africans. I do not agree with the politics of the Dominion Party which he represents now as a member of the Federal Assembly, but I am sure I am right in saying that your Lordships were pleased to hear the most interesting and, perhaps, constructive views that he put forward; and his visit especially to do that has been well worth while.
Finally, may I turn to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern. I think that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite were somewhat disappointed, and, in fact, as I regarded their gloomy expressions when the noble Viscount was in full sail, I could not help
304
reflecting on the difference of atmosphere in your Lordships' House and the Colonial breezes which have blown through my bones for a period of six or seven years, which perhaps enabled me to interpret the remarks of the noble Viscount somewhat better than noble Lords opposite. I must say one thing in this respect, because the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, besides quoting some remarks of the noble Viscount as being not too reassuring for the people of Nyasaland, also quoted some remarks he had made, I think, on his arrival in this country, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, considered of a particularly provocative nature. The noble Viscount did not perhaps give the entire answer as to why he did that or as to why it was possible, and while not wishing to be unduly controversial I think I must remind noble Lords opposite that all the time I was living in Southern Rhodesia, from before the federation and for several years afterwards, the impression conveyed by the Socialist Party to the people out there who were trying to construct the Federation to the best of their ability was that the Socialist Party, by continued questioning, cross-examination and criticism—often, it seemed to them, of a wholly unjustified nature—made them very resentful indeed. It is only because of that that the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, was able to make the sort of speech he did this afternoon.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, since the noble Lord thinks it right to act as an apologist for the noble Viscount, I should like to ask him whether he really thinks that any action on the part of the Socialist Party justified the statement that we wished that there were a number of European deaths.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Viscount himself said that it was an impression they got out there. It may be somewhat of an exaggeration. If the noble Lord wishes me to cite examples of what I may call annoyances and unjustified criticisms I could do so, but I would rather not waste the time of the House in that degree.
We have heard from Rhodesia the speech of a non-politican, of a member of the Dominion Party, and a member of the Federal Party. Therefore I think it may be of some interest to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lord,

305
Lord Hemingford, who has just spoken, to know that when I was in Southern Rhodesia I was a branch chairman of the United Rhodesian Party under the leadership of Mr. Garfield Todd. In that respect I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, that his information as to the reasons for the crisis which removed Mr. Garfield Todd (most unfortunately) from the leadership of the Southern Rhodesian Government are not entirely correct. I say that with some knowledge of what I speak.
I do not wish to follow in a wide general discussion of the principles of federation such as the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, gave, or on the question of racial policies. I feel that we shall have other opportunities when we discuss the proposed new Constitution for Nyasaland and, later on, in a year to eighteen months' time, the revision of the Constitution. I want to turn my attention to one or two matters of detail which are perhaps rather more closely related to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. In order to do so I will refer again to a quotation, or rather a reference, I made to a speech of Sir John Moffat in the Adjournment debate in this House some three weeks ago, when I said that Sir John had expressed the opinion that at least 90 per cent. of the African population were willing to co-operate with the Europeans. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me whether that was only in relation to Northern Rhodesia so long as they remained under the protecting power of the Colonial Office. As this quotation has direct bearing on the debate to-day, quite apart from that important point, with your Lordships' permission I intend to read some of it out.
Sir John Moffat, speaking in the Federal Assembly on July 1, 1958, in a debate entitled "Co-operation between Peoples of the Federation" said:
"In the rural areas in Northern Rhodesia where I live, the African population, the vast majority at any rate, desire only to be left in peace under a Government which they respect and to be treated like men and to suffer no manifest injustice. In the urban areas, the situation is less tranquil because the urban Africans are showing marked resentment at what they consider discriminatory practices."
Lower down he goes on to add, talking of the problem of fear:
"Now, this fear for the future is due to a ariety of causes, but, of course, the main one L, that African nationalistic leaders tend to
306
play upon it for their own purposes. These Nationalistic African groups have power far in excess of their numbers. Why? Because their members are banded together for a common purpose and because it is apparently characteristic of the African peoples at their present stage of development that they are prepared to act with boldness as individuals only when they have behind them the consciousness of belonging to a tightly-knit group.
The African individual who is prepared to act wholly as an individual without this group backing is at present rare indeed. It is my conviction that the moderate Africans who desire to co-operate with us number 99 in every 100, but for the reason I have given the prospect of getting these people to come forward as individuals and join us when they are given adequate motive to do so is not bright. If we are to win African support it has to he won in the mass, in the group, and not by individual allegiance."
I quoted the whole because out of it arise two important matters. One, which has puzzled many people in this country, and not only the Party of noble Lords opposite, is the question of how representative the African National Congress is of the mass of the people in Central Africa? And the second is the matter of intimidation. With regard to the first, it is quite clear that the African is not yet able to stand as an individual, on his own feet. for lack of education and tradition to do so. Therefore, he is fairly easy game to demagogues. But there are Africans who have overcome these initial handicaps, and I am, for a moment, going to refer to them because they have, I think, been rather overlooked in this debate. I shall refer only to two particular cases to illustrate my remarks, both of them in Nyasaland since that is the country with which we are dealing.
Here, of course, I must refute, and my argument will refute, the inference of the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford that all educated Africans are agitators and that the people who live in Rhodesia are stupid enough to believe that all educated Africans are agitators. Neither premise is true. Let us take the case of Mr. Matinga, now a Federal Member of Parliament for Nyasaland, elected without opposition, in the way the noble Duke explained. That is not his fault. Mr. Matinga was originally one of the initiators of the Congress of Nyasaland but left it eventually because he disagreed with the trend it was taking. Then he had the courage to form the African Progressive Association and went also to the now famous Conference at Salima on the shores of Lake

307
Nyasa in 1956 (which, in parenthesis I may say, I was the only member of either House of Parliament to attend.) That was a time when the Congress leaders were afraid of the Capricorn Africa Society because of the success it might have had leading to the ruination of their plans.
Mr. Matinga has always stood on his convictions and never bowed to any threats or intimidation, and now he is convinced of the necessity of co-operation with Europeans. Mr. Wellington Chirwa is an even better example, because up to a few months ago he was the great spokesman of the Nyasaland African Congress in the Federal Assembly, but was not re-elected. The verbal rows he had with the Prime Minister, Sir Roy Welensky, are part of history. I need not go into that, but the fact is now that since the arrival of Dr. Banda he has also isolated himself from the extreme element of the National Congress and is to be considered a moderate. But he is another man who has had the courage and the strength of conviction to stand on his own feet, and to go his own way and support the principles of federation and of co-operation in the long run. We must make it clear to-day, my Lords, that we are nat going to be fooled by having this sort of African vilified and smeared with the name of stooge. They are nothing of the sort. I hope I shall never hear that term applied to them in this House; and I hope, too, it will never be applied to them in another place.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD HASTINGS: I think it is up to us to give every encouragement and support to these educated non-agitating Africans, who deserve the place which they have so hardly won.
Now may I return to the question of intimidation? I do not intend to enlarge very much on that. I think it was dealt with admirably by the noble Duke when he gave some little, homely examples of what it can mean on the farm. I myself have seen a farm worker who nearly died because another put a curse upon him. Fortunately the culprit was a mere amateur in the trade and it was sufficient to remove him from the farm for the victim to recover, but when that sort of thing is exploited on a mass scale and on a national basis it can and does become very dangerous.
308
Here I might just read out a section of the broadcast made by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, Sir Arthur Benson, when he declared—not a state of emergency, but ordered the arrest of Zambia Congress leaders. I do this because a certain amount of scorn has been poured upon it by the Liberal and Labour Press. He said:
"Twice in the last fortnight Government statements have warned everybody in the country that any interference whatsoever with the rights of voters will not be tolerated. In spite of this, certain leaders of the Zambia Organisation have deliberately continued their plan by spreading uncertainty and fear, to prevent registered African voters from exercising their newly-won right. This they have done openly, in public; but worse—far worse—is what they have done privately in the villages and in the towns at night. There they have instituted a reign of terror. They have placed men in fear of their lives; have threatened death and mutilation to their wives and children; they have invoked witchcraft and other unmentionable cursings in order to deter their fellow Africans from voting".
My Lords, that is not a joking matter matter and it is impossible to dismiss it by uncomplimentary reference in the Press.
The argument I am trying to build up, if I may interpolate in mid-stream so to speak, is the very serious nature of the insinuations that have been cast upon the honesty and integrity, and particularly upon the truthfulness, of the Governments of the four territories—not only, as in this case, upon the Government of the Federation and of Southern Rhodesia, but on those of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. There seems from the start to have been a great lack of willingness on the part of the Socialist Party to believe what they hear: a lack of willingness to believe the Governments and the civil servants of these territories. Very little has been said about that here and I feel it is about time it was said.
Therefore, it is no surprise to me to know that Sir Edgar Whitehead, Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, has received many congratulations on the action he took in such a timely manner. One letter was from the headmaster of an African school in the Que Que area. It said:
"I am filled with zeal, courage and determination to add myself to the growing number of people, particularly Africans, who are congratulating you on the bold step you took to ban the A.N.C. which had become a curse among us all."

309
There was another message from a group of African women at Harari, the African township on the outskirts of Salisbury, thanking the Government for its prompt and courageous action. Then a European in daily contact with Africans said:
"Those Africans to whom I have spoken are immensely relieved to know there is not going to be any trouble here."
LORD SHEPHERD: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, would he agree that Dr. Hastings Banda and his colleagues have not yet had an opportunity to deliver their side of the story?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, that is rather anticipating my argument later on, and, if the noble Lord will permit me, I would rather continue with the argument as I have developed it.
There is one more quotation worth mentioning, especially in view of the remarks of the most reverend Primate and the great store which, quite naturally and rightly, he sets upon the evidence of missionaries. This is a letter from a Methodist from Southern Rhodesia who says:
"Some of us who arc missionaries have personal evidence of the use of threat, intimidation and violence by some of these leaders in the hope that they might force ordinary law-abiding Africans to follow their lead at whatever the cost."
Later he says:
"We can assure folk in Britain that the average African in this territory has breathed a sigh of relief that he can no longer be intimidated and threatened."
In the development of my main theme, which is the essential importance of supporting the Governments and the civil servants, and giving them some credit for competence and truthfulness, I want to dispose of two large red herrings which have been trailed across the path and which, I think, have tended to confuse and bewilder not only noble Lords in this House but the population of this country of all political Parties.
The third case I will come to, also in that context, which deals purely with Nyasaland, is the question of the Church of Scotland missions in that country. The two things I want to dispose of are the case which has been mentioned already of Mr. Clutton-Brock, and a rather brief reference to the case of Mr. Stonehouse, which has been mentioned, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I am not going to impugn the
310
character or the work of Mr. Clutton-Brock; I have no intention of doing any such thing. But I think it is necessary to try to get this matter in perspective, and I will refer your Lordships to a letter of his own, recently made public by the Africa Bureau, in which he says:
"In Southern Rhodesia some of us may have been foolish and wrong".
Your Lordships may have read a very brief letter by Sir Archibald James to The Times, in which he reminded us that Mr. Clutton-Brock had spread political propaganda outside the area of the mission. If one is a missionary, one has an added responsibility to do or say nothing which can possibly exacerbate racial relations.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to my reference. Does he consider that the facts he brings to our notice justify the internment of Mr. Clutton-Brock?
LORD HASTINGS: I am merely making the argument that Mr. CluttonBrock got himself involved in the African National Congress and, in his own words, may have been foolish and wrong; and therefore the Southern Rhodesian Government, in the emergency, probably had no alternative but to include him with the Africans who were being held at that time.
That is not the only point I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention, because at the time of the Federal Constitution Amendment Bill I had a little correspondence in the columns of the Observer with Mr. Clutton-Brock. He wrote at that time criticising the Natives (Registration and Identification) Act, 1957, of Southern Rhodesia. He presented that Bill as a consolidation of the segregation laws, as though it were new legislation, building upon that a strong attack on the Federal Constitution Amendment Bill. In point of fact, of course, it was a re-enactment of old legislation, and two new clauses were put in for abolishing passes altogether in the rural areas (a point overlooked by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, when he mentioned this subject) and for creating the identity cards in the urban area for people of a certain category who could qualify.
At the same time in that debate it was stated that the Government wished to abolish passes in all urban areas and to

311
discuss the matter with the municipalities who were in control of the townships. That point was completely overlooked by Mr. Clutton-Brock. I was not able to take the view that he did not know what was in that Bill, and I was obliged to take the view, to put it mildly, that his attitude in that case was at least intellectually dishonest. I mention that only to put the matter into perspective, so that it may not be said that the Southern Rhodesian Government had no justification whatever for having certain suspicions about this otherwise admirable missionary doing such good work.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am still waiting to hear some reason why a man who enjoys partial British citizenship should be deprived of his liberty for many weeks. I know that his views may be very wrong or mistaken, but I have not heard any justification for putting the man in gaol.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not think I will go into that, because, after all, I am not representing the Southern Rhodesian Government. I am just painting a picture which is perhaps slightly different from the general impression that has been held about the matter in this country.
For a very brief reference, and again for the same purpose of putting this matter of truthfulness into its proper perspective, I am going to refer to one matter in connection with Mr. Stonehouse. I do this purely because I feel that the Federal immigration officers have not been given the credit which is due to them and have been shown up in a light which they do not deserve. I always thought it was strange that Mr. Stonehouse chose to fly to Blantyre to get to Salisbury, knowing that there was a plane direct from Lusaka to Salisbury, which it would have been more convenient to take.
I made some inquiries in this matter, and I have it quite officially that a seat had been booked on the plane leaving Salisbury at 14.25 on March 3, reaching London at 12.35 p.m. on March 4, in ample time to permit his attendance at the House of Commons. Later on, I was given the information that to get him to Salisbury he was offered two methods. He could have taken the 8.20 a.m. Central
312
African Airways plane, in which case he would have had to remain in Salisbury about three hours to get his connection. This he flatly refused. Secondly, the Northern Rhodesian Government offered to fly him to Salisbury in a Government light plane which would have got him to Salisbury between 1 and 1.30 p.m., in time for the connection. This offer also was flatly refused. I bring this up because it was stated that the Federal authorities gave no alternative chance or arrangement at all, and I do not think it fair that that statement should go unrefuted when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Now I come to the final leg of this argument, and that is in connection with Mr. MacAdam, of the Church of Scotland Mission in Blantyre—and I may say that I do not know Mr. MacAdam. Here I shall be very careful what I say. On the other hand, of course, missionaries should also be careful what they say and do. I got the impression that in the first days of the emergency Mr. MacAdam was acting as a sort of journalist or reporter, giving accounts of events not all of which were in Blantyre. Whether he was there himself or was accepting information at secondhand, without checking it, I do not know. and no doubt the judicial Inquiry will go into these matters. But I bring this up because the criticism of Her Majesty's Government and of the Nyasaland Government was largely based at that time on the account that Mr. MacAdam gave of an incident at the Church Mission school at Blantyre.
I have here a letter which Mr. MacAdam has written to the British Weekly, published on March 5, in which he says:
"A prominent elder told me last night 'It was only when the Synod publicly challenged Federation, that the men of Nyasaland began to come back again to worship regularly since the 1953 drift'".
Are we to assume that the Church of Scotland missions are encouraging a political organisation in order to get members for their church? I should not like to make an accusation, but it seems a rather strange letter. I prefer the attitude of Canon Chipunza, an African, who is the senior priest at the St. Michael Anglican Parish in the township of Harari, when he was threatened by Mr. Nyandoro, who was Secretary General of the Southern Rhodesia African National Congress—I said three weeks

313
ago that he was President. I am sorry; he is the Secretary General. Mr. Nyandoro threatened:
"We shall organise a purely African church under the banner of the African National Congress, and this church will see to it that it draws away all Africans from the existing churches".
Canon Chipunza replied that any church formed on a political basis such as the A.N.C. proposed, would not be a church of God; and I hope that the Church of Scotland Mission takes the same attitude in that respect. At the end of Mr. MacAdam's letter he said:
"Anyone, black or white, who opposes Federation will be crushed by the Army and police".
I really do not think there is a noble Lord siting opposite who would consider that that was either a responsible or a fair statement, and certainly not one which should be made by a gentleman wearing the cloth.
Coming finally to the White Paper, my Lords, I should have thought, from what had been said in your Lordships' House to-day, that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence not only in this White Paper but from the knowledge that people have of the African environment and the whole question of intimidation and how it operates, to show that the declaration of a state of emergency was fully justified. I am not concerned to argue whether there was going to be a massacre plot: I do not think that is absolutely essential to the declaration of an emergency. In view of the lesson of Kenya, I cannot see that the Governor of Nyasaland was doing anything but his most necessary duty in declaring that state of emergency, and, in the estimation of many people, including missionaries, saving human lives as the result.
My Lords, I am not going to quote more evidence about these matters which I have here, but in regard to the question of appointing a Parliamentary Commission I would just quote an extract from the Central African Examiner, which, as noble Lords opposite know well, is often approved by their Party and is by far the most liberal paper in the Federation—comparable, I suppose, to the Economist or Spectator in this country (I do not mean in its shape and visage), though perhaps not to the New Statesman and Nation or Tribune. But that paper says:
"If the House of Commons decides to send a Parliamentary Commission to Nyasaland, the
314
Protectorate for which the British Government is still in part responsible, nothing can prevent it from doing so. But if, as it surely must, Westminster wants to avoid inflaming Central African feelings among all races at a particularly critical juncture, it will not insist on such a Commission being sent out."
9.27 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I should like to commence on two personal notes. First of all, I should like to congratulate my noble relative by marriage —I think that is the correct way to describe one's wife's first cousin—on the most interesting speech which he has just delivered, speaking with a great knowledge of the countries which are under your Lordships' consideration to-night. The other thing that I should like to do, although it has become almost old-fashioned in your Lordships' House, as it has in another place, is to ask your Lordships' permission to allow me to leave soon after I have delivered my speech, as I have to catch a train. When I first entered another place it was considered right that any Member who made a speech should remain to listen to at least three other speeches. That seems to have been given up in another place and in your Lordships' House as well. In fact, some of your Lordships make a speech and immediately burry out and are never seen again in that particular debate.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? He has brought to mind by what he has said the fact that I have not yet had any dinner, and I should be obliged if he would excuse me.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that nothing could possibly worry me more than that I should be the means of depriving him of his dinner.
I propose to ask one or two questions of noble Lords opposite. But before doing so I should like to say that one point has come out in the debate which has never been answered by any member of the Labour Party who has spoken—neither by Lord Silkin nor by Lord Lucan. I greatly hope that the Leader of the Opposition, in his summing-up speech, will have something to say about it. It was a point made by my noble friend Lord Malvern, and others, that if anyone can be described as being

315
responsible for the fears of the Nyasalanders in the early days of the Federation it was the Socialist Government. That is abundantly clear. Yet we have never heard a word about that in all the controversy that has gone on in another place and in the Press. I hope that tonight we shall have some explanation. I want to ask one or two questions of noble Lords opposite, and I am sure my noble friends on this side of the House are as anxious as I am to know the answers.
First of all, I want to ask them: Do they or do they not accept the statement in the White Paper that there was this plot? If I may use the word without offence, their attitude on this question this afternoon has been rather equivocal, and I believe that most of us on this side of the House are still in doubt as to whether or not they accept the truth of the White Paper. If they do not, may I point out to them, I hope very courteously, that this is an extraordinary attitude for a responsible Opposition to take up. Because if they do not accept it, they say, in effect, that not only Her Majesty's Government but especially the Colonial Secretary, the noble Earl the Leader of this House, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and the Governor of Nyasaland have all been hoodwinked or are not truthful people. Do they accept it or not? I hope we shall have an answer from the noble Viscount their Leader in this House. It is very necessary that we should know.
Assuming that noble Lords opposite say they are not satisfied, while it is very difficult to say whether or not the facts are facts—and the informers may have misled the local Government and Her Majesty's Government—even if there is no conclusive evidence, would they agree with me that, if the circumstantial evidence was such that in the opinion of the appropriate authorities on the spot there was evidence of the possibility of a plot, it was the duty of the Governor of Nyasaland, after consulting Her Majesty's Government, to declare a state of emergency? If they do not I should like to ask this question—
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I save the noble Lord from asking further questions? I actually said so. Had the noble
316
Lord paid me the honour of listening to me he would have heard that I actually said that on the information he had the Governor was right to declare a state of emergency. If the noble Earl will read my speech to-morrow morning he will also find the answers to all the questions he is putting.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. This is not the first time there has been a difference of opinion between noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place; because the whole argument we have had until now in another place is that there was no evidence of a plot. I wish to pursue the matter a little further, even though the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has answered my question. I am sure that anyone who has had experience of Africa (and I myself, many years ago, owned land in Africa, and have visited a good many African territories), like my noble friends Lord Malvern, Lord Hastings and the Duke of Montrose, and anybody else who has lived in Africa, and especially those who know what went on in Kenya, would realise the enormous danger of not dealing at once with a plot even if the evidence on it is not conclusive.
I am shocked at the attitude of certain people in this country, including Members of another place, and members of the Labour Party and their Press, in their failure to express any sympathy in the tremendous strain on European inhabitants of Nyasaland. Do they realise what these people have been through? Do they realise that many of them know the hideous atrocities committed by the Mau Mau in Kenya? I heard the other day of someone who owned five or six racehorses in Kenya during the Mau Mau trouble. It was winter and the horses had rugs on. The Mau Mau came and poured petrol on those horses and set fire to them. That is the kind of atrocity that is committed when an African is under the influence of a witch-doctor and his atavistic trend towards witchcraft comes out.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, who has so kindly given way, whether he thinks Mau Mau is any more relevant to Nyasaland than Belsen is to Britain?
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, most certainly it is. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, could not have read the information put out by the Nyasaland Government, before the White Paper was published, in which they said that a number of these men who were engaged in the conspiracy were being subjected to the same kind of filthy and obscene rites as had occurred in Kenya. That is the relevance; and I will ask the noble Lord a question. Has he ever heard of witchcraft in Africa while he was there?
LORD HEMINGFORD: Yes.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord has heard of witchcraft there, he should know of its horrible nature when it comes out; and there was real danger. It is all very well for noble Lords opposite to laugh, but they would not laugh if they were residents in Nyasaland. They would not laugh if they had women and children in an isolated place. They would not have laughed had they been in Kenya at the time of the Mau Mau explosion. There is nothing funny about the kind of situation that can arise; and in saying that I am not attacking Africans as such. I have several African friends. I agree with everything that has been said on both sides of the House to the effect that the best type of African, to whatever tribe or country he belongs, is a most delightful person. I am no reactionary on this subject, but when discussing these matters it is necessary that we should realise the intense danger of the situation with which the Government were faced in Nyasaland. And far from attacking the Governor for what he did, and Her Majesty's Government, I should have hoped that every noble Lord opposite would have said that they had done the right thing.
We have had a long debate and I do not want to keep your Lordships long, but I want, in conclusion, to deal with two points. My first, I am afraid, is a very direct question. It might be described as an attack upon noble Lords opposite. What good do they think their Party are doing by carrying on what the right honourable gentleman the Colonial Secretary described as "a vendetta" against Sir Roy Welensky? What good do they think they are doing by the appearance—and I hope it is only an appearance—of being anti-European? How do they visualise the future?
318
Assuming that they are in office when the present Constitution comes under review, and that steps have to be taken either to continue it or to put something else in its place, how do they think their position will be helped by the kind of attacks which, to their disgrace, the Socialist Party, including some of their Members in another place, and their newspapers, are making upon Sir Roy Welensky, Her Majesty's Government and indeed, all Europeans in Rhodesia? There was a statement—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl?
EARL WINTERTON: Yes, although I have been interrupted very often.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl did ask a question. May I, in turn, ask him whether he would consider it anti-European or pro-British to protest against the fact that hundreds of people have been arrested, have not been charged, are not faced with a trial but (it is said) are to continue to be kept in prison? I regard that as anti-British, and if it is wrong to protest against that I hope that we shall still continue to protest against it.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, certainly the noble Lord is entitled to protest, but I would ask him a question: does he think it proper that the principal newspaper of the Socialist Party should refer to Sir Roy Welensky as "a ruffianly Prime Minister"?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not think that that kind of language helps anybody where it is applied to a responsible Minister, but I still feel that the justification for these criticisms lies in the fact that the Preventive Detention Bill has been dropped—as I hope the other Bill will be likewise dropped.
EARL WINTERTON: I agree with the noble Lord to this extent: everybody is entitled in this House or in another place to say he does not like the attitude which the Government have taken. But it has gone much further than that, and I think my honourable friend in another place, the Colonial Secretary, is quite right in describing it as a "vendetta".
But I would return to my original point. What good do the Socialist Party, and Members of another place in particular, think they are going to do by this? I do not want to get on to the

319
subject which has been touched on once or twice to-night, except in a very mild degree, about the future of the Federation. But I think noble Lords opposite, and especially their colleagues in another place, should be reminded of this fact: that very soon, owing to the large immigration of Europeans into Southern Rhodesia—I believe pro rata it is greater than that of any of the Dominions—there will soon be a quarter of a million Europeans in Southern and Northern Rhodesia. Supposing (the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, referred to this in a parenthesis) there were a head-on collision between the Socialist Party, in office, and these people, and they said, "We do not accept what you want us to do; we refuse to accept it", what are the Socialist Party going to do? I am one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who was in another place when the Ulster question was under review—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes. The Curragh.
EARL WINTERTON:—and we were told very much the same thing as we are being told about the Rhodesians: "Why should we listen to this small minority that has got a tradition of trying to tyrannise over the majority, who are of a different race and a different religion?" And when we said, "You had better listen to them or you will be faced with the most serious situation we have had in this country since the Civil War" we were laughed at. They did not laugh so much in the later days after what happened at the Curragh, after the creation of Ulster volunteers. It would be deplorable if a similar situation should arise; but if there is no sense of responsibility on the part of the leaders of the Socialist Party, if they continue to give the impression that they wholly mistrust the two Rhodesias and they do not like them, anything might happen. I only wanted to say this in conclusion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Earl justifies the Curragh mutiny?
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, what I do justify is the attitude the whole Conservative Party took in opposing the Home Rule Bill, which was going to put Ulster in a position which no one in Ulster could possibly allow.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl and I were in the House of Commons at the time. Is he now resurrecting the idea, "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right"?
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, Ulster was prepared to fight and Ulster managed to get its own way, a thing which might be noticed by noble Lords opposite. But I do not want to pursue that subject. I only want to say that I think most people outside this House, as well as a good many in it, would agree with me that you are playing with fire if you antagonise people who are loyal to this country and who are trying to work, under great difficulties, a multiracial system; and you will only drive them, or are in danger of driving them, into more extreme courses.
I am sorry to come to a personal matter connected with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. He took up the most extraordinary attitude in the course of his interruptions of the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern. He said it was quite wrong to criticise another place. That is a most astonishing attitude to take up. If he were right it would be interfering with the privilege of this House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Earl is an old Member of this House and we are both very old Parliamentarians. I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, to permit me to put to the House, which is the judge, a point of order; and my point of order was this: it was out of order—
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I really must not allow the noble Viscount to describe what his point of order would have been, because there was not one. There is no point of order. If a noble Lord does not choose to give way to another noble Lord in the course of a speech, nothing can compel him to do so; and the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, did not want to give way. There was no point of order then and the noble Viscount cannot make it one now.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, as we are working under the gag, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether it is in order—this is a general question and I will leave the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, out of it—for a noble Lord in this House to indulge in personal abuse of an honour-

321
able Member or a Minister in the other House? That is the point. The noble Earl can answer that generally. If he does not want to bring in the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, I do not mind.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I did not hear any such thing. But whatever the point of order may be, there are no rules of order here and we rely upon each other to maintain the practices which have been observed for many, many years in this House. But the noble Viscount was on the very limited question when he appealed to me, or, rather, when I had to intervene, of whether or not he could interrupt a noble Lord who did not want to give way; and that he cannot do.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I would appear to throw a little water on the fire by observing that we are perfectly entitled in this House to criticise another place and individual Members. They criticise us, they have done so very often, and we are perfectly entitled to criticise them. I raise the matter because the noble Viscount, with whom I have the greatest personal friendship, was trying to take away one of our privileges, which is the right of saying, if we feel that way, that we differ from the attitude taken by another place.
Having made the rather desultory observation I have made, I should like to end on this note. We have had a very interesting debate, one of the best I have heard, on a very difficult subject. It would be wrong to assume that there is not a considerable amount of difference of opinion between both sides of the House. It is unfortunate that it should be so, but that difference of opinion has existed indeed ever since the early days of federation when the Bill was passing through. I would end on this note. It would be extremely unfortunate if that difference of opinion gave the impression to the people of Rhodesia that they were going to be made the battledore and shuttlecock (or whatever it is called) of British politics; and I would, with the greatest respect, say that the one thing that is most desirable in this question is that there should be some form at some time or other of agreement between British political Parties on the whole future of this most interesting experiment of the Central African Federation.
322
I believe—to come back to the immediate subject of the debate—that that situation will be advanced and helped by the appointment of the Commission or the judicial Inquiry (or whatever it is called) which has been announced by Her Majesty's Government to-day. I am extremely glad that the Government are not going to send out a Parliamentary Commission. I think it would have been a very great mistake, because there would undoubtedly have been a difference of opinion. Very eminent men are going to be sent to Nyasaland. It may well act as a guide, as a torch, towards some eventual understanding between the political Parties in this country, which will make the consultations with the local Governments much easier than they would be to-day.
9.49 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, at this late hour I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but before I say the few things I should like to say I feel that I cannot pass by many of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, without entering a note of dissent. Nobody enjoyed the speech that he made more than I did, and I envy his being able to live in such a dreamland of fancy. He asks us to believe that the ordinary African lives on that high level and does not care, unfortunately, about economics, or anything like that; that all that he cares for is liberty and the beautiful thought of being free; but that when one offers it to him he will say, "No, thank you; what about the money side of it?" I hope I am not being unfair, but that was my interpretation of what he meant when he was telling us about De Gaulle, and how the French Colonies which were offered freedom were so pleased at the thought of being offered this freedom that they said they were not yet ready for it and would like to go into the economic side of it.
It never seems to occur to any critics of. in this case, Central Africa, or anywhere else—not even to the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, though he mentioned various Colonies and other places—to give an instance such as Nigeria, which will obtain its freedom in perfect peace and amity next year, and over which there has been no bloodshed or dispute. That, of course, is not worth mentioning:

323
it is only worth mentioning cases where one can criticise. I felt I had to say that, and I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, that I have a certain amount of experience of Africa myself, though not in the adolescent circles in which he moved. I have dealt with adult Africans for many years, and I know how rarely one comes across an African—and perhaps the educational system is responsible for it—who has the immediate qualities of administrative ability which is what they will need if this freedom is going to be of any use to them.
I also noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, slid over what is going to happen, or what would happen, if Nyasaland were to be given this precious gift of freedom. It has neither the men nor the money—nor anything at all—with which to function. It would be a life of acute and utter misery for the whole population, practically, with the one possible exception of Dr. Hastings Banda—who is the one intelligent and competent person they could produce, and who no doubt would get the dictatorship which we assume to be his end.
My Lords, there are many angles from which one can approach this debate, but. to begin with, I should like to emphasise the fact that democracy is not a native plant in Africa. It is extremely improbable that any of these States which are now getting freedom and independence will, after a few years, present anything resembling what we in this country call democracy. I do not say that they will be any the worse for it: I merely point out what I regard as a fact. There are many angles from which one can approach this subject. My own angle, as I have said, is that of a responsible administrator who has had to come down to earth, and who has dealt with many Africans of all kinds and classes, though they were adults doing a job of work.
As I view it, the struggle going on in Africa—and this point has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Robins—is not a clash of colour; it is a struggle between Western civilisation and semi-savage retrogression. That is the real struggle that is going on; and I am a little horrified at times to find the sort of Members. even of your Lordships' House, who appear to be ranging themselves firmly on the side of semi-savage retrogression.
LORD CROOK: Rubbish!
LORD MILVERTON: The question of civilisation—and do not let us forget it —has many African supporters. There are quite a number of them, and they are increasing; but these numbers are obscured because the African is very liable to be intimidated by the noisy demagogue who talks of nationalism and democracy, which he regards only as the means to power and as the tools whereby he will attain power; and the first use he makes of that power—as we have had many examples in recent years—is to destroy the liberty of which he talked so much before he got it. In reality, the whole basis, as I see it, of our Colonial policy is at stake when we consider this question. Either we are right in holding that we have undertaken certain trusts in Africa or elsewhere, or we are wrong; and it cannot be right to give away to riot what we have previously denied to reason. There must be some principle somewhere on which all of us agree to stand; and surely all our principles are not to be traded away for the sake of illusory peace or appeasement, because it has never yet in the history of the world achieved the peace which we hope to buy at such an expensive price.
I want to begin, and very nearly to end, by expressing my deep sympathy with Sir Roy Welensky. I happen to know Sir Roy Welensky. I know that he is a man of liberal principles, and I know that he is honestly trying to fulfil an extremely difficult task; and if he succeeds, it will reflect not only great honour on himself and his fellow settlers in the Rhodesias, but also great honour and credit on this country. So naturally I deplore the venomous attacks and the misrepresentation to which he has been subject. To my mind, too, the Governor of Nyasaland deserves all the credit we can accord to him. He has faced this situation very firmly and, I think. rather wisely. Possibly, as the noble Marquess. Lord Salisbury. said, if one had to criticise at all. one might say that he had been too patient before he took action. But having had a little experience myself in dealing with difficult situations of this nature, though not so acute. I realise that there is indeed "a tide in the affairs of men", and that the only person qualified to judge the right moment is the man on the spot

325
who is responsible; and he is entitled to ail the support that we can give him.
My Lords, there is another thing that I should like to say. I do not want to sound too didactic, but this is the fruit of my experience, anyway. The average African does not think. He is in that stage of growth of being unable yet to grasp and formulate views on any such subject as federation. He has an infinite capacity for being misled. He thinks what his leaders tell him to think, and that is the danger; because the flamboyant demagogue, the aspirant for power, has the advantage of irresponsibility over the moderate men.
I am sorry to mention this point again, as it has been mentioned several times, but it is a most important point, as I see it. En the days when federation was first being discussed, under the auspices of the Labour Government of the day, the Secretary of State for the Colonies issued those unfortunate orders that the civil servants were to keep complete silence on the subject and were to give no advice at all. Nobody knows better than I do—though your Lordships must also know—the immense position of influence which the average district officer in the Colonial Service held, and still holds, in many places. If the person to whom the Africans would naturally go for advice says that he cannot advise them and that they must make up their own minds, that is equivalent to telling them that it is not a good thing. I am not offering any accusations, obviously, against the Secretary of State in question. I merely think that it was an unfortunate thing that he was ignorant of the effect of that, and apparently ignorant of what a district officer meant although he was Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time.
Viscourrr ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord has a great deal of colonial experience. and we all pay tribute to him for that; but does he imagine that the Secretary of State of that time was not in full receipt of advices from the Colonies of the underlying feeling that was to be watched out for in dealing with federation? What would the noble Lord have said if the advice was given another way? Surely the Secretary of State was quite right in saying that the people themselves should decide whether they were for or
326
against federation. To try to shift the whole blame for the position by this kind of argument is unworthy.
LORD MILVERTON: I am sorry to create that impression on the noble Viscount, because I am not trying to shift the blame entirely. I am trying to point out what is the basis of the present position. As I said, it was left entirely to the men to make up their own minds, and there was early in existence the African National Congress, which proceeded to work on them and made them a sitting shot for any agitator, for any more intelligent African whose idea it was to break up federation who went along and talked to them. That is exactly what happened, and it is no wonder that federation got a bad name from the start, because the only thing these people heard about it were things to its detriment.
It seems to me that the dilemma really is whether in the name of the Western tradition of freedom and all that sort of thing—I have every reason to know how often this phrase is associated with an abuse of those traditions of freedom; I am not decrying them intrinsically—we ought to allow freedom of organisation to subversive people and sit by and watch this great experiment in partnership destroyed for lack of will to stand up for what we believe in. I assume that we all really do believe that this experiment ought to he given a fair trial. We ought to realise that the problem is a serious one and that it is one which essentially should be settled in Central Africa and not in Whitehall. In my opinion, this is obviously a question which must be left to be solved by the people who have to live with the results of it.
There is one other thing I wanted to say. It has been pointed out how Nyasaland has benefited, but I think that it would not be a bad thing to have on record one or two details. For instance, the recurrent expenditure on health in the last five years has increased from £300,000 to £1 million. Capital expenditure on health services has increased five times and grants to medical missions seven times. Expenditure on education has trebled. The Federation Government has spent £19 million in Nyasaland in the first four years of federation. In

327
the eight years prior to federation, the capital inflow to Nyasaland was £584,000, but since federation it is £2½ million. The gap between Nyasaland's revenue capacity and expenditure, £3½ million, is met by the Federal Government.
Secession, if you look at it, will solve nothing at all. Nyasaland, as has been pointed out again and again, is not viable from any point of view, and there would be an inevitable demand for North-East Rhodesia to secede as well, and Barotseland would probably hive off. With this wonderful dismembered remnant, which I believe Sir Roy Welensky called "rump fed", consisting of Southern Rhodesia and the railway strip of Northern Rhodesia, but still containing 3 million Africans and 300,000 Europeans, there would be the same old problem of this area surrounded by pockets of poor and utterly destitute but independent States. The suggestion was also made, I believe, although it has not been made to-day, that Nyasaland should be allowed to join Tanganyika, which would be one bankrupt joining another. Tanganyika is not in a position to support any other country.
There are illuminating figures which I might rapidly note. The revenue of Nyasaland in 1946 was £2,100,000; in 1947, £1,600,000; in 1948, £2,100,000; in 1949, £2,700,000; in 1953, £4,900,000, and in 1958–59, £5,357,000. I think that, in itself, is a record which speaks a good deal in favour of continuation of this Federation. I am unable to agree with the noble Duke the Duke of Montrose when he says that an African, once he has got something into his mind, will never get it out, and because somebody has instilled a dislike of federation, nothing will move it. I am certain that an African who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, has said, is just an ordinary simple person like you or me, will be amenable to education and to the wonderful logic of facts which I think he should be given the opportunity of experiencing.
We have heard a lot about fear, and that is also perfectly true. He has a fear of federation which has been instilled into him. But in talking as if Dr. Banda wanted Nyasaland to go back under the ægis of the Colonial Office and the British Government we are talking nonsense. That is not in any way the programme of
328
Dr. Banda. His programme is complete and absolute independence of everybody, so that he can work his own will in whatever way he likes. And combined with his propaganda against federation is the spreading of these false hopes of that wonderful future which awaits them when they manage their own affairs. One can well imagine what kind of future that would be. So, in conclusion, I should like to emphasise that this is a matter where the people of the Federation, who have made the country the wonderful success it is at present, should be allowed to settle it, because it is they, their children and their children's children who will have to pay the price of failure.
10.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, my only reason for venturing to address your Lordships at this hour tonight is that I happened to be in Southern Tanganyika at the time when the events we have been talking about here this afternoon were happening. I suppose I come under the description of "itinerant politicians" used by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, earlier on in this debate, but I can tell your Lordships that I was not there in connection with anything we have been discussing today; my timetable was decided by the requirements of some Scandinavian business friends of mine with whom I was visiting Rhodesia. Rather naturally, those Scandinavian friends asked me whether I thought that any of the events which they were reading about in the Press ought to shake their confidence in the future of the countries comprising the Federation. I told them that I thought not; that the idea of federation of the three countries as an economic unit was a thoroughly sound one and, therefore, given time, the people on the spot, whether they were Europeans or Africans, would come to a proper solution in their own time and in their own way, and that anybody from Scandinavia or anywhere outside Rhodesia could go on with their business plans and feel long-term confidence in their results.
I know as well as anybody how dangerous it is for the onlooker to pay short visits to places like Rhodesia and then come away and tell everybody all about it. None the less, one feels that time is very short, and that everything possible must be done to push forward African

329
education in every way. Possibly one feels that there are sections of European opinion in Rhodesia which over-estimate the difficulties of going faster, and underestimate the difficulties of not going fast enough. Be that as it may, a great deal has been said about it tonight, and I do not mean to say any more about it now.
What this Motion is dealing with is the disorders in Nyasaland and the need or otherwise to send out a Parliamentary Commission. When I was in Rhodesia for the first week in March, I got the strong impression that all the newspapers I read were engaged in building up the sensational aspect of what was going on in Nyasaland, to the complete exclusion, shall we say, of the more serious aspects which might have been dealt with. In other words, the news was, as I thought, on the same level as the news about murders, crimes and sexual affairs that one finds in the papers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Speak up; we cannot hear.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I was saying that to my mind the handling of the news was on a par with the handling of murders, crimes and sexual affairs which one reads in the same papers. Of course, in other columns there were the adventures of the honourable gentleman the Member for Wednesbury. But I thought there was a marked absence, or at the least a marked under-emphasis, of the more serious sides of this problem: of the causes of what had been going on in Nyasaland, and what should be done to remedy the matter, and almost a complete absence of any word of support for the Government and officials, and everybody else who had the responsibility for keeping order and the Queen's peace in those parts. That being so, it is not surprising that perhaps wrong impressions may have got about of what was actually happening and what were the causes of what had happened.
I myself was struck by the calm which I noticed in Southern Tanganyika a week before, and in Northern Rhodesia on March 2, which was the day, or within a day or two, of the issuing of the Emergency Ordinance in Northern Rhodesia. I spent that clay on the Copper Belt. Everything was quiet. You could have
330
heard a dog bark; and the mine manager of one of the big Copper Belt mines told me that he had had no trouble and did not expect it. In fact, when the union representatives on that mine had received overtures from people who came along inviting them to take part in the agitation at that time and afterwards, they rejected those overtures.
So I find it very difficult to come to any other conclusion but that the disturbances in Nyasaland had been very carefully organised and would not have taken place unless they had been carefully organised. Supposing, for example, there were real discontent and a real desire for self-government among the Africans, would that discontent have stopped, as it did, on the borders of Nyasaland, or would it have extended to Northern Rhodesia on the one side and Tanganyika on the other? In the third week of February I was on a tea garden a few weeks before there had been a strike at the garden next door on the subject of wages: and although matters were steaming up in Nyasaland, only forty miles away, no apprehension was felt either by the management or by the district commissioner with whom I talked.
Again, if any noble Lords have, by any chance, seen Karonga, in the Northern Province of Nyasaland, where one of those riots occurred, I think they will realise that a great deal of effort and staff-work had had to be done in order to produce events on that scale at a place like Karonga. So I come back to this point, made so often in the debate, of the need for the Government to keep order, a point which I say was much under-emphasised in the Press. It is no good looking at these matters in the same way as we might look at a strike at London Airport, Dagenham, or anywhere else in this country, but I feel it is the duty of the Government in this country to see that decent, quiet people are protected from the effects of intimidation. If that is so in this country, how much more must it be true in a place like Rhodesia, where the African is so easily intimidated and where agitation, through the African nature, can build up so quickly and assume such dangerous proportions!
That brings me to another point, which is the question of whether the right

331
action was taken by the Governor of Nyasaland and whether it was taken at the right time. I felt, from my impressions on the spot, very much as I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury felt when he was speaking a little while ago. In other words, if the Governor of Nyasaland made any error of judgment whatever—and I am by no means certain that he did —then that error of judgment, or error of administration, was not so much in acting when he did as in not acting before. After all, a good deal of information about the origins of these incidents described in the White Paper, and the plot which is said to exist ought to have been known to any Administration that was on the job a long time before.
There is one point which never comes out in these debates—it has not come out today; it did not come out on the Cyprus debate, so far as I know, or in the debates on Mau Mau—and that is, where the money comes from to finance these various political measures. It must come from somewhere. Of course, it may come from the African shillings, but I suspect that more money is involved than can be collected in shillings from the Africans. If that is so, the Special Branch, or whoever they have there, ought to be able to keep track of that money, and that information ought to give those in authority a very good idea indeed as to what is really happening. Of course, if the Governor of Nyasaland had rounded up 200 or 300 people suspected of intention to cause a breach of peace, no doubt noble Lords opposite would have said that it was quite wrong to do so, but equally, to my mind, there would have been strong probability, if that action had been taken, that no-one would have been killed; and if that were so I, for one, would have approved.
However that may be, these are the impressions which I gained from my time there. One had to think, as I sat on the tea garden there in Southern Tanganyika with 500 or 600 African employees, exactly what we were going to do tomorrow morning supposing they took part in this agitation. It struck me that if they did take part in that agitation, the thing would be entirely synthetic, because only the day before we had been discussing with the management how to get over the difficulty, which is so acute, of finding enough Africans
332
to take responsible positions as boss boys and foremen on the garden. It struck me that if one did not have enough boss boys to run a tea garden, it would be very unlikely that there would be strong and spontaneous feeling in those people next door on the subject we have been discussing this afternoon.
All that again leads me to feel very glad indeed that the Government have decided to appoint a judicial Commission and not a Parliamentary Commission. I feel that a judicial Commission will have far more opportunity of getting down to the real facts, a great many of which, as has been said already this afternoon, cannot really be given without prejudicing the sources and endangering the lives of loyal people on the spot, whoever they are. Equally I feel that a Parliamentary Commission, however good it might be in some respects, would, in many other respects, have the reverse effect of what we all want. It would prevent things being settled down by the firmness and the tactful handling and the justice which will have to be applied now in the endeavour to get things back to normal. It would provide a continuing platform for agitators and trouble-makers of all kinds, in addition, no doubt, to more responsible people, as long as the Parliamentary Commission was there. I feel very glad that, by not having a Parliamentary Commission we shall avoid any risk of doing what I think we all want to avoid doing, and that is projecting our Party political differences here into the arenas of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. At any rate, that is my hope, and what little I saw when I was there confirmed very much my ultimate faith in the Federation and my belief that this White Paper is sound and that the Government's decision to proceed as they have is sound also.
10.25 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, stated that in regard to Africa it would be an extremely good thing if everybody except the Government Departments responsible kept out of the situation from which we are some 6,000 miles distant. In principle, I think that the noble Duke is absolutely right. But for those of your Lordships who have been to Africa, and who have a great love of that country, there are certain things that, quite naturally, are worrying us at this moment in regard to what is going on.

333
I shall detain your Lordships for but a few minutes, but I feel that a few words should be said concerning some of the societies, such as the Capricorn Club, which have been working out there in Central Africa for a great number of years. I know that a great many of your Lordships will say that this society, and the great inspired work that has been done by its late leader, is some fifty years ahead of its day. They say that it is a dream world, that is something in the fantasy of people's minds which cannot be put into active operation. I do not believe that that is altogether true; in fact, I am quite convinced that it is exactly the opposite. I think that people who work and have been connected with that society, missionary societies and so on, are people who have studied the situation from every angle and have worked out there for a number of years. Probably a great many of your Lordships know that this society, in collaboration with the Government out in Central Africa, are trying to form a college of citizenship which will, I think, provide enormous help towards an understanding between the European and the African. People will go to this college and will hear lectures. They will work side by side, and I think it can do nothing but good.
Carrying on from that, I should like to state that I think that what has been said from various sides of the House during this debate concerning the African chieftains is of the greatest importance. For the short time, some seven months, that I was out in Africa, I always found, when I came into contact with the Africans, that most of them had the greatest respect for the African chieftain. He held great power within the tribe; he was generally exceedingly sound in his judgment, and he had a good common sense. I only hope that everything possible will be done to foster and encourage this.
I should like to end on this point. We heard from the noble Duke the statement that the Africans in Nyasaland have for various reasons been frightened, through suspicion, and are determined flatly to turn down the idea of federation. There are many people who may know a great deal more about this than I do, but I am convinced that the noble Duke is on to something in this connection. The
334
African is suspicious, and when he gets a definite thought in his mind he is liable to take this attitude. I am wondering whether the Government, in conjunction with the Powers out there—I think some five in all—will at any rate give sympathetic consideration to the scheme which the noble Duke produced this aftternoon and is lodging in the Printed Paper Office, and also to the other ideas which I am quite certain will be put forward in the near future from these various societies of which I have spoken, so that, in some way, agreement and understanding can be produced along these lines which might result in an answer which is satisfactory from all angles,
10.31 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, first of all I would say how glad I am that the noble Lord who has just spoken mentioned the Capricorn Society. I am sure we all wish the Society all success in the College which it is trying to found. I shall intervene for only a few moments to express my support of the very able way in which the Governor of Nyasaland has handled this most difficult situation. I believe that there is no more difficult task for a Governor to have to face than the declaration of a state of emergency. And in this case it was made even more complicated by the fact that the forces needed to implement this state of emergency had to come from authorities outside the Territory which the Governor controlled. Nevertheless, despite all these difficulties, and despite the fact that these forces were not at first under unified command, law and order were largely restored quickly.
I was very surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, should have criticised the sending of forces from Rhodesia, particularly as he has been a soldier, I believe, for most of his career. I should have thought he would be aware that the military authorities on the spot would have chosen the most suitable force available. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has already successfully disposed of his suggestion on the sending of Matabele troops. I was brought up in the Navy and was always told that when a ship or squadron was involved in action one trusted the senior officer on the spot and did not harass him by strings of

335
signals and unnecessary advice. In my opinion, in this affair of Nyasaland there have been too many touch-line critics.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, followed by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, and it struck me that the tone of the noble Lord's speech largely expressed disbelief in what was said in the White Paper.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords what authority has the noble Lord for saying that? I said that so far as I could see the terms of the White Paper did not support the alleged massacre plot. I cannot express any opinion as to whether what is in the White Paper is correct or not. I have no evidence one way or the other.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the White Paper included information about the massacre plot, and therefore I feel I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, expressed disbelief in it. He tried to belittle the disorder, and I should like to ask him whether it did not occur to him that the fact that the Governor took prompt action presented the disorder and loss of life from being much worse than it was. In past troubles in other parts of the world the Government have been blamed for being taken by surprise. In this case, at least, it appears that we were most certainly not taken by surprise and that action was taken in good time.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as I understood him, said he thought there was no excuse for opening fire. I should like to ask him if he has ever been in the position of that gallant district officer mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who succeeded in parleying with a mob for one and half hours by the lakeside before he eventually had to open fire in order to prevent them from storming the ship on which prisoners were held.
I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Salisbury said something in praise of the much-maligned settler, who had very little consideration from noble Lords opposite. My father went to Rhodesia as an early settler with the first column, seventy years ago, and in those days it was considered a matter of pride. Indeed, he had to face a revolt very shortly after he got there, and was elected Colonel of
336
the column by popular vote, on the strength of his having been a private in Canada in "Strathcona's Horse." My noble friend Lord Salisbury also indicated the difference between freedom and independence, and I am very glad that he uttered that note of warning. In that connection I recently heard a most profound remark by the Bishop of Ceylon, who reminded his audience that sometimes in losing the British Empire we had also lost the British Umpire. I do not propose to say any more to-night, except that I believe your Lordships will be behind me in expressing our wholehearted approval and admiration of the way in which the Governor of Nyasaland and the others in authority in the area handled this very difficult situation.
10.37 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we shall all agree that this has been a great debate. We have had no fewer than four citizens of Rhodesia and an ex-Prime Minister of Rhodesia taking part. We have had a great maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Robins, and another from the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. There is, alas! one voice on the subject of Central Africa that we have not with us to-day; that of one who gave the last few years of his life to the service of Rhodesia and, indeed, one might almost say, by disobeying doctor's orders and staying at his post, gave his life for Rhodesia. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. He is deeply missed at this moment.
My Lords, this debate. I think, was to have caused a considerable amount of clarification in our minds. Although perhaps at some point it has done just the opposite, there is no doubt that the White Paper issued last night has clarified one point that we are up against. I think one must say that it seems a sad day for this country when the word of a Secretary of State and two Commonwealth Prime Ministers and two Colonial Governors is sufficiently doubted to make it necessary to ask for the publication of Secret Service Papers before they can be believed.
There is only one main point on which I venture to concentrate at this hour of the evening, and that is the point that has been steadily driven into my mind

337
throughout this whole discussion, although I do not think anybody has exactly put it this way. What has struck me so forcibly is the feeling that we are working under a profound misconception if we feel that we are discussing simply a conflict between black and white, It is, in fact, a conflict between those who believe in ordered progress and those who are prepared to accept racial domination—achieved, if necessary, by violence, intimidation, and even murder. We have heard on all hands of intimidation. I am not going to inflict them on your Lordships, but I have with me letters from Rhodesia telling me of the relief—the universal relief—which has been expressed by Africans in every class. They prove, clearly, the amount of intimidation that there has been. The relief that has been expressed proves also that the Africans have not felt this to be a matter of conflict between black and white. On the contrary, the masses of the Africans have felt themselves to be protected by the whites against the African National Congress.
My Lords, I think it is notable that there has not been one single speech tonight that has denied the need for African advancement—its possibilities, and its desirability. After all, how could there have been? Who is responsible for African nationalism? It is we British, with our colonial policy. It is we who have taken the schools to Africa; it is we who have encouraged the students to come back to British universities in order to achieve our ideas of freedom, knowledge, and independence. Naturally, therefore, it is not we who can possibly want to oppose legitimate African nationalism. But that does not mean that we want to hand over to ambitious revolutionaries. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, made great play with the idea that this was a matter not in any way concerned with ambitious agitators; but I think there is too much evidence in the other direction for many of us to agree with him. But if we choose not that way, but the path of ordered progress, it is ordered progress to what? Towards that partnership to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and many other noble Lords during this debate, have directed their minds.
That means a policy of patience; of steadily building up our educational services; of increasing the health
338
services; of increasing knowledge and improving education. It also means the building up of an African middle class —technicians, professionals, traders, and administrators, local and central. The moment one says what that programme must be, one realises that it can be achieved only by the two races working together, and not against one another.
Surely, my Lords, this, above all, is true of Nyasaland. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke of a choice in Nyasaland. I think he used the phrase "the continuance of white domination in Nyasaland." How can he use that phrase about a colonial system that is based on trusteeship, when devoted white administrators, living in Nyasaland, have been working there, in this generation and the last, trying to build these people up to a position where they are in a state to take over control of their own affairs? How can we allow that to be spoken of as "white domination"? Here, surely, is a territory where there is no racial discrimination and hardly any settler problem; a territory which the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, and Sir Roy Welensky have frequently described as being ultimately an African partner in the federal set-up. And when this occurred, my noble friend Lord Perth was only within a few days of leaving for that country in order to discuss further steps in the development of the Constitution.
One cannot help asking oneself why this trouble occurred in Nyasaland and when it did; why, if Lord Perth was going to be there so soon, Dr. Banda did not wait until after the discussions; why he did not put off the agitation at any rate until the discussions had been a failure, if that was what was expected. It is hard to answer that question except on the basis that Dr. Banda felt he must get in before success was achieved, because that was his only chance of achieving the personal position for which he hoped. Incidentally, is it not precisely the same pattern as occurred in the Congo only a short time ago when, a matter of a few days before the Belgian Government were known to be making an announcement about the constitutional programme, an outbreak was ordered there?
I must confess that there is one point which leaves me completely bemused and

339
I have never been able to get an explanation of it. How is it that those in this country who generally feel themselves to be liberal-minded, and who in many aspects of their lives have proved themselves to be liberal-minded, range themselves on the side of racial domination achieved by violence and intimidation, followed up, as it doubtless would be, by a tyrannic form of government, instead of the ordered progress towards real liberty and real democracy that has been achieved in country after country of the British Empire during even the last ten years?
I feel that it is vital to Africans that ordered progress towards partnership should remain our policy. If Nyasaland leaves the Federation, and if the Federation breaks up, the whole policy of federation and partnership goes, then the whole of our efforts over the last forty to fifty years will have failed. We know that if Nyasaland leaves the Federation at the present moment, she will have neither the money nor the personnel. We know, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury so brilliantly said—and it was repeated later by my noble friend Lord Milverton—that Dr. Banda is not seeking to remain with the Colonial Office. He is seeking complete independence. The result of that must be—I am not going to weary your Lordships with all the figures that have been given—a rural slum, plus a nonviable vacuum. Have we asked ourselves what a non-viable vacuum means. Today in a country that has now become one of the main targets in the cold war?
One genuine fear has been expressed, and that is the fear of Southern Rhodesia and its identification with the Federal Government. We have had great discussions as to the source of this fear; some have said that it is the initial lack of explanation and advice given to Africans; and other reasons have been put forward. But has the case for federation ever been really put to Nyasaland? If I were to venture any criticism of our friends overseas, I would question whether the case has ever really been put. For instance, what need is there for a Government that is ultimately going to be an African Territorial Government to have fears of federation when almost every subject that affects the African in his daily life is the affair of the Territorial
340
Government and not of the Federal Government? Again, there is the fact that the Federal Parliament itself now contains twelve Africans plus three Europeans elected to represent African interests, a total of 25 per cent. of the present Federal Parliament, and now one African junior Minister; and there are the tremendous advances that have been mentioned already—of the treatment of Africans in banks and shops and hotels, promotion on the Copper Belt and complete equality in the Civil Service. All these things have been happening during the last few years. I have been going out every year for the last ten or twelve years, and each time I see enormous changes. We know that in a multi-racial territory (and for the moment I am speaking about Southern Rhodesia) it is always a more difficult problem than in a territory with only one race.
What one can say is that both sides are making immense progress; but we cannot say that either is helped by some of the speeches made over here. What struck me, during my last visit to Africa, was that I received nearly as many complaints from Africans themselves as from Europeans. Both in Kenya and in Rhodesia Africans asked how they could be expected to co-operate with the British when they were being continually stabbed in the back by our politicians at home. Let us all agree that there is much that many of us would like to see done, and, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, much that we should like to see altered in Southern Rhodesia—as there are plenty of things that we should like to see altered in this country, too! But it is no help to have negative criticism; and, moreover, it only gives encouragement to extremists and those who are anxious to represent this problem as a fight between black and white.
Incidentally, I believe that we are reaching the limit of the criticism that our friends in Southern Rhodesia are prepared to take. Some noble Lords on the other side of the House did not entirely enjoy what the noble Viscount. Lord Malvern, said today, but I would ask them to realise that Lord Malvern is an experienced and a moderate leader of Rhodesian opinion. If he is feeling as he is about the speeches from over here, and the speeches of visiting Members of Parliament, then your Lordships must begin to take the dangers of the situation

341
very seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Robins, appealed for understanding of the position of those who are living over there now. if it is not given, I am afraid that they may learn how to do without our sympathy and understanding.
How can we in this House help? I believe that this debate has shown a large measure of basic agreement. Could we not come to an understanding now, between ourselves, that Federation and the policy of partnership, which we all agree is dependent upon it, should be given a chance from all sides; that the speeches which are continually giving the Africans the lead against Federation should cease, and that meanwhile everyone should be free to press for every form of reassurance or, if it is felt necessary, change of policy in Southern Rhodesia? We should ask Her Majesty's Government, as they have already been asked in this debate, to think of this problem, and to think of every means by which they might reassure African opinion against the fear of federation. I feel that that might be a positive policy which we could pursue in order to help partnership. Partnership means equal opposition to black as to white domination, and the fact is (as I think we have all of us recgonised today) that neither is on the cards. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that at the beginning of the debate, and I think we all agree with him.
Surely our best contribution is to send a message to the Federation reaffirming our belief in partnership—partnership, in the case of Nyasaland; of an ultimately African Territorial Government working in the Federal set-up, and partnership between the races in the multi-racial territories and in the Federal Government. I believe a message of that character could help, and I close by expressing the hope that this debate will give the necessary encouragement to European and African alike to face the future that needs to be faced with confidence and with courage.
11.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we have had a very long debate, and it does not look as if we shall be getting away from here, after two more speeches, before getting on towards midnight. I hope it will not be quite so long. I have listened to most of the speeches and should like to say
342
"Thank you" to all those who have joined in the debate on this very important Motion. The interest in the House is also indicative of the enormous interest which has been taken in the country in regard to the whole position of the Nyasaland incidents and the general question of the Central African Federation. I have at times received great stimulus from some of the speeches; and at other times I have been quite saddened in my thoughts as I felt a reaction to the old, almost worn-out ideas that, ultimately, we must resort to force in order to retain what we think we have a right to retain, however much in a minority we may be in a particular part of the world.
I think, perhaps, the Economist was right in its leader last week when it wrote about "Africa to scale"; and how important it is that we should begin to remember that there is a very great movement going on apace in the whole continent of Africa. I should think that this was very much in the back of the mind of the Duke of Montrose in the maiden speech he made—and I hope we shall have the pleasure of his presence and of hearing from him again. He seemed to have an idea of how vast is the problem outside this new sort of venture, to create, especially in this area, what is called multi-racialism. Here you have, to East and West and North, and very nearly to South, the African race at large on the move. It is on the move in such a way that in case after case it has already achieved independence; and in the course of the next year or so several other major countries in Africa will also have achieved independence.
The general agitation that has been so much complained about in the debate today is, therefore, by no means confined to the natives in Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia. It is part of the general movement, and to talk about just sitting down on a policy of what is called multi-racialism and saying. "Thus far and no further no further advances towards the liberty and freedom of the African race of the character which are taking place elsewhere," is like King Canute sitting on the seashore trying to keep the waves back. We have to face the fact of the movements of minds and men in the world today. I am absolutely in favour, and always have been, in

343
trying to arrange for the granting of independence to races which have been subject races and have not been well advanced races, of doing it as gradually as possible and marching steadily along with the growth of education, training and experience, and first local and then national administration, and the like. There is no doubt at all that, if there is any nation in the world which has given advantages of that kind, it is this country. I have always recognised that; and I do not think the Government to which I was proud to belong from 1945 to 1951 did any less—in fact it may have done more—towards advancing that steady, historical benefit to subject races which has come through the efforts of the British people, than other Governments.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, will the noble Viscount, before he leaves this point, deal with the point made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I think I must develop my own speech. I have enough notes to keep us here all night. I think we ought to get on at this time of night, and get through as soon as we can.
All I want to say, therefore, is this. First, the Party for which I speak tonight, and who put this Motion down, have a very clear policy on the matter. Arising out of that, and well based upon it some weeks ago now my Party offered co-operation in securing—we thought we should secure it—the cessation of bloodshed in Nyasaland by means of sending out a Parliamentary Commission. It was not a new and Heaven-sent suggestion: Parliamentary Commissions have been used before, and with success, in the case of action having to be taken in ultimate negotiations for independence or advance towards independence. We think that it is perhaps a matter of regret that the Government did not feel able to take up our offer at the time and to accept what would have been really the sort of bipartisan co-operation that somebody was asking for this afternoon to help towards a settlement out there. I hoped that on that basis tonight we should have been able to go on pursuing the policy of offering from this side of the House
344
whatever co-operation we could in improving the situation in Nyasaland and co-operation towards coming to the best result possible in this central African problem. But I am afraid some of the speeches that have been made from the other side have not helped us very much in that direction.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Perth—whom, of course, we are very glad to see back safely, after his little upsetting delays; I hope they were not too terrifying—who first raised this afternoon the question of what was the attitude of a Labour Government Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1951 when Federation was first being discussed. I must say that it is important to remember that the attitude of the Government then (the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is here and I think he will agree with what I say; I have not put it to him) was that the whole question of federation at that time was a matter for discussion with everyone, with Africans, with Europeans, discussions on our part with officials. But we said that the discussions with the people should be decided by the people, and that while the discussions were going on officials should not express opinions, one way or the other, on the proposals submitted to them for discussion. I must point out that soon after we were succeeded by a Conservative Government—I think the Election was in October—the Conservative Government took steps, in November, to instruct the officials to take the line at all times when they could in favour of federation.
I am bound to point out, as my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, said in his excellent speech in opening this discussion this afternoon, that it was a great revelation to find, when we could get in touch in the last two years, as we have been getting in touch, to find out what was going on, how the feeling against federation had been growing. We did warn the Government in 1953—I did not speak myself. but the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, the late Lord Jowitt, and others, spoke on it—to be very careful about this; and we did really hope that the Federation, if it was once set up, would succeed in its objective. But we did give the warnings because we knew what was the state of native minds in places like Nyasaland. There is no doubt at all, from some of the speeches we have heard, that those warnings were necessary.

345
I am sure that it was not very good to the Government, coming from that side, but from our point of view was exceedingly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who had given the same kind of warnings to the Government in 1953 arising out of his experiences in Africa. I could have wished with all my heart that those warnings then given should have been found to be unnecessary, and that we should not have had the happenings of 1959. But it is no use now for us to go back again and again over what has happened in the last two or three months. I think we have a task to perform—namely, to seek. as I said in our debate on the Adjournment a few weeks ago, the most urgent and best method of regaining the confidence of the Africans in Nyasaland, and particularly in Northern Rhodesia.
I want to put to the Government that perhaps one thing that will determine whether confidence can be restored may he how the Governor of Northern Rhodesia handles the results of the recent elections. Whilst rumour may be a lying jade, it often comes from sources which are not altogether without foundation. It is rumoured that when the Governor comes to deal with the making of the Government, following upon the elections in Northern Rhodesia, an attempt will be made to secure that the Welensky Party representatives, who will have been elected amongst the six elected representatives in the Government, will all have to be of his Party; and that if they are not all of his Party, apart from the official members (of whom I think there are four), then he will not allow his Party representatives to enter that Government. I hope that that is not so. But I want to make it clear that that is important especially when we hear speeches like that made by the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, tonight. I do not want to trust myself to comment particularly about that speech until I have seen it in Hansard and read it again; because if I were to speak tonight, upon my first impressions of what he said. I feel that I might say something for which afterwards I should be sorry. I want to see his speech in print and to study it very carefully indeed.
The impression left upon my mind, when I was thinking of the election just finished in Northern Rhodesia, was that if the speech of Lord Malvern really
346
represents the feeling of all the whites in the area of which he has had so much experience, then the view he expressed tonight, and the kind of challenge which now comes with the formation of the Government of Northern Rhodesia, is a very vital stage indeed. Because if all the other Africans in Nyasaland, for example, are to be told that the Crown protection of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia does not prevent a Party with the objectives of the Welensky Party in relation to Federation from getting a complete majority at the present time in Northern Rhodesia, so enabling them to out-vote the four officials in the Government, then with regard to that particular Crown protectorate the influence from the Colonial Office would be on exceedingly tender ground. I believe that the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will he watching with special care to see what line the Governor takes on making up the composition of the Government after that election; and I hope that no mistake will be made that will stop the possibility of restoring confidence in the African population.
Now I should like to turn to what I believe was the most important part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. That was when he gave us the statement which had been made in another place today by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I felt, with my noble friend, Lord Silkin, that a Commission of some kind would need to be sent, and as I listened to the full approval he gave, I quite agreed with him. But I am bound to say, also, that having now seen the comments that were made in another place by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I feel that there are questions to be raised.
At the time when my noble friend Lord Silkin was, quite rightly, saying that this course seemed to be right, we understood that the Commission was, in practice, to he a judicial body, presided over by a Judge of the High Court; that he was to have public men to be his assistants, and that the Commission's terms of reference were:
"To inquire into the recent disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading un to them; and to report thereon."
I cannot feel sure, from the answers of Mr. Lennox-Boyd in another place to-day, and the belief expressed by the noble

347
Earl, Lord Perth, in the course of his speech, that this kind of Commission would go to the heart of the matter. Originally I had thought that the Commission would be of a judicial character, such as was forecast, for example, in the Daily Telegraph leading article this morning, and that the terms of reference would be fairly narrow and concerned with inquiry into the actual events in the disturbances, so that the Commission would find out, as a fact-finding mission, exactly what had led up to the events. It seems to me, however, that the terms of reference go rather wider than that.
As yet we have no information as to how the Commission, under the learned Judge, are to proceed to get their information. Are they to be given full access to the detainees who have been in prison? Are they to take evidence from them? Will the evidence be upon oath? Will every one of the detainees be allowed counsel? If they are to be taken before a tribunal presided over by a Judge of the High Court, will any of these detainees be in any way prejudiced if he is brought to trial on some specific charge which has not yet been made? What is the difference between this interpretation that I put upon the Commission and what is actually in the mind of Her Majesty's Government?
I should like to know this, because, although I have not, of course, seen the actual text of the replies, which we shall not see in Hansard until to-morrow, I understand from the tape that the Secretary of State for the Colonies said to-day:
"The White Paper will be very much before the Commission. Exactly who they will see will be for them to consider, and I do not want to pre-judge that. With regard to representation by counsel, I do not think that would be appropriate because this is not a judicial inquiry in the strict sense of the word."
I do not know whether that means that the inquiry is quarter-judicial, semi-judicial or quasi-judicial, or whatever other hyphenated adjective may be put to it. But I must say that it sounds to me very unsatisfactory if it is going to be neither one thing nor the other; and I feel that we ought, if possible, to have some further explanation to-night from the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
348
The Secretary of State went on to say—I quote these words from the Press tape:
"I do not imagine that there would be provision made for representation by counsel, but matters of that kind must be left to the Commission."
As to the number of internees (if I may so call them, as I like that way of putting it) or those imprisoned (if you would rather have it that way), I would suggest to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that probably the number so imprisoned today is not merely the 447 that was mentioned by my noble friend in his opening speech, which I think is now a figure that is about a week old, but something between 600 and 700. And to go into this Inquiry with no certainty in the mind of Parliament as to what is to be the position of those people—as to whether they are really going to be judicially cross-examined in a Tribunal presided over by a Judge of the High Court, whether they are to have defence counsel, whether their case is going to be ultimately prejudiced and whether any prosecution will be made—seems to me to be grossly unfair. While I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to send a Commission, I think we ought to have the functions more clearly set out before us than that.
Then I would come to the end of the statement that was made on behalf of the Government this afternoon, which also does not seem to me to be very clear. The Secretary of State said:
"I think it appropriate to take the opportunity to say that Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Federal Government and with the Territorial Governments concerned and are preparing for the 1960 review of the Federal Constitution. When Her Majesty's Government are in a position to put forward proposals on this they will do so, and they fully understand that Parliament would wish to be associated in an appropriate way with any machinery that might be set up."
That seems to foreshadow that something else of importance is to be done between now and whatever date in 1960 is settled under the Preamble of the Constitution for considering the revising of the Constitution. Five Governments will be represented at that Conference for revision the Government of each of the three countries concerned in the Federation, the Government of the Federation and the Government of this country. I should think that if we are to be ready

349
to send from this Parliament delegates to attend that Conference, fully informed and really up to the proper standard for obtaining all the information we require for advising Parliament at this end on what its attitude should be when it comes to the Conference, which has to be called under the Statute to consider the revision of the Constitution, something ought to be clone about it very soon.
I have talked this matter over with some of my friends and I put these points to the noble Earl the Leader of the House as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I think that whatever action is taken in that direction after the present Commission you have set up has gone out and reported on their fact-finding ought to be taken in hand as soon as possible; it ought to be decided pretty quickly. Do not leave it so late that, as a result, you have no growth of confidence in the population that will help you in the Conferences you are going to have in 1960.
The second point I would put to the noble Earl the Leader of the House is: that this Inquiry, when it is sent, should be an Inquiry set up on behalf of Parliament. Parliament has grave responsibilities in the matter of what is to be the future of these two Crown Protectorates —very grave responsibilities. In spite of all the things that have been said on this matter today—some of them rather huntful to those of us who feel as we do—I still say that this British Parliament has a very grave responsibility in the matter of the protection of the rights of the African as such in the Federation, or their Proteotorates; and until the Conference concerning the revision of that Constitution has been properly held we should take every possible step to find out not only what are the facts, especially about the most unfortunate events of the last few weeks, but what ought to be the line taken by the British Parliament as a whole (and I hope that, when it is taken, it will be taken by Parliament as a whole) on the question of the political things that need to be done to set the Federation firmly on its feet and to ensure that the people out there accept it with a full understanding of its economic implications. Further, if any section of the Federation feels it has the right to withdraw, then we ought to see that that right is properly taken into consideration and properly safeguarded.
350
It is important, if you are to gain this confidence, that our home Government here should get on rapidly with constitutional reforms in the Legislature in Nyasaland if necessary, in Northern Rhodesia, but especially in Nyasaland. What is the use of saying to these people the sweet things that have been said by some Members of your Lordships' House this afternoon if you cannot persuade the Africans themselves that they have anything like an effective voice at all in their future and in reaching their aims? If you can move constitutional reforms in your Colonial Government—in Nyasaland, for example—and can give them something on which 40 build increased confidence in British Parliament, then you will go a long way to bring about the situation which we all want to see brought about.
My Lords, we on this side of the House are only anxious for the fair treatment of the Africans. We are only anxious that they should be free to seek their freedom, as we in the past have from time to time had to both seek and defend it in our own country. That is all that we seek. We feel that if there had been, perhaps, a little more understanding of the problem, and a better treatment of it by both the Federal Government and our home Government, and its present Administration, then some of the graver difficulties might have been avoided.
With regard to my last point. I have not particularly referred to the details of the White Paper. It is rather strange that so many Members of your Lordships' House seem to take every word in the White Paper for granted. The noble Earl, Lord De la Warr, who spoke just now, seemed to think it a shocking thing that neither the public nor the Press seems to take the word of this one or that one among Ministers or Secretaries of State in different Governments. My Lords, I picked up the newspapers this morning, and I expect that noble Lords have read most of them, as I have myself. The three more responsible journals I looked at this morning were The Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the Manchester Guardian. None of them seemed to be completely convinced that there had been anything like a massacre plot. The Times devoted a whole column to try to show how friendly it wanted

351
to be towards the White Paper, but in the last four lines, at the very end of that article, it had to concede that there was considerable doubt.
If you take the leading article of the Daily Telegraph, you find that they were still not wholly convinced, although obviously they were bending over backwards to be as friendly as possible to the Government. I thought that the leader in the Manchester Guardian put the position fairly when it said that if everything was as set out in the White Paper then things were pretty bad, but that there was not really substantial proof. On the other hand, if you pick up papers like the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, you find that every word is supposed to be true. The Daily Mail was mostly concerned with attacks on members of the Labour Party and the Daily Express was anxious that we should not let go of this piece of Empire land.
Where has all this trouble really been, and why has it happened? I hope that the Commission the Government are sending out will find out and will be able to tell the country in some detail. Hundreds of people have been shut up without trial by the action of the Federal Government and the Nyasaland Government, and it is due to the country that it should know in detail what has really happened. As regards the future, if we regain the confidence of the natives, if we really concede to them what ought to be conceded by a country which is a signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights, and see to it that proper steps are taken to do so, that way will lead to a much happier solution.
11.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, although we have been debating now for many hours, gratitude is still alive to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the way in which he introduced this Motion to the House. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition is right when he says that this extended debate and the number of noble Lords who have been inspired to speak in it reflect the interest of the country in the present events in Central Africa. None of us will complain that the country to-day has an alert conscience and is deeply interested in this matter of Commonwealth evolution.
352
As so often happens when there is a debate in your Lordships' House on matters of political, economic or social importance, we have many speakers of first-hand experience. But to-day we have had the treat and advantage of hearing a number of noble Lords who live in Central Africa and are themselves Rhodesians. They have come here to take advantage of this Parliamentary platform, speaking with an authentic voice from Territories overseas. As I proceed, if I may, I shall comment on one or two of the speeches that have been made, but the House certainly values greatly the two maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Robins, and of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. The noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, is accustomed to your Lordships' House, of course, and we to him. I remember once having to propose the noble Viscount's health at a public dinner. I said that the reason that had attracted me to him in public life was that one never knew what he was going to say; when he had said it, one could never believe that he had; and when one read it afterwards, one always found that it was good, sound, common sense. If I may, I would stick to that judgment.
The general effect of the speeches of noble Lords from overseas has been astringent. They have reminded us that this formation of a partnership between the races in Central Africa is not a theoretical, academic, constitutional exercise, but something which deals with people, with homes, with possessions, with property, with rights, with the soil —real human problems on the ground in territories for which we still have a great responsibility. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Salisbury reminded us of one thing. These noble Lords who have spoken to us today would be put in the category of settlers, and some harsh things have been said in the last few weeks about European settlers. But who are these European settlers? They are not big business men—a few may be; but very few. The European settlers in Central Africa to-day are business men, farmers, farmhands, coal miners, bricklayers, shopkeepers, shop attendants—indeed, a cross-section of the population of this country translated overseas; and they have all the same sense of fair play that we have in this country.

353
I should like to say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose—and I hope I shall not be thought to be entering into Southern Rhodesian politics—that he had a Parliamentary triumph here to-day by the speech he made to us. I wonder if noble Lords opposite realise that the noble Duke represents a Party in Southern Rhodesia which would normally be classed as the extreme Party against African interests. Who could believe that for one moment after the speech which the noble Duke made to-day? It was a speech full of sympathy for the African, he himself having for most of his life carried out in practice sympathy and co-operation with the African community.
In summing up this long debate, which has dealt with many aspects of these affairs, I think, if I am to be coherent, that I should divide my few remarks into the three sections into which the debate has naturally fallen. First of all. there is the Nyasaland emergency. Parliament to-day has had for the first time the benefit of two essential pieces of information which were not available before—namely, the Governor's report, giving the picture of a build-up of a campaign of calculated disorder, and the first-hand and most lucid account of his experience which was given to us by my noble friend Lord Perth, fresh from the scene.
I am not going to be dogmatic, but listening to the debate, and having read the White Paper, I have come to certain conclusions which I think are of value, and I believe certain noble Lords may have done so, too. First of all, we can dismiss certain charges which have been thrown across the Floor in both Houses of Parliament. The White Paper and my noble friend have proved conclusively that this was not a plot which was engineered by authority in order to control certain awkward customers. Nor was the Governor influenced in his decision in any way by pressure from Sir Roy Welensky or the Government of the Central African Federation. Those are two charges that were made in my hearing last week, and both can be dismissed.
In an unstable world in which subversion is almost the order of the day the word "plot," I agree, becomes devalued, and to use it is almost to court disbelief. But on any reading of the White Paper I think noble Lords would
354
agree that there is evidence of a conspiracy—a deliberate conspiracy, to disrupt law and order—and that the disruption of law and order in such a way in Central Africa certainly endangered life. The story has been published, and it will be further commented on by Mr. Justice Devlin and his Inquiry. But I should like to ask noble Lords opposite and some of those who have been so critical in the last few days and weeks: Would they have stood idly by, when they were in possession of this information, and seen a conspiracy unfold which they had reason to believe would lead to assassination? Of course they would not. No Government could have done so. To have done so would have been to condone violence as a political weapon.
I believe that the feeling of most of your Lordships—indeed, some of you have expressed it this evening—was that it was merciful that this conspiracy went off at half-cock. But although we may feel, with the information in our possession, that the facts are certain and that there was a conspiracy, nevertheless, as the House knows, we have agreed that there should be an Inquiry to look into the disturbances and the events leading up to them.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has asked me certain questions about this Inquiry. It will be—and this is a perfectly normal thing—presided over by a Judge, helped by men of great experience. I think that when your Lordships heard their names they carried complete conviction that they were men of experience of public affairs, not only in this country but also, in the case of one of them, of African affairs, and that from such a body we should get impartial judgment. This will be an Inquiry presided over by a Judge who will be master of his own procedure. The noble Viscount asked me how the Judge would interpret the terms of reference. That is not for me to say. The noble Viscount also asked what machinery the Judge would want put at his disposal. That is for him to decide. But he has accepted the terms of reference. He will make his wishes known, and he will get that support which will enable him and his tribunal to establish the truth and accuracy of events. That really is what the people

355
of this country want—the truth about the facts and events; and as events have causes, I have no doubt that we shall learn something about them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Does that mean that the functions will certainly not include the examination by the Commission of any of the important detainees who are still under imprisonment? Are they not going to be examined? If they are, have they not the right to be defended and justified?
THE EARL OF HOME: Any question of charges against any of these people will be a matter for the Attorney-General of Nyasaland. But I should have thought that the advantage of having a learned Judge like Mr. Justice Devlin would he that he would so arrange procedure that there could be no possible damage done, no prejudice, to any individual person, and that he would arrange the Inquiry according to his great experience. We have complete confidence in him, and I believe we should show it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I just express the satisfaction, since the Secretary of State said in another place today that he thought counsel for these people would be inappropriate, that at least some voice has been raised in Parliament so that the learned Judge himself will know that if any of these persons does come under examination and wishes to have legal representation, then he ought to have it.
THE EARL OF HOME: I have no doubt that Mr. Justice Devlin will read this debate and that he will make up his mind as to the best conduct of the Inquiry.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Earl leaves that point, may I ask him this question? The point I made about it is that it does not look as if this kind of Inquiry will confer upon the Committee the necessary powers—for instance, power to call witnesses, to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence on oath. If the learned Judge finds that such powers are necessary, will the Government undertake to confer those powers upon him?
LORD REA: Before the noble Earl answers that question, may I ask whether the Inquiry will be confined to Nyasaland or will it extend to what has happened in other adjacent Territories?
THE EARL OF HOME: The Inquiry is into the disturbances in Nyasaland and the events leading up to those disturbances. I think it must be left to Mr. Justice Devlin to decide how he wishes to conduct this Inquiry, and I am sure that he will do so in the public interest.
There is one other aspect of the Nyasaland feature of this debate upon which it may be useful to reflect. The agitation of Dr. Banda and his friends is recommended to us as democratic because it expresses, or gives expression to, the widespread fear of the African in Nyasaland on two counts: first, that the Federation is moving faster than was anticipated and that the Nyasalander might be dominated by the European in either Regional or Federal Government; secondly, that the British Government may, in these circumstances, withdraw the protection they give and which is guaranteed to African representatives. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made that point. It is certainly the basis of the anxiety of the Church of Scotland mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, made that point very particularly. He said that if these Africans are left without the protection of the British Government, where would they be?
One assurance that that protection would be maintained is in the attitude of Dr. Banda and his friends, as revealed by the White Paper. Who were the targets of Dr. Banda and his men? The list was headed by the Governor and included all the Europeans who are the protectors of the Africans and guardians of African rights. Mr. Justice Devlin and his colleagues will examine this question further, but, of course, it has been known to us for a very long time that the extremists in Congress have not been interested in the principles and the practices of democratic or constitutional government, but that their object is the murder of moderation.
We have seen this kind of manifestation of political ambition and personal power in more sophisticated and educated communities. There is a pattern, unhappily all too familiar—intimidation

357
persecution and liquidation. To give free rein to those who sought to eliminate all those who stood for constitutional progress and tolerance could not be permitted in a British Colony or, I may add, by a Christian people. It is no service at all to the millions of Africans who favour constitutional ways of advance high-mindedly to turn a blind eye to the policies of extreme people in Congress. My Lords, I would ask this question in particular of Lord Mathers, who spoke to-day quite properly as a member of the Church of Scotland has he studied Congress policy? Congress policy is "Africa for the Africans." It was put very dramatically by Mr. Mboya when he said that "Europeans should scram out of Africa." If Lord Mathers thinks about that policy he will recognise it for what it is, apartheid in reverse—pure racialism. If these extremists in Congress had their way it would be the death-knell of partnership of European and African in Africa. Neither the noble Lord nor the Church of Scotland, nor any thoughtful person, would wish that.
The second theme of this debate has been the nature of the constitutional progress within the Commonwealth for this particular area of Central Africa. I must here emphasise and re-emphasise a point which cannot be made too often, and that is that in this matter of granting independence to countries in Central Africa we cannot follow the same pattern of evolution as we invented for the old Commonwealth countries where the Europeans are in great majorities, or for the new Commonwealth countries with native populations far exceeding the rest, and where the European is only tenant of the soil.
There are certain facts of life which we must accept and they have been illusstrated and underlined to us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and other Rhodesians who have spoken today. One is that Europeans and African have homes in that country and they enjoy them as of right. Expressed negatively, neither is going to surrender his home to the other. Expressed positively and constructively, as I prefer to do, each is indispensable to the other in this Central African society. Therefore there is really no other way open to us when we are trying to promote the future evolution
358
of this Commonwealth country than the solution of partnership. Anybody who encourages either the extreme European on the one side to deny the African his advance, or encourages the extreme African on the other, namely, the African Congress, to believe that he can use his numbers to eject the European from Africa, is really inviting bloodshed and war.
I beg people to remember, too, that we cannot judge this African scene against the background of our own sophisticated society. Things can be said here with impunity which, said in Africa, would simply light a forest fire. Violence is endemic in Africa and it will take a long time and much patience to exorcise it; and we must remember that the crust of administrative stability in Africa is precarious and thin. Therefore, the structure to fit the realities in Central Africa must be a design for partnership. Nothing else will do. And that goal is, I am happy to say—and I have seen it for myself—accepted by the great majority of thoughtful, moderate opinion in the three territories, of Africans and Europeans.
My plea, the one plea that I make to this House and to Parliament this evening in this country, is give us patience and time, and partnership can be built. Many bridges—and I will not delay your Lordships on this aspect of what I might have said—to span both colour and race are being built, and they are being built at great speed. Any of your Lordships who go to the Rhodesias to-day and see the advance the African has made in industry in a short time and the responsible positions which he is beginning to fill would be astonished at the progress in those short years since the war. My noble friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York rightly called our attention to the University in Salisbury, an experiment fruitful for future co-operation between the races.
I have noted the point that the noble Viscount made about Northern Rhodesia; but in Northern Rhodesia we have seen elected to Parliament in the last few days Africans representing the different Parties in the Federation the Party of the noble Duke, the Party of the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, Congress and other Parties. We are beginning to see there a Party political system; the first seeds

359
of it are growing in the Central African Federation. In Nyasaland, if it had not been for the disturbances, we could have made a further constitutional advance and given further influence to Africans. In the Federal Parliament the number of Africans this year is double what it was last year, and we shall find the Africans exercising increasing influence there. If we are given patience, and if we can find—and here I wish to respond to the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition—the all-Party approach to the 1960 review of the Federal Constitution, then we have great hopes of building partnership.
What are we to say? What should be said to-day about federation or the future of federation? I would respectfully remind noble Lords opposite that federation was the Socialist Party's conception. They have said some fairly harsh things today. I am not going to repeat them, but I will say that it might not be thought a very heroic posture to give birth to a baby and then leave it on somebody else's doorstep for him to nourish. I found that that accusation had some basis in it. It was made across the House, so I will leave it there.
I will say that the Socialist conception of federation in Central Africa was right, and economically it has been a success which nobody can deny. My noble friend Lord Milverton, gave many examples of economic progress and the pace of economic and industrial progress. and indeed the increase in social welfare for the African, particularly in Nyasaland. which has flowed from the federal conception. But federations are in themselves most difficult systems to run, and it was always feared that the political growth and the extent of politics in the Federation must be much slower, and would be seen much more slowly, than the economic advantages. My political memory is not all that long, but I remember—the noble Viscount will remember it well—that Western Australia petitioned us for separation from the Commonwealth of Australia. The noble Viscount looks back over a long and distinguished. and somewhat controversial, political career. What would he say if we had, in a panic, submitted then to
360
the plea that Western Australia should separate off from the rest of that Continent?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We did not.
THE EARL OF HOME: No, we did not. But had we done so we should have done great damage to the State of Western Australia and to that Commonwealth country which now exercises great influence in the world. So when we come to talk about the possibility of secession of Nyasaland from the rest of the Federation, I hope that we shall have patience, and give time for people to see, not only the economic advantages, which are already apparent, but the political advantages which may flow from building a Commonwealth country exercising partnership between the races in the Continent of Africa.
The difficulties of Australia or Canada have been nothing to what they are in the Federation. I think that the noble Duke would probably confirm—at least I have been told, and I have no reason to disbelieve it—that actually the word which is used by the Nyasalanders, for "federation" is exactly the same as they use for the unitary State. So there is a great deal of education to be done. They are slow to understand, and there is room for fear. So when we come to 1960—and again I say this in response to what the noble Lord said in his closing remarks—we want to study the next stage of constitutional advance, and it is of supreme importance and significance that we should get this right for the future both of the Commonwealth and race relations in the continent.
The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York has said that there are fears, and it is useless to deny it. When I was in Central Africa a short time ago I concluded from my own observations that there were two basic fears that are not actually on the surface. You do not very often hear them expressed but there are two latent fears, both legitimate in their way. There is the fear of the African that the European will use his wealth, his power and his influence to stop legitimate African advance. Then there is the fear on the part of the European that the African, before he is sufficiently educated and capable of understanding the responsibilities of democracy, will use his numbers

361
to throw the European out of Africa. Those are the latent fears that have to be reconciled; and 1960 will have to play a large part in reconciling them, because partnership must be made real and the obligations of partnership must be understood by both partners.
The most reverend Primate talked of the fears of Dominion status, fears that the African's land might be removed from him, fears that the franchise might be "rigged" against him— in fact, the vague fear that partnership would mean domination. I believe that, with time and patience, all those fears can be removed. and I plead that we should not concentrate on fanning the fears but that all of us should co-operate to remove them. The most reverend Primate asked me whether Her Majesty's Government could not give more reassurance to the Africans. The right honourable gentleman the Colonial Secretary and I have said time and again that we accept in its entirety the Act of 1953 which guarantees the African his rights, but it is because I recognise that there are spiritual forces abroad on this question of the future of Central Africa—that, in the words of one noble Lord, we have to "transform fear info faith"—that I attach so much importance to the preparations for the 1960 review and to the educational opportunities that will be provided if that time is well used.
It was for that reason that my right honourable friend in another place used certain words which said that we were looking at the preparatory machinery, and that it was at that point, if we were successful in finding the right preparatory machinery, that Parliament would wish to be associated with it. Therefore I welcome without reservation the hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. and confirmed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that we should work together on the approaches for 1960; and I am intensely relieved because that is not the impression which has been given in other quarters—I do not say in another place but in other quarters in the Labour Party. Indeed, Mrs. Barbara Castle said during the week end (if she is correctly reported):
"Unless we make this one of the great issues of the General Election then we are betraying everything that this country and above all the Labour movement stands for."
362
That is reckless, flamboyant political nonsense—and dangerous. It would mean disaster in Central Africa.
I am prepared to accept what noble Lords have said here today—and it is the heart and kernel of the matter—that we must create partnership and together must work to achieve it. Her Majesty's Government have a full realisation of what is at stake. There is at stake the future of harmonious race relations in Africa and the peace of a Continent; and the prize which we may win is a nonracial community, setting an example to the world and healing Nature's great divisions of race and colour between men. For this work I trust that the Federal Government, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Territorial Governments, and, if it is conceivably possible, all the Parties of the State in this country, may be able to work together on the next stage of advance in Central Africa and give what is needed above all—confidence to European and African in the continent. In that way we may yet achieve perhaps the greatest prize in our Colonial story.
12.4 a.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, beginning with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and continuing with all the other speeches up to and including the last one, I must say that I found the debate fascinating. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the two Ministers who have replied with such detail to the points which have been put to them. I would congratulate the two noble Lords who made maiden speeches and I hope we may often have the pleasure of hearing them again. This is not the time to develop any of the points which have been made in the course of the debate; except that I hope the House and public will realise how many and how difficult are the problems which are comprised in this subject. My Lords, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL
Brought from the Commons (pursuant to the Resolution of 31st July last); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
ROUND OAK STEEL WORKS (LEVEL CROSSINGS) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past midnight.