Sitting of 15 December 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Secondary Education
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the current annual output of students, in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, respectively, who have completed their secondary education.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): The figures for African students are 1,159 and 1,127 respectively. European secondary education is Federal.
    Mr. Fisher: Could my right hon. Friend give the figure of African children receiving secondary education as a percentage of the total number of secondary education age? I believe that it is about 1 per cent. What plans has he to increase the numbers in the near future?
    Mr. Macleod: The percentage is certainly small. I could not calculate it offhand. I will, with permission, write to my hon. Friend about that.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much money is made available annually by Her Majesty's Government for secondary education in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, respectively.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Over the last five years Her Majesty's Government have made grants for secondary educational projects totalling £204,625, for Nyasaland and £153,316 for Northern Rhodesia. The yearly figures I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fisher: Does my right hon. Friend think that that is enough money, especially in the context of the gradual transference of power to an African majority in these Territories? Would not he agree that a crash programme of secondary education in these two Colonies is most urgently needed, and that any additional money which may be available for education generally should perhaps be spent on secondary education?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that I agree with all of that. Certainly the people of the Territories give high priority to this matter. Her Majesty's Government do not devote fixed annual sums to these purposes. We make grants from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds, and it is for the Territories themselves to decide their priorities.
    Following are the details:
    These totals show the details of grants made to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia during the last five financial years:

    NYASALAND

    1955–56

    Description of Scheme

    1959–60

    Description of Scheme

    £

    £

    37,950

    Mzozo Secondary School

    76,500

    Construction of secondary school for girls at Lilongwe.

    55,154

    Artisan Training School

    35,021

    Dedza Secondary School

    128,125

    76,500

  MALTA

    Blood Commission
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations for the restoration of democratic government in Malta have been made by the Blood Commission.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have now received the Commission's Report, which will be published when I have considered its recommendations. I am doing this urgently.
    Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when that consideration is likely to be concluded? Is he aware that Malta has now been without democratic government for more than twenty months, and that it is urgent that the dictatorship of one man and unrepresentative advisers should be ended?
    Mr. Macleod: I use the same word—I said that I am doing this urgently. That will be literally as soon as possible. I cannot put a precise date on it, but it will be very early in the New Year.

  KENYA

    Land Titles
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the security of land titles in Kenya.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I expect to make a statement next week.
    Mr. Wall: When my right hon. Friend comes to give that statement, will he bear in mind that this problem is unique to Kenya in that some African politicians are claiming that, as the land belongs to the Africans, compensation will be paid only on buildings and other improvements? Does not he agree that, if confidence is to be restored, the farmers in Kenya must be given clear assurances on this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that this is entirely unique to Kenya but it is more difficult there than anywhere else, I know.
    Sir H. Oakshott: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that anxiety about this problem has greatly deepened in Kenya recently because of utterances by certain African leaders, and that it is necessary to re-establish confidence in land titles which were originally granted by the Crown?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, I fully recognise that.

    Detainees
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons still remain detained without trial in Kenya; and what is the longest period over which any of them have been so detained.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Fifty-two detainees remained on 14th December. Four of these have been detained for eight years.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is it not rather disgraceful that so many persons should still be detained, and that some should have been detained for as long as eight years? Is not this foreign to our way of life and contrary to the great traditions of British justice? In view of the fact that some of these persons may be innocent, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to see that they get a fair trial very soon, or release them forthwith?
    Mr. Macleod: With respect, it does not follow that these detainees are held, and have been held, without trial, because a year ago when the emergency came to an end a number of people serving sentences for very grave crimes indeed, including murder, were transferred to the category of detainee. It is, therefore, not right to say that all these fifty-two detainees are detained without trial. As far as the figures go, whereas early this year the figure was 750, it is now down to 50, and progress, particularly in recent months, has been very swift.
    Mr. D. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many persons are restricted, as distinct from being detained?
    Mr. Macleod: One hundred and twelve.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why some men who have been tried and acquitted, like Mr. Achieng Oneko, are still under restriction? Surely this is a further point which my hon. Friend did not raise in his Question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear reply to that?
    Mr. Macleod: No—for precisely the reason given. It is not in the Question.

    Constitution (Order in Council)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Order in Council amending the Kenya Constitution contains no reference to the racial composition of the Council of Ministers set out in Cmnd. No. 960; and what bearing this has upon the future appointment of a Chief Minister.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I welcome the opportunity of making it clear that the language of the Order in Council follows normal practice in providing for the total number of Ministers and the number of those Ministers who shall be officials, and has no bearing whatsoever on the question of appointing a Chief Minister. Such an appointment would require amendment of the Order in Council. And I reaffirm that the intention remains that, in accordance with the agreement reached at the Lancaster House Kenya Conference, the new Council of Ministers shall, in addition to four officials, comprise four Africans, three Europeans and one Asian.
    Mr. Wall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will be possible to make further political advance in Kenya—including the appointment of a Chief Minister—only if the African politicians play their part in restoring the confidence of all races in the future of Kenya, which confidence has recently been undermined by some of their electioneering statements?
    Mr. Macleod: That is a different point. I was concerned to make it clear that exactly normal practice has been followed in the case of this Order in Council, which amends the 1958 Order in Council, which did not specify racial discrimination in portfolios. I agree that one essential element in political advance is that there should be confidence.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Trade Schools (Science and Technology)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many trade schools there are in Northern Rhodesia; how many Africans are at present attending them; and what facilities they offer for the study of the sciences and higher technology.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Twenty and 828 respectively. Their aim is to produce trained workmen for industry; science and higher technology are not taught at them but such facilities exist in other educational institutions.
    Mr. Swingler: Nevertheless, is it not a fact that at the moment there are no African apprentices on the Copperbelt, and that, therefore, the plans announced by Rhodesian Railways and the copper companies, for example, for the advancement of Africans will remain merely paper plans unless there is an immense extension of technical education facilities for Africans?
    Mr. Macleod: Although that is extremely important, the hon. Member's point diverges somewhat from the Question. This matter has recently been examined by a Committee under Sir David Lindsay Keir, whom most hon. Members will know. I have had the report only a day or two, and I will study it as soon as I can.

    Africans (Secondary Education)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now expand secondary educational facilities for Africans in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Northern Rhodesia Government recognise this need and have provided in their current Development Plan for the doubling of existing facilities for Africans at all levels of secondary education. The United Kingdom helps by making sums voted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act available in accordance with territorial development plans, by trying to find teachers from overseas, and with advice.
    Mr. Swingler: While to many people the announcement of doubling might appear to be an ambitious plan, since the number getting secondary education hitherto has been only a fraction of 1 per cent., will the Secretary of State pay regard to the fact that an immense enlargement is still necessary if we are to begin to talk about equal opportunities for these people?
    Mr. Macleod: I recognise the importance of this, but, as I said earlier, from this country we do not allocate specific

    575
    sums. But I know that in Northern Rhodesia—and I have seen their development plans for the next few years—this has very high and, I think, probably the highest individual priority.

    Paramount Chief Chitimukulu
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to the fifth petition from the Bemba Ilinga Council, representing a large proportion of the Bemba people, for the restoration of the powers of Paramount Chief Chitimukulu, which were suspended last year; whether he is aware that fifteen out of seventeen of the Bemba chiefs have supported this petition; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: It has not been possible to give a definite reply to the Bemba Ilinga Council, as discussions on the future powers of the chief are taking place in Bembaland between the Administration and the Bemba chiefs and councillors. Opinion amongst Bemba chiefs and councillors is by no means unanimous. I am not aware that fifteen chiefs have supported the petition.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if he were able to take some action on this matter quickly and to restore the powers of the Paramount Chief, that would go a long way towards creating that atmosphere of good will which would assist him in the Conference on the Territorial Constitution.
    Mr. Macleod: As the hon. Member knows, there has been a good deal of discontent among the Bemba tribe on this matter and opinions vary on both sides. I have asked the Acting-Governor—the Governor himself is in this country, of course—for a reply on this matter and I will let the hon. Member know as soon as possible.

    Land Bank
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the date of the transfer of the Northern Rhodesian Land Bank to the Central African Federal Government.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No date has been fixed for the transfer of the Northern Rhodesia Land Bank to the Federal Government.
    Mr. Dugdale: First, has the decision actually been made? Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it ludicrous, when the Conference is sitting to decide whether there should be Federation at all, that it should be decided that something should be handed over to the Federal Government?
    Mr. Macleod: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that negotiations were begun about two months ago, but have not been completed. On the second part, it is necessary in order to provide more capital—anyway, it would be extremely helpful in order to provide more capital—that this should be done at the present time. It has been made quite clear that this decision will follow that taken at the Federal Review on European agriculture because the bank deals almost entirely with that financial problem. If by any chance that responsibility, as some of the Monckton Commissioners thought it should, goes to Northern Rhodesia, a similar decision on the bank will follow.

  HONG KONG

    Salary Tax
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what demands have been received from those who pay salary tax in Hong Kong that salary taxes should be raised; and what reply has been made.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: None, Sir.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Society of Friends in Hong Kong made representations in this sense to the Colonial Government? Has he not been informed about those representations in answer to my Question? Is it not worth while taking some notice when reputable citizens who pay Income Tax take the unusual course of saying that there is a need in that Territory for even higher tax?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member should not get so cross with me before he studies the matter. I know perfectly well that the Society of Friends has made representations, but, being a society, the Society of Friends is not liable to salary tax.
    Mr. Thomson: The Secretary of State is evading the issue. The Society of Friends made these representations as individuals, saying that they as Income Tax payers felt that there was this need. Is he not to do something about this? Is he aware that the last time Income Tax was raised in Hong Kong was in 1950–51?
    Mr. Macleod: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, far from evading the issue, I am answering the Question which he put on the Order Paper; if he wants me to answer a different Question, I will do that, too. Of course, notice has been taken of the representations which have been made by the Society of Friends, which has been informed that the Hong Kong Government's intentions about taxation can obviously be disclosed only to the Legislative Council.

  EAST AFRICA

    Federation
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration Her Majesty's Government have given to the creation of a federation of Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar, and with what result; whether the granting of independence to each of these territories is being timed to assist in the establishment of a closer association between them; and whether federation with Rhodesia and Nyasaland has also been considered.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As regards the first two parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 15th November. As regards the third part of the Question, I do not think the time has come when it would be helpful to explore this wider horizon.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does not the Colonial Secretary agree that when democratic institutions have been established and the confidence of the African people has been obtained, they are prepared themselves to take the initiative towards a wider federation? Does not Mr. Nyerere's initiative prove just that point? In the event of the present Federal Review Conference failing to continue with full representation, will the right
    578
    hon. Gentleman consider calling a wider conference which will bring in Tanganyika and Kenya as well?
    Mr. Macleod: The last part of that supplementary question is hypothetical. The Conference has been called to consider the Federation that exists.
    I am extremely interested in the matter which the hon. Member mentions in the first part of his supplementary question and I am also extremely "cagey" about it. The House will know that it would not be wise for a pronouncement to be made from this Box that this East African federation must or should come about. I am deeply interested in it, but I very much hope that this would be a grass roots movement, coming to us from the people of the country.
    Mr. Wall: As there has been so much loose talk about imposed federation, would it not be wiser to think along the lines of an economic association of the seven Territories, similar to the Common Market in Europe?
    Mr. Macleod: That is a wider question which does not arise at the moment. As my hon. Friend knows, there are already close economic links among the four Territories of East Africa.
    Mr. Brockway: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty at the moment, does he know that many of us hope that the discussions about Central African Federation will take the more constructive and bigger line of federation which will include both East and Central Africa?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that the hon. Member will understand if I say that I note what he has said.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the views of Mr. Julius Nyerere and others engender the view that federation cannot take place until all constituent Territories have reached more or less the same stage of political development? Will he repudiate that idea on the analogy of the United States and other federations and accept the imaginative ideas of Mr. Julius Nyerere and proceed as soon as may be with the formation of federation in an incipient fashion?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that it is necessary for the component parts of

    579
    a federation to be at the same stage of development. A better example than that of my noble Friend is perhaps given by Nigeria where the three regions were at different stages and moved to different stages of their independence. I do not think that that need in any way be a prerequisite of the studying of the plans.

  BRITISH CAMEROONS

    Plebiscite
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in the British Cameroons to ensure that the voters understand the implications of the forthcoming plebiscite vote there.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Full statements of the implications of joining either Nigeria or the Cameroon Republic will be put before the voters in the Northern and Southern Cameroons during the next few weeks.
    Mr. Tilney: Will that include a decision about what will happen over Commonwealth preference, which is so important, at least to the Southern Cameroons? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our Commonwealth friends in Nigeria will regard that aspect of the problem as very important?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree about its importance, but I cannot guarantee that the details about the effect and implications of joining either will include that particular point, but I will see whether it is possible to give publicity to it.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether information will be given to the citizens of the Cameroons as to what exactly will take place following their decision, whether there will be a period during which the Southern Cameroons Government will be in a position to negotiate future arrangements with whichever Territory they decide to join?
    Mr. Macleod: We are about to start the second campaign of enlightenment so that people will understand precisely the significance of the choice. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the formula which I worked out with the leaders of the Southern Cameroons some time ago about the Southern Cameroons joining
    580
    the Cameroon Republic, a formula which seems now to have some general acceptance.

  GIBRALTAR

    Apes
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to maintain the apes on the Rock of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The apes are maintaining themselves without difficulty by their own efforts.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I originally put this Question down to the Prime Minister? In view of the good news, may I ask him for an assurance that this remaining symbol of the efficacy of Her Majesty's Administration will not at any time be reinforced either by a Member of the House of Lords or by the Prime Minister's relations?

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Visits by Members of Parliament
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are available in his Department for information and consultation with Members of Parliament visiting dependant Territories.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Any Member visiting a Colonial Territory can obtain from my Department a wide range of documentary material. For many years, Sir William McLean, a former Member of this House, has acted in a voluntary capacity as Parliamentary Liaison Officer in the Information Department, and will be well known to many Members. In addition we are always ready to discuss Members' visits with them, both before they go and on their return.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are very grateful to Sir William McLean for the information he gives and sends to us on the subject of the dependant Territories? But as regards consultation, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when

    581
    there is a state of tension in a dependent Territory, it is desirable that hon. Members should refrain from controversial comments at any rate until they return to this country?
    Mr. Macleod: With respect, I do not think that that is a matter for me. I do not myself sponsor visits or have anything to do with them except for letting the governors and others know of the visits of hon. Members of this House. I think that my duty in this is confined is giving as much information as possible to hon. Members, which I like to do, and if they like to come to see me before they go I will help them in any way that I can. I am also glad to see them on their return to get impressions of their visits.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the Government provide a subsidy to at least one institution here to facilitate visits by hon. Members to Commonwealth and Colonial Territories? Instead of private organisations financing visits on behalf of Commonwealth Governments, would it not be preferable if Her Majesty's Government were to set aside a larger allocation so that hon. Members could visit these Territories and properly acquaint themselves on issues on which votes in this Parliament will be decisive?
    Mr. Macleod: That is a very different question. I welcome as many visits as possible from hon. Members to the different Territories. To whatever extent these visits were helped by Her Majesty's Government, I have no doubt that private people in different capacities would also wish to arrange for visits, and I see no reason why they should not.

  WEST INDIES

    United States Bases (Agreement)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the agreement reached with the Government of the United States of America regarding the future of the United States base at Chaguaramas.
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement in regard to the negotiations with the United States of America on the West Indies bases.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: General agreement has been reached in an atmosphere of great cordiality on all matters relating to United States Bases in Trinidad and Tobago, St. Lucia, Antigua and Jamaica during the recent talks between representatives of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the West Indies and the units concerned. I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the communiqués issued at the close of the talks.
    Mr. Brockway: I recognise the very considerable concessions which have been made by the Government of the United States of America, but can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any decision regarding the demand of the West Indian Territories for Chaguaramas as the capital of the Federation?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a matter that concerns mainly the Government of Trinidad and the Federal Government of the West Indies. If they are entirely satisfied, as they are, with the arrangements, details of which I have circulated, that is good enough far me.

  ST. HELENA

    Senior Medical Officer (Salary)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what salary is paid to the Senior Medical Officer for St. Helena.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Up to £2,500 a year depending on qualifications and experience.
    Mr. Hughes: Are there not difficulties in getting an experienced surgeon for this remote island? Has not the salary something to do with it? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving a higher starting salary to doctors who go there?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that the salary has something to do with it. It was less than half this figure about two or three years ago. I believe that it is as a result of the offer of this amount that we have attracted a suitable candidate. I hope that he will go to the Colony early next year.

    Surgical Treatment
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the arrangements now in force for a surgeon to visit St. Helena; and what provisions exist for dealing with an emergency case needing immediate surgical treatment.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Arrangements are being made by the Governor for a surgeon to visit St. Helena as soon as practicable. While recognising that the present situation cannot be accepted for an indefinite period, I am satisfied that the Medical Officer in St. Helena has sufficient experience of surgery to enable him to deal with such emergencies as might arise.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it takes an experienced surgeon to get to St. Helena?
    Mr. Macleod: I suppose it depends on how he travels. Offhand I do not know the answer, but I will find out.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not the case that he takes four or five days to get there?
    Mr. Macleod: That might well be so. The surgeon that I have in mind is in practice at Cape Town.

  TANGANYIKA

    Civil Service (Expatriate Officers)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British expatriate officers who continue in the civil service of Tanganyika after that country obtains self-government will qualify for pension.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, if they are serving on permanent and pensionable terms. It is my sincere hope that the great majority of such officers will continue to serve in Tanganyika after it becomes self-governing.
    Mr. Rankin: Just to make the position quite clear, may I take it that if these officers remain in the service of the new Government they will get the pensions they have earned, plus the salary for the job they are doing?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes. I think that there is no doubt about that.

  NYASALAND

    Mr. J. S. Douglas
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what employment was offered by the Nyasaland Government to Mr. James Sholto Douglas, a specialist in hydroponics; and why this offer was withdrawn.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am consulting the Governor of Nyasaland on this question and I will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with that reply? Is not he aware that this gentleman—a distinguished scientist—has been declared a prohibited immigrant by the Federal authorities? What action is the Colonial Secretary now taking—I am not asking what inquiries he is making—to ensure that this man, who has a contribution to make to the economy of Nyasaland, is allowed to perform his service to the people of Nyasaland and is not kept out of the country by the arbitrary action of the Federal authorities?
    Mr. Macleod: I have seen newspaper cuttings about this case and have asked for information about it. That seems to me to be entirely the right thing to do. As the hon. Member knows, the question of the prohibition of immigrants is a matter for the Federal Government.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of his reply is coming increasingly under challenge, and that some of the Federal authorities are declaring that their responsibility in this matter is limited to taking executive action on the basis of the information and advice supplied by agents of Her Majesty's Government? Will he therefore assume some responsibility instead of shuffling it off on to the shoulders of the Federal authorities?
    Mr. Macleod: The way in which the Question has been framed shows clearly the responsibility that I have for answering in this matter. I am asked a Question about the employment offered by the Nyasaland Government, not about the prohibition of immigrants—if, indeed, this man has been prohibited. On the question of the employment

    585
    offered, I have given the answer, which is that I am finding out from the Governor and will show the hon. Member when I have the information.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Vimy Farm, Corscombe
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will appoint a committee independent of his Department to inquire into the reliability of the information given him by the Dorset Agricultural Executive Committee as to the fulfilment by the landlord of Vimy Farm, Corscombe, Dorset, of his obligations to supply fixed equipment adequate for the economical management of the farm.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): No, Sir. As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 5th May, the complaints made by the tenant of this farm have been gone into exhaustively in the past. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by inquiring into them again.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Member aware, first, that the allegation made by the tenant is that the county executive committee, under the influence of the landlord, has refused to recommend that the landlord should be obliged to provide the necessary fixed equipment; secondly, that anyone visiting the farm can see for himself that that equipment has not been provided, and, thirdly, that there has never been an inquiry impartial in the sense that it was unconnected with the parties against whom the allegations were made?
    Mr. Vane: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member is quite right in his last point, which is the most important one. After this grievance was reviewed on numerous occasions it was considered in 1959 by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, which is certainly entirely independent of the Agriculture Departments, and the Tribunal rejected the tenant's claim.

    Small Farmer Scheme
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will recommend the payment of the small farmer subsidy and other relevant subsidies and grants to farmers who voluntarily amalgamate their holdings for the purposes of these subsidies or grants.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): The assistance provided under the Small Farmer Scheme and other improvement schemes is already given to farmers who amalgamate their holdings, provided that the amalgamation results in the holding being run as a single farm business which satisfies the conditions of the different schemes.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend saying that if two farms, on amalgamation, total more than 100 acres they will qualify?
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The amalgamated unit must fall within the bounds laid down.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more amalgamation and voluntary co-operation among small units, say, of 80 acres each, would be in the interests of the farming community? Will not he consider this question again?
    Mr. Soames: That goes far wider than the Small Farmer Scheme.

  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

    Farm Buildings (Design)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Minister for Science, what steps he will take to promote the improvement of the design of farm buildings; and what co-operation there has been between his Department and the Council of Industrial Design.
    Mr. Soames: The Agricultural Research Council set up the Farm Buildings Unit to assist architects and others in designing farm buildings so that they are best fitted for their purpose. There is close co-operation between the unit

    587
    and the Council of Industrial Design and the unit is, I know, well aware of the views which have been expressed on behalf of the Council of Industrial Design.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that many farm buildings are both less efficient and less well sited than they would be if proper advantage were taken of farm design techniques? Will he do all he can to ensure that we have the highest standards in future?
    Mr. Soames: I am all for having the highest possible standards. My officers have instructions to do all they can, in their advisory work, to encourage better siting and design. It is very much a matter of educating opinion, and in this respect we work closely both with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Council of Industrial Design.

    Bread and Flour (Committee's Recommendations)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to restrict the making of extravagant claims of weight-reducing and energy-giving properties by the advertisers of certain brands of bread and bread substitutes, in view of the criticism and recommendations published by the Food Standards Committee in its Report on Bread and Flour.
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Food Standards Committee with regard to the ingredients of bread, advertising descriptions, and claims of bread manufacturers.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in view of the recent recommendations of the Food Standards Committee on speciality breads for which claims are made that they are protein enriched, or starch reduced, or described as slimming bread, he will make regulations forbidding the advertising of claims of this nature.
    Mr. Soames: The interests concerned have been given until 17th February, 1961, to make representations about the Report on Bread and Flour. I shall give
    588
    full consideration to any representations received before deciding whether to implement the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The Minister will be aware of what one can only describe as lying propaganda by the manufacturers of these products. This was brought to the attention of the House a long time ago. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to "the interests concerned" does he mean the manufacturers, advertising agents and other advertising bodies? Can he give an assurance that, if their representations do not satisfy him that the Committee has made a mistake, he will take drastic action?
    Mr. Soames: Representations are open to a very wide range of interests. The House will understand that I must leave myself free to consider them before I make a statement.
    Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman has the evidence.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister make it clear that members of the general public are also permitted to make representations to him before 17th February on the contents and recommendations of this Report?
    Mr. Soames: The recommendations are coming primarily from organised bodies.
    Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister consider that misrepresentation of fact of this kind is grossly unfair to the public? Does he think it is enough merely that representations should be made? Why should he not help actively in the matter?
    Mr. Soames: I will. I have received the Report and it has been published. I have given until 17th February for representations to be made, and I will then make up my mind on the matter and make a statement.

    Dried Foods
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the interest displayed in the exhibition of dried foods in the Upper Waiting Hall, if he will arrange for a limited number of hon. Members to sample a meal composed entirely of this food; and if he will give details of the menu.
    Mr. Vane: No, Sir. The second part of the Question therefore does not arise.
    Mr. Dodds: The Parliamentary Secretary has been co-operative in the past. Will he say why this cannot be done in a limited way? Is it because he fears for the health of Members of Parliament, and that criticism will be made, or has he and his Department the utmost confidence in the products from the factory at Aberdeen?
    Mr. Vane: It is not a question of lack of confidence. We carry out a number of food tests, and while we try to do many helpful things for different people, our title of Ministry of Food must not be taken to mean that we run a restaurant service.

    Fishing Industry (Fleck Committee's Report)
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now received the Report of the Fleck Committee on the fishing industry.
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir; and I am arranging for publication as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jeger: I thank the right hon. Member for that reply. Will he make arrangements for it to be widely known in the industry and, after it has had sufficient time for consideration, will he arrange for a debate on this subject without having to be prodded about it for the next few years?
    Mr. Soames: I hope to be able to publish this Report some time next month—probably towards the end of the month. The industry will then be deeply interested. As to a debate in this House, as the hon. Member knows, that is for the usual channels to decide.

    Cereals
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to establish a marketing board for cereals.
    Mr. Soames: Permissive legislation is already in being. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, the initiative for seeking to establish such a board rests with the producers.
    Mr. de Freitas: If the producers—that is to say, the farmers—and the consumers and the Treasury are all agreed about the advantages of this and if they come forward with a scheme, will the Minister set up a board, even if the millers do not like it?
    Mr. Soames: It is not a question of what somebody likes or does not like. There are well, known, processes and machinery for setting up a board, and that machinery must be operated. If such formal proposals were made, I should give them earnest consideration.
    Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we shall be very nearly self-supporting in barley next year? Will he do his best to advertise that fact so that no merchant buys foreign barley this year for delivery next year?
    Mr. Soames: In view of the weather we had this autumn it is clear that, with the small amount of winter wheat able to be drilled, there will be a greater barley production, if there is a normal season next year, than there has been this year.

    National Farmers' Union (Talks)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with the National Farmers' Union on a long-term policy for agriculture.
    Mr. Soames: I hope that a White Paper reporting the outcome of these talks will be published next Monday.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that National Farmers' Union branches in the country have information on this which is denied to Members of this House? Surely it is quite wrong that members of the National Farmers' Union should have information which is denied to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Soames: It is not a question of information being denied. These were talks between the Government and the union and those talks would not have been realistic had they been between one member of the union and the Government. The dissemination of information has been to a minimum extent and I think it praiseworthy how little has leaked out.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister able to say that in the White Paper he will also cover talks with the N.F.U. over our policy towards the Common Market?
    Mr. Soames: That was one of the topics which was discussed with the union, and what was discussed will be the subject of the White Paper.

    European Common Market
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study has been made by his Dapartment of the problems which would be raised by Great Britain's entry into a European Common Market in agriculture; what steps have been taken to find ways and means of overcoming the obstables; and if he will publish a White Paper on the subject.
    Mr. Soames: The agricultural and other problems requiring a solution if closer European unity is to be achieved have been under careful study, and I cannot add to the statement of Her Majesty's Government's position which was made by my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, on 4th November. The answer to the third part of the Question is "No, Sir".
    Mr. Holt: May we expect that at a reasonably early date the Government will issue a White Paper on the subject?
    Mr. Soames: I cannot say about the future, but at the moment we have no intention of so doing.

    Farm Improvement Scheme (Machinery Syndicates)
    Mr. de Ferrantiasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the long-term advantages of machinery syndicates, when he will reach a decision on how the Farm Improvement Scheme can be extended to cover buildings required by such syndicates.
    Mr. Soames: It would not be possible within the existing Statute to extend the Farm Improvement Scheme in this way.
    Mr. de Ferranti: Is the Minister aware that a favourable decision could do much to increase farmers' incomes, and that, furthermore, in the long run it might even save the taxpayers some money? Will he therefore try to reach a decision as soon as possible?
    Mr. Soames: I am aware of the problem underlying my hon. Friend's Question, but in the Question he referred to the Farm Improvement Scheme and I answered that it is not possible within the existing Statute to extend that.

    White Fish Subsidy
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the white fish subsidy is not paid to fishermen who retail their own fish rather than sell it wholesale.
    Mr. Vane: The purpose of the white fish subsidy is to give assistance to the fisherman, who normally sells fish at wholesale prices. If a fisherman is able to obtain retail prices for his catch he is in a different financial position and has not the same need of assistance.

    Swine Fever, Bangor-on-Dee
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the results of the investigation into the disease which has led to the destruction of a herd of nearly 2,000 pigs at the farm of Mr. Coggins, Bangor-on-Dee.
    Mr. Vane: Swine fever was confirmed in this herd on 8th December. When I have full details of the outbreak, I will write to the hon. Member.
    Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that this herd has been a registered herd for four years, taking the vaccines supplied by his Department and, in spite of vaccination, 600 pigs died and the rest had to be slaughtered? Will he assure us that a very full investigation indeed will be made in these circumstances?
    Mr. Vane: This herd is a very well-known one, but I think there would be little purpose in trying to comment before I am in possession of all the information.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation Payments)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that payments of compensation to farmers whose herds are slaughtered because of foot-and-mouth disease are made in such a way that they do not become subject to tax.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. It is difficult to see how a different system of making these payments could affect tax liability. Livestock are properly to be considered, in most instances, as revenue assets, both when they are bought and when they are disposed of, but the charging of tax on compensation receipts is matched by treating the cost of replacing the herd as an allowable expense. As regards permanent stock, such as a dairy herd, for which this may not be the full answer, I would refer my hon. Friend to Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1953. This is summarised on page 13 of "Farmers' Bookkeeping and Income Tax", published by my Department in conjunction with the Inland Revenue Department.
    Mr. Peyton: Could my right hon. Friend consider the situation which arises if a herd is slaughtered and compensation paid in one financial year and replacement of stock takes place the following year? It is quite ridiculous, and fantastic results follow, and the compensation is taxed? Surely that is not what compensation is given for? Will he not use his influence to keep the rapacious hawks of the Inland Revenue authorities away from this compensation?
    Mr. Soames: If a herd is slaughtered, that has an effect on the valuation of the property at the end of the financial year and that affects the tax situation. This is a complicated issue in which the Inland Revenue is primarily interested, but much of it is set out in this booklet which I recommend my hon. Friend to read.

    Strontium 90
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of strontium 90 is contained in wheat and other foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Vane: The latest figures available for the strontium 90 content of imported wheat and other foodstuffs are those given in Report No. 3 by the Agricultural Research Council Radiobiological Laboratory on Strontium 90 in Human Diet in the United Kingdom, 1959. A copy of this Report, which was published on the 30th September this year, is in
    594
    the Library of the House. It would be misleading to quote these figures without the explanatory text.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister tell us the comparative figures for food produced in this country?
    Mr. Vane: As I said in my original reply, without looking at the Report and seeing the whole range of figures quoted and the conclusions thereon, it would be merely misleading to try to compare figures selected at random.
    Mrs. Braddock: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us if it is a fact that the figures produced by the Ministry of Agriculture show that there is five times the amount of strontium 90 in wheat imported from the Soviet Union as there is in wheat from this country?
    Mr. Vane: That is correct. As the hon. Member has quoted it I can say it is correct, but I think it misleading to accept that as necessarily adding a great deal to the strontium 90 in our diet. Hon. Members should look at the conclusions in this Report, by which they will see that on average the content of strontium 90 in our diet is something like one-twentieth or less of the permitted amount.
    Mr. Prior: Is not that a reason for stopping the import of wheat and barley from Russia?
    Mr. Vane: That is another question, but the wheat imported from Russia is an extremely small fraction of the wheat consumed in this country.

    Oregon Blue Tag Ryegrass Seed
    Mr. Stodartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the nature of the evidence he has received about the unsuitability of Certified Oregon Blue Tag perennial ryegrass seed for use in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Vane: The reports I have received on the performance of this seed came from official trial centres in the United Kingdom. They provide conflicting evidence on the suitability of the seed for use over here.
    Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that a lot of this certified seed came into this country in 1954, and that there were admittedly conflicting reports about it,

    595
    but that there were reports in its favour from, among other places, the N.I.A.B. at Cambridge and the seed-testing station in Scotland? As the evidence is conflicting, would not my hon. Friend do as well to follow the example of his right hon. Friend with Charollais and introduce some of this seed to try it?
    Mr. Vane: Certain of this seed was imported in 1954, which was a season of great shortage. As I have said, the evidence about this seed is conflicting. It is true that reports from Scotland were the least unfavourable. It is suggested that before any general import, further trials should take place, which seems to be a wise course.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether, in the new year, he will invite the Prime Ministers of the Six and Seven to meet under his chairmanship to discuss ways of resolving their joint problems.
  Mr. Marshasked the Prime Minister if he will consider inviting the Heads of Government of the Six and the Seven to confer together with a view to finding ways of resolving their joint problems.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I will certainly bear this possibility in mind; but I am not convinced that this is the moment for Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in calling a meeting of the heads of Government concerned. I believe that the best approach to these problems is that described by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the debate on the address on 4th November.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Prime Minister aware of the tremendous danger to British industry from the growing strength of the Common Market? Would not it be a good idea if he were to indulge in his well-known love of Summitry at a level where he might have a better chance of achieving good and practical results?
  The Prime Minister: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
  Mr. Holt: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the appropriate
  596
  Government Departments are studying the problems involved in any question of our entry into the Common Market, because a recent reply by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirms a feeling that the Government are not studying these problems yet?
  The Prime Minister: I think that would be a wrong conclusion. A great deal of work is going on and many valuable discussions are taking place with many other countries.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Cannot the Prime Minister enlighten us a little further? What sort of talks are going on? What are the prospects of an early agreement between the Six and the Seven?
  The Prime Minister: I answered the original Question, which was whether I would summon a meeting of heads of Government. That is a big decision to make, and I do not think that at the present moment it would be a right one.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Surely the Prime Minister is briefed to answer a few supplementary questions. One of them, an important one, is, what are the prospects of agreement on the basis of the present talks?
  The Prime Minister: I am not briefed to reply to questions that have little relation to the subject of the first Question. As to the prospects, I would say that very great progress has been made in the conversations we have had, and I am very hopeful that ultimately we shall arrive at a solution of this problem.

  UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister the nature of his reply to the proposals from the Prime Minister of India that the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation should be enlarged.
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Mr. Nehru relating to proposals for enlarging the Security Council.
  The Prime Minister: It would not be in accordance with the normal conventions for me to disclose what passes between Commonwealth Prime Ministers and myself.
  Mr. Wyatt: Surely the Prime Minister has some views on the proposal of the Prime Minister of India that the United Nations Security Council must be made more representative? Cannot he tell the House the views he may have about it? He is quite willing to think aloud to American journalists. Cannot he tell us something?
  The Prime Minister: The Question does not ask for my views. It asks what communications I have had with another Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister of India said in the Parliament of India that the basic change required in the United Nations was in the constitution of the Security Council to make it more in tune with world realities, particularly in Asia and Africa. That is an extremely important statement. Cannot the Prime Minister say what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: Not by question and answer following a Question like this.
  Mr. G. Brown: In his previous reply the Prime Minister said that the Question did not ask for his views but for the nature of the communications he received. May I draw attention to what is contained in Question No. 42 on the Order Paper? It is:
  "To ask the Prime Minister what was the nature of his reply …"
  to a communication received. That indeed is the basis for asking what are his views. Therefore, I repeat the question of my hon. Friend. May we not be let into the secret?
  The Prime Minister: And I repeat my reply that they were confidential between two Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Brown: Is it a secret club?
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Zilliacus.
  Mr. Brown: It is secret.
  The Prime Minister: No, confidential. There is a system of confidence—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As a result of an audible interruption we have become out of order. I called the hon. Member for Gorton to ask Question No. 46.
  The Prime Minister: It is so complicated.

  UNITED STATES FORCES, UNITED KINGDOM (ALERT)
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister what information was received, and what action was taken, by the Government Departments concerned, under the dual-control system in connection with the recent alert of United States forces in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 29th November to the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and Lanark (Mrs. Hart).
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the Prime Minister aware that his state of euphoria about the absence of any effective control system is not shared by many millions of people in this country, or by many of my hon. Friends? Will not he take steps to have some kind of effective control instituted so that we at least know when the Americans have an alarm, as they did at Thule when the moon set off the electronic equipment? Otherwise we may be plunged into war by complete accident.
  The Prime Minister: No British Forces and no United States Forces in this country were alerted on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

  TRADE AND ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will consult other heads of Government with a view to preparing for a World Economic Conference early in 1961; and if, at this conference, he will make proposals for an expansion of trade and the building of economic co-operation throughout the world.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. While I fully sympathise with the objective which the hon. Member has in mind, I am not convinced of the usefulness of the method he proposes. There is already ample provision for international consultation on these problems.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Though I am a firm believer in the United Nations, may I ask if the Prime Minister does not agree that it has failed in regard to organising world economic affairs? Does the Prime Minister remember that he himself advocated this suggestion several times between the two wars when the conditions were not ready for such a conference? Does he not agree that world conditions now demand such a conference?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have made great advances since that time in the organisation of international institutions and international consultations, but I am wholly in sympathy with what I think underlies the hon. Member's thought, that we must find a way to increase the basic credit on which the world's production can be maximised.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions are taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States about the dollar crisis and the need for some co-ordination of interest-rate policies between the two countries?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Member will understand that the exact timing of such conversations is a matter of some delicacy.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If, presumably, the Prime Minister is referring to the American election and its outcome, can he say whether he will take an early opportunity of instituting talks with the United States Government, the new Government, on this issue as soon as it comes into office?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly take an early opportunity to respond to talks which I hope may be proposed.
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if, at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, he will propose an expansion of Commonwealth economic co-operation and a Commonwealth approach to the need for increased world trade.
  The Prime Minister: I do not want to enter into commitments as to what I may or may not say at the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, where discussion is both free and confidential.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the countries making up the Commonwealth have been most loyal to the Commonwealth? Has not the time arrived when Britain should take the initiative in cementing that loyalty by increasing Commonwealth co-operation and at the same time bringing about a Commonwealth approach to world problems such as is proposed in these two Questions?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I would agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said. It seems to be a most irreproachable proposition.
  Mr. C. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear, both to the Commonwealth and to foreign powers, that on economic matters our greatest need is to export a great deal more and to import less, as is shown by the rather terrifying figures issued this morning by the Board of Trade?
  The Prime Minister: I think I would agree that the interests of the free world are to increase the total trade which passes between all the countries of the world. What we have to do is not to drift into restrictionist policies when the need is for world expansion.

  THE PRIME MINISTER (QUESTIONS)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he will now arrange to alter the Order of Questions so that questions addressed to him are answered at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
  The Prime Minister: There has been a marked response to the appeal which you, Sir, made on 5th December. On the three available occasions since then Questions addressed to me have always been reached by 3.15; and there has been an improvement in the total number of Questions answered. I think, therefore, that we might leave the matter for the moment.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon eleven Questions have not been asked and, if the hon. Members who put them down had been present and asked them, he would have been excluded from our deliberations? Is he also aware that,

  601
  having heard some of his Answers, I am wondering now whether it is worth while asking Questions of him at all?
  The Prime Minister: I had a sort of feeling that the right hon. Member would make a rather caustic end to his supplementary question, but they are all accustomed to him over there.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that the more time the Prime Minister has the less information he gives us? Should we not let him go back to the old-style arrangement whereby we got one or two Answers from him?
  Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman regards my remark as caustic, is he aware that he has not heard anything yet from me?
  The Prime Minister: I have a very long experience of the right hon. Member.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Prime Minister consider that once every six weeks he should be No. 1 and in that case it would at least save us from the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what would happen to the hon. Member's supplementary questions which are so carefully prepared over such weeks of study.

ETHIOPIA (SITUATION)
Mr. G. Brown(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the safety of British citizens and British-protected persons in Ethiopia.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes Sir. I have received information from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Addis Ababa within the past two hours that fighting has broken out in Addis Ababa. As an immediate measure the Ambassador is admitting to the Embassy compound any British subjects who wish to take refuge there.
It is too soon to say whether it will be necessary to provide facilities for the evacuation of British subjects and protected persons. In the meantime we are taking urgent steps to make the necessary transport facilities available, including aircraft if this should be required. We
602
are, of course, in constant touch with the Embassy.
There are about 900 British subjects in Ethiopia as a whole, of whom about 440 are of United Kingdom origin and about 300 from other Commonwealth countries. Of those of United Kingdom origin, nearly all, about 90 per cent. are in Addis Ababa itself.
Communications outside Addis Ababa have been interrupted, but we have no reason at present to believe that there is any danger to the comparatively small number of British subjects and protected persons living outside Addis Ababa.
Mr. Brown: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he can give us any idea of the scale of the fighting? Will he keep the House in touch with the developments?
Mr. Heath: In his message the Ambassador described it as moderate small arms and mortar firing. That is all the information that we have at the moment. I will keep the House informed.
Mr. B. Harrison: Has my right hon. Friend any information whether this is an internal revolt or whether other countries outside Ethiopia are concerned in it?
Mr. Heath: We have no evidence of outside interference.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for the next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 19TH DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when the Second Report from the Public Accounts Committee, 1959–60, will be debated until Seven o'clock, on an Amendment to take note of this Report with special reference to Development and Production of Guided Weapons.

603
Afterwards, there will be a debate on an Amendment to take note of the Fourth Report from the Estimates Committee, 1959–60, relating to the Colonial Office.
TUESDAY, 20TH DECEMBER—Report and Third Reading of the Betting Levy Bill.
Second Reading of the Human Tissue Bill.
Report on the National Health Service Supplementary Estimates.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST DECEMBER—It is proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., that Questions be taken until 12 noon and that Mr. Speaker be empowered to adjourn the House at 5 o'clock without putting any Question.
We shall then adjourn for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 24th January, 1961.
Mr. Gaitskell: When do the Government expect to announce the outcome of the Stedeford Report on transport?
Mr. Butler: It is hoped to make an announcement in the form of a White Paper before the House rises.
Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it has not yet been found possible to find any time for the Motion standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends—about 80-odd of them? [HON. MEMBERS: "Odd."] Is he aware that the Motion has been on the Order Paper for nearly three weeks and that if time cannot be found before the Christmas Recess it will have been standing on the Order Paper for about two months at least before it is disposed of? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that is satisfactory?
[That this House places on record its profound regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Department failed to advise Her Majesty the Queen to exercise Her Royal Prerogative of mercy in the cases of Francis Forsyth and Norman Harris, the first of whom was only a month or two over eighteen years of age and the other twenty-three years of age, both of whom were said by the learned counsel who prosecuted them to have had no intention to kill, and one of whom, namely, Norman Harris, was admitted to
604
have struck no blow and was not present when any fatal act of violence was committed.]
Mr. Butler: I have already said that this Motion raises very important issues, but I have nothing to add to what I said last week, namely, that there is not time to take this Motion before Christmas. What I said before has proved to be correct, and I cannot depart from that position.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Arising out of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Transport, on Tuesday, leaked the story, which was widely published in the Press, that the White Paper will be published on Tuesday or Wednesday? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm on which day it will be published? Is it being delayed deliberately to make it impossible for Parliament to discuss the future of the railways before the end of January? How much longer are the Government determined to keep the railways in agonising uncertainty as to their future?
Mr. Butler: I cannot announce the exact date, but it will be one day early next week when the White Paper is ready. The question of preventing the House from discussing it does not arise. The whole point of publishing it before Christmas is to give plenty of time for hon. Members and the country to look at the plan which we have taken the trouble to prepare and which is of a detailed character. After the House resumes there will be opportunity to have full discussions on this matter before any question of action arises.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Could an economic debate be arranged for an early date after the Recess under such terms on the Order Paper as will enable taxation to be discussed in relation to expenditure?
Mr. Butler: We have had one discussion on economic affairs, but I will certainly consider what my noble Friend says in the light of the press of business after we have returned.
Dr. Stross: Has the Leader of the House noticed that there is a Motion on the Order Paper referring to backstage conditions in theatres? In view of the

605
fact that he is no longer responsible for this subject, but has handed it over to the Minister of Labour, will he realise that I am not asking him to give time to debate the Motion before Christmas but asking him at least to speak to the Minister of Labour and to see that in the provisions of a Bill now being drafted we can provide some justice for these people?
[That this House deplores the fact that many theatres offer inadequate facilities, backstage, for actors and actresses either for washing or lavatory accommodation; is disturbed to note that out of 156 theatres examined, 78 per cent. had neither baths or showers. 26 per cent. were without wash basins and six of the theatres examined were without a water closet or lavatory of any kind; and urges the Minister of Labour to take prompt action, and issue regulations following appropriate legislation.]
Mr. Butler: I will discuss this matter in the wings with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in accordance with the usual custom, on which day he proposes to table the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess? Is he aware that this will have considerable importance, in view of the fact that there are a number of matters, such as the political situation in Laos, in the Congo and in other territories for which we share some responsibility, on which we shall expect the Government to make a statement before we adjourn?
Mr. Butler: At least one of those subjects is arising on the Adjournment. All I can say is that we shall table the Motion according to precedent on one of the days before we adjourn next week.
Mr. Donnelly: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? Is the leader of the House aware that he invited my hon. Friend to put down this Motion on this very grave issue? How does he reconcile his inability to find time for a debate with his invitation to my hon. Friend to put the Motion down, because it was a very grave constitutional matter which the House of Commons has no opportunity of discussing in retrospect? It is life and death.
Mr. Butler: I was not aware that the situation was exactly as the hon. Member has framed it. Perhaps he could discuss it with me. I do not quite understand his interpretation. I have no doubt about the seriousness of the matter. The ability to discuss it is thwarted only by the lack of opportunity.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is assuring the House that at the earliest convenient opportunity he will find time to discuss this Motion?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can give no guarantee.
Mr. Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the possibility of making time available after the Christmas Recess to debate the signing of the O.E.C.D. Convention which took place in Paris yesterday?
Mr. Butler: I will examine that and consult my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Lipton: In view of the pressure of events and various topics which have been brought to his attention, is the right hon. Gentleman likely to consider any alteration in the date of the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)
Mr. Kershaw: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, about yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT, in which I raised the important and topical matter of the enlistment of Fijians into the British Army? The Answers have been transposed, thus making it appear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was talking nonsense, which I am sure would be undesirable. Might the record be put straight?*
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member having drawn attention to the matter, it will be put straight.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
* [Note: This correction has been made.]

SUPPLY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

FLOODS
3.41 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House, noting with concern the widespread distress and damage caused by recent floods, and believing them to be a national responsibility, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to give all necessary help to those individuals and local authorities particularly affected; to establish a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters; and to devise adequate measures to prevent flood damage in future".
This is the second Supply day which, under our present rules, is made available before Christmas. It is a feature of that procedure that we cannot conveniently ask the House to reach a decision formally on this Motion. For that reason I wish, I hope at the appropriate moment, to secure the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. That is a procedural matter. I hope, and indeed expect, that the Government will be prepared to take the content of the Motion very seriously indeed, and that they will express their agreement with it.
Our Amendment begins by noting with concern the widespread distress and damage caused by recent floods. That part of the Amendment will, no doubt, commend itself to universal agreement. Flooding has been widespread. More than 30 counties have been affected by the floods that have descended on the country in the last seven or eight weeks. There are some ways in which we can make a statistical or monetary estimate of how much damage they have inflicted. Examples of that damage come to us from all over the country. On the Treforest industrial estate, for example, the damage is estimated at £5 or £6 million and the factories there are likely to be out of production for several weeks. That involves a further loss.
608
The National Farmers' Union estimates the loss on farms in a number of Welsh counties at over £1 million. The City of Bath has a record of loss totalling over £½ million. If we go on throughout the 30 counties, what total of damage shall we reach? We do not yet know. I believe that it will prove to be a figure well in excess of £30 million. It is well to set a figure such as that against what may be said about the formidable cost of flood prevention works. I do not deny that capital works aimed at preventing flooding are expensive.
However, we have to notice that, although flooding occurs only occasionally, and sometimes unpredictably, when it occurs the bill, even for monetary loss, is a very heavy one indeed. We should notice, too, that the effect of a disaster of this kind can be cumulative. If there is heavy rain at one season of the year it means that for months afterwards the higher ground, which would otherwise have been porous, is saturated. If heavy rain falls again in a few months' time it pours straight down to flood the lower levels.
We are now only in December. The months of January and February are ahead of us and there will possibly be very heavy rainfall during those months. On monetary grounds alone, therefore, we cannot underestimate this disaster. It is not only a question of damage in the sense that can be measured in terms of money. There is the distress, the misery and unhappiness caused when a home and its contents are wrecked. That home and contents are not only something on which money has been spent; they are things on which affection has been lavished. After the flood has subsided there comes the dreary and depressing task of drying out, clearing away the dirt and being left with a home that is sometimes an unhappy parody of what there was before the disaster occurred.
That is the experience of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens at present. In addition, we have to note, with great regret, the loss of life. On this occasion the loss of life was mercifully small, but the House should remember that in many localities that was due solely to the hour of day or night at which the disaster occurred. In more than one place if the disaster had occurred at only a few hours

609
distance in time it would have occurred not in deserted streets and open spaces, but in streets thronged with people. The nation might today have been mourning a very heavy death roll.
We have to bear in mind the fearful suddenness with which such disasters can occur. One moment a street may be normal, with people going about their business. The next moment a torrent of water, 7 ft. or 8 ft. high, may be tearing down that street from end to end. It recalls the disaster described in Jean Ingelow's famous poem:
"The heart had scarcely time to beat
Before the wave was at our feet.
The feet had hardly time to flee
Before the wave was at the knee,
And all the world was in the sea."
That is the kind of thing we are discussing vast monetary damage, widespread distress and constant peril that might easily strike again with more terrible results.
In our Amendment we say those are things which are a national responsibility. There is a national responsibility not only because of the bond of common humanity that unites us to those of our fellow citizens in the areas affected, but for a direct and practical reason. There are numerous features of modern life which produce the result that things which are advantageous to some of us increase the peril of flood to others. May I give one example of that. Last summer, I spent my holiday in the Isles of Scilly. As I motored to Penzance I drove over high ground in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. I drove over good, firm roads. The existence of those good, firm roads over land that was once porous and absorbed water is one factor adding to the torrents of water that descend into the lower areas
That single example has to be multiplied many hundreds of times all over the country. Anyone who benefits from the existence of firm roads, from asphalt, from sure foundations to any building in which he is interested, shares some measure of responsibility for what happens in areas that are flooded. The same is true of the drainage of certain fields. The very high degree of success which attends drainage operations in some parts of the country, which saves fields from being waterlogged, means that water is carried more swiftly into
610
rivers which are sometimes incapable of coping with the burden.
The whole nation is concerned in this matter. That is why we are asking the Government to give all the necessary help to those individuals and to the local authorities concerned. In our Amendment we call upon the Government to
"give all necessary help to … individuals",
That is the more important because of the limited help which they can obtain from insurance against flood. In general, insurance against flood is available at rates which people can afford to pay only in districts where floods are extremely improbable. Those who are most likely to need to take that precaution may find that it is either impossible or beyond their means to do so.
I will quote one example which illustrates that. In Exeter, the damage at present is reckoned at £200,000. Only a few days ago it was being estimated in the newspapers at £130,000. A more recent estimate is £200,000. That is a warning to us of how very great the total bill may prove to be compared with any estimates we can make at the moment. The Mayor of Exeter says that probably 90 per cent. of the householders who suffered, and 50 per cent. of the shops which suffered, were not covered by insurance at all.
The total bill of £200,000 for damage in that city alone is probably more than will be raised by the appeal fund for the whole of the County of Devon. It is, therefore, clear that, as between the total loss, on the one hand, and what can be met by insurance or appeals, on the other, there is a large gap which the Government are called upon to fill.
I was glad to notice that the Mayor of Exeter also said that he expects that there will be help from the Government towards the Exeter fund. He went on to say that, even so, he must redouble his appeals to members of the public to contribute to the fund. I do not doubt that other men in similar positions in afflicted areas will say much the same.
That same picture of a gap appears if we refer back to what happened in 1953, when there were flood disasters on the East Coast. The total damage on that occasion was estimated at £50 million, of which insurance met only £5½ million. The fund raised by the Lord Mayor of

611
London met £5 million. The Government provided £2 million. That left a gap of £37 million which either fell on the people who, in the first instance, suffered the damage, or had to be met—we know not to what degree—by what the Minister has called the "fount of private giving".
We shall be told that the Government have given a general assurance that they stand behind what can be met by insurance and local funds. That has been said to us on more than one occasion when we have debated this matter. In that connection, I will draw the attention of the Minister and the House to an item in the Western Morning News of 14th December. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) told the House recently that his constituents were very generally satisfied with the Government assurance that they would come to their help. I am sorry to say that at a meeting of the Taunton Town Council this remark of the hon. Gentleman's was described by one councillor as the most ridiculous statement which could have been made on the flood situation. He and other councillors went on to express a considerable degree of local dissatisfaction and uncertainty.
It is fair to add that at the same meeting of the council the most complimentary and kindly references were made to the hon. Member for Taunton, so, clearly, this remark was not made with any personal malice against him. It was directed not so much against him as against the Government. The speakers at the council meeting went on to express the earnest hope that the Government would make a direct contribution to Taunton's relief fund, as, indeed, the Mayor of Exeter says that they are making to his fund.
Although I could go on quoting particular examples—Taunton, Exeter, and the rest—in the end it is obvious that this is a nation-wide matter. That is why some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have urged the establishment, as is mentioned in the Amendment, of a national fund to deal with the situation which can be created by flood or similar disaster.
We make that suggestion partly for the reason I have already urged, namely, that everyone in the nation shares some degree of responsibility for helping those
612
who are immediately hit by floods; partly because there is, as the figures for 1953 show, an undoubted gap between what can be met by private benevolence, appeals or insurance; and partly because we want to assure all those individuals and families who have to seek help that they can seek it as of right and need not feel that they are asking for charity. These are powerful reasons for the establishment of a national fund of this kind.
I have in mind a fund the moneys of which would be provided substantially by the Government, though it would be open to private individuals of their own good will and benevolence to make contributions of their own to the national fund. It is right that I should take up one or two of the objections which the Parliamentary Secretary made to this proposal in a recent debate. It was suggested that the establishment of such a fund would dry up the fount of private giving. I do not believe that. I do not think that the Government believe it, either. If it was a valid argument, the Minister, in effect, would already have dried up the fount of private giving by the general assurance he has given.
Moreover, when a disaster of this kind occurs people who are more fortunate feel moved to express the sense of their own good fortune and gratitude for their own deliverance by making a contribution. That motive will still remain even if the Government are prepared to fulfil their responsibilities in the way we suggest.
The second objection was that if there was a national fund it would be very difficult to adjudicate on the nature of claims and the extent to which they should be met in every locality. A national fund would not mean that every claim in every part of the country had to be assessed and judged by a central agency. I picture such a national fund making grants to local funds whenever disaster occurred, and it would be for the local people to assess how the money at their disposal could be most fairly and justly applied.
It was suggested, thirdly, that the establishment of a national fund would involve difficulties and formalities of audit, and so on. There is very little in that argument. The pledge that the Government have already made will

613
involve them, quite properly, in a Supplementary Estimate. That will involve a certain amount of clerical and Departmental work. If a national fund was permanently established under agreed rules, there would be, in the long run, a saving of administrative time.
When the Parliamentary Secretary raised these objections it seemed to me that he was giving us merely an interim reply and implying that the Government had not yet made up their mind. I hope that by now they have made up their mind, and that they have made it up in favour of the establishment of a national fund.
Our Amendment mentions help not only to individuals, but to local authorities. On this aspect I will content myself with one question. We have an assurance that any authority which has imposed on it an unreasonable rate burden because of disasters will receive help from the central Government. Can the Minister tell us what will be his criterion of an unreasonable rate burden? Can he relieve some of the local authorities of their present uncertaintly as to whether that undertaking will mean anything practical for them or not?
Beyond the question of helping those who have suffered, there is the perhaps more hopeful question of taking precautions, both in the short term and in the long, against a recurrence of these disasters. I most earnestly hope that neither the Government spokesmen nor any other hon. Member who takes part in this debate will try to ride away from this question by solemnly proving to us that the Government cannot control the weather, and that absolute 100 per cent. safety against any damage from flood would be impossible of attainment.
We all know that, but, if I may say so, the damaging admission made the other day that the Government cannot control the weather will give a shock to the more naïve and devoted admirers of the Prime Minister. Still, the cat is out of the bag, and we all recognise that. Nevertheless, the fact that we cannot absolutely rule out a disaster is not the slightest reason at all for not taking every reasonable precaution against it. No one can say with certainty that there will never be anyone anywhere who will suffer from fire, but that is no reason for neglecting adequate fire precautions.
614
Let us look at the short-term precautions—designed not actually to prevent flooding, but to mitigate its effects, and to relieve distress. From the experiences of the various areas affected we have certain lessons to learn, and they seem to me to be these. In the first place, by no means all the areas that might be affected by flooding have adequate warning systems. Some have; others appear to be sadly behind.
Secondly, in some cases, agencies that should have been providing for the relief of distress did not have a clear enough idea of their own powers and functions. I am told, for instance, of local officers of the Assistance Board in some areas not being clear about whether they were able to provide fuel to families in need of it, and having to engage in telephone conversations with London to reassure themselves on that point
Thirdly, it is true that in some areas a considerable number of organisations and individuals wanted to take part, but that part of their good intentions sometimes ran to waste because the exact rôle that each organisation was to play was not clear. It would be useful, I suggest, if local authorities in any area likely to be affected by flood had what might be called a flood precautions book; a clear, prearranged scheme for what ought to be done by all the various agencies—public, voluntary and semivoluntary—if disaster like this occurred, starting with those whose duty it was to give people warning, and going on to those whose task it was to minimise the effect of the damage or to relieve distress.
The areas that have handled this matter less successfully might find that they have a good deal to learn from those who have dealt with it more successfully. We want a pooling and a dissemination of knowledge and, in some cases, we want rather more co-ordination between one area and another. Mention was made in one of our earlier debates of areas that badly needed pumping machinery having difficulty in getting it from neighbouring areas whose need was not so great or who, perhaps, had no need at all.
We were also told of cases where the fire brigade was in doubt as to whether it might use its pumping gear when the need for it had been created by flood.

615
There should not be any doubt about that kind of thing. One of the tasks now facing the Government is to review the experiences of the areas affected, and to make sure that failures in warning areas affected, and in the concerting of measures to relieve distress do not recur.
Beyond that, we have to look at what we might call long-term precautions. What can we do to make it, at the very least, less likely that flood will strike at all? I should like to quote a few words spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) in our debate on 14th November, when he said:
"It is reckoned that in five years out of ten the eastern half of England is short of water. In East Anglia, it is probable that in nine years out of ten there is a water shortage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960: Vol. 630, c. 63.]
That is the other side of the medal; the reverse of the problem of flood prevention.
I believe that if one looks at the total rainfall that descends on these islands even in a normal year, or the average over a period of years, our total supply of water is fully equal not only to our present demand, but to anything that it is likely to be in the foreseeable future. That is true of the country as a whole, yet we have this recurring water shortage in the eastern half of England and this recurring liability to flooding in other areas.
That means that we must see that how we deal with the rain that falls on these islands is a national problem—
Mr. F. H. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, already, the County of Devon has promoted Private Bills to provide against shortages of water in the summer months?
Mr. Stewart: Yes. What my hon. Friend says is very much to the point The National Conference of Parish Councils also urged that the matter should be considered in this way.
More could be done in the provision of reservoirs to serve the function of drawing away water that might otherwise become flood water. It could then be stored, and be made available for areas less fortunate—or unfortunate, as one may view it—in their rainfall. If
616
the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Hydrological Survey of the Severn, published not long ago by his Department, he will notice a reference to the part that could be played against flood prevention by the provision of more reservoirs in the upper reaches of that river.
There is also the possibility of underground storage of water on a great scale, or of arrangements for the movement of water from the west of the country to the east. On that topic, a very bold scheme was put forward in the 18th July issue of Engineering. Exactly how far we can go in this direction is still unknown territory, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to prevent the repeated occurrence of water shortages in eastern England and floods due to excessive rainfall in other parts of the country.
It can be done only if we look on a national scale at the conservation of water and the prevention of flooding. That is why river boards, dealing with the matter river by river—and sometimes, I think, more interested in problems of agricultural drainage than in the prevention of floods among large centres of population—are not equal to this task, and will not be equal to it even with the passage of the present Land Drainage Bill. Indeed, I am told that when hon. Members in the Standing Committee now dealing with that Measure have tried to introduce anything about flood prevention they have been assured that that is out of order.
On this national matter we may be told that we have to await the Report of the sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee. It is rather wryly that we remember that for the three years from 1952–55 the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee was suspended for what were called reasons of economy. If that economy had not been made, we might be a good deal nearer to a solution of the problem of flood prevention which has, on this one occasion, cost us upwards of £30 million.
In summary, then, what we are asking for is, first, better advance planning and co-ordination of local measures to warn against flooding, to mitigate loss, and to relieve distress. Secondly, we ask for

617
the undoubted recognition, through the establishment of a national fund, of the whole nation's responsibility towards those who have suffered. Thirdly, we ask, in the long term, recognition of the fact that a national policy for water rather than consideration river by river could very greatly contribute to the twin problems of water conservation and flood prevention.
4.11 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I should like, first, to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate; secondly, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, who knows that I have another Parliamentary duty to perform, and am unable to hear his reply; and, thirdly, to the Opposition Front Bench for bringing the very serious and distressing flood situation, which requires urgent treatment, before the House in this way today.
In the early hours of Sunday, 4th December, the County of Montgomery and its people suffered the greatest disaster that has ever been known, not only in living memory but in the records of that county. The county is purely agricultural. Almost all our people depend upon agriculture, and even in the small market towns, the shops and the markets and everything else depend upon agricultural prosperity and the agricultural population.
It is a county which has a very high agricultural production, and that is probably due to the fact that it is the main county through which the River Severn flows, right from its source at the southern end of the county on Plinlimmon. The river then flows northwards right through the county, and when it reaches the northern border turns eastwards into Shropshire and then flows southwards through Shropshire, Worcester and so on down to the Bristol Channel.
The Severn Valley is noted for its high agricultural value. It is certainly the best agricultural land in Wales, and could probably be claimed to be the best agricultural land in the whole of Great Britain. Therefore, the standard of agriculture is very high indeed. It has been noted for many years for its pro
618
duction of some of the finest agricultural animals that are now so popular elsewhere, but which have originated there.
People are accustomed to floods in the Severn Valley. Certainly, the river does rise rapidly, but never has it risen either so rapidly or so high as it did on that Sunday morning. Our warning point is about one-third of the way down the course which the river takes, at Caersws Bridge, about five miles from Newtown, and usually the danger point is reached when the river rises to 8 ft. above normal at that bridge.
We have a very good warning system, but I suppose that because these warnings have been sent out and disasters such as occurred on that Sunday morning have not happened, people have, unfortunately, taken a chance; but there were very serious consequences to taking any chances on that Sunday morning. The river rose very rapidly on Saturday afternoon until, about midnight, it had reached very nearly 12 ft. above normal.
A particularly unfortunate circumstance from the agricultural point of view was that most of the animals were already in their buildings and, of course, the people themselves were asleep. The total population is only about 43,000 and the number of houses is between 7,000 and 8,000. That morning 706 houses, farmhouses, shops, and business premises were flooded. Forty-one families had to be evacuated, and it was very difficult to get them to leave their homes. Three have been permanently evacuated because the houses have become dangerous.
The figures of the agricultural losses are really appalling. In all, 360 cattle, 965 sheep, 292 pigs, 4,800 head of poultry, six horses and one dog, which, I suppose, was tied in its kennel, were lost.
The mere recital of the figures shows how serious was the position, but some of the farmers have lost their very all. There is one in particular, who was very proud of his farm, which is not far from the English border and is very near to the junction of the main tributary with the Severn. His Red House farm is very well known, as he is himself. During the small hours, he lost 80 cattle, about 120 sheep, 200 turkeys and all his fowls.

619
He was left absolutely helpless, most of his machinery being ruined.
That is on the farming side, but there was also a very serious tragedy in Newtown. When the flood occurred above the town, the river carried away with it, of all things, telegraph posts, which were brought down through the main street of the town, swinging from side to side and just sweeping all the shop fronts away. One man lost all his savings and all that he had put into working up his business, and that meant a loss to him of about £12,000.
Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, so many of these people have not troubled to insure. There is one particularly striking case of that, because on the previous Monday, naturally, all the talk at the agricultural markets in the towns was of agricultural losses incurred owing to foot-and-mouth disease. One of the farmers on that Monday felt the danger of the situation and insured against the risk of foot-and-mouth disease. He was asked by the insurance people if he would not insure also against flood, but, unfortunately, he said, "No. "Within five days, the flood had come and disaster hit him.
I pay my tribute to the local people. I mention, first, the police. As far as they possibly could, they did everything to warn people and then, when the disaster did strike, in the little market towns, the villages and farms they were unsparing in their help. So were all those who escaped the disaster, but I pay the greatest tribute of all to the women, especially those in the villages and homes which escaped the disaster because they arranged—and they are still doing it, day by day—that bus loads of them should go to the distressed area and help. Today, they are still doing their utmost to clear up the mess and swab it all away. They try to bring comfort and relief as well by taking food and all that is needed for the families there.
A fund was set up and, as one knows, there has been an immediate and ready response. I am glad to think that this will be more than a local fund. I understand that an arrangement has been made for it to be a national Welsh fund, operated from Cardiff by the Lord Mayor of Cardiff. Whatever we collect from
620
Montgomery will go into the common fund, quite rightly, because disaster has hit Treforest and other places, too. But this fund will be but a tiny percentage of what is needed to cover the terrible loss which people have suffered. Can hon. Members imagine the circumstances of a man such as the one I have mentioned, who has lost his all? He is about my age, and now, after working hard all his life, he faces the future with everything gone.
This is, therefore, a national problem requiring national treatment. I take housing first. I hope that the Government will accept not only that they must be generous, but that they owe a duty to these people which they can neither ignore nor avoid. What is more, whatever help these people receive will be refunded to the Government in the value of the produce which they will be able to bring forth in a very few weeks. I know that the Government are already acting in this matter. Whenever there is a shortage of resources in a local council to give help where it is needed, the Government have at once, almost by return of post, come to its assistance. But I want to know from the Minister what is the general scheme for help. These continuous floods which are hitting so many parts of our country concern us all, everywhere. We ought to have a national plan to deal with them.
More important, perhaps, are plans for the future. As I have explained, the Severn does flood, and it floods almost anywhere. The worst I have known prior to the present floods occurred thirty years ago. Fortunately, I was then at home and able to help. All we could do was to send a telephone message, in response to which two boats were sent, so that two of us could row along what was then a sea—much more than a lake—miles long, going through the various places affected. A similar thing had to be done this time, but, fortunately, some provision has been made since then and help was available through Welshpool.
The experience of the flooding Severn extends over centuries. I believe that the embankments along either side of the river were started in early Norman times. They are put well back from the river, but, of course, the river keeps changing its course, moving nearer to one and further from the other. So far

621
as we know, an effort was made to repair them and put them right in Tudor times again in Cromwellian times and, last of all, at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The embankment has fallen into a sad state of repair. Very often, gaps have been made, and these add to the trouble. When the river rises, the water goes through a gap and then, of course, it cannot return to the river itself because the embankment stands between it and the ordinary river bed.
The first thing I ask is that a survey be made of the embankments to see what is needed and to put matters right. Incidentally, why is it that the very excellent Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill is confined to Scotland? I see in the Explantory Memorandum that
"The Bill enables county councils and town councils in Scotland to take measures for the prevention or mitigation of flooding of land other than agricultural land".
I regret the addition of the words "other than agricultural land", and I should like to see them struck out.
As I see it, it is an excellent Bill and there is no reason why it should not be extended to agricultural land, the duty being placed upon county councils and other councils to undertake responsibilities in flood prevention. I agree, however, that this would not deal with such a situation as arose this month. The powers of local authorities under such a Bill would relate only to the ordinary floods such as we have once or twice during the year.
What is needed is something far greater, and I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Fulham stress this. The strongest tributary of the Severn is the Vyrnwy, which enters the Severn just at the point before it crosses over into England at the Shropshire border. In the early 1880s, the Vyrnwy was blocked by the Liverpool Corporation and Lake Vyrnwy was created. This has had a very salutary effect in reducing the flooding of the Vyrnwy, which is the strongest stream flowing into the Severn all the way from its source to the point where it reaches the Bristol Channel.
In about 1946 or 1947, this matter had been very much in the minds of our local people, especially the county council. I led a deputation from the county council
622
here to meet three Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was then Minister of Health, and Mr. Tom Williams, who was Minister of Agriculture. We put before them the idea that they should make a survey of the sources of the Severn. There are two strong streams which ultimately become the Severn. One is known as the Severn, which rises up in Plinlimmon, and the other is known as the Clywedog.
Our proposal was that those rivers should be blocked in the same way as the Vyrnwy had been. Of course, the main idea in the minds of my people, who were all agriculturists, was the prevention of flooding, but we went on to say that, if that were done, we believed, though we had not the expert information available to the Government, that there would be sufficient water to supply any of the needs of South Wales or the industrial areas of England.
Without a doubt, Mr. Bevan was very interested. He asked a great number of questions about the size of the lake and the volume of water which could be conserved. We pointed out that the conservation of water and the containing or disposal of surplus waters such as one has when floods come are very closely connected. If water is conserved in this way, one goes a long way towards preventing disasters such as have happened.
We asked, also—this was why we were seeing the Minister of Fuel and Power—whether it would be possible for the surplus water coming from the two lakes, Which would be large lakes, very much larger than Lake Vyrnwy, to be used for providing electric power. There was then our case to the Minister of Agriculture.
I know that the matter was looked into, but not very thoroughly, because there were more urgent things at that time which required the attention of the Government. Also, I expect that the amount of money involved was too great. I hope that the present Minister will look into the matter again. He has done a great deal with regard to the Severn Conservancy, and he is soon to receive its report. It may very well be

623
that the answer is to conserve the water of both the Clywedog and the Severn.
I urge upon the Government that this is a matter which brooks of no delay. We do not know when such a disaster will occur again. As I have said, the last major one was thirty years ago, but this winter we may again be in trouble. I ask the Government to treat this matter as one of extreme urgency.
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Government welcome this debate. A terrible tragedy has struck the country in recent weeks. Unlike some of the great national emergencies we have known in the past, this has not been localised in one spot or one area, but has spread over dozens of counties. Instead of striking all on one night, as with the high tide on the East Coast, it has continued over a period—heavy rain in one place one day and in another place the next day. It has struck here and there, but not everywhere. We are not out of danger yet.
I cannot accept the estimate of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) that £30 million worth of damage has been done. However, I do not wish to quarrel with him about that, because no one can say what the amount of damage will be by the end of the winter if this extraordinary wet weather continues throughout the winter months.
I believe that few people can fully visualise the personal tragedy which floods involve unless they have been into a house and seen that dark mark some feet up on the wall and the filth which has been left, as in the Rhondda, where the swollen river brought down quantities of small coal and coal dust which it had washed from tips beside its banks. One is filled with admiration for the people who, often with foolhardy courage, stayed in their houses although they were warned to leave, and for the exemplary patience of those who have gone back to their houses and set to work diligently to make their befouled houses happy and clean homes again.
I do not take this Amendment as a censure on the Government. Indeed, I am grateful to the hon. Member for
624
Fulham for the words with which he opened his speech. What is said in the Amendment is almost wholly in line with Government policy. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will say something about the national fund when he winds up the debate, but I believe that I can serve the House best by describing what has been done, what is being done and what will be done concerning flood prevention, the work of local authorities, and the rescue action which has been taken both voluntarily and in official capacities wherever floods have occurred.
In seeking to sum up the present position as I see it, may I say that I believe that there are lessons that we can and should learn from this extraordinary weather and its effects, and I shall be listening to the remainder of the debate in the hope of hearing further suggestions from hon. Members on both sides which can be adopted either centrally or locally. We have already a vast amount of experience in dealing with national disasters of this kind, but we should always be adding to our knowledge, learning the lessons and putting them into practice.
Mr. Hayman: Would not the right Gentleman agree that one difficulty in assessing the total result and cost of the floods is the dry rot which inevitably will occur in hundreds, if not thousands, of homes and the full effects of which, perhaps, will not be seen for a year or two?
Mr. Brooke: That is one reason why I am extremely anxious that people whose homes have been flooded should seek the best advice locally to guard against the risk of dry rot.
The cause of all the local disasters has been the weather. The Meteorological Office advises me that we suffered a heavier rainfall over the country as a whole in the months from July to the end of November than has been known in any year since the records were started in 1727. In Hereford, the river rose higher than at any time since 1795. But this continuous rainfall over the country has not been the whole trouble. It has been aggravated in certain places by torrential storms for short periods.
For example, the other day seven inches of rain fell in three days on the Brecon Beacons. This was on country

625
already saturated with water, so that a very large proportion of additional rainfall runs off at once into the streams and rivers instead of being absorbed by the ground. In no way do I wish to be an alarmist, but I think that it is right to say that, with the soil in this state, there are bound to be further dangers if heavy rain recurs this winter. It is everyone's bounden duty to be alive to those dangers and to heed any local warnings which may be given.
One of the reasons why loss of life has been so small during the floods is that the local alert systems have been greatly improved. In some instances I have heard that people, although warned, would not leave their homes. That is courageous, but unwise. I entirely agree that everywhere, locally, the responsible authorities should check their warning systems and not leave it until the floods come.
Responsibility for flood prevention rests locally with the 32 river boards and the two conservancies—the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked why we could not have a Flood Prevention Bill for England and Wales to match the Scottish Bill. The answer is that the Scottish Bill gives to Scottish local authorities powers which are already possessed by the river boards in England and Wales, which, year by year, have been stepping up their capital expenditure on land drainage and major flood prevention works. There is, however, an enormous amount more to be done.
Flood prevention has suffered through the interruption of war. Just as house building is always brought to an end by war, flood prevention work is another service for which no resources are to spare during wartime. That has added to the backlog. After a nil expenditure during the war, it was not until the 1950s that capital expenditure for flood prevention work became substantial. It is now running at the rate of over £6 million a year. The programmes forecast a steady increase in that sum.
I know for a fact that every river board is examining its programmes afresh in the light of what has happened recently to see whether any of them need to be enlarged or expedited. The river boards can consult the Ministry of Agri
626
culture at any time about their programmes, projects or problems. The initiative lies with the river boards. It is not the case that the river boards have to bear the whole expenditure. In fact, of the £6 million a year which I have mentioned, more than half is being met by Government grants.
I am sure it is right that this work should be done locally. I am sure that it should rest with the local people in the first instance to study what requires to be done and to formulate their proposals. They should be able to look to London or to Cardiff for advice, guidance, expert assistance and money, but the Government have no sympathy with the view, which I have seen expressed in some newspapers, that all of this should be centralised in London and that all the work should be planned from London and carried out at long range from London with the local people not being brought into it. As the House knows, once we embark on a system of 100 per cent. Exchequer grants, that is what happens. The present machinery works well, although, I say quite frankly, there is a vast amount more to be done.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Fulham referred to the relationship between flood prevention and water conservation. This is an extremely important matter, but it is not an easy one. Reservoirs may be needed for both purposes. For flood prevention the reservoirs need to be kept empty and for water conservation they need to be kept full. Moreover, for water conservation purposes we might well need the reservoirs in one part of the river and for flood prevention in another part. I entirely agree that the two need to be studied together. There is, however, no easy solution.
I could not accept that the study of water conservation has been postponed for three years by a temporary interruption of the work of the Central Advisory Water Committee. The whole question of conservation has been made much more urgent in recent years by the rapidly increasing demand for water and, in particular, by the consumption of water by farmers for irrigation purposes, which is completely new. I took action in asking my Central Advisory Water Committee to

627
report to me specially on these conservation questions. I have received an interim report from the Committee and am expecting a further report next year. I cannot say what it will embody. The Committee will be examining the matter nationally. It might recommend new legislation. If so, the Government will seriously consider what the Committee says.
Meanwhile, although one or two hon. Members at different times have said that the matter must be looked at nationally, I would say that it needs to be looked at nationally and locally, too. Each river basin has to be examined individually. I have had two hydrological surveys carried out by my technical officers, one of the Great Ouse and one of the Severn. Both surveys have been published. Six other hydrological surveys of other rivers are in progress.
The case of the Severn is particularly urgent from every point of view. Apart from the Severn's liability to flood, it is also known that fresh demands on the Severn for water abstraction are imminent and it is important that Severn water shall be used in the right way. Consequently, I have been successful in securing that all the bodies who are concerned with Severn water shall sit down together in a working party under the chairmanship of one of my officers. They are making a detailed study of the problems of the Severn in the light of the hydrological survey.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of strengthening the river banks. That is a responsibility of river boards. When I mentioned that £6 million capital expenditure a year was being incurred, I might have added that the river boards are, in addition, spending £3 million a year on maintenance works of various kinds.
In all this, the Government fully accept that we are not yet wholly on top of the problem of controlling river waters both for the prevention of floods and for the conservation of water so that there may be at all times a proper flow. I must, however, point out what nobody has yet mentioned, that it is not only flooding and conservation that must be taken into account. With many of the rivers one has also to take into account navigation, fisheries, industrial
628
demands on the river water, the problem of pollution of the river and amenity aspects generally. This is all extremely complex. I assure the House that we intend to go forward studying the rivers in order of priority of urgency one by one and, in addition, prepared to examine in the light of the Committee's report, which will shortly be submitted to me, whether further legislation is required.
During the past two years, we have had the extraordinary fortune of the driest four months for centuries and the wettest four months for centuries. We must learn every lesson we can, both at the engineering level and at the legislative and administrative levels. As I have said, the Government will be happy to give careful thought to every suggestion that is made by hon. Members in the debate.
The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the position of local authorities. I have been discussing hitherto the preventive policy. Now, let us consider what has to be done in the way of remedial or rescue work when bad flooding occurs. I will come later to the position of individual sufferers. The local authorities may have to carry out work of one kind or another—restoration or construction, for example—as well as rescue work. All this will cost money. For a considerable part of it, grants are already available under ordinary legislation. If, for example, a road is swept away, the highway authority can apply for the ordinary highway grant. If the force of the waters renders houses unfit for further habitation the housing authority can obtain slum clearance subsidy, and so on. In addition, because the total expenditure of the authority will rise, those authorities which are recipients of rate deficency grant will be likely to get a supplement to their own funds automatically by the operation of rate deficiency grant.
I told the House at the beginning of the Session that if, after allowing for all the grants which accrue through one statutory provision or another, a local authority finds that it has to entertain expenditure which would place an unreasonable burden on its ratepayers, it can make a claim for special financial assistance and the Government will sympathetically consider any such claim.

629
The House will realise that that stage is not reached for a long time. It is not reached until the bills have come in and the calculations have been made. Financially, the task of helping the individual sufferer is one that comes much more quickly.
Mr. Arthur Probert: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? To give an example, a river which is not designated—in other words, has not been taken over by a river board—has now raised its bed 3 ft. or 4 ft. In consequence, the local authority has to take emergency action. How can the right hon. Gentleman assist such a local authority?
Mr. Brooke: It is quite simple. If it appears that work which it is necessary for the local authority to do, when it has been paid for and all grants have been taken into account, will throw an unreasonable burden on the ratepayer, the local authority can count on special financial assistance.
The hon. Member for Fulham asked me to define "unreasonable". Clearly, there can be no simple definition of that. One has to take into account the total amount of money involved, the product of a 1d. rate in that area, and, in addition, the level of the rates, because what might be a wholly unreasonable expenditure for a small rural district council to bear might well be within the means of the City of London or the City of Westminster. One has to examine this on an ad hoc basis. I assure the House that I have no intention of adopting a skinflint attitude. The responsibility will fall on me. I have given a pledge to the House and I wish to fulfil it faithfully.
I have explained so far about flood prevention work and local authority remedial work and I want to make it clear that nothing is being held up, to the best of my knowledge, in either field. Flood prevention is not being held up waiting for the report of a sub-committee, and local government remedial work need not be held up by financial fears—because of the pledge I have given.
We now come to the most human question of all, that of help to the individual. This comes, quite naturally, in the very forefront of the Amendment. I have made it my business to obtain
630
reports from all the flooded parts of the country about what has been happening. These reports, though they tell of a terrible amount of human tragedy, nevertheless are reassuring in that, generally speaking, all the services seem to have worked together with an extraordinary smoothness and efficiency. I would not claim for one moment that there has been no difficulty anywhere. There has, of course, been the momentary hold-up here and there through some individual not quite knowing what his powers were and wishing to ring up authority.
The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the National Assistance Board. I have heard, contrary to what he said, much appreciation of the swiftness with which the Board has gone into action, and I know that it is the policy of the Board to give its regional controllers and local managers very wide discretion at times like these, on the general principle that the one thing that matters is that urgent individual need must be met at once.
But, of course, when the tragedy of floods comes the local authority has to co-ordinate the relief work. I should like to pay tribute, and I know that I can do so in the name of the whole House, to local authorities and their welfare services, to the police, the fire service, the Civil Defence service, and to the Service Departments, which, in some cases, have been extremely helpful in rushing equipment to the spot, and to all voluntary organisations, the Women's Voluntary Service, first and foremost, and to many others, including the Salvation Army. Everybody who has been available has come in to help. It has been a most remarkable tribute to the resourcefulness and readiness of the British people, without many orders, to come and act in co-operation and get on with the job when there are people needing to be helped.
Mr. Hayman: And the neighbours.
Mr. Brooke: Yes, and the neighbours. Even some of those who suffered themselves have been quick to go round to help those who have suffered worse.
Wonderful work has been done by the emergency meal services. To take one example, in Bath, which is not an enormous place, no fewer than 3,000 hot meals were served In one day. The food

631
flying squads of the Ministry of Agriculture have been in action in various places. We really have shown, as a nation, how it is possible to rally to help. The rest centres have been open where necessary and it has been found most important to make maximum use of all the drying equipment, on large or small scale, that could be obtained to dry out houses and make them habitable again. According to my reports, there has been very little delay in getting all the services to work and in seeing that people are helped.
In the reports that have come in to me there have been far more expressions of gratitude for the way in which everybody has helped in an emergency than criticisms that everything has not gone quite right. Clearly, a job like that, whatever the form of the emergency, must be tackled first by people on the spot. I had let it be known through what I had said in the House that any local authority that was in difficulty could ring up the Ministry and we would endeavour to give a reply, if not over the telephone then within a few hours.
I am very glad that many local authorities have taken advantage of this. Indeed, collaboration between local government and central government as well as with the voluntary services has been so perfect that I have come to think that we may have some lessons to learn from this, too, and we might see whether we can put it into practice over a wider field.
Sir Douglas Glover: May I, with some knowledge of the aftereffects of flooding, ask my right hon. Friend a question? Where this drying equipment has been brought into play I have found, on many occasions, that six months or nine months later, when the householder thinks that all the problems have been solved and the difficulties put right, it is discovered that from under the floodboards smells develop in the house. The floorboards have to be pulled up to get rid of the smells. If this happens this time, will the local authority and the central Government feel that they should shoulder some of the financial responsibility in helping these people? The expense then will be far greater than the cost of the natural drying-out of the house now.
Mr. Brooke: I quite agree, and that is why I said earlier that local authorities should give advice to people about the possible dry rot that may develop if they do not attend to the drying properly.
Flood relief funds have been opened in most cases forthwith by the local authorities. That is the natural and proper thing to do. Do not let us argue about the meaning of "charity" and whether it is a good or a bad word. Whatever we did in the House I am certain that such funds would be established straightaway locally and people would subscribe to them. Indeed, many people among those who have not suffered from the floods want to subscribe as a measure of thank offering. They may not have suffered physically themselves, but want to give up something for the benefit of the victims.
What matters most is that all financial and other needs shall be met without delay, and I believe that we have achieved that. We have to see, therefore, that there is sufficient money in all these funds. For that reason, I said, and have repeated, that the Government stand ready to supplement any local funds which do not suffice to meet all the proved distress in the area.
The hon. Member for Fulham made reference to some remarks at a meeting of Taunton Borough Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) may have something to say about that. I have checked since the hon. Member spoke, and have ascertained that Taunton Council has been assured more than once that it can have money from us instantly the moment it asks for it, but the council has not yet asked for it.
A number of other localities have asked for it, however, and I want to tell the House what has been done. The Devon and Exeter floods were the first, and £50,000 has been sent, in response to a request, to Devon and Exeter. A sum of £25,000 has been sent to Bath Flood Relief Fund in response to a request; £20,000 has been sent to Horncastle; £5,000 to Maidstone; £5,000 to Williton; £4,000 to Newport, Isle of Wight; and £100,000 to the Lord Mayor of Cardiff's Fund for Wales and Monmouthshire.

633
In every case, when we have received a request, either by letter or telephone, the cheque has been posted forthwith. Any local fund which is in difficulties and has claims which it is unable to meet can act in the same way apply to us and the money will be sent at once.
I do not mind whether one calls this a national fund or not. My concern is that it shall work. It is working, and I trust that we will not divert too much of our energies from making sure that the machine does work into what strike me as being rather theoretical arguments about whether this fulfils all the requirements of a national fund.
I have been asked once or twice: why did not the Government say that they would do this on a for £ basis? The answer is that though that might be generous in some instances, it would not be sufficiently generous in others. A small place may have relatively scanty resources and may not be able to raise a big fund, though it needs the money. We do not want to be restricted by rules of that kind. We want to be sure of supplying the money when it is asked for.
We have informed all local authorities concerned of What our opinion is on the Lord Mayor's rules, which were carefully drawn up in connection with the administration of the big fund after the East Coast floods of 1953. I have sent one of my financial experts round to a large number of local authorities to help and advise them about any financial points on which they wish guidance.
The War Damage Commission has lent a number of its assessors, who have great experience in dealing with claims, and I have heard from several quarters how valuable it has been to have these professionally trained people on the spot to give advice to local authorities and the administrators of funds about practical questions of administration, and to give help and advice to applicants about putting in their claims.
We made plans to let all applicants know how they could get claim forms. May I say, in passing, that farmers who have suffered losses, if they send in claims, are having them transmitted to the regional controllers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and they are being dealt with in that way. There are, of course, various agricultural grants which may
634
be available under existing legislation or practice to assist with the rehabilitation of farms.
The money that my Department is supplying to supplement various funds is being advanced out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for the moment, but a Supplementary Estimate will be required and will be submitted to the House. It will appear eventually as a Grant-in-aid on my Department's vote.
The first task is to make sure that any victim has food and fuel, and drying and cleaning material. The victims want as quickly as possible to get back to their old life and to carry it on as they have known it and enjoyed it. Only then do they start counting up their loss in money terms, and only after that will some of them, at any rate, be able to put in claims on their insurers.
A great many people who have suffered have been found not to be insured. On the other hand, a great many have insurance claims, and I am advised that for the losses through the first floods—the ones that occurred some time ago in Devon and elsewhere—more than 20,000 insurance claims have come in and that the insurers have already met over half of them.
The larger claims from individuals will take some time to prepare and to check, but all the smaller claims are being dealt with, I believe, with the utmost swiftness through these local funds, and I have taken action today—I hope that the House will approve—of making sure that the Press throughout the country has the addresses where these local funds are being conducted.
It has been suggested to me that there may be numbers of people—for instance, Welshmen outside Wales and Men of Kent or Kentish Men—who live some distance from Wales or Maidstone and do not know at the moment where to send money, but would like to help. I hope that the Press will give publicity to all that.
That is the general story which the Government have to tell. Floods are a terrible tragedy. I have indicated what remedial and preventive action is at hand. Frankly, I can see very few ways in which the rescue machinery could have worked more smoothly, though I am not saying that it was perfect.

635
Everywhere, it was very largely due to local initiative with the Government standing ready to help.
I have made it my business to make sure, as far as I could, that the central Government's machinery was working on oiled wheels. If the Opposition's Amendment censured the Government, I should ask them to explain how the arrangements they would have made would have brought aid and succour more quickly to the victims. I do not think that their arrangements would have done that, and I do not think that it matters very much whether one calls this a national fund or not. One virtue of this arrangement is that the areas needing help from the Exchequer have automatically defined themselves. This has been where the civic authorities have thought the disaster sufficiently serious to open a local fund. If they have, then the Government stand behind them. If they have not, then that is at least some indication that they do not consider the emergency to have been abnormal.
My desire is to ensure that there is the smoothest possible co-operation between the central Government and local government and that there is sympathetic administration of all these funds. I shall listen to the rest of the debate with the greatest attention. The Government recognise the danger as a continuing one and that we shall not be out of the wood, or out of the wet, until the dry weather of next summer comes. [Laughter.] It may be that I am too hopeful, but I think that we shall dry off a bit in the summer.
I trust that it will appear, as the result of the debate, that if there are differences between us, they are not deep cut. They are surface differences, because I am sure that as compared with any small differences we might have, none of them counts against the unity of the House in sympathy with the victims and in united tribute to every man, woman and child who, often in conditions of hardship, exhaustion and sometimes danger, has rushed to the help of fellow citizens who have been hit by disaster.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I have been much taken by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and some of
636
the fears of Rhondda have been allayed by that speech, but not all of them. For most of last week I spent most of my time among the people in my constituency who have been seriously affected by flooding and by landslides because of the excess of water. I need hardly tell the House that what is left after floods of this character is a tragic sight.
I pay my tribute to the local authorities and the voluntary organisations for the manner in which they have met this great difficulty. I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. A. Pearson), whose constituencies are adjacent to mine and who feel as I do but who may not get a chance to speak in the debate. Indeed. I am sure that I speak for all those Members whose areas have been affected by the floods.
I could tell the House of many extreme cases of distress and the efforts of many organisations to render all possible assistance. The Western Mail of today tells of Red Cross workers from Cardiff. Swansea and Maesteg who sent to Trehafod £3,000 worth of household utensils, blankets, carpets and so on which were badly needed in that area. That is an indication of the spontaneous response from many organisations in the Principality.
I could relate many harrowing experiences. That I do not do so is because I am mindful of the fact that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want to speak. However, for a few moments I want to deal with some matters about which I have been gravely disturbed and which are causing much anxiety in my constituency and, I assume, in many other areas. There are two problems in Rhondda. In some parts, such as Gelli and Tonpentre in Rhondda, West and Trehafod in my constituency, there are wide areas where houses were flooded to a considerable depth, where the occupants sometimes had to be rescued by boats and taken to rest centres which the local authorities immediately set up. All that was a temporary measure and was successfully completed with the co-operation of both the victims and those who sought to give assistance.

637
Some days later, after the floods had subsided and families were in the process of being rehabilitated in their own homes. I visited one of the affected areas at Trehafod in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. That was last Thursday. I then had my first experience of the red tape and niggardly attitude which is so often associated with Government Departments. I accept what the Minister has said about the liaison between those Departments in general and the people concerned with flooding. However, I have to criticise officials of the National Assistance Board, divisional and area.
There were homes saturated with water and people trying to get back to normal and yet, because of the niggardliness of those officials, being refused a meagre two hundredweights of coal to dry out their homes. Some local officials acted more humanely and ultimately the difficulty was surmounted, but other officials were asking questions to decide whether people deserved that small ration of coal. There were men who had lost their working boots in the flood and who wanted to get back to work and who needed a small grant so that they could buy a new pair of boots. They found the attitude of the National Assistance Board's officials frustrating. I hope that those things will be adjusted if there are ever any floods in future.
I call attention to the circular which the Minister sent to local authorities. It said:
"First, as a first-aid measure the National Assistance are accepting claims to meet the immediate personal needs of people affected by flooding. If further information is required local authorities should consult the manager of the local office of the National Assistance Board."
The circular is dated 8th December, but the floods occurred in Rhondda on the night of the 3rd-4th December. What instructions were issued immediately to the area offices of the National Assistance Board to deal with this emergency? Secondly, what instructions, if any, have these people to deal with such an emergency? The need for an overall plan to deal with such emergencies is apparent to anybody who witnessed the early confusion.
I would like to quote again from this document. It says:
638
"The losses by individual householders of personal businesses should be met in the first place from insurance in so far as an insurance policy applies, and in the second place from an appeal fund. In so far as voluntary contributions to such a fund are insufficient to meet all needs, the Government has undertaken to meet the difference between the amount available in the appeal fund and the need. In view of this it is not considered necessary for local authorities to make money available for this purpose from the general rate fund."
Are we to take it from that that if a policy of insurance is held by a householder he will not be entitled to get any assistance either from the voluntary appeal fund or from the Government? What if his losses are far in excess of his coverage? Is he to be penalised for trying to meet such an emergency himself and falling short of his needs? If that is the case, surely it is totally unfair and unreasonable.
Mr. Brooke: Might I answer that point straight away? So far as immediate needs are concerned, there can be no question of asking people whether they have an insurance policy or are likely to be reimbursed for their immediate personal needs. However, when it comes to sending in a financial claim later, it is reasonable, because these are funds which have been provided either voluntarily or by the taxpayers, to ask whether the individual has an expectation of getting reimbursement in full from his insurance company.
Mr. Richard Kelley: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by immediate personal needs?
Mr. Davies: In the next paragraph of the circular the Government were, to my mind, saying that they intended to evade what surely should be their responsibility by partially hiding behind the contribution to the Lord Mayor's Fund in Wales and other voluntary funds in other parts of the country. I am glad to have had some assurance on that score from the Minister.
I am sure that no hon. Member would like to see the spirit of giving in times of stress such as this done away with, but we must have some regard for the immensity of the need at the present time and the amount of money which funds of this kind usually attract. I have in mind that recently we had a

639
national fund in Wales because of a pit disaster. It has taken six or seven months to amass £100,000. I am afraid that if we rely too much upon the local aspect for these funds we will not be doing our duty.
In the final paragraph of the circular to which I have referred local authorities are advised by the Ministry not to make money available for relief from the general rate fund. I am sure that that will be greatly appreciated by most local authorities, and in particular by local authorities such as Rhondda where the rate burden is already extremely high. I was pleased to hear the Minister say today that these considerations would be borne in mind when the payment to local authorities began. On 2nd November, 1960, the Minister referred to what would happen in the case of local authorities who had an unreasonable burden placed on them and on their rates. I contend that, in any authority, like Rhondda, where the rate burden is so high at the moment, it would be unreasonable to ask for an increase on the present rate. That is where the Minister and I would probably differ, on the interpretation of the word "unreasonable". I hope that the Minister who replies will give us his opinion about that.
Much will depend on the speed with which claims are met and decided, and the generosity and humanity with which they are decided by the responsible assessors. One thing which worries me is the reliance on the voluntary appeal fund. I am pleased to know that the south-west area of the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to contribute £3,000 to this fund. It has also decided to impose a levy of 2s. per adult and 1s. per junior, which will bring in another £8,000. However, I am sure that they would not want this to be interpreted as meaning that the Government should shelve their responsibility. That must be clearly understood, and I am sure that when I say that I am speaking for the executive of the South-Wales area of the union and the men who will be asked to make this contribution.
May I now deal with the second problem confronting us in Rhondda. About 200 yards from where I live at Pontygwaith part of the mountain slipped into the houses. This occurred
640
at Brewery Street. About fifteen houses were seriously affected. Some were more seriously damaged than others, but they were all damaged by water sweeping down from the mountain. This caused great fear and distress on Sunday of last week. May I quote a statement made by one of the residents in a local newspaper. He and other residents got up early on Sunday morning when water poured through their houses to a depth of 6 or 7 ft. He said:
"The whole area behind is a vast watershed. It suddenly sprang numerous outlets and then the whole ground exploded. We tried to divert it into the main street but the mountain seemed to blow up round us. It was like being on the rim of a volcano. Had we been standing where we were a minute or two sooner we would have been buried. It was impossible to calculate how much mud and water dropped in on us, and there is considerably more hanging there now virtually by a few threads. A telegraph post was snapped as if it was a pencil. Near where the back garden walls had been smashed down two cars lay buried in the mud."
That was the situation that I saw on Sunday, 4th December.
The problem lies not in what has happened but what is likely to happen. Even the local authority has said that this mountain may start moving again at any time, although the people have gone back into their houses. Behind the mountain there is a cavity of 100 or 150 yards which is still full of water. Were it not for the fact that we have had little or no rain in the days immediately following this occurrence I am convinced that there would have been a very serious catastrophe in the area.
I urge the Minister to deal quickly with this problem. Can we have some sort of warning system which will give the people who now reside in these houses some indication of the slightest movement in the mountain? Can he send in his technical officers at an early date to advise the local authority in the matter and to give them an assurance that money will be forthcoming from the Government to get on with the job of ensuring that such happenings will be prevented in the future?
There is much that I could say in connection with this matter, but I conclude merely by asking the House whether it feels that it is not too much to ask that the Amendment should be agreed to. It

641
asks for three things—first, that all the necessary assistance should be given to individuals and local authorities affected by these tragic happenings; secondly, that we should safeguard the future by the establishment of a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters and, thirdly, that we should devise adequate means of preventing floods or flood damage in future.
The House owes it to those people who have been affected by these problems, to those who have sacrificed so much to assist them, to local authorities who have borne the burden, and last but not least to itself, to accept the Amendment and to see that its terms are carried out forthwith.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: In rising for the first time in this House, I should like to ask for its indulgence. I want to take a few minutes to mention some subjects which have not yet received attention but which are appropriate to the recent floods. One form of damage which might well receive alleviation is really an indirect one. Businesses which necessarily use imported machinery have to pay import duty on spare parts. I am informed that the object of that duty is not to raise revenue but to protect home industry, and it is therefore reasonable to ask that when as a result of flood devastation emergency imports are necessary in order to get the factories back to work, a concession should be granted so that the Exchequer does not raise extra funds, even if inadvertently, through the misfortune of flood damage. This might well also apply to emergency imports of raw materials to replace those destroyed by flooding.
In both cases I am thinking not merely of the firms concerned but of those employed in the firms. In many cases the employers are doing their best to get the works running, even if the equilibrium of production is upset. It is in the interests of local communities that normality should be restored as quickly as possible, even if it is necessary to bring in additional imports as an emergency measure.
Secondly, I want to draw attention to the considerable period of time which
642
can elapse before the full damage to the agricultural community can be assessed. Owing to the very bad weather this year there was a shortage of hay and other feedingstuffs in the West Country; and the loss of this hay owing to the disastrous flooding involves more than the value of the hay itself. A further loss will result from farmers being unable to keep the same number of animals through the winter to sell in the spring.
There are other considerations. Owing to the flooding it has been necessary for many farms to sell off a large proportion of their cattle in a short period because they were unable to accommodate them. The result was a significantly greater drop in the market price than would normally have been expected at this time. That is yet another form of damage, although I should be the first to agree that it is an extremely difficult form to assess.
I want to deal with the problem of insurance, from two aspects. Some insurance is misleading. I do not necessarily imply that it is sold with the intention of misleading, but I should like to know how many of us look at the fine print in our own insurance policies. I know it to be true that in a number of cases people have paid premiums on insurance policies bearing the word "comprehensive" only to find when the risk falls due that among the fine print is the statement that as the house is cob built—that is, the binding is of earth instead of cement—the structure is not covered by the policy. In future we ought to give some attention to the need to ensure, if possible, that insurance which is misleading in effect if not in intent is made more comprehensible to people who avail themselves of it and believe that they are taking all reasonable steps to provide against misfortune.
Then there is the problem of uninsurable property. I expect that this will become more serious rather than less serious as a result of the recent flooding. Property which lies in frequently flooded districts may be literally impossible to insure at any figure. We should consider what means we can take to enable the owners of such property to insure it. I fear that as a result of the catastrophic floods the classes of property and the areas in which they are situated and

643
which are, in effect, commercially uninsurable, may be extended, in which case this problem will become very much more urgent.
It is surely particularly so when the Government extend themselves to assist people, that this should not be taken as a disincentive to people to safeguard their own interests as much as is reasonably possible in the future. Certain it is, to my mind, that where there are many cases known locally of people who imagined that they had insured themselves, only to find that in fact they were Mot covered, or, alternatively, people who endeavoured to insure themselves but were unable to do so, there may be an increased rather than a reduced tendency for people to insure against the risk which has been brought home to them in such a disastrous fashion.
I wish to pay a personal tribute to the many voluntary organisations which I saw operating, not only in Tiverton, on that disastrous Sunday. In particular, the cadet force and the boys of Blundells School, who operated a radio network which, as the telephone system was to some extent disrupted by the floods, proved extremely useful. The next day they performed the not very pleasant task of taking round large quantities of coal to houses which had been flooded and assisted in sweeping the mud and slime out of those houses. Both these actions have not passed unnoticed by the people who had the misfortune to suffer.
I wish to say a word of appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence, because very often it is considered that they exist only for one purpose, to guard—we hope—against the advent of a major catastrophe connected with war rather than with the natural elements. I hope that some people who have some spare time which they can usefully employ might feel that they could give service in this direction, as it would be of such demonstrated value to their fellow citizens. Many of us consider that the police force exists solely either to deter people from crime or apprehend them when they have transgressed. But I think any of us who have seen members of the police forces working at times of disaster such as this must realise that they have other functions as well, which they perform very cheerfully and
644
humanely and with very great effort and consideration for the people among whom they live.
5.44 p.m.
Sir John Maitland: It is always a great pleasure and privilege on behalf of the House to congratulate an hon. Member on his maiden speech and to welcome him to our work when he has passed that difficult fence which we all have to negotiate. It is particularly pleasant for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), as I am one of the many friends of his distinguished predecessor. It was perhaps an augury of the future that the first words which the hon. Gentleman uttered in this House were about the reduction of taxation, something about which his predecessor knew quite a lot. It is very easy to congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely thoughtful and helpful speech. The problem of uninsurability is one that all of us who have come in contact with flooded areas have encountered. I think there is no doubt that my hon. Friend may rest well assured that the House will listen to him very carefully indeed when he speaks again and often, as we hope he will.
The Minister mentioned a place which had had seven inches of rain in three days. In my constituency we had seven inches of rain in six hours. I will not go into the whole story of what happened there. We had one of the few fatal casualties, and the tragedy would have been much greater had it not been—so many hon. Members have said this—for the magnificent work of the local authority, the Civil Defence, the police and all concerned. It was a magnificent team job, and I am proud to represent people of that sort in this House.
The Civil Defence people were quite magnificent. They were on the spot in under two hours after the floods had occurred, with the rest of the team, although there was, of course, no warning. Horncastle is quite a small town, with a population of about 4,000 people, yet the whole of our Civil Defence services were engaged in coping with this disaster. They were able to cope with it and to do their job well, but it is not something to be too pleased about when we think that Horncastle is only one small town in the very large area which

645
those services have to cover. It indicates both the value of the Civil Defence services and the need to strengthen and improve them.
I wish to quote from two letters, and I do so with great pleasure, because it is not often I have the opportunity of so congratulating Her Majesty's Government. The letter is from the deputy clerk to one of the local authorities concerned, who, incidentally, is also the secretary of the disaster fund. In this letter, written shortly after the floods, he states:
"The Government appear to have tackled this problem with speed and there is no doubt that this has enabled us here in Horncastle to now proceed to deal with the claims with the utmost speed."
The next sentence which I am going to read may perhaps he out of order. It is not usual—it is not proper—to criticise civil servants in this House. I am not sure whether it is proper to praise them, but I am going to do so—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think the hon. Gentleman had better not read it and I am obliged to him for his warning.
Sir J. Maitland: I thank you for the Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will see that the letter reaches the Minister so that he may read what is in it for himself.
The second extract I wish to read is front a letter which was written on 7th December:
"I would like to stress the assistance we have received from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government officials and from the War Damage Commission assessors. With regard to financial help from the Ministry, I telephoned them on Monday to ask for £20,000 to be deposited to our Flood Fund account, and this was done immediately."
So I think the Government have a good record for their actions during this difficult and deplorable time.
I wish to say something about the question of the establishment of a national fund. I am one who has pressed for that, but I realise that it is a very difficult thing to do. Someone has to decide what is a disaster and how many people must it affect before a national fund would begin to work. Who would decide that? There is the question of how the fund would be financed, which is probably the easiest question to answer. Would it be financed directly from public sources, or would it absorb the "tails"
646
of all the private funds which were used before and which cannot now be used owing to the conditions under which they were subscribed?
All these are difficult problems. It is no good trying to pretend that they can be answered easily. I think it possible to have a national disaster fund. New Zealand has one, which apparently works very well and gives considerable confidence to people in a country where there are many national disasters caused by flooding, from volcanic action, and so on. What I should like the Government to do would be to have the matter considered by outside experts and prepare a report giving the pros and cons for a fund of this kind. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of pressure for a national fund before people have really thought the problem through to the end. I think we could have one, but before we do so we ought to have the matter fully considered.
We ought to have the opportunity of considering in detail proposals put before us in order that we in the House of Commons, and through us the Government, may do the right thing. There is no doubt that that is what the country at the moment wants. It will not be satisfied if the suggestion is turned down flat in the House this evening. It would be satisfied if the matter could be carefully considered and the pros and cons fully debated and thought out. So I hope the Government will not turn the idea down flat. On the other hand, I think it would be unwise for them to say they will agree to having a national fund at once. The matter should be fully considered so that we can fully understand it.
I would like now to turn to another matter. There is a mechanical difficulty about helping ratepayers, particularly in regard to river boards, which have incurred considerable additional expense when banks of rivers have broken and so on. It is extremely difficult to help because a river board raises money through precepts, not necessarily made on one local authority, but sometimes on several local authorities. My river board raises precepts on three county councils. In one county there have been floods, but not in the other two. It is difficult to make that additional precept the subject of individual Government assistance.

647
I want the Government to look at this problem of helping these cases and to realise that it is a difficult problem. They must not say that because it is difficult they will try to fit it into what might be called a reasonable expense. I do not think they will do that, but I emphasise that there are mechanical difficulties in helping river boards to raise money because they are financed in a rather curious way. We are spending a lot of time upstairs in Committee discussing this question. Some precepts come from internal drainage boards, and they may be increased awing to flood damage. It is difficult to see haw ratepayers paying those rates could be relieved of an excess which would be out of all proportion to what they might normally expect.
Mr. George Jeger: The hon. Member is aware that in Committee upstairs we have been told repeatedly by the Minister of Agriculture that the Land Drainage Bill has nothing whatever to do with the floods which we are discussing today.
Sir J. Maitland: I am a member of that Committee, and I should not have thought that the report by the hon. Member in that particular sense was correct. It would be quite out of order to go into the question more, but there we are discussing how to pay for these matters. I am discussing now how the rates for these particular payments should be raised. I am pointing out that it is a very complicated matter. I know the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) will agree with me in that. It will have added particular complications and difficulties when the Government—as they have pledged themselves to do—relieve ratepayers of excessive costs which these floods have made inevitable. I quite agree that if the burden can be spread reasonably and it can be shown that they can take the costs in their stride, that is all right. I do not think we should argue about that, but there are many cases in which river boards have a problem. I hope the Minister and the Government will still further examine that problem.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: I wish to join the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Sir J. Maitland) in paying tribute
648
to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whom we heard for the first time tonight. I am glad that the hon. Member follows a not undistinguished right hon. Member of this House in representing that constituency and that he has so soon made his maiden speech. It is remarkable that we should have a maiden speech on a topic like this, and I congratulate the hon. Member for choosing this subject which affects the life and wellbeing of his constituents. Like other hon. Members, I hope we shall hear from him often and to our advantage.
This has been a constructive debate, a debate in which generally both sides of the House have been reaching out to find ways of helping our people and of avoiding further suffering. I welcomed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and much of what the Minister of Housing and Local Government said tonight. All of us have been deeply moved by the suddenness of the trouble and sorrow which came to our people. I have been impressed by the fibre of those in trouble—by the way in which old people, living by themselves, have responded with remarkable courage and fortitude, and the way in which young people, who sometimes are denigrated in these days, have rallied to help total strangers to get over their difficulties.
We in the City of Cardiff suffered the greatest disaster that city has known in living memory. I entirely agree that our first aim must be to relieve suffering. That was the immediate reaction of the right hon. Gentleman when he announced that the first aim would be to relieve the suffering of the people. Like other hon. Members, I have been visiting homes in my constituency where people are trying to dry out furniture, to clean walls and get back to normal. It is a sheer impossibility for most ordinary people to assess accurately the damage they have suffered. When folk have asked me if I would help them to assess damage in their homes I have been willing so to do, but I am not an expert.
The demand upon the local authority is tremendous. Thousands of homes in the City of Cardiff were flooded very seriously on that Sunday a fortnight ago. Local government officers will not be able to cope for a long time with all

649
the problems of the people involved and to guide them on what claims they should make in respect of damage. I am grateful for the speed with which the various departments of the local authority have gone into action to try to help. I believe that what has happened before can happen again and that our main task is to see that we are prepared to prevent a catastrophe of these proportions. Although we can do nothing to prevent the rainfall, we can do a great deal to our rivers and watercourses to avoid the terrible danger to which we have been subject.
Did I follow the Minister correctly when he said that river boards are undertaking a comprehensive survey of all the rivers in their districts? If they embark on a vast capital expenditure programme which clearly arises because of the increased danger, will there be a 100 per cent. grant to cover such works in the future? I believe that where local authorities have to embark on unusual work and special expenditure caused by the floodim, it all ought to rate at once for 100 per cent. grant from the Exchequer. We must realise that the fortunate have an obligation to help the unfortunate, and the fairest way of all, that I can see, is for it to be done through the Exchequer. We all pay our taxes according to our ability, and it is much fairer for the Exchequer to say to local authorities that the rates, which are never as fairly assessed as taxes, because they are assessed not upon one's income but upon where one is living and other extraneous factors, should not have to bear any burden as a result of the flooding but that the Exchequer will bear the burden in all cases.
Mr. Charles Pannell: This Government believe in local option.
Mr. Thomas: I am not speaking on behalf of the Government.
I want, next, to refer to the question of the warning system. Although people are rightly extremely grateful for all the help and the assistance which they received when the floods occurred, there is much feeling that the warning system was not as good as it ought to have been. For instance, in Cardiff, where the floods reached Gabalfa in Cardiff, North soon after 5 a.m., there was a warning to the tenants just before the floods broke and
650
there was admirable liaison, but in West Cardiff, my division, which the Minister knows well, the floods reached Cathedral Road, I understand, about 7 a.m. and they reached other parts of Riverside about 9 a.m. Because it was a Sunday morning people were lying in bed without realising the danger which was lapping along the streets. If there had been a loudspeaker warning, these people might have been able to lift up some of the furniture. I do not wish to blame anyone, because I realise that all the resources of Civil Defence, the police and others were concentrated on the disaster at Gabalfa, but I hope that in future we shall give priority in our considerations to the provision of a warning system which can arouse people.
We had the warning of the West Country staring us in the face. Our hearts have gone out to the people of the West Country, particularly Exeter, where they have been flooded four times. We thanked God that in our own city we were more fortunately placed. But those who are responsible for the wellbeing of the community must not be content with thanking God. We must in future be prepared with some system of warning. We could use the siren or some other national system when we are confronted with dangers of this sort in districts near the hills.
As is increasingly the custom in Wales, the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Cardiff assumes the responsibility for national appeals in the Principality, and I think that this meets with the support and the good wishes of our people as a whole. But a disaster of this sort cannot possibly be left there. The Minister acknowledges that by explaining that the public generosity and even the amounts which he has sent are tiny fragments of what will need to be supplied. The generous contribution of £100,000 to the Lord Mayor's Fund could, I am sure, be swallowed up in my division without looking to Cardiff, North and the devastation of the poor Rhondda Valley. I believe that the Minister will be obliged to think in terms of many millions of £s.
Mr. Brooke: I may not have made it clear but the payments which I detailed were all payments on account. They were not intended to assess our view of what that fund might eventually require.

651
We have been asked for certain moneys in order to keep the fund solvent, and we have responded instantly.
Mr. Thomas: I do not want to sound ungrateful. We are grateful that there has been recognition that at the end of the day it is the Government who must stand behind all these things, and the Minister has generously said that they will. I wish that he had gone the other step forward and had accepted the idea of a national disaster fund. The British are generous people; their instincts are sound enough. A national disaster fund could not only make provision for the Government to do their duty but could give an opportunity for people with high motives and warm hearts to make their contribution in the event of such disasters.
I am not put off by the question of what is a disaster. We know a disaster when we meet it. It may be difficult to define, whether in the coal mines, at sea, on land, or by flooding—but when there is a disaster, hon. Members know. It should not be beyond the wit of the House to devise a national scheme which can cater for folk who meet these terrible troubles.
My last point concerns insurance and compensation. I believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult to do the right thing by all the people who have suffered. I was in a home last week-end when I saw a widow, with a settee tipped on one side, trying pitifully to dry it out in front of the fire. It was useless because the silt was inside. Her furniture will never be the same. She said that she had a comprehensive insurance policy but the insurance company said that it was for storm and pestilence but not for flood. I ask the Minister to make an appeal to the great insurance companies of this land to be generous in their interpretation in dealing with the claims of flood victims. He told us that 20,000 applications had already been received and that 10,000 had been dealt with. I hope that it will not be necessary for any hon. Member to have to write to insurance companies to ask them to meet generously claims from people who thought that they had an honourable understanding with the various insurance firms; because I believe that big business, as small business, depends at the
652
end of the day on mutual trust and integrity.
I am sure that insurance companies will be aware that the whole nation is watching how they will deal with these flood victims who are insured with them. There is the example which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) was bringing to my attention of people in Bridgend, which was also badly flooded, who insured the contents of their homes years ago and had not increased their value. These people have been caught out on a limb. Despite the manifold human problems of this sort which arise, I earnestly hope that if insurance companies err at all it will be on the side of generosity.
Pounds, shillings and pence can never properly compensate these people for the terror they have known and the misery they have endured, but at least it can help to restore their homes to something like normality. I am glad the Government are willing to make their contribution. I hope they will look again at the question of a national distress fund.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Edward du Cann: I intend to make a very short speech and would like to begin it by adding to the tribute already paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). His constituency and mine are contiguous, and there has always been a healthy rivalry and healthy friendship between our two constituencies. I was interested in my hon. Friend's reference to the boys of Blundells, because the pupils, particularly the boys, did so much good work at the time of the flood disaster. Perhaps when they have cleaned themselves from carting coal they will look forward to being beaten again at rugger and cricket by the boys of Taunton, as they always are.
Flooding is of great concern to the House as a whole, and particularly to those Members who have constituency interests. I would like to say at once that, although I am very pleased there is to be no Division on this Amendment, I support it and support it wholeheartedly. It seems to follow the lines of the Motion which my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the other side tabled a little while ago.

653
This is the third occasion on which we have had a debate on flooding in the House this Session. I made a long speech on the subject on 11th November and I do not intend to repeat the points I made then. However, I am sure that everybody who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government this afternoon was tremendously impressed, as I was, net only by his obvious command of the situation as a whole, but also by his demonstrable good faith.
I trust him, and I am sure that the House and country as a whole trust him, and are grateful to him for what he is already doing. He was good enough to say that he feels there are lessons which can be learned. Government policy, as I understand it, consists at present of bringing aid to various localities which have suffered by making up the difference in the amount raised publicly by appeal funds, and the like, and the total need.
My right hon. Friend recognised that in some cases those differences will be very great. Some help has already been given in particular areas which have asked for help. The Minister has pointed out that a £ for £ scheme, as I suggested on 11th November, and as other people have suggested would not be enough. That is particularly true of the Dulverton rural area, where the need is estimated to be £4,000 and where, so far, the local relief fund has only contributed £400. That is not because the people in the far West Country are not generous people, but because they are too poor to give any more money and because there are the conflicting claims of the Dulverton Relief Fund, in my friend's constituency, the Taunton Relief Fund, and so on.
What about places where there are no local relief funds at all? They will have to be dealt with. It is not easy to start new relief funds at this time. There are too many. Wales has been very sensible in this matter in having only a single fund. That will make it much easier to deal with all the difficulties.
Then there are the wider difficulties which emerge. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's speech when he said, in effect, "How are we to find the money to clear the tributaries?" It is the
654
tributaries and culverts in my constituency, particularly the western end of it, which are the trouble, because they are silted up. That has brought flooding in small local areas, the names of which do not get into the newspapers. In the Dulverton area alone I am told that at least £4,000 will be required to do the necessary work of clearing. I am glad that the money will be available through the good offices of my right hon. Friend.
If that is true of the smaller schemes, what about the larger schemes? We know that in and around Taunton £3 million has to be spent. That is a lot of money. We cannot begin to find it ourselves. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give an assurance tonight that that money will be forthcoming. There is the difficulty that although we have my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government here, and although the debate is to be wound up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this is, in part, a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Some confusion arises in that regard in the minds of some people and makes dealing with the problem so much more difficult.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in a speech which he delivered with his customary clarity—I always enjoy listening to him—made a reference to me. He was good enough to give me notice that he might refer to me and I appreciate that notice. If I may "pull his leg" in return, may I say that I thought he spoiled a jolly good speech with a jolly bad point. However good the speech was, it still remains a poor point, a point the importance of which is easy to exaggerate. He said that I had met some criticism in my constituency because I had said publicly, and I am ready to repeat it now, that, on the whole, I was satisfied with what the Government are doing.
I would point out to the House that Taunton is not the whole of my constituency. The county town of Taunton is a very important part of it, but it reaches from Sedgmoor, on the one hand, almost as far as Athelney, where Alfred is reputed to have burned the cakes, and covers almost 75 per cent. of Exmoor, on the other. What local councillors say in Taunton is not typical of

655
what is said in the whole of my constituency. I know, because I have been there and I have talked to my constituents.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend, I thought, answered the point very well when he said, by inference—I certainly say it—that the councillors who said that I did not know what I was talking about when I said the Government had done well enough had not done their homework, because I know, and everybody else knows, what they apparently did not know, and that is that as soon as Taunton puts in a request for money it can have it. So there is no reason for anybody to get excited or alarmed, or to suggest that the Government are not doing their stuff. The truth is that the two councillors concerned, who are most admirable fellows normally, are political opponents of mine.
I would like to turn to the question of the national relief fund, to which reference has already been made, and which many hon. Members, and many people outside the House, have advocated. My right hon. Friend has made a case against a national relief fund at this time, and I accept what he has to say. But I hope that that does not mean that the idea is shelved, because it should not be.
There was a reluctance on the part of the Government, rightly or wrongly, to agree to the establishment of a national relief fund in the early days of the flooding, when Exeter first caught it. They felt that it was only a local matter. They did not realise the possibility that flooding would become as widespread as it has become.
It may be said that perhaps there was no need for a national relief fund at that time and that it was not reasonable to expect the Government to realise that the situation would deteriorate as much as it has. They are not prophets, certainly not weather prophets. They cannot be, whatever may be thought about the Prime Minister's responsibility for the weather.
Perhaps that is the explanation, but it is not an argument for not establishing a national relief fund to cope with future emergencies. I feel very strongly that it is quite likely that we shall have
656
further flood disasters. We have had them in my constituency over the years. There was the Lynmouth flood disaster, which affected us. We have the current flood disaster.
As my right hon. Friend said, the hills and the ground in general are saturated. I am terrified lest further flooding should occur in the west of England, both this year and in future years. As the hon. Member for Fulham rightly said, times change in matters of land drainage. Almost before one realises it, the drainage situation has changed completely, due to the differences in modern techniques—land drainage, building, use of water, etc. I hope that the Government do not rule out the idea of a flood relief fund to deal with future emergencies. We all hope that they will not happen, but we must be prepared.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said on 11th November that he thought that such a fund might discourage private charities. I have thought about that a great deal since my hon. Friend said it. I do not accept it and I do not believe it. It might encourage private charity rather than leave it in the somewhat confused state it is in at the moment with a multiplicity of individual relief funds.
The administrative aspect must be thought of. I should like to see a permanent secretariat and organisation, ready all the time to go anywhere and do anything. Legislation would be required for that, but if legislation were introduced I am certain that the House would pass it virtually on the nod. We could discuss some of the finer points, but legislation of that type would have the broadest possible all-party support.
I do not see why we should not have a scheme analogous to the war damage scheme which existed during the war. During the course of the debate on 11th November my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary asked me, by inference, if I would agree to additional taxation for this purpose. I would. Any householder, house occupier or premises-occupier would be perfectly willing to pay an extra 10s. or £1 a year to set up a central fund to be available for this purpose. Just as the community accepted responsibility for the affairs of

657
the country as a whole through the war damage scheme, so it would be ready to accept responsibility for a national flood disaster fund today.
It has also been suggested that local control might be difficult. I do not believe it. Though there should be a permanent central administration and secretariat, I do not suggest that that need in any way take responsibility away from local authorities. A local authority could easily make its case and present it and then administer the money which was made available for local purposes thereafter. The argument based on local control is not a valid argument against the establishment of the fund.
It has also been suggested that a local fund might discourage local insurances. I do not believe it. I said in the debate on 11th November that the fact that I am to receive a generous pension from a benevolent Government at the end of my days does not discourage me, if and while I can afford it, from making my own private insurance arrangement. I do not think that a national fund would discourage people from making their own private insurance arrangements. Why should it?
Turning to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), in my experience insurance companies have been very generous in dealing with claims, particularly in and around Exeter. It is right that we should pay tribute to them on that account and say to them that the idea of a national relief fund in no way cuts across their business or interferes with it. It supplements it. Bearing in mind some of the points made in the debate about the difficulty of insurance, it is obvious that it needs to be done urgently.
I hope that the Government will not dismiss this suggestion completely, but will accept a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), in his excellent speech, and hold an inquiry. Let us have a debate upon the subject later, by all means.
Finally, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for what he is doing. I repeat that we accept his pledges, which, we know, are made in good faith and will be implemented.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. George Jeger: This is the third occasion on which we have debated floods recently. The debate today has ranged over this very vital problem in the same pattern as it did previously. The problem is still the same. The suffering remains the same. The distress amongst the flooded out homes and families remains the same.
This is not a new problem by any means. It occurs regularly year after year. I can recall that in July, 1956, and again in October, 1958, we discussed the excessive flooding in the West, the South-West, and in the northern regions of Britain after visits had been made to those areas by the then Ministers of Agriculture to see the flooded scenes for themselves.
As a result of floods there are always public alarm, generous Press coverage of the various picturesque, but tragic scenes, public outcry, and a relief fund. Shortly afterwards everything is forgotten and there is public indifference.
There are always emergency operations. Glowing and deserved tributes have been paid today from both sides, especially by the Minister, who is in a position to know more about it than any of the rest of us, to the voluntary work which has been done by private individuals as well as by organisations of one kind or another, helping to alleviate distress and bring help to those in need.
Many families have been in repeated distress during recent floodings. Some families have been flooded out from their homes five or six times. No sooner have they got their walls dry and their furniture clean than they have to start all over again because of a new flood.
If we are to depend to a large extent upon local funds, local administration and local help, without very much help from the central Government, it means, in effect, that we are asking those who suffer from floods to contribute generously towards the relief of their own suffering. Many speakers have emphasised that this is a national problem, and I agree with them. It is a national calamity and should be treated as such to a much greater extent than the Minister has announced today.
The right hon. Gentleman did not announce one thing which has been

659
admitted in all previous debates and discussions on the problems created by floods. He did not announce any permanent preventive action for the future. This is one of the items mentioned in the Amendment. We call for three things. We call on the Government, first,
"to give all necessary help to those individuals and local authorities particularly affected …"
We call on them, secondly,
"to establish a national fund for the relief of distress caused by floods or similar disasters …"
Thirdly, but by no means last in importance, we call on them
"to devise adequate measures to prevent flood damage in future."
That is one thing about which nothing has been said. Is that because it would cost too much? I remember the historic words of a Minister of Agriculture immediately before the war, when urged to get more cultivation and growth of food in this country because of the threat of a war and the possible restriction of imports. He said, "It is all very well to ask for more food to be grown and for the cultivation of all our agricultural produce, but what fools we should look if we did that and there was no war".
That Minister, like many other Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, could neither look ahead nor plan ahead and, as a result, was faced with difficulties that he had not the imagination to foresee. Can we not have the imagination to foresee that the floods from which we are suffering now are not isolated phenomena? We have had them before, though perhaps not so badly. We know that we shall have floods again. We know, roughly, what are their causes, and we know, roughly, what can be done to prevent floods of this magnitude occurring in the future—
Mr. John Wells: Surely, the expenditure of £6 million a year by the river boards cannot be written off as nothing.
Mr. Jeger: That is mainly for maintenance.
Mr. Wells: No, it is on capital works.
Mr. Jeger: But there is a very great deal of work waiting to be done that will cost far more than £6 million. That amount is a very small item, indeed,
660
when one bears in mind how much work is waiting to be done.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) spoke of culverts and tributaries that needed clearing, but which would cost £4,000 to clear. Obviously, a small internal drainage board will find it very difficult to raise as much money as that. That is only one instance, but we can all think of others in our rural constituencies where the work would require the expenditure of very large sums of money.
The River Went Drainage Board needs a new pump that would cost £50,000. How many items of that kind are there throughout the country? Without a comprehensive survey it would be very difficult to assess the total value, but I do not think that the £6 million per annum now being spent is anywhere near sufficient to cater for the difficulties we have to meet. If it was, we should not now have the difficulties; the amount being spent on flood prevention would have proved adequate. The mere fact that we have these floods, and have them repeatedly, shows that we are not spending enough on flood prevention.
I want to dwell for a moment on the cost, not to individual householders in villages and scattered hamlets but to the farming community. I do not know how much is being lost to the country in food and in feedingstuffs—in peas, potatoes, barley and clover—but my farmers tell me that they have lost thousands of acres of them by the floods. They also tell me that we shall probably have to import more food to make good these deficiencies, and that that will affect our balance-of-payments position and our dollar expenditure.
In South Yorkshire, where my constituency lies, they tell me a lot about the loss of foodstuffs, and the waste of farmers' labour in first cultivating their fields and then seeing all their work go to waste. The Yorkshire Post has for quite a time now carried some very fine photographs and descriptions of these occurrences. I congratulate that newspaper's photographers on their enterprise in venturing into such horrible areas to take such good photographs that they have brought home to all of us the effect of these floods on the lives of the people in the rural areas.

661
Some of these farmers, when they have applied for assistance, have been told that their land is always liable to flooding. It is low-lying land. In the beginning, it was drained marshland. The Dutchmen who came over 300 years ago to drain the marshes in the Dutch fashion did a very good job, but the land is always liable to flooding. At the same time, those farmers were told to grow more food, and more feeding stuffs for their cattle. They responded to that appeal, and now are suffering for their patriotism in responding to it.
Local authorities in the area have built new housing estates on land which, according to official information, might be liable to flooding. Nevertheless, they have had to settle their communities and pull down their rural slums. They have had to provide better housing accommodation.
It is an irony that in some of those areas where they have an excess of water at this time of year they need water carts during the summer months to bring water to their farms and their cattle. That is one of the reasons why we press for a water conservation scheme that will not only help to prevent floods and alleviate the damage caused, but will make use of the excess of water, which could be collected at times like this, properly stored in reservoirs, and be available during the dry summer months particularly in those scattered rural areas.
In my area, we are subjected to subsidence. There are several coal mines in the district and they play havoc with the drainage system. When it comes to negotiating with authorities on drainage and about letting off flood water by some means, we have to deal with the National Coal Board, and in regard to canals, we have to deal with the British Transport Commission.
Most of the internal drainage boards are so small that they are not able adequately to deal with the volume of water flowing from their drainage because they cannot afford the necessary large items of capital equipment. We also have a large mass of water, not only from industrial sources but from the moorlands. From those moorlands, it drains through the villages, overflowing the steams and flooding agricultural land and villages as well.
662
My local farmers tell me that they have been flooded out in ten of the last twelve years. This points to 1960 not being an isolated year, although it may vary in intensity. Flooding happens almost regularly, and we should be thinking seriously about preventative expenditure to stop recurrences.
A little while ago I was approached by some people in a small village just outside Goole who told me that their village was flooded regularly every year, and had been for the last fifty years. When I asked why they had not done anything about it, they said that they had got used to it. I might add that those who approached me were the younger members of the community, who thought that they might depart from their parent's attitude of strict toleration and that I might be persuaded to do something about it.
I discovered that the floods occurred as a result of the water overflowing the embankment. When I inquired why the embankment could not be raised, I was told that that issue had been fought over for many years between the Yorkshire Ouse River Board, the British Transport Commission and the Minister of Agriculture, and that it had been impossible to come to any settlement as each of the three parties blamed the other two for their inactivity.
I finally got the matter settled by threatening to take it up with the Prime Minister and asking him to decide which of the authorities was ultimately responsible. I called a conference of the various organisations, and managed to get them to agree to raise the embankment at a cost of £123,000. There has since been no flooding in that little village.
That shows that if there is money available the job can be done. Indeed, I have here an extract from a statement on the floods made by the engineer of the River Went Drainage Board, who said, quite wisely:
"It is all a question of economics; you can do anything with money."
That is the real solution—one can do anything with money. But, with due respect to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) one cannot do very much with £6 million a year. We cannot do much with that; it requires very

663
much more expenditure than that to do the work which is necessary to prevent the floods occurring so regularly.
There is also the question of the renewal of pumps, which are overstrained through excessive work. Many of them were put in many years ago, when the small drainage boards were first brought into action, and they are now worn out. They need replacement, and the replacement cost is much heavier than the original cost. They are very expensive, and beyond the resources of these small boards. That all points to the fact that this is a national matter and should not be regarded as a local one. It needs a centralised plan, whereby the central Government would use as their agents the local boards and local authorities, but under which the bulk of the finance should be raised and distributed from national resources and not local resources. Very often, it is the local areas that need most help, and they are the most impoverished ones, incapable of raising the resources they need for their own assistance.
Therefore, I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us how his mind is working in the direction of a national plan for disposal of surplus water due to floods, a national plan for the erection of such dams, embankments, walls and other devices, including pumps, as can alleviate floods and prevent them from doing so much damage, a national plan for the conservation of surplus water, so that we do not have to go along into the summer dreading the fact that we are going from flood to drought.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Clive Bossom: I welcome very much the opportunity to say one or two things before the debate comes to an end. Herefordshire was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his speech. Fortunately, we have been spared the ordeal of a bad flood since 1947. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the placid River Wye did rise by 19 ft. the other week, and that was the worst we have had since 1795.
I should also like to say how heartened we were by the very prompt assurance by the Government that they would supplement local appeals, which, happily,
664
have gone extremely well, and would give advice and assistance wherever it was required. This was greatly appreciated by our local authorities. Like all other speakers in the debate, I should also like to associate myself with the praise for the services of the police and firemen, Civil Defence, W.V.S. and all the anonymous "Good Samaritans" for having done such magnificent work.
There are two suggestions that I should like to put forward, and I hope that the Government will look further into them. First, there is the need for a better flood warning system. In my part of the country, the Wye River Board and the police between them have done a good job, especially to threatened houses in the villages and towns. In many cases, they were able to give 24 hours' notice, but the real problem lies in the rural areas, where not everyone was warned. Fortunately, this time, no human lives were lost, but a tremendous lot of livestock was lost. In one area alone, Whitney-on-Wye, Eardisley and Preston-on-Wye, which is only a small area, we lost nearly 600 sheep and 50 cattle, which were drowned.
Today, with the electrification of nearly 85 per cent. of our rural areas, most people have a television set and nearly everyone has a wireless set. The B.B.C. and I.T.A. cover the news of the flooding, and I feel that they could be asked to do much more, because half the battle is to have early warning, so as to be able to move livestock and even household goods.
I should like to see special news flashes on the floods, with some new warning device, such as "Flood, force 1, 2 or 3", and also the measurements of the actual rise of the rivers in different areas. That warning would be very useful to farmers, and also for motorists. I am quite confident that in a real emergency, most of our fortunate and dry viewers would be long-suffering during interruptions of their favourite programmes. Another quick and effective method of warning which has been touched on, would be to have installed a series of sirens in special areas, because they are easy to operate and easy to hear.
The other point I should like to make concerns Civil Defence. How I wish that we could change that name to "Civil Aid", because the word

665
"defence" does not apply in war or in peace. If we changed the name, I think that it would help recruiting; and I should like to see the entire r###le of this highly trained and skilled personnel reviewed. I have always maintained that they have a real, peace-time value, which could be considerably expanded. Local councils call on them to set up rest centres, to take round fuel, and to do heavy salvage work. I feel that with a good early warning system they could be called upon to help much earlier on, and especially in helping old people, who usually live in the older parts of the towns and villages, which are the areas which become flooded.
In these areas liable to flooding, Civil Defence should move in early to help the old people to move their furniture, take up their rugs, sandbag their doors, and, in general, prepare their homes for the onslaught that is coming. Their work could be much more valuable, if after this early warning, they could help in the prevention of flood damage. I hope that while there is a lull the Government will look into these two suggestions—the better warning system, and the better use of Civil Defence, which I should prefer to call "Civil Aid".
6.46 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): We have had a most useful and constructive debate, and I will endeavour to reply to some of the points raised by hon. Members, although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government dealt so inclusively with the whole question in his speech that my task will be very much easier than it would otherwise have been.
I should like to turn at once to the very pleasant duty of extending my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for his extremely thoughtful, helpful and constructive speech this afternoon. Those of us particularly, like myself, who have actually worked with his predecessor, will know how much we expect from hon. Members who represent Tiverton. Rarely have I heard so much meat in a maiden speech delivered in ten minutes, and I hope that I shall not be offending against the conventions of
666
the House if I take up one or two practical points which my hon. Friend raised.
First, I can assure him that we will certainly look at the question of businesses using imported machinery, but I am equally sure that he will realise that one of the difficulties here, which arises in so many contexts, is that it is particularly difficult to trace a particular item of imported machinery or raw materials to an area affected by flooding. Another point which my hon. Friend raised, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) also raised, is the question whether the insurance companies are doing all that they might be doing at the present time. I hope that there will be wide publicity given to my hon. Friends' remarks, because it is important that policies should be comprehensible and that their exact import is understood by those who take them out.
I can tell both hon. Members that companies within the British Insurance Association have already received over 20,000 claims, totalling over £1 million, of which about half has so far been paid, for floods prior to 1st December. In addition, there will be the Lloyd's claims, because Lloyd's are outside the British Insurance Association. There are also additional claims for floods subsequent to 1st December.
I am also told, and the House will be glad to hear, that quite a number of businessmen, and also private householders, near the River Exe requested and were granted flood insurance since the October floods, and their claims will swell the total bill to be met. In the case of one large business, which had no floodcover in October and sustained many thousands of pounds worth of damage, insurance cover was subsequently granted in November, only a few days before new floods arrived even deeper on its premises. Therefore, I think that it can be said that the insurance companies have been playing their proper part in helping to combat the effects of these disasters.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Elfed Davies) both raised a very practical point—whether the public authorities are all aware of

667
their responsibilities, what they can do and what they cannot do. The hon. Member for Rhondda, East specifically mentioned the National Assistance Board. I am informed that the Board officers started giving cash assistance in Wales immediately, that is to say, as from Monday, 5th December. Payments for coal, for food or for other immediate needs were made to anyone who was in financial difficulty. Of course, the Board can give help only to those who are in financial need and, if a few applications were turned down, that was because the persons concerned were understood to be in a position to provide for themselves.
The Assistance Board's officers have standing instructions on these matters, but, of course, a great deal must be left to the discretion of local officials. I fully realise that here, as is bound to happen, there are a great many borderline cases. If the hon. Member wants to take up any individual case, I think that his right course would be to take it up with the Chairman of the Board. The Board has difficult duties to fulfil, and I think that there are bound to be some borderline cases.
Several hon. Members asked whether our warning systems are working properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom) and several others referred to this. I am told that, on the whole, our warning systems work very well and that most towns have had their warnings in reasonable time. The difficulty is apt to come on the edges of catchment areas, and this is one of the many lessons which we must learn. Of course, the best warning systems in the world cannot work unless people take notice of them and, inevitably, it is a matter of observing the warning as well as giving it.
It has been made absolutely clear by this debate that, on the whole, everyone concerned has done all that could be expected in combating the effects of this very great disaster. It is very easy for those of us who have not been affected by the floods to talk in this objective way. We are all apt to think of the effect of houses and property being completely destroyed, but in some ways it is very nearly as bad to live in a house which has been thoroughly spoiled. I
668
recall my father, who did a good deal of work in France after the First World War, saying that in his view the most shocking sight he saw in France was not Rheims, where the cathedral had been partly destroyed, but at Soissons, where every single thing in a large town of many thousands of people had been completely spoiled. In large measure, I think, that is the worst type of problem we have here.
There has been an enormous amount of voluntary effort in connection with the flood disasters. I am told that the total of voluntary contributions to date to the earlier flood funds, that is to say, funds opened before the new floods on 3rd December, stands at £108,000. On 3rd November, my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking, which has been mentioned several times today, that the Government would be prepared to supplement locally raised funds wherever it became clear that these would not be sufficient to meet needs and, so far as expenditure on public services was concerned, the Government would be prepared to consider sympathetically requests for special assistance once it was clear that without such assistance there would be an unreasonable burden on the rates.
This afternoon, my right hon. Friend gave details of all the Exchequer payments on account. I will remind the House of the total. The total to date, up to 15th December, amounts to about £209,000. This will be met in the short-term out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, but, of course, there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate which, I am sure, the House will grant without question. The figure that I have given is the total so far.
I feel that the decision in Wales and Monmouthshire to have a general fund is very wise, and to that general fund the Government have contributed £100,000.
Mr. Jeger: Does the amount the hon. Gentleman has given include payments by the National Assistance Board?
Sir E. Boyle: No, that does not include individual payments by the Board. The figures I have given relate simply to payments made in accordance with the statement of my right hon. Friend on 2nd November.

669
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), and several hon. Members opposite have asked about the establishment of a national disaster fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said that he hoped that we would not shelve or forget the possibility of a national relief fund. The Government certainly have not closed their minds for all time to such a proposal. I am bound to say, however, that I think that hon. Members overrate a little the likelihood of large subscriptions to a national disaster fund at a time when floods are completely out of our minds.
I think that some of the arguments used in earlier debates are worth considering carefully. All I would say this evening is that we are now considering the present emergency, but, of course, all Government Departments concerned, and the Government as a whole, will, naturally, take into account the lessons to be learned from these disasters in all their aspects and consider what we ought to do to meet any situation which may arise in the future.
This leads me to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). It is worth remembering that the total capital expenditure on land drainage, although it may not be as high as it should be, is nearly half as much again as it was a few years ago. As I told the House in another debate a few nights ago, in the financial year 1956–57, when I was previously at the Treasury, the
670
total capital investment for this purpose was only just a little over £4 million. It is now 150 per cent. of that figure.
I do not see how it could possibly be wise to invest for this purpose in such a way as to insure against the consequences of the sort of floods which occur once every 200 years. One has to keep a balance. But, of course, as I said the other night—I repeat it now—when we are planning the future public capital expenditure programme, we shall take into account the flood disaster of this year. I assure hon. Members that, even if we do not have an opportunity to debate this subject again in the near future, as we may possibly not have, the Government not only congratulate all those who have played such a fine part in combating the effects of the flood disasters so far, but will consider fully what should be done for the future and will take into account the lessons to be learned in both central and local administration should similar disasters occur again.
Mr. G. Thomas: Will any exceptional work undertaken by local authorities as a result of the floods be the subject of compensation by the Government?
Sir E. Boyle: We should have to look at all aspects of local government expenditure on their merits.
Mr. M. Stewart: For the procedural reason that I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
6.58 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations and in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa, or surrenders it to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made."
We have asked for this Amendment to be debated today, and we are grateful for facilities for so doing, because the debate on the position of South-West Africa is taking place in the United Nations at this very moment. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government is being made up day by day in the various Motions coming before the Fourth Committee, and we should like the House to have an opportunity to express its view.
The history of South-West Africa is brief and bloody. There is no need to recapitulate it in detail. After an unhappy experience under the Government of the Germans before 1914, the territory was surrendered by the Germans to the Allied Powers at the end of the First World War and it was given in trust by them to South Africa. Later, the League of Nations confirmed the mandate under the system which had been established. From 1920 until the setting up of the United Nations, the State of South-West Africa was administered by South Africa. When the United Nations took over, a trusteeship system was set up whose purpose—and here I quote from Article 76 of the Charter of the United Nations—was
"to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence …"
Under the international trusteeship system. Article 77 laid down that territories could be
"voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration."
There were a number of mandates held from the League of Nations, and, although I am not an expert lawyer, I
672
understand that they were not obliged to surrender their mandates to the United Nations and receive the mandate back from that organisation. But the record shows that every state which had a mandate from the League of Nations surrendered it to the United Nations and received it back in due course from the new organisation to which it thereupon became responsible for carrying out the basic objectives which I have read, except one. The one, I need hardly add, was South Africa. However, she did not at that time wholly dispute that there might be certain advantages to be had from the United Nations. She therefore proposed to the United Nations that she should be regarded as having control over this territory and that it should become a part of South Africa. That would have been very convenient for her, but, in fact, the right so to do was denied by the United Nations.
The position seems to have remained so far that South Africa still holds the mandate from the League of Nations, even although that authority has disappeared, and that she cannot legally be called to account, except in certain circumstances, by the United Nations to which she has no direct responsibility. Because she failed voluntarily to put the territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations she has been acting on her own. She has, however—and here the complication arises—certain obligations which stem from her own membership of the United Nations, because she signed the declarations of the United Nations. If one argued on a strictly legalistic ground, it would be possible to say, and certainly for lawyers to argue, that she is in breach of a number of the declarations which she signed when she became a member of the United Nations, irrespective of whether she placed this territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations.
To bring the history up to date, it is fair to say that since 1949 South-West Africa has been virtually annexed to South Africa. The whole apparatus of a police State has been imported into this mandated territory. The system of apartheid has been imposed in its full rigour. Men and women have been alienated from the land which they had tilled.

673
The citizens of South-West Africa have been denied the elementary rights of free men everywhere to have a share in their government. They have no opportunity of voting for their representatives. They have no representation. Certain people are told that they are regarded as representatives of the people of South-West Africa in the South African Parliament. Indeed, when the recent referendum took place on whether South Africa should become a republic, these people, who against their will have been annexed by South Africa, were used to swell the republican majority. The Times, a newspaper not notably given to exaggerated statements, at any rate on the side of freedom, said that the mandate had been stolen, and I agree.
A year ago there was a revolt at Windhoek. It did not attract a great deal of attention in the Press, not nearly as much as Sharpeville. Windhoek is in South-West Africa. Africans were killed. Many were wounded and imprisoned. The whole history of the mandate, particularly since the Nationalists took over, has been one of increasing oppression and slavery.
The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government what they think about and what their attitude is in this matter. I do not think they will dissent from my description of history, even though they may not like all that I have said about the actions of the South African Government. But we know that the British Government disapprove of apartheid. A year ago we tried to get them to say so in this House. At the end of a heated debate we had failed to get the Minister of State to declare himself one way or the other. A month later, however, the Prime Minister went to South Africa and, fortunately, declared himself in a notable speech. Since then, and following the tragedy of Sharpeville, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Foreign Secretary, has gone on record as saying that in his view apartheid was immoral and unworkable.
We have had a fairly clear declaration from the Government. Publicly they have gone on record on the question of apartheid. I take it that in South-West Africa the British Government disapprove of the imposition of apartheid. Am I right? I think that the House would like to know. I take it from what they
674
have said on various occasions that they disapprove of the virtual annexation of the territory by South Africa in defiance of her trust. Am I right? I am sure that the House would like to know. We have not had a clear statement so far. I take it that they disapprove of the failure of South Africa to present reports on her trusteeship to the United Nations. Am I right? We would like to hear the Government say so. If they do, it would give a great deal of comfort to people in these territories who are waiting for a glimpse of the attitude of the British Government.
I do not wish to weary the House by reciting all the facts, but we know that on fourteen occasions the United Nations has asked the South African Government to prepare and present reports of its trusteeship and that fourteen times they have refused to do anything of the sort. One slight concession has been made, notably since Sharpeville. I believe that since June this year the South African Government have been supplying documents to the United Nations giving some account of what is taking place in these territories, disclaiming that they have any responsibility for so doing and are doing it merely as a matter of good will. I take it that the British Government believe that the people in this mandated territory, like those in the rest of Africa where the British writ runs, have the right to determine their own future. Am I right? The House would like to know the Government's views.
I take it that they hold the view that forty years ago the South African Government undertook to accept this solemn trust with a view to bringing these people forward to self-government? Am I right? Do they believe that? The House and the country would like to know. If the answer to these questions is "Yes"—and on the basis of what the Government have said in other places I do not see how the answer can be anything else, at any rate if they are to retain their selfrespect—what do the Government propose to do about it? Whatever the law of the mandate, the spirit of the mandate has undoubtedly been broken. And so we have a right to ask the Government what they propose to do.
In the United Nations, so far this session the Government have an

675
inglorious record. We managed to get up our hearts so high that on a resolution which asked that the United Nations Children's Fund might venture on some charitable purpose in South-West Africa, we managed to vote for it. That is the only thing for which we have managed to vote in the whole long series of resolutions which have been presented. The House would be astonished if I were to go through all the resolutions on which we have managed to abstain.
In very small company, we managed to abstain on a motion which deplored and disapproved the policy practised by the Government of South Africa contrary to its obligations under the international mandate of December, 1920. We managed to abstain on a motion deprecating the application in the territory of South Africa of the policy of apartheid. We even managed to abstain on a resolution which invited the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa to go to South-West Africa immediately to investigate the situation prevailing there. When the whole resolution was put, we managed to abstain on the whole lot.
I do not wish to take the House through all the resolutions except to say that the Government's bloodless record on South-West Africa in the United Nations this session does them no credit whatever. I understand that the reason for this is that Ethiopia and Liberia, two States who were independent and were members of the League of Nations, have taken the case of South-West Africa to the International Court. It was said by our representative at the Fourth Committee—I have a copy of his statement; the Government put it in the Libary—that we treasured the independence of the judiciary to the point where we would like nothing to be done by the United Nations that would be likely whilst the matter was sub judice to prejudice any discussions which might be going on. I congratulate the Government.
The question follows, however, if that is the Government's attitude, whether they will accept the decision of the International Court when it is handed down. Will the Government of South Africa accept the decision of the International
676
Court? If they do, the Government may well have a case, but they must tell us this evening what is their attitude towards this matter if we are to accept their bona fides in the question of abstaining because the matter is before the International Court.
I look at the situation with grave suspicion when I see that Mr. Eric Louw was advancing that argument as a reason for doing nothing, rather like Satan quoting the Bible to 'his own ends. Any of us who met Mr. Eric Louw when he was over here and heard him speaking about the mandates and South Africa's attitude towards them can have no doubt at all that his approach to this matter is merely that the International Court has been presented as a convenient manœuvre to enable him to dodge debate, discussion and decision in the United Nations.
I do not want to do the Government an injustice, but I hope they will make it clear that that is not their intention. I hope they will make it clear that within the limits that are open to them in the United Nations they will take such action as is open through supporting resolutions that are put forward dealing with this subject to try to bring South Africa to a sense of the obligations that she undertook.
I can well imagine what the Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office, will say. I have listened to him so often that I could almost make his speech for him before he gets up. I would not want to have to do it. I hope that I would rewrite it. Assuming, however, that on behalf of the Government he says "We are sorry" about the United Nations, I come to the second half of the Amendment. What will the right hon. Gentleman do concerning Commonwealth responsibilities? He is not inhibited there. Indeed, I understand that the Government's attitude has always been that we were not likely to get the best out of South Africa by voting her down steadily in the United Nations and that we must use our influence on her as a member of the Commonwealth.
The opportunity is shortly to present itself. We understood from an Answer given by the Leader of the House the other day that the future position of South Africa as a member of the Commonwealth is likely to be discussed at

677
the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference, which, I understand, is being discussed for March of next year. What will the Government do there? Do they intend to raise the issue? If the Commonwealth means anything, Commonwealth countries have the right to say to a nation which desires to raise the question of her membership, "Are you in good standing before you become a member of our society?" I do not think that any Member of the House, where-ever he sits—at least, I hope, no Member of the House—would take the view that South Africa is in good standing on the question of the administration of the mandate.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about Ghana?
Mr. Callaghan: The noble Lord is a splendid man for drawing red herrings across the trail. No doubt, he will make a speech if he so wishes. At the moment, I am discussing membership of the Commonwealth in relation to South Africa. I put the question quite openly. Is this not an opportunity of doing what, I hope, even the noble Lord wants—that is, to get rid of the system of apartheid, to get rid of the oppression in South-West Africa, to stop the alienation of men and women from their lands and to give them representative government? I hope that the noble Lord will make a speech and will make his position clear, because this is a moment on this sort of issue when everybody should say clearly where he stands. I hope that the noble Lord will have no hidden reservations on the subject. If he has, there is a deep gulf between him and most of the British people on the subject.
When that discussion takes place, from what has been said by the Prime Ministers of Nigeria, of Malaya and of Ghana, there is no doubt that the question will come up. I see no reason why we should not use this question of the continued membership of the Commonwealth, if South Africa desires it, as a means of inviting her either to abolish the system of apartheid and all that flows from it in South-West Africa or, alternatively, to surrender her mandate.
To whom should she surrender it? That is a matter for discussion. There are a number of possibilities. She could surrender it to the United Nations and
678
it could then be given in trust to somebody else. Looking at the record of Britain in relation to trusteeships, taking Tanganyika as the most notable example, although it would be a heavy burden I would feel that if the mandate fell into the care of Britain, we, including the present Government, could be relied upon to discharge it honourably and to bring these people forward to self-government. The mandate could, of course, be surrendered to the United Nations, who might feel that they could hand it over to the Commonwealth as a whole for the Commonwealth to administer these territories. That would be a wonderful venture in making the Commonwealth a reality. A third suggestion which has been put forward is that a group of African States could take responsibility for the welfare and advancement of these territories.
There is no shortage of possibilities for looking after the future of these territories if only the South African Government can be put in a position in which she is willing to surrender the mandate. It would be not only right, but wise, to do this. Wisdom and morality walk hand in hand on this issue, as, I hope, they do on many other issues.
Let there be no doubt that our position will be increasingly challenged by the U.S.S.R. and the other members of the Communist Internationale. The statement issued at the end of the recent meeting in Moscow has been widely, hopefully and properly regarded as a victory for the idea that war is not inevitable, that war can be prevented and that peace can be preserved and made secure. Those are the words of the manifesto itself, and the reason given is the growing, economic, scientific and technical strength of the U.S.S.R. Whilst attention has been concentrated on that and mankind has breathed a sigh of relief, there was another aspect of the manifesto to which not nearly so much attention has been given. This was the passage which dealt in a very significant way with the abolition of colonialism.
It we are to move, as I trust we are, into a period of lessening international tension, with the possible threat of the H-bomb gradually moving away—and I do not think that this is impossible—we

679
shall face, as everyone knows, the challenge of what they call peaceful coexistence, under which a powerful, well-organised, centrally directed system will challenge what the West can do in these territories and challenge it very powerfully. I have not the slightest doubt that the economic measures and the Socialist measures which one will find in countries of Eastern Europe, will become increasingly powerful against the uncoordinated, planless society in which the West is living at present.
That is a subject for another discussion, but I draw the attention of the Minister of State particularly to the fact that South Africa was mentioned in this manifesto and described as a cruel and vicious régime and that the Communist Internationale pledged itself to bring aid and support to the people struggling for freedom.
I regret to say that some people in Southern Rhodesia and in South Africa believe that the challenge by the U.S.S.R. is an argument for greater repression as a way of stopping this Russian influence. I hope that all of us in the House have learned the lessons. One cannot command friendship, one can only deserve it. But I wonder whether the Minister of State has had brought to his notice that only yesterday in the United Nations the U.S.S.R. had a majority for a motion by 35 votes to 32, with many abstentions, calling for independence forthwith for all dependent territories. That vote shows the way the wind of change is blowing in the United Nations. The South African Government will find themselves under increasing pressure from the forces of world opinion and African opinion to change their policies.
I therefore feel that the British Government should be less pusillanimous than they have been on this matter. It would be ironic if their good deeds were smothered because the U.S.S.R. were able to plant the sins of South Africa on them. But if they go on behaving as they are doing today—and I draw the Minister's attention to the debate in the United Nations in which we were specifically coupled with South Africa—we shall find that a great deal of the value of the work we have done will be destroyed.
680
I will not detain the House much longer because I want a number of my hon. Friends to join in the debate and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will also wish to do so. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) wish to deal with the legal aspects of this question. I have in my hand an excellent pamphlet signed by my own Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), called "Mandate in Trust" If I may give the hon. Member a free boost, I should like to say that it is one of the best things of the kind that I have seen and that I hope it will have a large sale. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will wish to speak, and I am sure that he will find it difficult not to vote for our Amendment.
I hope that the Minister of State will agree that, although I have criticised him and his failure, nevertheless the terms of the Amendment are such that if the British Government are true to their owe beliefs and have the courage to say so, they should be willing to accept it and act on it on all possible occasions in the United Nations and in meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
7.25 p.m.
Miss Joan Vickers: I rise to join in the debate rather timorously, because I am not a lawyer. I feel, however, that this is an occasion on which I can support the Amendment, particularly having regard to the discussions at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference. It seems to me a very good opportunity. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has worded his Amendment in a very considerate manner and I hope that it will prove acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The time has come to reconsider our position and I should like to make one or two points about the mandate as it stands at present. I understand that it was originally given to South Africa by the principal Allied and Associated Powers of the Treaty of Versailles. It was vested in His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa. If the Union of South Africa becomes a republic, how does this affect the fact

681
that originally the mandate was given to the Union because it was vested in his Britannic Majesty?
Article II declares that
"The Mandatory shall promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants."
Article III declares that
"The Mandatory shall see that the slave trade is prohibited and that no forced labour is used except for essential public works and services and then only for adequate remuneration."
Article V says:
"The Mandatory shall ensure in the territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of public worship and shall allow all missionaries, nationals of any States of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling."
Has this been happening? If not, is it not time that we had a change in the way in which the territory is mandated? The Union of South Africa has repeatedly stated that while it is prepared to continue in the spirit of the mandate it thinks that the obligation lapsed with the coming to an end of the League of Nations. On 2nd May, 1933, it was suggested in the Legislative Council that South-West Africa should become the fifth province of the Union of South Africa. There was a referendum at a later date. The Africans of South Africa agreed that they would remain under this supervision, but I understand that they thought that they would be, as they call it, "under the shadow of King George" and did not realise that they would be completely under the control of South Africa.
Until April, 1955, there was a Native Affairs Administration of South-West Africa. This dealt with all activities for the native people. Later, this was changed and now the department has been taken over by the Native Affairs Department of South Africa, which, of course, has a quite different policy towards the natives of South-West Africa. There is also considerable overlapping, because I understand that the Administration of South-West Africa still has some jurisdiction over health and education.
We must be fair and say that in the old Administration of South-West Africa there were many people who did extremely good jobs. They were indepen
682
dent and they did their best for the people concerned. However, it is a different situation when they have to work under the Native Affairs Department of South Africa.
In studying this problem, one has to consider the nature of the country. I understand that it is about the size of France with five or six major races, including a section in which I am very interested, the bushmen, who number about 9,000. The total population has now risen to 424,632. There are still about 15,000 Germans and there are other Europeans and many non-whites. Over the past nine years there have been considerable inroads into the farmlands because of the influx of so-called land—hungry whites, and that is something which should be looked into. The extension of the Police Zone and the granting of more and more land to white farmers has been done under the mandate of the South African Government and much more land is needed for the native reserves which are overcrowded and overstocked. Furthermore, in the group areas, the urban areas, locations are moved when the South Africans wish to expand them. That is very unsatisfactory for the native people.
There is a good side to the work which South Africa has done, because the Native Affairs Department has greatly helped to increase stock within the reserves, while the Agricultural Department, which is only five years old, has built 44 new dams with the help of local people—essential work. I understand that the native people did the work themselves under supervision and were given "rations" only; and if they were, I would like to know whether that is a system which would be welcomed by Her Majesty's Government, in view of Article III.
The Agricultural Department has done a great deal to improve cattle. In 1954, only 7,751 cattle were sold, but by 1956 the number had risen to more than 17,000. When we are criticising, it is only fair that we should give some credit for what has been done. Sale of products has risen considerably and I understand that the average income is now about £76 10s. a year, whereas in 1949 it was about £31. Therefore, I could not say that the Union of South Africa has not done any good, because it is clear that there have been improvements during

683
her administration over the years. The Health Commission reported that there was considerable malnutrition among children, although there was some preschool feeding. That is something which should be investigated further, in view of Article II. The time has come when, especially in view of the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, Her Majesty's Government should again take up this matter with South Africa. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am delighted, but, I confess, not surprised, that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has supported the Amendment, knowing, as many of us do, her notable work for the Anti-Slavery Society and other bodies of a similar character. I can only hope that the excellent lead that she has given from the benches opposite will be suitably and respectfully followed by the Minister of State.
It is our view on this side of the House—and it is to be hoped that it will be reflected on the benches opposite—that, quite apart from the injustices which the South African Government are perpetrating upon the inhabitants of South-West Africa, the South African Government's policy in that territory constitutes a defiance of the United Nations and of the international community itself. I fear that for Her Majesty's Government to condone or excuse it in any way will harm our own standing in the international community and go a good deal of the way to undermining the future of the British Commonwealth itself.
As the issue is likely to come to a head very soon, I regard the presentation of the Amendment as most timely and I hope that tonight the Minister of State will make quite clear where the British Government stand in this matter. My recent experiences in South Africa have led me to the conclusion that if the status quo in South Africa is to be maintained the consequences for the future are truly frightening.
Very recently, the International Commission of Jurists, on behalf of which I had the honour to visit South Africa, has published a report. The report says that
684
the discriminatory policy of South Africa, which has been extended to the South-West African Territory,
"is not only contrary to the generally accepted concepts of justice and the principles of human rights, but also creates a potentially explosive situation which may soon lead to even more widespread internal violence than has already been experienced in South Africa."
When I went to South Africa in the spring of this year, I attended the Sharpeville inquiry and saw there and elsewhere the cruel operation of apartheid in Africa. I believe that apartheid is not only hurting the Africans, but is harming the Afrikaaners as well, in particular by corroding their own standards.
I found a most remarkable illustration of that in an institution which above all should be practising equality before the law, namely the South African Ministry of Justice itself. When I was in Johannesburg, I got a copy of a memorandum of the South African Ministry of Justice on legal aid. It started with the impeccable words:
"The only obligation of the State is to ensure that no person is prejudiced in the legal sphere as a result of his poverty."
Excellent sentiment.
Then followed the astonishing words:
"The existing legal system in South Africa does not lend itself in the normal way to any possibility of a failure of justice. Such being the case there is no justification for legal aid in criminal cases."
It adds:
"The State is satisfied that innocent persons will not be found guilty and that only those who are, in fact, guilty will be condemned."
To crown it all—and I am sure that this will raise memories with you Mr. Speaker—the statement ends:
"Possible discharge"—
of an accused—
"on technical points is no argument in favour of legal aid."
That approach runs wholly counter to all the standards of modern civilised States who now all accept the duty of providing legal representation for the defence so as to minimise the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Even when that is accomplished, miscarriages of justice, alas, still occur.
The curious feature of the memorandum is that it goes on to say:
"In civil cases legal aid appears to be justified. This, however, cannot be said in cases between native and native where native law and custom are to be applied"—

685
because—
"… the Native Commissioner is of opinion that legal aid in his courts is unnecessary because he and his staff are able to and, in effect, do render all the necessary assistance to native litigants and the Department of Justice has accepted this."
I cite this because I believe that the Nationalist Government's attitude towards legal aid is, regrettably, in keeping with their whole attitude and approach to law and justice. Because of their contempt of the rule of law at home, I fear that they are equally contemptuous of international law and of their obligations under it. In 1954, for example, the International Court of Justice, which has consistently and frequently expressed opinions condemning the position taken by the South African Government about South-West Africa, expressed the view that a two-thirds majority vote alone was needed in matters pertaining to South-West Africa.
Mr. Loew reacted to this decision by imputing ill motives to the Court. He said:
"We do not care tuppence whether the United Nations observes the two-thirds majority rule or the unanimity rule in dealing with South-West African affairs, because we have consistently said that the United Nations has no right to concern itself with the affairs of South-West Africa."
This attitude constitutes a serious and direct challenge to the authority of the United Nations, which Her Majesty's Government are pledged to support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, after the last war all the mandatory Powers except South Africa voluntarily submitted a trusteeship agreement for their mandates. The Union of South Africa alone refused to recognise any international rights in its mandated territory. The Union Government alone scorned decisions and rulings of the International Court about the international status of South-West Africa and about the international obligations of the Government of South Africa. Indeed, so far from accepting its international obligations, as the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport said, for a very long time the Union Government have regarded this mandated territory as the fifth province of South Africa, and apartheid, in particular, has been, and is being, enforced there with the same
686
cruel, fanatical zeal as in South Africa itself.
Whereas, in regard to South Africa itself, the Union Government might contend—although, I think, without proper foundation because apartheid is contrary to the commitments of the South African Government under the United Nations Charter—that their policies in respect of the inhabitants are a matter of domestic jurisdiction, that could not possibly be said in regard to South-West Africa, a territory for which the world is the guardian.
The South African Government have sought to call in aid Article II of the mandate, which provides that the mandatory may apply the laws of the Union of South Africa to the territory, but that Article is prefaced and, as I submit, limited, by the explicit requirement that
"The mandatory shall promote to the utmost the moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants of the country."
The hon. Lady has drawn attention to the significance of that responsibility. When one examines the working of apartheid, it is, clearly, quite impossible to reconcile it with the promotion of either well-being or social progress. On the contrary, when one sees it in operation, as I have, in some of the courts outside Johannesburg, where the pass laws are enforced, one sees a pathetic line of impoverished Africans being humiliated, insulted, driven and chased. The pass system is a degrading humiliation, even when it is enforced without brutality.
We have to face the fact that the whole set-up in South-West Africa today is designed principally to keep control in the hands of the small privileged European group and to provide cheap labour for mine and farm by restricting the African's rights to move, to own land, to be educated, and to acquire skills. I remember vividly the wife of a distinguished African to whom I spoke saying, what hurts, above all, is the knowledge that in future our children will never get a chance to be other than hewers of wood and drawers of water". That was said by the wife of a distinguished lawyer, and I had better not say more of her qualifications lest I identify her and cause her suffering.
The International Commission of Jurists has recently designated this

687
system as legalised slavery, and that is not exaggerated language. In this situation the British Government have a special responsibility, which they have shown little sign of appreciating, for exerting the influence of civilised and proper international standards. The British Government have a historial responsibility because we were one of the principal Allied Powers who made the grant of the mandate to South Africa, a mandate under the terms of which the mandate was conferred on His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the South African Government, language on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) may have some comment to make.
We have a direct legal and political responsibility. We are the parent of the Commonwealth. We are a progressive mandatory in Africa and we have the right to intervene. I believe that our word can still carry weight in South Africa. After all, the Nationalist Government are opposed not only by all the Africans. There is substantial opposition to Nationalist policies, as I saw and heard for myself, within South Africa, but I am convinced that it is only by tremendous pressure from outside, in particular from Britain and the Commonwealth countries, that the Nationalists will he induced to turn from their present disastrous policies.
Instead of pressing condemnation where condemnation is required, we have, as my hon. Friend said, given aid and comfort to the Nationalists. As long as they can look forward to Britain standing by and supporting and condoning their actions in the United Nations, their contempt of the United Nations will continue. It is deplorable that there has to be pressure time and again from this side of the House, with what support we are able to obtain from the other side, on this matter. I plead for a forthright attitude by the British Government in these critical times.
I hope, for instance, that they will take a sympathetic view of the action of Liberia and Ethiopia in taking the issue of South-West Africa before the International Court of Justice. I hope that they will indicate that they will stand by any decision of that Court and of the United Nations, even if it means terminating South Africa's mandate,
688
because unless South Africa is prepared to honour its international commitments under its mandate it forfeits all rights to hold and retain it.
Many difficult legal issues anise in relation to the whole matter. I shall resist the invitation of my hon. Friend to embark upon any of them tonight. I merely ask the British Government to give a hand in this matter. So far as there is any question of the power of the United Nations to revoke the mandate in the event of South Africa refusing to honour her responsibilities under it, I hope that the British Government will take a hand in referring the issue to the International Court of Justice and in supporting the international community in seeing that this Commonwealth Government behaves in a civilised fashion.
In the Prime Ministers' Conference there is an unparalleled opportunity for bringing pressure to bear and for making life once more tolerable for millions of people who now suffer under the lash of apartheid.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) is an expert on these legal matters and has told the House that the position of the mandate in South-West Africa appears to be highly complicated. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that I find it difficult to sort out the rights and wrongs on legal grounds. As I understand it, the International Court has held that South Africa cannot be forced to turn the mandate into a trusteeship and at the same time has held that the supervisory functions of the old League of Nations have passed to the United Nations, and the South African Government have refused to recognise this fact. Since 1949 I understand that they have been administering South-West Africa as part of the Union.
That means that the full legal weight of apartheid is being applied in South West Africa. Is this legal in terms of the mandate? The hon. and learned Member quoted one requirement of the mandate as being to promote the moral wellbeing of the people and their social progress. I suppose it could be argued by an Afrikaaner Nationalist that South Africa was doing that by applying the

689
policy of apartheid. The Nationalists feel that the two-race theory is best for both black and white. I do not think that any Member of this House would agree, but the Nationalists can argue on those lines. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations requires Powers to develop self-government and to take account of the political aspirations of the people. That certainly could not be held to be done in South-West Africa by the Nationalist Government.
It has been pointed out that the legal position is even further complicated by the probability of South Africa becoming a republic. It is not, however, the legal implications that worry me unduly, they are so complicated, and I am prepared to accept the conclusion in the last sentence of the leading article in The Times of 14th September, which reads:
"A mandate has been stolen and the thieves are vainly protesting their innocence."
I support any effort which can be made by Her Majesty's Government to sort out the legal position in international law.
The moral issue is the one that chiefly concerns me. Apartheid is being applied in South-West Africa. Many Afrikaaner Nationalists in the Union itself are beginning to feel that the policy of apartheid will not work. The fact that the Afrikaaner Nationalists have disregarded the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report; that they have not developed the theory of Bantustan by putting money into the creation of African areas; that they have not allowed Africans to hold freehold tenure in African areas, or allowed European capital to go into Bantustan, shows that the idea of apartheid as a two-race system is not fundamentally believed in even by the South Africa Government. If it were they would have put more money into Bantustan in order to show that their policy could really work.
I am afraid that the present South African Government have no intention of modifying the system of apartheid as it exists in the Union and in South-West Africa. Not many months ago, when I was last in Cape Town, I talked to a member of the present Government. This was only about three weeks after the events at Sharpeville. He said, "Look round the country and make your own
690
judgment. I can tell you there is nothing wrong in this country at all. The Africans in the Union are perfectly happy. All the trouble is caused by the international Press and by a small number of Africans from Basutoland and Nyasaland who have come here to work but instead of working indulge in politics". That man really meant what he said.
Another educated Afrikaaner—a magistrate—when asked if he could tell me in what country in the world the South African policy of apartheid was supported said, "It does not matter. We were sent here to guide and lead the Bantu. God is with us and God's will will prevail." That is the terrifying thing about the whole concept of race relations that exists in the minds of the Afrikaaner Nationalist. He believes quite sincerely that he is doing right—that he is doing God's will for the benefit of himself and for the benefit of the Africans. It is therefore extremely difficult to shift him from this belief.
I do not want these stories to be construed as an attack upon the Afrikaaner people. As I am sure the House will recall, the leaders of both opposition parties in South Africa—the United Party and the Progressive Party—are led by men of Afrikaaner stock. What concerns me is the effect which the voting of the British Government alongside the South African Government in the United Nations has had upon people who oppose the Government policy in South Africa today. I have discussed this question with members of the opposition parties and they have told me that when they see Britain—perhaps for quite valid legal reasons—lining up alongside the Union of South Africa in the United Nations they feel that it strikes a blow at their efforts to change the policy of apartheid. The effect on the African people, who do not pretend to understand these legal niceties that often confuse us, is obvious.
The speech which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in Cape Town—the "wind of change" speech—did a great deal to remove the feeling which was growing in African minds that we had abandoned our interest in their future. We in Britain therefore have great responsibilities. We have tried to set a good example. In the colonial

691
sphere the contrast between Nigerian independence and Congolese independence is obvious to the world, and in the mandatory sphere the development of Tanganyika as compared to that of South-West Africa is also obvious to the world. We have set an example which has not been followed by the present Nationalist Government of South Africa.
That Government's policy is opening out that part of Africa to the Communists—the very thing which the Nationalists say they are trying to prevent—and this policy is a grave embarrassment to us. I hope that we shall not destroy the faith which the African people, the vast majority of English-speaking people, and a large number of Africaaner-speaking people in the Union have in us by supporting a Government whose racial policy is discredited in the eyes of the world.
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Am I right in assuming from the tenor of the hon. Member's speech that he supports the Amendment and will vote for it tonight?
Mr. Wall: I certainly support the wording of the Amendment in its broad outline. There may be technical and legal difficulties about implementing it, but I fully support its main intent.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: There is a remarkable degree of unanimity in the House tonight and I would like to say, speaking for myself, how much I welcome both the speeches which we have heard from the benches opposite. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) had to say about his recent firsthand experiences in the Union. As for the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), I would only say to her that I am not one of her constituents, but I do happen to take a great pride in being a native of the City of Plymouth; and I thought that her speech tonight, particularly the opening sentences, was in the best Plymothian tradition.
I wish to say a word or two about the legal questions, which, in my submission, necessarily arise when we are approaching this or any similar debate. I suggest to the House that there are
692
four juridical issues which fall to be considered relating to South-West Africa. They are these. First, can the United Nations revoke a mandate, or can a mandate be forfeited? That question was canvassed in the leading article in the Guardian this morning. The second question is whether, when South Africa becomes a republic, either inside or outside the Commonwealth, she will have forfeited her right to continue as the mandatory Power. The third question is: is it the case that, as is now alleged by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia, the South African Government are in breach of their obligations under the mandate by reason of the policy which they have pursued in South-West Africa? The fourth question—this was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Haltemprice—is: are the South African Government in breach of their obligations under Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations?
It may well be that the third question, and possibly the first, may be decided by the International Court as a result of the initiative which has been taken by Ethiopia and Liberia. But I would like to say a word or two about the second and the fourth question. The second is: what happens when South Africa becomes a republic? This matter was touched on by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport. The mandate is expressly given to His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa.
I have ventured to raise this matter before, both in the House and outside, and in May of this year I wrote to The Times suggesting that if South Africa became a republic within the Commonwealth it was at least questionable whether she could continue to exercise a mandate on behalf of the British Crown. I went on to suggest that if South Africa were to become a republic out of the Commonwealth, the result must almost certainly be to bring her mandatory rights to an end; because it could never have been contemplated, when the mandate was first given in 1919, that it should be exercised on behalf of the British Crown by an alien Power.
Later, The Times raised the same question in a leading article on 5th September, which evoked an immediate

693
reaction from Mr. Eric Louw, the South African Minister of External Affairs. He said, of course, that he had been advised in a contrary sense. In particular, he referred to the speech made in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations. May I remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on 4th July.
"There is one further point that may well be under consideration during this debate; indeed, it was touched on by the right hon. Gentleman. What is the position if South Africa becomes a republic as the result of a referendum which includes South-West Africa, and wound this prejudice the status of the territory? Here, I think, there are two questions and I will give the answers to the best of my ability, because it seems important that we should try to get this clear. The first is, assuming that the mandate is recognised as still being fully effective, the status would not be affected by any change of the Constitution of South Africa. My understanding is that the international obligation entered into by a country when its monarchy is head of the State is not abrogated or in any way diminished by reason of the adoption by that country of any other form of constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1960; Vol. 626. c. 58–59.]
It will be observed that the right hon. Gentleman, in that speech, did not deal at all with the distinction—it may be the vital distinction—as to whether the Union, as a republic, was inside or outside the Commonwealth. I wish to ask him this, because this is a very important question: is it the view of the Commonwealth Relations Office that it makes no difference, that the mandate would be entirely unaffected even though South Africa were a republic outside the Commonwealth?
Of course, in any event, as The Times pointed out, these matters simply cannot be decided by the ipse dixit of a Government Department. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is advised by those inside his Department as to the law, but the advice that he receives is not necessarily correct, not only himself but other Ministers. There have been a good many occasions when Government Departments have proceeded on a view of the law which has afterwards turned out to be ill-founded. I am not suggesting that the Government should now immediately change their view, but I want to say this. There is only one tribunal in the world which is competent to decide this issue, and that is the International Court of Justice. We ask—I do not suppose
694
that we shall get an answer tonight, but we shall continue to ask—are the Government prepared to submit this issue to the International Court?
The third question which arises is whether the Union Government have been acting in breach of the terms of the mandate. That has already been covered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and it is the specific issue which is raised by the application to the Court on behalf of Ethiopia and Liberia. I am not now going over the ground which the Court will have to consider, but I want to put one query to the Minister. These two nations, taking a certain view of their rights as original members of the League of Nations under the Covenant of the League, have made their application to the Court. A resolution came before the United Nations only a few days ago in which the member States were asked to do no mare than to take note of the application that had been made to the International Court. It was not a great deal to ask. I suppose it might be said that "taking note" involves some degree of approval, some kind of sanction as to the validity of the procedure. But it is rather remarkable. The resolution was sponsored by 20 nations. When the vote was called there was a roll-call of 73 in favour.
The Union of South Africa did not vote. Nobody voted against, but there were five abstentions—Australia, Belgium, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. I think that this House is entitled to know the grounds for that abstention, because it really is very difficult to reconcile the attitude that was taken by the United Kingdom representative, when that vote was called, with what he said during the debate.
During the debate on the various resolutions the United Kingdom representative excused himself from expressing any positive attitude because of the reference to the Court. He said, "This matter is sub judice." He said it on more than one occasion and at considerable length. He explained the procedure of the House of Commons. He said that the Fourth Committee should find some way to debar itself from considering any matter which was sub judice.

695
But all the resolution did was to take note of the fact that this issue was sub judice. Why, in those circumstances, did the United Kingdom representative abstain? That is something which surely we are entitled to know.
Finally, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Haltemprice, there is the most important juridical question of all, or so it seems to me. That is the obligation which rests upon South Africa, as upon all other members of the United Nations under Article 73 of the Charter, an obligation
"… to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement."
That is not a pious aspiration. It is not merely a form of words. It is part of the law of nations. It is the specific obligation which is accepted by every member of the United Nations. Having regard to what we all know of the application of the policies of apartheid, it is impossible to argue that that obligation is being carried out in South-West Africa by the Union Government. Here again, there is only one tribunal which can adjudicate upon this matter, and that is the International Court.
It may be that some of these questions I have raised tonight will not be covered by the application which is brought forward by Liberia and Ethiopia. Therefore, they ought to be dealt with separately. There ought to be a reference by the General Assembly of the United Nations to the Court for an advisory opinion. May we know, at any rate in general terms, what is the attitude to these juridical issues of Her Majesty's Government? Do they agree that these issues as to whether the mandate can be, has been, or in certain circumstances may be, forfeited should be decided by the International Court? If so, will they in future instruct their representatives at the United Nations to act and speak and vote accordingly?
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: I have never attended the House on an occasion which has reminded me more of a vicarage tea party. Everybody seems to
696
be agreeing with everybody else because they have one person to pick on and attack. I am sorry to throw a little discord into the Chamber. I do not wish to involve myself in these legal complexities which I have been trying to understand but which, not being a trained lawyer, I have not been able to understand. I do not think it is necessary for the points I wish to make to try to explain the various niceties.
I dislike this Amendment. Why I could not support it and would, in fact, oppose it is that I dislike the idea of this country taking one member of the Commonwealth to pieces in the United Nations and that this House should pass an Amendment to take action in the United Nations against a member of the Commonwealth. We should consider very seriously before supporting an Amendment like this, or before long we shall find the Commonwealth split in many pieces like the party opposite.
The second point I make is in regard to the forthcoming Prime Minister's Conference. Judging by the way in which motions have been put forward and suggestions made about what should be done to South Africa at that Conference, anyone would think that it was merely being held in order to tear South Africa to bits and bring it into the dock instead of attending an open Conference. I am not prepared to discuss apartheid, whether I support it or not, because I do not think that is the issue. I do not think the issue is whether the mandate should be administered or resigned at this particular time.
The dangerous thing about this Amendment is that we, the senior member or metropolitan Dominion in the Commonwealth, are attacking a member of the Commonwealth, trying to do it in the most obvious place possible—the United Nations—and trying to make the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference into a sort of court or headmaster's study to which one of the members is called. I ask the House to think very seriously about the reaction among our friends in the Commonwealth and among other nations when they see that this House has even discussed an Amendment like this. I hope for that reason that the Amendment will not be supported.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Like the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), I was beginning to feel that this discussion was like a vicarage tea party, but it was for a very different reason from his that I was feeling uneasy. He is uneasy because he objects to this House of Commons making criticism of the apartheid policy in the Union of South Africa and contemplating some action against it in the United Nations and at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I shall develop the point later, but it seems to me there are certain elementary human rights which go beyond the frontiers of any nation. If our Commonwealth is to stand for something worthwhile in the world, one of the human rights for which it must stand is the equality of men and women of all races within the territories which it represents. The reason why I welcome the protest of the hon. Member against the tea party atmosphere of our discussion is that I am fearful, after certain speeches which have been delivered from the opposite side of the House, that this Amendment might be accepted by the party opposite without any intention of carrying out the definite demands it makes.
I ask the Minister of State to look at the Amendment, which says:
"That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations".
I emphasise the word "action". I had today an Answer from the Lord Privy Seal to a Question which I put to him about resolutions on South Africa in the General Assembly of the United Nations. The reply was that on four out of five of those resolutions the delegate representing our Government abstained. The only resolution which the delegate supported was that, which I welcome, that the United Nations Children's Fund and the three other Agencies should operate in South-West Africa. On every other issue which voiced any criticism of the system of apartheid in South Africa, on a resolution which merely noted that the matter was to be raised at the International Court, the representative of the Government abstained.
I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman that if he intends to accept this Amend
698
ment it means a complete change of the Government's policy in the United Nations. It would be sheer hypocrisy for the House of Commons to adopt unanimously an Amendment which asked the Government to take action in the United Nations if the Government's delegate continued to abstain on every resolution of importance brought before the General Assembly on this subject.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further into our Amendment. It states
"That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government … in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure"—
I stress the word "ensure"—
"that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa …"
There could hardly be a decision of the House more decisive in the action which the Government's representatives should take at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference than that sentence.
If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this lead wholeheartedly, then I ask him not to come to the Dispatch Box and to say, as did the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), "We accept this in general terms. We like this amendment. We are not quite sure about the legality, but the general principles are unexceptionable and therefore we accept them." If the right hon. Gentleman intends to accept the Amendment, we shall expect him to put it into operation both at the United Nations and in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
There is no need for me to analyse again tonight—although I have all the facts—the attitude which the Government representative has taken at the United Nations, but may I say a word about the coming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? The right hon. Gentleman may be a little surprised to hear that I am not one of those who wish to expel the Government of the Union of South Africa from the Commonwealth; I believe that that is the wrong way to approach the matter. I believe that the correct approach is for the Commonwealth to declare for a whole series of principles of liberties and rights and racial equalities, and for the nations in the Commonwealth to

699
say, "That is our faith and our belief." When the nations of the Commonwealth have taken that decision, it is for the Government of the Union of South Africa to say whether it can remain in a Commonwealth which has that declaration as its basis.
If, at the coming meeting of the Prime Ministers, a declaration of that nature is adopted; if we say that we believe in human equalities and that a personality, whether his skin is white or black, is of equal value, whatever his race may be; if we declare for those freedoms and democracies, and challenge the Government of the Union of South Africa upon a declaration of that kind, then that Government will either have to reverse their policies entirely or leave the Commonwealth—not be expelled from it—because it will not accept the declarations of principle and liberty in which the rest of the Commonwealth believe.
Finally, I take the last sentence of the Amendment, and again I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he intends to accept the Amendment he must accept the action that it demands. It says that South Africa should either carry out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the mandate or surrender it
"to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made".
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept that? If he sincerely accepts the Amendment, we shall welcome it. Will he go to the United Nations and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and say to these two bodies, "If the Union of South Africa does not apply the mandate, which insists on social progress and economic advance, then it should be requested to surrender its mandate to the United Nations, to be applied in a different way"?
If we carry this Amendment sincerely, believing in it, and if the Government give us a pledge that they will take the action which is embodied in the Amendment, then our decision tonight will be an historic decision for this Parliament, for our Commonwealth, for Africa and for the world. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he accepts this form of words, it must not be in general, pious, vicarage tea party terms. It must be in terms which mean that he will take action to carry out its implications.
8.27 p.m.
Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I do not think that any hon. Member can ever accuse me of being a supporter of apartheid. I need only remind the House that I spoke in the strongest possible terms in support of a resolution moved in March or April by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) and that only last week I put down my name in support of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). Consequently, I need not justify myself before the House in that respect.
I had not intended to speak tonight, but I feel most uneasy about the speeches which I have so far heard. I would remind the House that if we pass this Amendment the hon. Member for Eton and Slough will be quite right in saying that it cannot be done and shrugged off; it must mean something. If we pass this Amendment it will be, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said, an attempt, not to expel South Africa from the Commonwealth, but to make the position so difficult for the Union of South Africa that it will leave the Commonwealth of its own accord.
With all respect to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, that is not an attitude of mind that I can possibly respect. I can understand and respect people who say, "Let us expel the Union from the Commonwealth", but I cannot understand or respect the point of view which says, "Oh, no, I am not going to expel the Union of South Africa; I am going to make the situation so damnably unpleasant that the Union will go of its own accord." To me, that does not seem straightforward dealing.
Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that any association has the right to declare certain principles, and make those principles the test of membership? Then it must be for each nation that is in that association to decide whether it accepts the principles. My enthusiasm is for the declaration of human rights; my enthusiasm is not for the exclusion of any one nation.
Sir G. Nicholson: It is a small point, and I do not attach much importance to it. If the hon. Member for Eton and Slough prefers to have it that way he may, by all means.

701
I will tell the House what it means if we take steps, either directly or indirectly, to lead the Union of South Africa to leave the Commonwealth. I ask the House to recall what percentage voted in favour of a republic. That percentage may be taken, perhaps, as a rough percentage of those who support the Nationalist Government in the Union of South Africa. Speaking from memory, I think that it was 53 per cent. or 54 per cent. of the white voters. That only represents a majority of the white voters. There are no coloured or black voters.
Abount a quarter of the population of the Union of South Africa is white and so, being generous, let us say that 54 per cent. of one-quarter of the population of the Union of South Africa voted for the Union to become a republic. Fifty-four per cent. of one-quarter is about 13½ per cent. of the total population of that country. Because 13½ per cent. of the population of that country takes a certain view we are preparing steps which may lead to that country being expelled from the Commonwealth, or making conditions so unpleasant that it has to go.
I think that the Commonwealth means more than something which can be treated in that way. Everyone has his own view of what the Commonwealth means. It is like the fundamental question of what one means by one's faith in Providence. To me, it means a family. We are only primus inter pares. We are the eldest child. We are not the parents of that family. The parents of the family are our forebears in this country and elsewhere who have built up the body of tradition and achievement which has led to the existence of the Commonwealth. I believe that in doing so we have not only served ourselves and our race; we have served the world.
Never in the history of the world has mankind needed more that for which the Commonwealth stands—that blend of kindliness, liberty, decency and common sense, for which we believe the Commonwealth stands. I believe that anything that is liable to fracture and fragmentate that Commonwealth is doing the greatest possible disservice to mankind. We are children of the same family. Do all children always behave perfectly? Are there not naughty children? Are there not children whose conduct one deplores and regrets?
702
My father brought us up on the great principle that nothing justifies a family feud, family row, or family split. In every family there are black sheep; in every family there are sinners, Can a sinner never repent? Can a small and bare majority in the Union of South Africa never be turned into a different majority, a majority holding opposite views? Are we to risk breaking up the Commonwealth?
I may be self-satisfied and priggish when I say that I sincerely believe, as I think we all do, that in serving and preserving the Commonwealth we are serving and preserving the world. Are we to risk breaking that up because there is, momentarily, a certain majority in the Parliament of one of our children, and because, momentarily, bad ideas and bad thoughts have taken charge of that child?
Are we concerned only with the Nationalist majority in the Union of South Africa? Are we concerned only with the white population in South Africa? If we are, are we concerned only with 54 per cent. of it? What about the other 46 per cent.? Are we not concerned with the millions of Africans and coloureds in South Africa? Do they want to leave the Commonwealth? Are we serving their interests by driving South Africa from the Commonwealth?
I admit that I am a repentant sinner—in other words, I have changed my mind. A year ago I believed that we should expel South Africa from the Commonwealth. I have changed my mind fundamentally. I have reached the conclusion that to expel her from the Commonwealth, or to create such conditions as to compel her to leave the Commonwealth, would do the gravest possible disservice to those 86½ per cent. of the inhabitants of the Union that did not vote for a republic. We should also do a disservice to the rest of the world.
I sympathise with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. I wish that it was practicable and possible for this country and the Commonwealth to lay down a creed, a set of principles, to which all members should adhere. But how many different religious faiths have run on to the rocks through narrowing the terms or principles which gave qualification for membership?

703
Families should not feel like that. Whatever my children or my relations may do, they are my children and my relations, whether they repent or not. I believe that it is only on that basis that a family can be kept together.
8.37 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I listened with surprise and regret to the speech of the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), for whom I have very great respect. On this occasion he wandered rather far from the Amendment and its context. After all, we are discussing the particular difficulty of South-West Africa. Anyone listening to the hon. Member's speech without having seen the Amendment would have supposed that we were having a general discussion about apartheid in the Union as a whole. The Amendment concerns the position of the mandated territory of South-West Africa.
I can appreciate the difficulty of Her Majesty's Government—it is a real difficulty—when the United Nations is asked to express an opinion upon the administration within the Union of South Africa other than the mandated territory. Many of my hon. Friend have formed the conclusion that we should take a stand at the United Nations even on that subject. However, that is not what we are discussing tonight. What we are discussing tonight is the situation as it affects the South-West Africa mandated territory, the attitude of the Union in relation to a mandate, and whether the Union is in breach of international law as regards this territory.
It appears to me, therefore, that arguments that might possibly be advanced, or that it would be reasonable to advance—whether or not one agreed with them—on the internal arrangements of the Union of South Africa, fall completely to the ground when what we are discussing is a mandated territory that is susceptible to international law and to international opinion properly expressed. So it seems to me that a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said is not relevant to this point, although it might have been to another debate.
The history of all this should convince hon. Members—as, indeed, it has, as we have heard from hon. Members opposite as well as from my hon. Friends—that
704
we have a peculiar duty in this matter. The hon. Member for Farnham has said that we are all members of one family and that we should treat one another as such. That is certainly true, but if a member of his family was in breach of the law would he encourage a breach of the law? Would the hon. Gentleman regard that as his duty, or would he not say, as the Romans said in their ideals of pietas and gravitas, that it was his duty as a citizen to say to that member of his family, "No. If you are in breach of the law then, much as I love you, I cannot support you. I can give you all the affection and devotion that you wish, but I cannot, consistent with my duty, support you if I believe that you are in breach of the law." It is the reverse of that, in effect, that the hon. Gentleman asks of those of us who believe that in this instance the Union of South Africa is in breach of international law—
Sir G. Nicholson: Perhaps the hon. Lady has forgotten that her hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) concluded by saying that he did not wish to expel the Union of South Africa from the Commonwealth but that he wished to lay down a set of standards that might make it impossible for the Union to stay in. I may have been led astray by that. My speech, in the main, was an endeavour to counter that.
Mrs. White: I do not think that anyone wants to expel the Union of South Africa. I certainly would not. I was not able to hear all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), but if he said that he hoped that the Union of South Africa would adopt principles that would make it easier for her to stay in the Commonwealth with general good will, I would agree. I think that we are entirely justified on this issue of the territory of South-West Africa, in asking Her Majesty's Government to do precisely what the Amendment suggests—and I do not know whether the hon. Member for Farnham was in his place when some of his hon. Friends supported this Amendment. It asks the Government to take action in the United Nations—in other words not on every occasion to abstain when this matter is raised—and also to have consultations, which by their very nature would be private, at

705
the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
That seems to me to be a reasonable request to make of Her Majesty's Government. I hope very much that we are to have the pleasure of a speech from the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). His name is subscribed to the booklet to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. Not only is the hon. Gentleman's name subscribed to it, but so is the name of another very much respected hon. Member who sits opposite but who is not in his place at the moment. There are also other names that are very well known to all of us in this House who have taken any interest in the affairs of South-West Africa—
Mr. Christopher Chataway: It has not been my intention to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I have such confidence in the Government that I feel certain that it will be pushing against an open door for me to reiterate the arguments made from this side urging that the ideas contained in this pamphlet should be the basis of Government policy.
Mrs. White: I am delighted to hear that because, if the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is correct, the Government should accept the Motion—but perhaps he has still a little work to do in persuading some of his hon. Friends.
This pamphlet makes very clear the opinion of the very distinguished group of persons sponsoring it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Farnham has had the opportunity of reading it, but, if not, perhaps he can obtain a copy from his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North. I will simply read the conclusions printed in heavy type on the last page. It is said:
"Britain has a special responsibility."
Indeed, yes, because the mandate, let us not forget, was in fact entrusted to His Britannic Majesty's Government, and it was devolved on the Union of South Africa. But this document says that we have a special responsibility.
It then goes on to make three firm recommendations that Britain should—
"Declare her general intention of assisting the international community to establish international rights in South-West Africa, and make it clear that she will not support South Africa at the United Nations."
706
Further, that Britain should—
"Immediately declare her intention of supporting any decision of the International Court which it might be asked to give on the issue of South-West Africa."
That is categorical, is it not? It goes on, thirdly, and very properly, to say that Britain should—
"Make herself available for negotiations with South Africa through the Commonwealth, or other informal channels."
In other words, what we are suggesting, at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference.
Therefore, we have on the record three clear recommendations from a body of persons of experience, some of them of very great experience indeed, in African affairs, including, I repeat, two hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House, and other supporters of the Government outside this Chamber.
We are not asking for more than these recommendations suggest, and, therefore, I hope very much that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, is right in thinking that the Government are to accept the Amendment which we have put upon the Order Paper. After all, those of us who have taken an interest in this sad territory feel that humanity at large owes something to the people of South-West Africa. There is no part of Africa that has a more deplorable history at the hands of Europeans than South-West Africa. There is no part of the country that has been treated more abominably under the German occupation, and the stories of that time are more hair-raising than those from any other part of the whole continent of Africa, in regard to the way in which the people of South-West Africa were treated.
Having, as they believed, freed themselves from that appalling, cruel and bestial tyranny, the people of that territory thought that they would be under the direct protection of His Britannic Majesty, at that time King George V. They found gradually that that was not the case, and that they had been placed under the power of the Union of South Africa, which has so ordered things in its disregard of international obligations that it has been impossible for the people of that country to make representations themselves directly to the United Nations or any other body.

707
I will not weary the House by referring to the history, which is well known, I am sure, to all of us, but I think that what we are asking for in the Amendment should be acceptable to anyone who has studied the position in the territory.
8.49 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: I am reminded tonight of the debate that we had on 8th April last, when the House unanimously came to the conclusion that the only way in which peace and tranquillity could be achieved in South Africa was by establishing complete equality between all peoples in that country.
The tenor of the speeches from the other side of the House tonight indicates that the winds of change have been blowing very strongly in the Conservative Party, and, quite frankly, I welcome this change in opinion on that side of the House. I congratulate, particularly, the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) and his hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) and Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on the part that they have played in bringing about a change of outlook in the Conservative Party on this question.
The Times has referred to the "theft of a mandate" when speaking of the territory we are discussing. I refer also to the rape of a country. Not only have the people of South-West Africa been denied their political rights, but they have had stolen from them the economic assets of their territory under the policy of apartheid and the policy of allocating the wealth of the country very largely to the European minority of about 69,000 people out of a total population of just over 500,000.
I will give some examples to show how the policy of apartheid works in South-West Africa. Last year, in Windhoek, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, riots took place which were almost completely disregarded by the Press. These riots came about as a result of the Government's policy of removing from Windhoek the African location and putting it some way out of town in an area which has became known officially as Katutura—which, ironically enough, is Herero for "We
708
have no permanent home". The authorities did not realise, when they endorsed the use of that name, exactly what they were endorsing. The Herero people, one of the tribes in the territory, do not accept the policy of apartheid and object in every possible way to their forcible removal to the new locations which were established for them.
I ask the House to consider the human misery created as a result of the transfers. First, there is the extra expense involved for families moved from their homes where the average rent was about 3s. 6d. a month to houses where the rent was £2 a month. That has to be borne out of an income which, on average, is only £10 a month, a very big burden indeed when there is added to it the cost of transport, about 6d., from the new location to the town where the people have to work. Also, one must remember that it has been estimated that the basic income needed to maintain a subsistence standard in the area around Windhoek is about £27 a month.
These African people are being denied the opportunity of obtaining an income to keep themselves and their families alive. Yet the territory is not the poorest of the continent. For instance, it is much wealthier than Tanganyika, the mandated territory for which we are responsible. The average yearly income per head of population in Tanganyika is £20 a year. In South-West Africa, the value of exports alone is about £45 million a year, which works out at an average of about £80 per head, man, woman and child. But the African people do not share this relative prosperity, because the main value of the economy of South-West Africa goes to the European minority living there and to the European companies investing there. The African people are regarded as cheap labour by the European settlers and by the European companies exploiting them.
One of the reasons why we press this Amendment tonight is our hope that, if the mandate can be taken away from the Union of South Africa and given to another Power, it will be possible to initiate policies in the territory which will give the African people a fairer share in the wealth which is being created. The whole policy of the South

709
African authorities is to limit the extent to which the African people can participate in the economic activities of the territory.
I should like to refer to the Report of the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa, dated 3rd September last. Paragraphs 253 and 254 show only too clearly how the African people are discriminated against in the economic sphere. The Europeans are given the benefit of credits, of facilities in marketing arrangements, in the allocation of land and in educational facilities. In all these spheres the Europeans are given the advantage whereas the Africans are given hardly any facilities.
In paragraphs 256 and 257 reference is made to the help given to the territory during the drought last year, when about £2,600,000 were provided for alleviating the distress caused by the drought. Yet most of that money went to the European minority. A small part of it, measured in tens of thousands of pounds, went to the African population in the form of subsidies for mealie meal and other such help.
No genuine assistance is given to the African population to build up their incomes. They are left to scratch an existence on their overcrowded native reserves, or forced to find employment with the European companies or mines, or on European farms, where their wages are deplorably low. The allocation of land is one example. Most of the cattle in the territory are owned by Europeans. The Africans have only a small part of the total head of cattle in the territory.
The situation in the territory after the riots last December was full of tension and fear, but, strangely enough, it was not between the local white population and the overwhelming African population. It was between the African population and the administering authority. There is a remarkable quotation in the Report to which I have referred from a speech made by the local Member of Parliament, Mr. Basson, who is a former member of the Nationalist Party. He was a supporter of apartheid, but now takes an attitude which is far more objective than that of his former associates in the Nationalist Party. This is what he said in a speech in the South African Parliament on 9th March last:
710
"The question I should now like to put to the Government is not whether it has taken sufficient security measures to protect the public against any further outbursts. The fact of the matter is—and I should like to emphasise this—that the public itself was never threatened. The best possible relationship exists between the natives and the public. The resistance was directed at the authorities. It is, therefore, not a question of public safety which is causing us concern, but what the Government intends doing to penetrate to the crux of the difficulties and to resolve them. I think that it is generally accepted that it is the task of any good government not only to punish and to suppress disorders, but also to create conditions which will prevent such disorders. We want general peace and order to be restored in South West. We do not want tanks and machine-guns, with which one can, after all, not solve anything, to become a permanent part of the life of South West."
The South African Government are not responding to that appeal. They are building up their military might in this territory. They are flying against the united voice of the rest of the world, with the exception of countries like Portugal, whose actions in Mozambique and Angola do not bear examination. They are building their military might in these territories with the intention of still further suppressing the African people of that mandated territory.
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Farnham, but he must realise that the situation is becoming so desperate that it is a question of choosing between action Like expelling South Africa from the Commonwealth and imposing economic sanctions in an attempt to bring the Government of that territory to their senses or inviting civil war in that country, with the possibility of having an Algerian situation with, perhaps, China or Russia bringing in military aid from outside to build up a rebellious force. We do not want that.
Sir G. Nicholson: I do not wish to argue with the hon. Member. I am sure that he would agree that our intention is the same, but that we differ over methods.
Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. But we must avoid war at all costs. We do not want civil war in the territory. It would do no good at all. We do not want the races to be involved in the sort of conflict that is now the suffering of Algeria, bleeding France to death. We do not

711
want South Africa to become a battlefield in the cold war. We do not want East and West pouring in aid to build up the military forces on both sides.
The sort of measures which we propose—bringing the United Nations into the picture, making South Africa account for herself and then, if she fails to do so, taking positive action to bring her to her senses—are better than allowing the situation gradually to get worse and inviting the other countries to come in and stir things up.
What Mr. Basson said deserves our consideration. He was a member of the Nationalist Party and is the Member of Parliament for Windhoek. He does not represent the Africans for they had no part in his election. He was elected by the Europeans but the Government of South Africa, however, are not responding to his request.
It is in these circumstances that the British Government are called upon to take positive action. We want them to do something now in the United Nations which they have never done before. We want them to take positive action there and also to support the case which Liberia and Ethiopia are taking to the International Court.
Before I conclude, I wish to ask the Minister of State to clarify one aspect of the problem which is of great concern to the people of Bechuanaland. I was there in September. They feel strongly about this whole question. They are watching carefully what is happening in the mandated territory. They are watching carefully what Britain is doing in relation to the problem, because they are worried about their own future, particularly when South Africa becomes a republic and they find that their own status is called into question and there is the increasing danger that South Africa will take steps to absorb Bechuanaland and the other Protectorates in the same way as South-West Africa has been absorbed.
The question concerning the people of Bechuanaland is the use of military facilities in their Protectorate to enable the South African authorities to move forces across the Protectorate into the mandated territory. According to the South African Minister of Defence, there is now a route through the southern part
712
of Bechuanaland which is regarded as the opening to the South-West African territory for the use of the military. It is quoted in the Report to which I have referred and it is a matter of considerable concern. I ask the Minister of State to make clear that there is no question whatever of Her Majesty's Government allowing the Union of South Africa to have military facilities in the Bechuanaland Protectorate or access through that Protectorate for her military forces.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I think there has been broad agreement in the House that the intolerable position in South-West Africa should be brought to an end. The Amendment is couched in moderate but definite terms. I therefore urge the Government to give most serious consideration to the request that is being made from this side of the House. There is considerable feeling in the country both about the position in South-West Africa and the policy which the Union of South Africa has been pursuing in that territory, as well as the attitude of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations when the question is brought under review year by year.
It is not only in our own country that that feeling is apparent. There is also in the Continent of Africa itself, in various parts of the Commonwealth and indeed throughout the world, judging from the voting at the United Nations, a very deep feeling about the way in which the mandate is administered by the Union of South Africa.
Perhaps I may be forgiven if I make a personal reference on this problem, because I was one of the Ministers responsible for bringing the old mandate system to an end and inaugurating the trusteeship system. We were concerned with creating a trusteeship system which profited from the experience of the working of the mandates. When the mandate system was inaugurated it was generally felt that no victorious nation should claim any territories which had passed into its possession as a result of conquest. There was a feeling, as expressed in the mandates, that everything possible should be done to promote the moral wellbeing and the social progress of the people brought under any such system. The administration was to be conducted as a sacred trust of civilisation

713
At the time it was thought that this system owed a great deal to the Prime Minister of South Africa, General Smuts, but South Africa was perfectly within her rights technically, though I do not say within her moral right, in determining that she would not pursue the mandate status so far as it affected South-West Africa. She could make a choice when we introduced the trusteeship system. I discussed the matter with General Smuts. Being a responsible Minister, trying to bring the trusteeship system into operation, I felt that it was most desirable that all the mandated territories should come into the trusteeship system. General Smuts, although he was the author of the mandate system, thought otherwise.
I said that, in the circumstances, perhaps he would make it clear to the world that if he could not accept the trusteeship system at least he would see that the territory of South-West Africa was administered in the spirit of the mandate, that it should continue a sacred trust of civilisation, and that the avowed purpose set out in the mandate should continue to be pursued. General Smuts agreed and made a public declaration to that effect. It is as well that that history should go on the record.
What has really happened? Those pledges have been largely forgotten. Indeed, they have been brushed aside by the administering authority, the Union of South Africa, and instead, steadily over the years the Union has de facto annexed South-West Africa and made it for all practical purposes a fifth province. The political arrangements of South-West Africa are now integrated into the Union and it is a province administered by the central Government of the Union and no longer as a mandated territory.
In South-West Africa there is being pursued a policy which is quite contrary to the whole spirit of the mandate. Apartheid is the general term for the policy which is in operation. There is the fiercest discrimination between black and white. There is a segregation of the black man from European living. No political rights are permitted to the African for his participation in the common life of the country in which he lives. A great deal of his land has been alienated.
714
In all the circumstances, the United Nations is perfectly right in the declarations which it has made from time to time, that the spirit of the mandate is being evaded in the administration of this territory. Above all, the Union has refused to participate in negotiations which have been offered by the United Nations and has set on one side the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that the territory was still subject to international supervision and that, as the administering authority, the Union of South Africa should continue to make its reports to the United Nations and that the international status of the Territory could not be modified by the unilateral action of South Africa itself.
The United Nations Report of 1957 went so far as to say:
"The existing conditions in the Territory and the trend of the administration represent a situation contrary to the Mandate system, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, and the resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations."
It went on to say:
"There is no evidence that the Mandatory Power intends to change the course of the administration of the Territory or to bring it into conformity with the Mandates system."
That is a damning indictment of the administration by the Union of this territory.
We are therefore entitled to ask the Government to pursue a somewhat different attitude from the one they have pursued at the United Nations during discussions on this territory. My hon. Friends have referred to the decisions which have been taken by the United Kingdom delegate, the abstentions on certain resolutions, and the general support which from time to time has been given to the case made by the Union of South Africa.
I do not want to go over that ground, but if this matter is being reconsidered in the light of the representations that are being made, and in the light of the reference to the International Court of Justice, may I remind the Minister of State of the views of the people of the territory, as recently presented at the United Nations. There is a grave fear

715
that reference of this matter to the International Court will again delay any definite action in respect of the territory.
It has been suggested that the General Assembly should be invited to suspend its supervisory functions and that petitioners should cease to petition because the International Court has been seized of the matter. To leave the South African Government free to continue its unrestrained oppression and misrule would be to make a mockery of the United Nations and of those rights which the judgment of the International Court is being asked to vindicate.
The representatives of the African people have informed the United Nations that they do not want action in regard to the conditions at present operating in the territory to be delayed simply because the matter is going before the International Court.
If we follow the policy pursued so far by Her Majesty's Government it will add little to the reputation which this country has acquired in recent years in colonial administration. The present policy tends to smear our reputation in some of our dependencies and in the under-developed areas. It causes confusion in the minds of Africans who have been watching the situation carefully and who feel deeply about the policies that are being pursued by the Union Government in this Territory as well as in the Union. It also causes confusion amongst other nations. World opinion has been expressing itself with complete solidarity. Why cannot Britain do the same? The British Government should give a definite lead. Why should Britain run away from what she often regards as her rôle, that of giving moral leadership to the world?
I urge the Government to review the instructions they have given to their representatives at the United Nations. There are alternative ways of handling this problem. I am not competent to go into the legal intricacies, but surely we put ourselves at a grave disadvantage if, when a vital issue of this kind is before the United Nations, we abstain from voting or give what appears to be moral backing to the Union of South Africa.
If it is argued that we are obliged to do that because the Union is at least a
716
free nation inside the Commonwealth, I would ask the Government to respect the views of the other Commonwealth nations, such as Ghana, Malaya and Nigeria, all of whom feel equally strongly that South Africa is pursuing a particularly wicked and vile course in this territory. I therefore urge the Government to follow up the resolution passed a few days ago, from which the United Kingdom abstained but which was agreed to by the great body of the Fourth Committee at the United Nations, that an end should be brought to the present policy operating in the territory, which can be referred to by the comprehensive term of "apartheid." At the same time it was agreed that an investigating commission should go to South-West Africa in order that a beginning could be made by the United Nations to form the basis for a constructive policy for that territory.
Unfortunately, I gather that the United Kingdom representative again abstained from those proposals. I urge that at least the United Kingdom should show some initiative in the Committee and should strive to adopt a constructive line of action. It has been suggested that without even waiting for the verdict or the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice we should urge the United Nations to bring into operation in this territory the remedial work which can be done by the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations in respect of health and social conditions, and the entire social policy which is now generally adopted, and also, since the mandate is held in the name of the Sovereign, we should propose that a Commonwealth administration should take the place of the South African one.
I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and thereby agree that the intolerable situation in South-West Africa should be brought to an end, so far as it is within our power to influence this development, and that we should take a constructive line in the United Nations in order to do something to redeem the present dreadful position of the inhabitants.
9.23 p.m.
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): It is always a pleasure to speak after

717
the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), because we know that he has followed this problem very closely and personally. I hope to be able to reply to some of the points he raised, but I want, first, to comment upon his reference to voting on the resolutions put forward in the United Nations. This comment applies not only to his speech, but to the speeches of other hon. Members opposite. They asked why we opposed one aspect of these resolutions without taking the whole of the resolutions into consideration. The fact is that whatever may have been the various characteristics of the resolutions put to us, there were certain parts of them—and they were all long ones—which we found it impossible to support.
The remarkable thing about the debate has been the way in which, except for the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot)—to whom I offer my sympathies at his recent loss, since he is a neighbour of mine—and the lawyers amongst us, everybody seems to have fought shy of the legal implications of this problem. Yet I doubt very much whether it is possible for the whole of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government, or, indeed, the problems of South-West Africa, to be understood unless there is some conception of the legal complexity of the matter.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that whatever the law—I think that I am quoting him correctly, I hope so—it is the spirit of the mandate that matters. Of course, the spirit of the mandate is extremely important; nobody denies that for a moment. But in a situation such as this, where the legal position is so much at issue, I do not think that anyone can ignore the legal aspects of the problem.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) whether we supported the initiative of Liberia and Ethiopia in the reference to the International Court. Perhaps I may quote to him what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers), who was our delegate at the Fourth Committee. In the speech that he made there he said:
"On the other hand, when the Governments of Liberia and Ethiopia filed proceedings before the Court, this seemed to us to be a practical
718
and constructive step, which could further clarify the legal position and which could establish another point of certainty in a confused situation."
There has never been any doubt about our attitude to that, although we realise, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman realises, that it will be very difficult from the point of view of the Court submission. It is a difficult proposition.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what attitude we would take to the views of the International Court when they were announced. I think that the attitude we would take would be similar to the attitude of the Labour Government of 1950 when, it will be remembered that the decision of that Government—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was the delegate on that occasion—with regard to the advisory opinion given by the International Court with respect to South-West Africa was given to the Trusteeship Council after the opinion had been studied by Her Majesty's Government. I should think that any hon. Member would regard that as being a reasonable and responsible approach to that matter.
I have said—I do so with great temerity—that I should like to look at some of the legal aspects of the problem. I do not underestimate in any way the importance of the spirit of the mandate, the spirit of the carrying out of international obligations by those who have undertaken them. But, as I have already emphasised, I do not think that we can ignore the legal relationship.
The basis of our interpretation of the legal position is the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, given in 1950. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that he would be able to make my speech for me, and I have no doubt that he would do so with great success. But, were he standing at this Dispatch Box, I think that he would be saying very much the same sort of thing as I am saying, and that he would be carrying forward the decision made by the Government of the day with regard to the acceptance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.
Let us consider what that advisory opinion was, or rather, what are the deductions which we can make from it. They are these: firstly, that the mandate is still in force; secondly, that the Union

719
Government continue to be subject to the obligations imposed on the mandatory Power by the mandate and that the supervisory role has passed from the defunct League of Nations to the United Nations; thirdly, that such powers of supervision should not exceed in extent the supervision practiced under the mandate system; fourthly, that the Union is not under any legal obligation to place the Territory under the trusteeship system of the United Nations.
The hon. and learned Member asked me why it was that, despite the fact that all other countries had handed over their mandates to the United Nations, to receive them again on a trusteeship basis, the Union of South Africa had not done so in respect of South-West Africa. It is perfectly true that they have not followed the practice we followed in this country, but it was the opinion of the International Court, in 1959, that they were not under an obligation to do so.
The fifth deduction is that the competence to determine and modify the international status of the territory rests with the Union Government acting with the consent of the United Nations. That may not be a full answer in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, but I think that it is the answer as we understand the legal position to be in regard to any question of the determination or modification of the international status of South-West Africa at present. That being our view of the legal position, we have in the past, inevitably—
Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the United Nations does not have the legal authority to initiate changes in the mandatory arrangements in South-West Africa?
Mr. Alport: What I am doing is making a deduction from the opinion given by the International Court of Justice—the highest legal court—which, as far as I am aware, is the best legal opinion on the subject. This being our view of the legal position of South-West Africa, we did, in the past, have some reservations with regard to the legality of the South-West Africa Committee, set up under the United Nations General Assembly, which has interpreted its functions in certain directions to extend
720
its supervisory function beyond the precedents set by the League's Mandates Commission when it was in existence.
I think it right at this point to establish this view of ours since it has a direct bearing upon our decision in regard to a vote in the current session of the Assembly on certain of the resolutions relating to South-West Africa which, as hon. Members know, have just been debated in the Fourth Committee. Perhaps, here, I might also refer to two other legal matters which, the House may recollect, I referred to in my speech on 4th July. I will summarise the view that I expressed then. I fully accept from the hon. and learned Member that it may not be the last word, but it is the best information available to me at the moment. We do not accept the suggestion that references in the wording of the mandate to "His Britannic Majesty" qualifies in any way the fact that the mandate was entrusted to the Government of the Union of South Africa.
As I said on that occasion, the use of the words "His Britannic Majesty" is a formally correct way of saying that the mandate was given to the Union Government—given to the Union Government as a fully independent member of the British Empire and Commonwealth. It is in our view a misunderstanding, both of Commonwealth and United Kingdom constitutional practice, to deduce from the use of these particular words the idea that any special rights or responsibilities in respect of South-West Africa were conferred upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or, indeed, on the Governments of any other part of the independent Commonwealth. The fact is that our legal position in relation to South-West Africa in no way differs from that of any other member of the United Nations which was also a former member of the League of Nations.
Secondly, and here I come to a point made by the hon. and learned Member, by the same token there are no grounds, in our view, for the opinion that a change of the status of the Union of South Africa from a monarchy to a republic in any way changes the legal position or obligations of South Africa as a mandatory Power responsible for the administration of that territory.
The hon. and learned Member asked whether there would be any change if,

721
in fact, South Africa were no longer a member of the Commonwealth, but were a republic outside the Commonwealth. I should like to think further about that, but my immediate impression is that it will not affect the situation in the least.
Mr. D. Foot: I thank the right hon. Member for the sympathy which he expressed a few moments ago. Does he not agree that the only ultimate arbitrator on this question must be the International Court?
Mr. Alport: It may well be that that will provide a different opinion from our own, but at the moment what I have stated is clearly the situation.
It is also important to bear in mind that however strong the feelings may be on one side or the other, nothing can be gained by not being fair. It is worth reminding the House that the terms of the mandate conferred upon the Union Government full power of administration and legislation for the territory of South-West Africa as an integral part of the Union of South Africa, with the right to apply the laws of the Union to that territory. That is our view of the general legal position.
Let me say a ward about United Kingdom policy over the past few years. It has always been our view that any practical solution which would serve the interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa could be brought about only by the Union Government, as a mandatory power, and the United Nations, in its supervisory capacity, working out by mutual agreement arrangements which would enable both to carry out their respective rôles in co-operation and harmony. Our policy at successive sessions of the United Nations General Assembly has been to encourage negotiations towards this end and to bring about a climate in which such negotiations could make progress.
Indeed, the culmination of our efforts in this direction was the part played between 1957 and 1959 by Sir Charles Arden-Clarke as the United Kingdom Member and Chairman of the Good Offices Committee. I do not know whether many hon. Members have had an opportunity to study the reports of the proceedings of this Committee, but if anyone has, he will, I am sure, be
722
quite clear that every possible effort was made in the existing circumstances to find a way of approaching a solution to the problem through the Good Offices Committee.
I turn to the most recent proceedings which have led to the reference to the International Court. It was a very great regret to us that the Good Offices Committee, which seemed to be making substantial progress at one time, did not succeed in finding a solution. As a result of that lack of progress, it has been decided by Liberia and Ethiopia to initiate proceedings against South Africa in the International Court of Justice.
I will summarise the scope of the application which has been made. They charge the Union with numerous violations of the mandate, including failure to promote the material and moral wellbeing and social progress of the inhabitants; practising racial discrimination, suppressing rights and liberties; refusing to transmit petitions to the United Nations; and failing to submit annual reports. The application asks the Court to declare that South Africa has a duty to remedy these violations and to make the necessary orders to effectuate these determinations.
The House will appreciate that with the filing of this application a new situation has been brought into being. The South African representative at the Trusteeship Committee moved that the whole problem in all its aspects should now be considered as sub judice and that, therefore, it would be improper for the Committee to discuss it. This point was made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield.
It has been our view that, while the sub judice principle applies, it should not be interpreted as excluding all forms of consideration and thus placing in suspense the supervisory functions for the whole duration of the Court proceedings, but that it would be lacking in respect to the Court, and might prejudice the Court proceedings, if the Assembly were to pronounce substantively on the matters contained within the application while the Court was considering that application and had it before it.

723
For this reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, our representative, appealed to the Committee to exercise restraint in dealing with this matter. It should be noted by the House that this appeal was fairly widely supported by other members of the Committee.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Have the South African Government stated that they will accept the jurisdiction and decision of the International Court of Justice with regard to the submissions of Liberia and Ethiopia?
Mr. Alport: I am sorry; I am not able to tell the hon. and learned Member what will be the eventual decision of the South African Government upon that. Nor am I responsible for that decision.
I turn now to the explanation of the votes. The House is probably already familiar with the general pattern of the resolutions passed by the Committee to date. There are, first, three resolutions dealing with petitions, freedom of political organisation, and disturbances in connection with the projected move of the Windhoek location, which were put forward as annexures to the Report of the South-West Africa Committee.
I have already mentioned our misgivings regarding the proceedings of this body, but these were coupled with the difficulties in our view, of pronouncing a judgment on matters pending before the Court at the particular time the debate took place. This led us to abstain from voting. The same consideration has led us to abstain upon the vote on the resolution which invited the Committee on South-West Africa to go to the territory immediately with a view to reporting to the Assembly on the conditions for restoring a climate for peace and security and the steps which would enable indigenous inhabitants to achieve a wide measure of internal self-government designed to lead them to complete independence as soon as possible.
In the case of the resolution commending the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia on their initiative in submitting their dispute to the International Court of Justice, the reasons for our abstention were not, as I explained to the House, that we opposed their intiative, but be
724
cause the resolution as drafted pronounced that the Government of the Union had failed and refused to carry out its obligations, which was precisely the ground on which the reference to the International Court of Justice was made. Further, we were unable to accept that part of the resolution—its conclusion—to the effect that the dispute could not be settled by negotiation. It is certainly not the view of the Government that, however long may have been the delays, and however grave the disappointments in the handling of this matter, a settlement by negotiation is no longer a practical proposition.
More than one hon. Member has referred to the fact that we voted in favour of the resolution proposed by India and Ghana calling upon Specialised Agencies of the United Nations to undertake urgent programmes to assist the indigenous inhabitants and upon the Union to seek such assistance. In doing so, as I am sure will be the wish of the House, our representative referred to our appreciation of the work which had been done by the United Nations Specialised Agencies elsewhere, experience of which we have had in many of our own dependent territories.
During the prolonged controversy over the problem of South-Went Africa it has been the aim of the Government to find means of enabling the United Nations, on the one hand, and the Union of South Africa, on the other, to reach an agreement which will resolve the differences between the two. Mr. Hammarskjoeld is expected to visit South Africa in January and I hope that he will take any opportunity which arises during his visit, and which is likely to help in this difficult matter.
It will certainly be the strong desire of Her Majesty's Government to help by any action they can take to bring about a resumption of the negotiations. Indeed, whatever may be the outcome of Mr. Hammarskjoeld's visit, the Government intend to continue their efforts, which have so far been far more practical than any of the alternatives proposed, although we cannot ignore the fact that the situation with regard to South-West Africa has been altered by it becoming sub judice as a result of the reference to the International Court of Justice.

725
Turning to the Amendment, the filing of the suit at the International Court has created a new situation. I am surprised that the Amendment does not in any way give recognition to this. After all, the application to the Court follows mature consideration in the United Nations over the years of the possibilities of legal action. It is, therefore strange that, in framing the Amendment, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not have made any reference to a suit which has at last been launched, when the practical outcome of it still remains to be seen and may provide, along the lines of legal action, some guidance and help in the solution of the problem.
Mr. Callaghan: The reason is very simple. I have not been able to get access to the submissions which Ethiopia and Liberia will make to the International Court. I do not know whether they are even known in this country. Perhaps the Minister of State knows. None of the rest of us knows. If he knows what the exact submission is, I shall be glad to hear it. It would have been very unwise of me to have made reference to it when I did not know what those countries were submitting.
Mr. Alport: This is a very serious matter, as I think the hon. Gentleman fully realises. It should have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to have acquainted himself, not with the details, but at any rate with the general framing of the contention of the sponsors.
Mr. Callaghan: Does the right hon. Gentleman know them?
Mr. Alport: I have already outlined the general basis of them to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can fail to get them. The information would have been easily available to him if he had wished to get it.
The second thing about the Amendment is the alternative at the end of it, of the surrender of the mandate and its assignment elsewhere. I have already dealt with that. I have said that, as far as we understand the legal position, it is as contained in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court, 1950. That is something which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite could have considered in framing the Amendment.
726
I cannot tell the House, for reasons which hon. Members fully recognise, what will be the subjects which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will discuss at their meeting in March. I must, however, make one thing clear, namely, the limitations upon the United Kingdom's action in this matter, which are placed on it either in its capacity as a member of the United Nations or of the Commonwealth. There can be no question of the United Kingdom being able to ensure unilaterally a solution to the problem of South-West Africa. Therefore, in that sense the Amendment does not relate to the realities of the situation.
Mr. Ellis Smith: So you are against the Amendment.
Mr. Alport: In so far as it lies within the capacity, the ingenuity and the statesmanship of the United Kingdom to play a constructive part in bringing about a satisfactory outcome of the South-West Africa problem, both as a member of the United Nations and as a member of the Commonwealth, it is certainly our intention to do so. Indeed, we believe that in that way we shall be able to play our part in providing, we hope, a realistic approach to the solution of the problem.
I noticed that in their speeches, the hon. Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and for Cardiff, South-East asked for action. I will read the former's speech tomorrow, but in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I did not hear any suggestion whatever of what sort of action he thought would be effective in achieving—unilaterally, by the United Kingdom—the objective that he has in mind. I am certain that had the hon. Gentleman, following the decisions of the Labour Government in 1950, been answering this debate, and wrestling with this difficult problem, as we have to do, he would have been basing his approach to it on precisely the same ground as we are now doing.
Despite the faulty wording of the Amendment, and its failure to pay proper regard to the realities of the problem, I recognise that the House is anxious about the continuing failure to find a practical solution to the problem—
Mr. Callaghan: Why not be honest, and vote against the Amendment?
Mr. Alport: If I may say so, I am being much more honest than the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, who are urging action without suggesting what can be done to obtain a successful conclusion. But they do not face the realities, as the Government must face them in the United Nations and in Africa, of the problems that lie ahead.
I am sure that the views expressed by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite will be helpful to advancing consideration and study of the subject. I realise the general anxieties relating to the subject and, because of that, and in the light of the considerations that I have outlined, I do not propose to vote against the Amendment. It will continue to be the aim of the Government, in whatever action—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask for your guidance, in view of the extraordinary statement that the Minister of State has just made. He has given us, in the most explicit terms, his view—
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Silverman: I must make myself clear—I do not want to take a long time.
The right hon. Gentleman explained in the most explicit terms why he regards the Amendment as unacceptable, and has then gone on to say that, nevertheless, he does not propose to vote against it. Is not that an abuse of the procedure of the House, so as to prevent the true issue from being decided?
Mr. Speaker: If that were right, there might be a point, but listening, as I did, to the Minister, I understood him to be saying, not that the Amendment was unacceptable, but subject to criticism from his point of view. Indeed, he stated that he intended to accept it, which, in effect, is the opposite of saying that it is unacceptable.
Mr. Silverman: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I understood the right hon. Gentleman, as I am sure most of us did, to say that one could not ensure what
728
the Amendment asks him to ensure, that one could not take action in the sense that the Amendment asks him to take action. He is, therefore, against the Amendment, which he has announced his intention of not opposing. Surely that must be an abuse.
Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to enter into an analysis of speeches. I shall be guided by the voice and the vote. Contradiction in that might represent abuse.
Mr. Alport: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough should take such exception to the acceptance of the Amendment. I am sorry that in dealing with a serious and important subject like this, an Amendment that was presumably intended to rally the interest and support of the House should be drafted in the way that it has been drafted—HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In these circum-stances, as I have said, I do not intend to vote against the Amendment. It is the intention of the Government to take whatever action we possibly can which can be calculated to bring about a peaceful and equitable solution of what has up to now proved to be such an intractable problem.
Mr. Stonehouse: Before the Minister resumes his seat, would he reply to the specific point which I raised in my speech? Has he not taken action to deny military facilities to the South African authorities through the Bechuanaland Protectorate? Will he take this opportunity of saying that these facilities will be denied?
Mr. Alport: I can quite easily give an assurance that such facilities as exist through the southern part of Bechuanaland are of no concern or threat whatever to the integrity of that territory.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and negatived.
Proposed words there added.
Main Question, as amended, proposed.
Mr. Callaghan: If I finish before ten o'clock, I believe that I shall be in order in speaking on this amended Motion.
This is a most extraordinary situation. For the first time for twenty or thirty years, I suppose, an Amendment has been accepted by the Government, but

729
the terms in which the Minister accepted it must be distasteful to many of his own followers, as well as to those of us on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly what our representative did in the United Nations. He has been willing to wound yet afraid to strike. The timorous and bloodless approach which characterised our representative in the United Nations has characterised the right hon. Gentleman's speech here tonight. We believe that he will do exactly the same with this as the Government did with our Motion on the Press. If the Minister intended to accept the Amendment I wish that he could have done it in more gracious terms than those in which he did accept it.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations and in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa, or surrenders it to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made.
Committee Tomorrow.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas, Mr. Leavey, Mr. John Morris, and Mr. Wise nominated Members of the Select Committee.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

AIRPORTS (CATERING)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
9.58 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: The subject I want to discuss this evening will not be as controversial as that which has gone before. It is the question of catering at British airports. I am taking the view that catering at British airports is unsatisfactory, and I am asking my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation to take note of that I have no doubt that he will not be too ready to accept my view, but, as I see it, Ministers seldom admit complaints. They follow the rules which are laid down by insurance companies for their insured—"Never admit anything". I think that if he looks at the situation in respect of catering at British airports, he will see some cause for quite serious complaint.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharples.]
Mr. Shepherd: I do not for a moment imagine that catering at airports is an easy business. I have been involved in catering myself, and I know very well that it is not the easiest of occupations to follow. I realise that there are special difficulties attached to catering at airports, difficulties caused, for instance, by the isolated position of the airport, very often, by the irregularity of hours, by the fact that the customers either want serving in a great hurry or they want to stay half the night. None of these conditions is really ideal for the caterer. Nevertheless, I believe that better standards can and should obtain today at British airports. It is Ministerial policy never to admit anything, but I hope that my hon. Friend will try to do something about the standards which now exist because they are, I believe, damaging to the prestige of this country.
I wish to make clear, also, that I do not criticise B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. I believe that those who, like myself, do a fair amount of travelling by air have

731
come to the conclusion that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. cater on their aircraft as well as, if not better than, any other airline in the world. I am annoyed sometimes when I find that B.E.A. has not the reputation that attaches to Air France because, without being unkind to Air France, I have found from my personal experience that B.E.A. can beat Air France almost all the time. I do not, therefore, criticise the standards of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. because, in my view, they have done a great deal in establishing our prestige by the way that they cater for the public with food in the cabin.
Neither do I make criticisms of catering in general in this country. I think that we have raised our standards very considerably during the past ten or twelve years. It is to me regrettable that we have not in airport catering raised our standards but we have, in fact, lowered them during the past ten years.
I regard airport catering today as being in something like the position occupied by railway catering twenty years ago. We all remember the refreshment rooms of twenty years ago—the stale bun and the tired sandwich languishing rather unappetisingly in their glass domes. It is very satisfying to realise that in the intervening years there has been a substantial improvement in the standard of railway catering. Airport catering now stands where railway catering was twenty years ago.
This is a serious misfortune because, after all, our international prestige is to some extent affected by the standards we maintain at our airports. Why has the standard of catering at airports gone down? Perhaps my hon. Friend would like me to instance some of the places where it has in fact gone down. Several hon. Members have come to me during the past week and each has said, "We have got the worst catering in the whole country at our local airport". Of course, they cannot all be right, but it is evidence that several hon. Members believe that the standard of catering at British airports is low.
Two instances will show how standards of catering have deteriorated. Let us take the view held by the eating public of conditions at Northolt a few years ago
732
and the view now held of conditions at London Airport. When B.E.A. did the catering at Northolt I think that it would be true to say that it established a fine reputation. People went to Northolt in the evening to eat at the airport because they thought that the food was so good. I confess that I do not hear of people going to London Airport to eat because they think that the food is good. I do not say that London Airport is an example of the worst kind of catering at British airports, because it is not, but it can be said that it is mediocre for very high prices. That is the first instance of a clear deterioration in the standard of catering.
Some of my Scottish colleagues would have something to say about Edinburgh and Glasgow—
Mr. William Baxter: Particularly Glasgow.
Mr. Shepherd: Particularly Glasgow, as the hon. Member says—in terms perhaps much less restrained than I intend to use. Although I have not a very extensive experience of Glasgow Airport, the position there does give rise to a good deal of concern to hon. Members and to people who live around and visit the airport.
Let me turn to an airport of which I have a good more personal knowledge, namely, Ringway. I am not exaggerating when I say that five or six years ago—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Ringway is an airport which is entirely the responsibility of the Manchester Corporation. I cannot answer any points my hon. Friend raises on municipal airports.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I did not know that. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will appreciate the situation.
Mr. Shepherd: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but, on the other hand, I would point out to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend's Department pays very substantial grants to Ringway. Although it may be true that the airport is owned by the corporation, the Government spend a good deal of money on it.
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that will not do to bring the hon. Member into order concerning Ringway Airport. Perhaps he can fly on.
Mr. Shepherd: As you say, Mr. Speaker, I can fly on. I merely content myself by saying that precisely the same conditions which exist at London Airport exist, although perhaps in a more acute form, at Ringway.
Bad catering at airports is so widespread that there are few airlines which can take their supplies from the resident catering establishments. In some cases, they have to go ten, twenty or thirty miles to obtain supplies because they cannot trust the standard of catering at the airports at which they call. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that airline companies have to go to the inconvenience of travelling many miles to obtain supplies which they consider satisfactory enough to feed to their passengers in the cabins. This trouble is due almost entirely to the attitude of the Ministry of Aviation and, as my hon. Friend has been ready to point out to me, of other authorities concerned with the control of airports.
I say that this matter is the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department because of the method by which concessions are granted. They make absolutely certain that the best caterer is unlikely to be obtained. If I were to choose a method calculated to get other than the best kind of caterer, I should choose the method adopted by airport authorities. Almost invariably they grant the concession to the firm which will pay them the highest annual price for the concession. What happens is not unnatural. The firm that is prepared to go in for this sort of rat race either has to work on very small profits to pay the very large sum to the airport—there have been cases, I believe, where firms have gone bankrupt in trying to do this; certainly, some have gone out of business—or it must take it out of the customers, or both. This is precisely what happens.
I know, for example, that one of the best caterers in London would not go in for the contract at London Airport because of the methods of tendering and because, in the opinion of these people,—and they were qualified to pronounce
734
upon the matter—the facilities available at London Airport did not permit of first-class catering.
I want to see a change in the method. I want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to alter the system by which contracts are allocated to caterers at airports. We ought to insist upon the highest possible standard of catering and not try to screw out of the contractor the highest sum of money. If my hon. Friend asks the sort of terms on which I suggest that the catering can be improved, I should have no difficulty in telling him.
To my mind, it is not inequitable to propose the following sort of terms. A caterer should pay to the airport authority a rent which can be calculated easily, because the rents for establishments at airports are fairly standardised and well known to most people. Then, the contractor could be required to pay to the airport authority a percentage of the net profit—I emphasise "net profit", not gross profit. In this way, the airport authority would be assured of a reasonable rental for the space which the contractor occupies and it would be identified with the commercial success of the catering. There would be no incentive on the part of the contractor to try to take out of the catering an excessive contract price which he had agreed to pay.
If these methods were adopted, my hon. Friend would be in a position of having to take a little more trouble. There then arises the question of selection of contractor. This is a matter which my hon. Friend would probably prefer not to have to do. I emphasise, however, that the present low standard of catering at British airports is damaging to our prestige and does not justifiably reflect the standard of catering of which we are capable.
I hope, therefore, that tonight my hon. Friend will be prepared to change the system on which hitherto, it seems, airport authorities have worked and to consider the possibility of a system that will encourage the better type of contractor and not rely upon a system which, by its very nature, must tend to encourage the one who is least likely to give satisfaction to the public.
10.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) about this matter. We are indeed all members of what he described as "the eating public" and, as he forecast, I am certainly not at all ready to accept his views on this matter, although I can assure him that I am ready to admit anything that can be proved more specifically than the case that he has advanced. I do not believe that it is right or proper in a matter of this kind to make sweeping generalisations about bad catering and casual references to "stale buns" and "tired sandwiches".
Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend could not have listened to what I said. I did not say that. I referred to that as an aspect of railway catering twenty years ago. I said nothing of that about airports.
Mr. Rippon: I understood my hon. Friend to suggest that airport catering was much in the same state as railway catering twenty years ago. I have had no evidence from my hon. Friend of any specific complaints and, therefore, I must confine my remarks to the mote general matters of policy which he has raised. I do not accept the premise of my hon. Friend's argument, namely his allegation that the methods of tendering result in a low standard of catering at airports.
The responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation for catering, as I have indicated, is confined to those airports, about twenty in number, which the Ministry owns and operates. The policy is to provide a public catering service at all airports, and, as my hon. Friend recognised, the nature and scope of the service are naturally dependent upon the volume of traffic. As he readily admitted, that causes certain difficulties. At one end of the scale there is London Airport with three main restaurants and a number of buffets, and also cafeterias for spectators. At the other end there are places like some of the more remote Scottish aerodromes where provision, if needed at all, is confined to a coffee bar or snack service.
But, whatever the scope of the service, the approach is the same. It is to secure
736
through concessionaires a public catering service adequate to the needs of the passengers. I understand that the burden of my hon. Friend's argument is that the method by which we secure these concessionaires or caterers is unsatisfactory. The method employed to obtain concessionaires is by competitive tender, that is by invitation to tender which is sent to all caterers thought likely to be interested and—this is important—also capable of undertaking the job satisfactorily.
This is quite different from open tendering which implies advertisement and might well result in applications for the concession from men of straw or people willing to go into the business as a speculation. On the other hand, although we adopt this system of selective tendering, as it were, there is nothing to prevent anybody who may have been overlooked from applying for the tender document. I found no evidence of complaint about this system of selective tendering, which is, I submit, on very broad lines.
As for the basis of tendering, under this system the caterer is normally invited to tender on the basis of his agreeing to pay to the Ministry a percentage of his gross takings. He is free to offer whatever percentage he thinks appropriate, and it is customary to quote separately for food, drink, and tobacco. There is a clear objection to a flat rental basis; because retail trade at airports should be continually growing and the percentage method gives a corresponding financial benefit to the advantage of the taxpayer.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend added a percentage of the net profits, but I do not feel that an alteration of that kind would result in the better catering that he claims is necessary. Normally, other things being equal, the concession is awarded to the highest bidder. My hon. Friend is right on that point, but the ultimate test is which offer is likely to give the best financial return together with the requisite standards of service to the public. As the revenue actually received depends upon the standard of service, there is a clear relationship between the two. It is also important to have regard to whether the standard offered is too expensive, or too

737
low, for the passengers with whom we are dealing, and it has not been by any means the invariable practice to accept the highest bidder. Indeed, the tender documents make it quite clear that
"The Minister gives no undertaking to accept the highest or any tender."
So much for the general practice in regard to entering into contracts. I quite understand that it is with the results that most hon. Members and the "eating public" are concerned—the standard of service and the sort of meals they get in airport restaurants and snack bars up and down the country. Catering is an art and there will always be room for improvement. There will always be days when things do not go exactly right, but I am bound to say that I have found very little evidence of complaints.
The number of complaints reaching the Ministry is comparatively small. Aerodrome commandants—at London Airport the general manager—are responsible for investigating these complaints and they have regular meetings with concessionaires. At London Airport there is a monthly meeting. There is always an item on the agenda headed "Complains", and I am told that for the last three months there has been
738
none. It is an express term of the contract that the caterer must comply with the Ministry's reasonable requirements, and, in fact, we approve the prices charged.
One difficulty which my hon. Friend mentioned was that of buildings. That is something which has nothing to do with the caterers, and it is true that at many airports we are still having to make do with passenger buildings of wartime and temporary construction. From time to time, those deficiencies in accommodation will reflect in standards of catering, and even at London we cannot yet provide the full range of services which we should like for the long-haul passengers, although we hope to do so when the new terminal buildings are completed.
I can only conclude by saying that if any hon. Members have any specific complaints about the catering arrangements at any of the Ministry's airports, I will undertake to look into the matter to see what can be done to bring about an improvement.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

MALTA
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
HONG KONG
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
WEST INDIES
  Immigration (United Kingdom)
  Immigration (United Kingdom)
ADEN FEDERATION
  Situation
  Situation
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  International Whaling Commission
  International Whaling Commission
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Research Factory, Aberdeen
  Research Factory, Aberdeen
  Bread
  Bread
  Beef Production
  Beef Production
  Common Land
  Common Land
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Firm, Tipton
  Firm, Tipton
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  Swindon
  Swindon
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (RESOLUTION)
  WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (RESOLUTION)
  GERMAN FORCES (TRAINING FACILITIES)
  GERMAN FORCES (TRAINING FACILITIES)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Brewers and Distillers (Advertisements)
  Brewers and Distillers (Advertisements)
  School of Archaeology, Athens (Grant)
  School of Archaeology, Athens (Grant)
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Gambling Machines
  Gambling Machines
  Dwellings (Gross Investment)
  Dwellings (Gross Investment)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  London Airport (Embarkation Card)
  London Airport (Embarkation Card)
  Throwing Knives (Sale)
  Throwing Knives (Sale)
  Air-Raid Shelters
  Air-Raid Shelters
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Prison Medical Officers (Psychiatric Diploma)
  Prison Medical Officers (Psychiatric Diploma)
  Accused Persons (Medical Examination)
  Accused Persons (Medical Examination)
  Whitton Avenue, Wembley (Speed Limit Prosecutions)
  Whitton Avenue, Wembley (Speed Limit Prosecutions)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Pet Animals Act, 1951 (Prosecutions)
  Pet Animals Act, 1951 (Prosecutions)
  Legal Aid and Advice
  Legal Aid and Advice
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Fire Brigades (Alarm Calls)
  Fire Brigades (Alarm Calls)
  Northern Ireland Prime Minister (Talks)
  Northern Ireland Prime Minister (Talks)
  Licensed Premises, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Licensed Premises, Wales and Monmouthshire
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
  Murders
  Murders
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Leicester Training College
  Leicester Training College
  Training Colleges (Admissions)
  Training Colleges (Admissions)
  Youth Clubs (Report)
  Youth Clubs (Report)
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Library Service (Report)
  Library Service (Report)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (Report)
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (Report)
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Mr. James Sholto Douglas
  Mr. James Sholto Douglas
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Dental Estimates Board
  Dental Estimates Board
  Dentist, Hinckley (Member's Letter)
  Dentist, Hinckley (Member's Letter)
  Drugs (Agreement)
  Drugs (Agreement)
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Attaches
  Labour Attaches
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Contributions
  Contributions
TRANSPORT
  Road Accidents, Wales
  Road Accidents, Wales
  UNITED NATIONS (SOUTH-WEST AFRICA)
  UNITED NATIONS (SOUTH-WEST AFRICA)

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

JUDICIAL BUSINESS (LEGAL AID)
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) had given Notice of two Amendments to the Standing Orders relating to Judicial Business. The first was to move the following as a new Standing Order:
"Where a party to an appeal has applied to an Area Committee for legal aid, and the decision of the Committee has not been announced before the expiration of the periods of time limited by Standing Orders Nos. II, V or VI, such periods of time shall be extended until one week after the refusal of the application or the issue of a certificate."
The second was to move, as an Amendment to Standing Order No. V, after paragraph (3) to insert:
"(4) This Standing Order shall not apply to Appellants who have been granted legal aid."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the object of the two Amendments which I am to move is to adapt the Judicial procedure of your Lordships' House to make it convenient for legal aid cases. Legal aid has been available for House of Lords appeals since the beginning of this month. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I ask the indulgence of the House to let me trespass for a short time on the Business of the House, because this raises somewhat wider questions of legal aid which I should like to put before your Lordships.
Standing Orders II, V and VI, which govern the Judicial procedure of the House of Lords, prescribe times within which Petitions for leave to appeal must be lodged, security must be given and cases have to be lodged. Anyone who wishes to be legally aided in the House of Lords must first apply to an Area Committee for a legal aid certificate. It is likely that the Committee will
576
already know enough of the merits of the would-be appellant's case and of his means to be able to deal expeditiously with his application for legal aid. I have no doubt that these Area committees will give high priority to such cases, which will be comparatively rare and, at the same time, important if they are meritorious. There will, however, be some cases in which Committees are not able to consider applications for legal aid for the House of Lords and give their decision in time for the applicant to proceed within the periods of time laid down by the Standing Orders, to which I have already referred. The purpose of my first Amendment is to extend the time allowed by Standing Orders II, V and VI until one week after an Area Committee has granted or refused legal aid.
The purpose of my second Amendment is simply to provide that Standing Order V, which requires security for costs to be given by appellants, shall not apply to appellants who have been granted legal aid. It would be inappropriate to require security for costs from an assisted person and to expect him to find £700 by way of security. The alternatives allowed by Standing Order V, of paying into the Security Fund £200 and giving a recognizance to the amount of £500, or to procure two sureties to enter into a bond to the amount of £200 and a recognizance to the amount of £500, would be just as impracticable from the point of view of the appellant. Any such requirement would, in all probability, defeat Parliament's intention of making legal aid available in your Lordships' House. If, in any particular case, the Appeal Committee considered that a legally aided appellant should give some security for costs then, notwithstanding the proposed Amendment, there would be nothing to prevent an order from being made to require him to do so. But we must recognize that such an order would be an exceptional case, in the nature of things, because the legally aided appellant will already have been required to contribute what he is considered to be able to contribute to the costs of the case.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, has been kind enough to call my attention to the hardship caused to the unassisted opponent of an assisted person, when the former wins his case in

577
this House and the latter has contributed nothing to his opponent's heavy expenses. Therefore, I should like to take up just a moment or two on this difficult problem. It is a difficulty which, as your Lordships will remember, has been discussed many times before. There have been various proposals for paying the assisted person's opponent's costs out of public funds and for establishing some form of indemnity fund. Each of these proposals has its own disadvantages.
No doubt, the fundamental difficulty is the cost. Some months ago, while the Bill for the Legal Aid Act of this year was before Parliament, it was estimated that it would cost £200,000 to set up a full indemnity fund for High Court cases alone. I could not say what the cost would be to-day, but I have little doubt that it would be higher than that, and it is only right to remember that an expenditure of that order could not be incurred without very carefully considering the case for it, compared with the case for extending the Legal Aid Scheme in other ways and also the claims for other social services. Your Lordships will appreciate that, though it might be said that if the appellant can pay costs at one stage, why not at another, that would be a very difficult line to uphold.
May I say one word on a matter on which I feel strongly, as to the position I have adopted with regard to legal aid? I believe that it is an essential part of our civilization that the courts should be open to the whole range of the people. In the last century this began with the famous remark of Mr. Justice Maule to a tinker who had been convicted of bigamy when he said: "Your remedy was perfectly plain,"—and he indicated the remedy. He then said: "That would have cost you £1,000. You may say to me, 'I have never had 1,000 pence.' But I am here as a Judge of the High Court of England to tell you that in this country. at any rate, it is our glory that there is not one law for the rich and another for the poor." The same point was put in shorter terms in my own early days at the Bar—that the Law Courts, like the Ritz Hotel, are open to everyone. That was my difficulty.
I thought that the priorities in extending legal aid were, naturally, the course that I have followed in the last six years
578
and two months that I have had the honor to hold my present position. I thought that the first need was legal aid for the county courts, because it was useless to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts without extending legal aid. The next was for legal advice, first oral, and then written, because I felt that, once a system of legal advice was established, and people could be advised at the earliest possible stage, it might stop a lot of unnecessary litigation. I then thought it necessary to make the corrections in the income ranges which the fall in the value of money had necessitated. Fourthly, I thought it was necessary—and my right honorable friend, the Home Secretary, agreed with me—to introduce the rates that Parliament had thought right for criminal defences; fifthly, for civil cases in magistrates courts—and your Lordships who are magistrates know how difficult these husband and wife and affiliation cases are; and sixthly, for legal aid in the House of Lords. But I always have to consider the priorities, and that is my first difficulty.
This proposal would mean the State's embarking on both sides of litigation. Of course, this occasionally happens now, but it is manifestly undesirable that it should happen generally. A further difficulty would be that there would be less inducement than there is now to keep the cost of an action down; the conduct of the action would be uncontrolled. Moreover, it might tempt Area Committees, when considering applications for legal aid, to tip the scales in favor of granting legal aid to undeserving persons. I should like to say that, in my view, they have kept an amazingly high standard. One finds cases where they have been misled, but the number of those, if we take the whole of the last eleven years, is remarkably small.
As I have observed on a previous occasion, it is by no means easy to say what it is fair to impose on the general body of taxpayers and what chance the individual must take himself. The possibility of being sued unsuccessfully is one which has, of course, always existed. Since the Legal Aid Scheme came into force the poor person has merely been put in a better position, than he was formerly in, to start or defend proceedings

579
in cases in which the appropriate Committee considers that it would be reasonable for him to do so. I still do not consider that it would necessarily—I repeat, necessarily—be right for the general body of taxpayers to pay the costs of the successful opponent of an assisted person, even when the unassisted person has won his case against his assisted opponent in the court of first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The argument for that may be put in this way: the assisted person has been put in the position of someone who is not impoverished and who is given the best available advice. It is such an opponent that the unassisted person is against. However, I am still much concerned about the matter and am proposing to consider it once again in the light of information from a survey which is at present being made for me in the Court of Appeal.
In the meantime, it is only right to remind your Lordships of two other factors, which are intended to avoid possible injustice to an unassisted litigant. First. Section 2 (2) (e) of the Act of 1949 enables the Court to make an order for costs against the assisted, person, which, however must not exceed the amount (if any) which is a reasonable one for him to pay having regard to all the circumstances, including the means of the parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute. I always hesitate to interfere with the discretion of the Judges, but, since I spoke about this problem on the Bill earlier this year, I have, as I then indicated that I would do, brought to the attention of the Judges the importance of exercising their powers so that assisted persons should pay such of their opponent's costs as they reasonably can. Secondly, an opponent of an assisted person is entitled to refer a case, to which he is a party, to the Area Committee, if he thinks that the assisted person has unreasonably refused a fair offer of settlement.
My Lords, I shall, of course, continue with my consideration. I think it would be a great pity if the general advance of advice and representation were to be retarded. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to have this Standing Order on my undertaking not to be weary in well-doing, but to go on with the consideration of the problems the
580
difficulty of which I have tried to outline. I apologize again for having taken up your Lordships' time, but this is an important social problem to-day. It is one very much in my charge, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for having said these few words. I beg Ito move that the traditional Standing Orders be amended as shown on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the following new Standing Order be agreed to—
("Where a party to an appeal has applied to an Area Committee for legal aid, and the decision of the Committee has not been announced before the expiration of the periods of time limited by Standing Orders Nos. II, V or VI, such periods of time shall be extended until one week after the refusal of the application or the issue of a certificate.");
In Standing Order No. V, after paragraph (3), to insert—
("(4) This Standing Order shall not apply to Appellants who have been granted legal aid.") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this (matter, because I have been interested in it for some considerable time. Some time ago we had a debate on this subject, which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will remember. Of course, there is no objection at all to the Lord Chancellor's first proposal but, as he himself has indicated, there is a point with regard to the second proposal. That is the position of the unassisted litigant, who may, of course, be involved in considerable costs when an, assisted litigant comes up to the House of Lords.
I think two of the great legal reforms which were introduced by the Government led by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, between 1945 and 1950, were the right of the subject to sue the Crown in tort, and the benefit of this Legal Aid Scheme which is now coming to fruition. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on the way in which he has extended the legal aid system until to-day we have almost reached its final conclusion. There yet remains this one problem—that is to say, if a man has had legal aid and has been assisted by all of us, the taxpayers, and loses his case, the defendant in all probability will not, or may not, be assisted in any way, and he has to pay considerable costs as a result of the

581
action which has been brought against him.
I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that, certainly in the county court or High Court, this seems to be unavoidable at present. But I have some qualification with regard to the House of Lords. It happens on the Continent, particularly in France, that where there is a point of law of great importance Which needs to be decided, that point can be taken to the highest court which is equivalent to the House of Lords, the Court de Cassation, by the appropriate judicial officers or the appropriate legal officers, and the Court can consider that point and arrive at a decision upon it, thus, of course, avoiding the necessity of a large number of cases being brought by people who may be affected by some ambiguity in the law. That has never been our system in this country, and in fact it is abhorrent to lawyers in this country who cannot conceive of points of law in abstract, as it were. Their whole training is such that they must have a concrete case to go upon, an actual case, before they can decide on the issue.
I think the noble and learned Viscount might consider, if he would—in fact, he says he will—this question so far as it affects the House of Lords. Any case which is brought up here, any case which gets a certificate under the Legal Aid Scheme, any case which has gone both to the High Court and the Court of Appeal, will be, in all probability, one of considerable magnitude. It will not only affect the particular issue at stake in the case, but it will affect many people and it will affect the law as it stands. It could be a leading case. In, those circumstances, it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the view that the public should stand the cost of such appeal to the House of Lords.
In other words, I do not feel it is right that some unfortunate man, who is brought up here unassisted, should have to stand the cost of what is in fact, in many cases, a clearing up of an ambiguity which we, as legislators, have allowed to be introduced into an Act of Parliament or have allowed to continue through not amending an existing Act of Parliament. To put it another way, to some extent an unassisted litigant may well have to pay heavily from
582
his own pocket through some failing on our part as the two Houses of Parliament. Therefore, while commending, if I may respectfully do so, the objects of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and certainly not in any way wishing to stand in the light of these Orders to-day, I ask him to bear in mind that particular point when he comes to consider the general question of costs.
2.56 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, I also welcome the introduction of legal aid in this House. I think that if we can devise proper safeguards it is a good thing. But my purpose in trespassing upon your Lordships' time this afternoon is to develop, I hope at not too great length, what I believe to be the injustice involved if the Standing Orders are amended in the terms of these proposals. I will concentrate first on the position of a respondent who is brought to this House by an assisted person.
As your Lordships have already been told, all appellants (with a very small exception which I shall mention in a moment) have to find security for £700 for costs, and all respondents are therefore protected, so that if they hold the judgment in this House they will be able to recover a sum which ought at least to go a long way towards paying their costs in this House. Now we are to make a breach in that. For the benefit of the Treasury, and for no other reason, we are going to put the respondent who is brought here by an assisted person in a very much worse position than a respondent who is brought here by anybody else. I have yet to learn of any other reason for this older as to security, except that it is in order to do justice to a respondent who is brought up here having won his case in the court below. But now we are going to say that, although justice requires that that should be kept in being with regard to the ordinary respondent, either justice is to go by the board or some different standard of justice is to be applied in the case of a respondent who is brought here by an assisted person.
My first question is: Why should we put a respondent in a worse position financially merely because his opponent is an assisted person? I am aware that there is one small exception to this rule.

583
In the past, a few litigants have come here as poor persons, but in that case the respondent has at least the consolation that, with very minor exceptions, no costs are ever awarded in this House in a case involving a poor person. Therefore, although the respondent who is brought here by a poor person does not get anything if he wins, he does not have to pay the other side's costs if he loses. But now it is going to be "Heads I win, tails you lose." If the assisted person wins, then—unless some consequential alteration is made—the other party will have to pay his costs. But if the assisted person loses, nothing is payable at all. It is quite true there is a provision that costs can be awarded against an assisted person, but, of course, all possible exercise of that rule will have been made in the Courts below, and it is quite incredible that when an assisted person comes here he still has any funds out of which costs can be paid.
I understand, and I think it is right, that in the case of a legally aided person who comes here, unlike a poor person, the House fees are paid. I am told that they amount to something like £40—it is not very much. The fees of this House are going to be safeguarded: the Legal Aid Fund is going to pay that. But if it is also a condition of coming here that an appellant must not only pay the fees required in the House but also find security, why cannot the Legal Aid Fund find security? It is the duty of the Legal Aid Fund to pay money which is necessary to enable a person to prosecute his claim in any court, and if the Rules of this House require that security shall be found, then logically it is the duty of the Legal Aid Fund to find that security in order to enable the assisted person to pursue his claim.
It is a competition between a trifling saving for the Treasury—because there would not be more than one or two of these cases a year one expects—and what may be a very great hardship to one or two individuals. It does not in the least follow that the same rule must be applied here as in the Courts below. As a general rule security is not found in the courts below, but it is found here; and why the Legal Aid Fund cannot find the security here, when it is part of our Rules, without that opening the wider
584
question, I just do not understand. The finding of security is as much a condition of coming here as paying the fees. But if it is a matter of amending the Scheme (it may require amendment), I would ask why the Scheme cannot be amended to enable that to be done, rather than amend the Standing Orders of this House. One or other must be amended, I agree. But why not the Scheme?
If your Lordships will bear with me a moment, I should like to say a little about the wider aspects of this question which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has mentioned. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of criticism and a good deal of hardship involved at present in an assisted person suing a person of very limited means. I am not quite sure what the upper limit now is for being admitted as an assisted person, but it is not very high, and there are a number of people who may be sued and whose means are very moderate. It is perfectly true that the Courts of this country ought to be open to everybody, but they are not open to-day to the opponent of an assisted person who is of moderate means himself. Observe what he has to contemplate. Even before the extension of this Scheme to the House of Lords he has to contemplate this situation. He may win in the first Court at the trial Then he may be taken by the assisted person to the Court of Appeal, and he may lose. In that event he has to pay the whole costs of both sides, and he does not have the advantage of getting anything if he wins—or, at least, anything substantial. So I think it is perfectly plain that to the person just above the assistance limit the Courts of this country are closed.
Why should that be, my Lords? I raised that matter in this House when the legislation was first going through in 1949. I did not expect to get a very favorable answer then, because the Scheme was new, money was short and the Government of the day were perfectly entitled to say, "This is experimental and we must learn as we go on". And I think that that is what the late Lord Jowitt, in effect, said. I thought that, having raised the point, I could do no more. But time has passed. A great deal more expenditure has been embarked upon in this Scheme—and quite properly. It has been extended, as my

585
noble and learned friend has said, on many occasions. But not the slightest attempt has been made to alleviate, let alone abolish, this (as I call it) injustice, and it appears to me that the time has come when we ought not to continue this injustice and at the same time continue extending legal aid from one sphere to another. The money has been found for other things. We are told that the cost would be only £200,000 if one took in the whole of the High Court procedure. If an extension is made to this House—which it appears to me is a proper extension—before going on to deal with the whole question, it is not a matter of thousands; it is a matter of hundreds of pounds a year. And yet, as I say it may cure a very serious injustice in certain cases.
Observe what happens. I said a moment ago that the defendant sued by a legally aided person must contemplate being taken to the Court of Appeal and then perhaps losing and perhaps even being ruined. Now every defendant has to contemplate something worse than that because nobody can tell in what cases points proper to come before this House may arise. We had two running-down cases here the other day—cases of the most ordinary kind. Therefore almost any defendant has to say to himself, "Now if this goes through, I may win at the trial and an important point of law may emerge. I may win again in the Court of Appeal, but the point may be so important it is brought to the House of Lords. I may lose there and then where am I?" Really, my Lords, it does seem to me that this goes far beyond the two or three defendants who are brought here. It affects people who are trying to litigate and defend their rights against assisted persons all over the Band. And yet for the sake of a few hundred pounds this additional worry is to be put on everybody.
There is no doubt that we who are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary have recognized this kind of situation, because it has been customary for some time to put appellants on terms (I am not talking now of assisted persons but about ordinary litigation); that is to say, when a person of moderate means has won twice in the Courts below it has now become very common, and I think very proper, to say to a person who attempts to appeal to this House, "Well, you have
586
a case which is deserving of consideration in this House, but you must undertake either not to ask for the award of costs against you in the Court below to be reversed, or (in addition, perhaps) not to ask for costs in this House if you win." Sometimes we go even further and we say to a prospective appellant, "You must undertake if you are to come here "—it may be a test case or something like that—"that you will pay all the costs in this House, win or lose."
I want to ask my noble and learned friend how far the Appeal Committee or the Court of Appeal are still free to impose terms of that kind. I shall not be surprised if I am told that we can no longer impose the last alternative; that we can no longer say to an assisted person, "You must undertake to pay all costs in this House, win or lose". Can we say to an assisted person, or can the Court of Appeal say to him, "If you go to the House of Lords you must undertake not to ask for costs in that House and not to seek to disturb the award of costs in favor of your opponent in the Court below."
That would be some alleviation, because I should hope that in granting leave Courts would consider widely—as they always should and, I think, do—the hardships involved. And if it is proper (and I hope my noble and learned friend will say that it is) for the Court of Appeal or for the Appeal Committee in this House to say to an assisted person, "Now you must undertake not to try to disturb the award of costs in favor of your opponent in the Court of Appeal and you must not ask for costs in this House", that will go quite a long way to get rid of the trouble. It will not get rid of the whole trouble, but it would at least make the thing a little clearer. Because at the moment, as I say, it is all loaded in favour of the assisted person—that is, in favour of the Treasury—because they get costs on a win and they lose nothing on a loss. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give some comfort in that respect, even if he cannot withdraw this Standing Order. I hope that he will be able, even if the Motion goes through to-day, to restore the Standing Order at an early date.
One other thing I should like to say. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in his plea that public

587
funds should be regarded for appeals to this House as—I do not say, universally available, but available in proper cases. Cases come here only in the public interest. Nobody is allowed to come here merely on his own merits. Cases come here because a point of law is involved which it is in the public interest should he cleared up one way or another. That appears to me to afford an additional reason for not putting the penalty on the opponent of the assisted person, but putting the penalty where it ought to be, on the Legal Aid Fund.
There are two other matters I should just like to mention. We have been embarrassed on occasions by a respondent not appearing to defend his judgment. Your Lordships will be aware that this House never reverses a judgment of a court below without hearing full argument, whether the respondent is here to defend his judgment or not; but it is extremely embarrassing to find that the respondent is not represented and only one side of the case is presented. I Mould not be in the least surprised if the opponent of an assisted person, with this prospect in front of him, were advised, "Your best plan is not to incur expense in the House of Lords, because you cannot get it back if you win". We may very well find that embarrassments of that kind occur which could be avoided if this Standing Order were not passed. Indeed, it may defeat its own object, because a court may very well be less willing to grant leave when they see the injustice involved if leave is granted, and it may be that proper cases which would otherwise come here—the court has a discretion whether to grant leave or not—will not come here at all. This appears to me, if I may say so, to be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. That is what it comes to. In effect, the dilemma is this: if doing something to assist the opponent of an assisted person is going to cost very little, why not do it and save such hardship as there is to a few people? If it is going to cost a lot, that means that there is a great deal of injustice going on, and therefore still more we ought to do something to alleviate that injustice.
I was glad to hear my noble and learned friend saying that this matter is being reconsidered. I hope it will be
588
reconsidered, with effect, at an early date, because I fear that some of these cases will be coming up here soon, and what I we have to think about is the advice which is going to be given to people who have good cases but are afraid of going on against an assisted person because they are fighting the whole wealth of the Fund. Unless something is done very soon, it may well be that a number of people whose rights ought to be defended will not be defended. I am sure nobody wants that. But to return to the immediate point that I have in mind, I would, if I may ask a rhetorical question, ask: can it be denied that the only reason for asking security is to do justice to respondents? If it can be denied, what other reason is there? If it cannot be denied, why are we asked to do injustice to those few respondents?
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: My Lords, I would add only a few words. I am conscious that I may be told by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that I took a different view some six years ago when I occupied the place which he now occupies. I am far too old to be either afraid to change my mind or to be ashamed of doing so. It appeared to me that my noble and learned friend Lord Reid made a powerful and quite unimpugnable case. To me it appears nothing less than a monstrous injustice that a legally assisted person should come to this House after having lost his case perhaps in two courts below, and then be exempt from all responsibility to his still successful opponent. I see no justification for that at all.
There is only one thing in the observations of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack which struck me, and that was—whether he used the word or not—that I think he hinted at that fatal subject "repercussion", which we hear so much about: if you do this, then something else will require to be done. I think that appeals to this House stand on a footing of their own, and there is no reason to fear that to do justice in the way which my noble and learned friend has suggested in this House should necessarily have any repercussions If it does, it would have repercussions in favour of justice being done, net only here but in the courts below. I heartily endorse what

589
my noble and learned friend has so forcefully said, and I hope that favourable consideration will be given to this subject.
3.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not hear the observations of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in introducing this Motion. I did not appreciate that it was on the Order Paper, otherwise I should have been here. Therefore, I would not have taken part in the discussion but for the speeches of the noble and learned Lords which we have just heard. With a great deal of what they say I am in complete support and sympathy, as indeed I imagine everyone must be who appreciates the position of an unassisted person being brought to the courts, perhaps wrongly, and eventually succeeding and not being able to get his costs. But I would point out to both noble and learned Lords that there is nothing unique about this. This does not happen necessarily as the result of legal aid. I suppose started my legal career at roughly the same time as the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken—
VISCOUNT SIMONDS: Long after me.
LORD SILKIN: Not so very long— and my experience goes back to times when impecunious plaintiffs started proceedings against insurance companies and against people who had means, and carried them right through, not necessarily to the House of Lords but to the Court of Appeal, knowing that they could not possibly pay the costs if they were unsuccessful; and, indeed, the defendants realized that, and often settled actions because it was cheaper to do that than to fight them and succeed. There is nothing new at all in impecunious persons taking proceedings. It has been regularized to a certain extent by legal aid. Not every impecunious person took proceedings, even if he had justice on his side. A good many—that was the justification for legal aid—were not able to take proceedings, and have been assisted.
I should like to have some record—I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount gave us those records —of the number of legally-assisted people who succeed in their actions, as against the number who do not. My
590
impression is that a very high percentage of legally-assisted people are justified in getting legal aid and succeed in their cases. But I recognize that there can be a hardship on an unassisted person who, succeeding both in the court of first instance, possibly to-day the county court, and in the Court of Appeal, then finds that he has to bear the costs by himself, and gets no assistance at all. I recognize that that person may be little better off than the assisted person. I also should be in favour of this matter being carefully considered to see whether in some way, in proper cases, the cost of a successful defendant can be met out of the Legal Aid Fund. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount has given an assurance that that matter will be looked into.
My real reason for rising is the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. I do not know whether I understood him correctly, or misunderstood him, but he seemed to imply that the House of Lords might be influenced in considering whether a case was one which was worthy of being considered—whe there it was, to use his own words, "a case where an important question of law was being decided for the public benefit"—not by the merits of the case at all but by the question of who was eventually to pay the costs.
LORD REID: My Lords, I certainly think any court moist he influenced by hardships they are going to do by reaching a certain decision; and if they are not able to adjust financial matters to prevent gross hardship I should personally regard that as a perfectly good reason for refusing leave.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I absolutely join issue with the noble and learned Lord on that matter. I think it is completely wrong. While I do not want to use unduly strong language about it, I believe the business of the Law Lords is to consider whether a case is a proper case to be considered by them, having regard to the questions at issue and the points of law involved, and not having regard to the means of the respective contestants.
LORD REID: My Lords, might I ask, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he disapproves, then, of the practice that has

591
grown up in this House of requiring an undertaking from appellants with regard to costs before they are granted leave?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not approve. I thought the noble and learned Lord was asking the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack whether that is a proper procedure; and my own personal opinion is that it is not. I believe that everybody ought to have access to the courts in proper cases where an important question of law has to be settled. It is for the Law Lords to decide whether it is a proper question to be settled, and once they have decided that it is one which ought to be considered by them then I feel any question of costs and who should bear them is quite irrelevant. Nobody should be deprived of the opportunity merely because he may not be in a position to pay the costs. But I recognize that, in many cases that gives rise to hardship, and I would join with the noble and learned Lord in asking the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to give consideration to this hardship. But, in the meantime, I hope that Petitions to the House of Lords will not be decided on the basis of the means of those who come before them.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, surely the answer to Lord Silkin's first point is that although it is perfectly true that in the old days the successful respondent might suffer at the hands of the impecunious appellant, to-day the position is much worse, because under the Legal Aid Scheme as it stands it is virtually certain to-day that the successful respondent will suffer because of the impecunious appellant. That is the trouble: that while this could happen in days gone by, it almost invariably happens when these matters arise to-day.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if a plain man who knows nothing about English law may put in a word, may I say that it seems to me that the issue which has just been raised between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, shows how crucial the injustice is likely to be; and the injustice is not mitigated by calling it hardship. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to reconsider this matter.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this discussion has got on to a very wide plane and I hope we shall keep it confined to the more narrow issue which the noble and learned Viscount raised in the Motion he has moved. I feel, with my noble friend Lord Silkin, that we want to be rather cautious about this matter. The suggestion that people might be deprived of the opportunity of having an important question of law decided by this House, either on the grounds of the financial position of the appellant or because the respondent chooses to absent himself from attending this House to defend the appeal, seems to me to raise a very wide issue which wants to be considered with a great deal more leisure than is available to-day.
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for what he was kind enough to say about me, and proceed at once to his point. The suggestion he has made, which was really that I should tackle the solution of this problem from the point of view of important litigation —that is, the question of whether the costs ought to be paid for by the public —touches a most important aspect of the matter. The noble Lord was supported by my noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, and I shall certainly do that. Analogies are always dangerous, but the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will remember that I have approached another problem in that way, increasing the right of appeals to the House of Lords in criminal cases and trying to find the right formula for important litigation. I will certainly do that and it will be part of the consideration which I have already promised.
My noble and learned friend, Lord Reid, made a powerful speech, but as he ranged a little widely I believe your Lordships ought to have in mind that the assisted person does not rely solely on the funds of the State. It is a triple matter. The State contributes; the person himself contributes on a carefully worked-out scale, and the legal profession contribute by taking lower costs. I should not like those of your Lordships who are not lawyers to feel that this was entirely a matter of State help. It is a

593
triple operation and, thanks to the extraordinarily good Legal Aid Advisory Committee that I have (I do not mean the local committees who decide applications) who advise me on the working of the scheme, presided over by my noble friend, Lord Bridgman, your Lordships can see from that the high quality of that Committee They can help me on such points as the limits of the scheme and the amount that should be paid.
But where I join issue with my noble and learned friend Lord Reid in my approach to the matter—it does not affect the reconsideration which I have already promised—is that I think it is important that people should have access to the courts with all the assistance that the legal profession can give them. I have a keener feeling for the injustice that happened to people who could not come to the courts in the past than my noble friend has. I take a very simple definition from my point of view as a lawyer of a civilized society: at the end of the clay, when people do not agree as to their rights, either the one can say to the other, "All right, I will sue you"; or the other can say to the one, if I may use a colloquial phrase without offence, "Sue me and be damned!". Until people are in a position to do that, I do not think my profession is offering the service to the community which it should.
My noble and learned friend Lord Reid talked of the in forma pauperis procedure. Of course we have all been glad of it in the past; every lawyer in this House has taken his share in that procedure. But I do not think that it was satisfactory, and it was because it was not a satisfactory procedure that the Rushcliffe Committee, presided over by our old friend, came to the conclusion that the Legal Aid Scheme should be evolved. The other point that I think my noble and learned friend (if he will allow me to say so) overstressed was this. He said that every defendant or, I presume, every plaintiff who is in contest with the legally-aided person will be afraid of the matter coming to the House of Lords. Over the last, I think, 26 years one could not in England come to the House of Lords without getting leave, either from the Court of Appeal, or, if the Court of Appeal refuses, from the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords; and both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords consider whether
594
the point or the case is of sufficient importance that it should come to the highest tribunal. So we are really limited to that form and to that class of case.
The difficulty, as I tried to put it quite frankly in my opening remarks, was that on the one side you must see that people who are poor or of moderate means, or whatever you like, are adequately advised and represented. The danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, of being sued by an impecunious person has always existed. It must exist, because impecunious persons have rights and the law is not an exact science. All of us in this room have given people advice that they will succeed in cases in which they have failed—every lawyer has, however great his learning or his position. And when the law is not an exact science there is always the possibility that someone will bring proceedings, and in the eyes of 49 per cent. of the legal profession he is right while 51 per cent., including the person who may form the majority in the House of Lords, think he is wrong. In these circumstances, unless impecunious people are going to be barred from the courts, the danger must exist. The question is: how can we mitigate it? I gave the objections I have seen, and no one has seriously controverted them, to making every case financed by the State on both sides.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simonds put a different point. I assure my noble and learned friend that, however often he changes his mind, every opinion to which he returns will receive equal respect and attention from me. My noble and learned friend has put a different point. He has said that cases that come to the House of Lords judicially are sui generis and if we were to give financial support in these cases it would not have repercussions on cases in the Court of Appeal or the High Court. That is a very difficult point. I am willing to consider it. That is another angle of approach. It is approximate to but not quite the same as the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but of course I will consider that as well.
But on the general position I ask your Lordships to remember my point of view. I will try to mitigate the difficulties that arise. But if your Lordships approach

595
this subject on the terms that there is injustice if someone fights an assisted plaintiff and wins, well, that is one point of view. If your Lordships do that, However, remember at the same time the injustice that would be done to many poor people—and not only poor people in the old sense but people of moderate means who come up to a considerable income rate to-day—if we were to take away these means of establishing their rights. My Lords, I am very happy to consider this matter again; I will do my best. I put the difficulties before your Lordships; your Lordships will be good enough to put suggestions to me. I hope that your Lordships will take it that I will consider every suggestion and see whether a solution that is generally accepted can be found. In the meantime, I ask your Lordships to accept my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we go to next Business, might we not see whether we can get a better arrangement to prevent injustice to the House of Peers? Noble Lords should not have to wait for so long for Questions which have been put on the Paper. I am not at all blaming the length of the debate upon what is a very important matter, but it is a question of the Order of Business. Some people have other things to do and they have put down their Questions in the hope of getting them answered at the proper time. I would ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider that on future occasions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I certainly will. I do not think I could do something without some alteration in the Order of Business of the House. Perhaps if the noble Viscount could get in touch with us through the usual channels we could do something. I think it is laid down by Standing Orders.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might it not be possible for those noble and learned Lords who have made the speeches we have listened to with great interest, but which were somewhat lengthy, privately to inform the noble Viscount the Leader of the House when they propose to speak in this way in future?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course, that is always welcome, if we can have from noble Lords any information of when they are going to speak and what they are going to speak about.

POLICE CADETS
3.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the recruitment and training of police cadets in England and Wales.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, it has been Government policy for a number of years to encourage the police authorities to appoint police cadets, and nearly all have done so. The number of police cadets has steadily increased, and in most areas there appears to be no shortage of suitable applicants. Recruiting publicity is essentially a local matter, as it must be suited to the local needs. Training is also primarily a matter for the force concerned. Earlier this year my right honorable friend the Home Secretary, as police authority for London, approved the Commissioner of Police's proposals for re-modeling the training arrangements for cadets with the Metropolitan Police, and I am glad to say that there is no shortage of recruits of good standard.

NYASALAND: SMALLPOX VACCINATION AND INTIMIDATION
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if the smallpox epidemic in Nyasaland has now abated, what is the estimated

597
number of the inhabitants of Nyasaland who have been vaccinated during the present year and whether any action is possible under the laws of Nyasaland to prosecute those persons who, by intimidation, have attempted to persuade the inhabitants of Nyasaland not to be vaccinated.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, health is a responsibility of the Federal Government, but am informed that the epidemic has not yet subsided. The total number vaccinated is over 480,000. When intimidation involves threats of unlawful action, such as violence to persons or property, or is carried out by unlawful means. including unlawful conspiracy, the laws of Nyasaland provide for action to be taken against the offenders. In two instances where medical teams have been hindered by physical intimidation the authorities brought forward cases for trial. One has resulted in the conviction of the principal offenders, and the other is shortly to be heard.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for his Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware, as no doubt he is, that a serious charge has been made—which, I think, takes the form of a Motion in another place (but that I must not refer to) and also reports in the Press—against Dr. Banda and the Party which he leads, that he, being a doctor and having himself been vaccinated, did his best to persuade his followers to intimidate those who wished to be vaccinated? Whatever may be the constitutional position vis-à-vis the Nyasaland Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
EARL WINTERTON: —would it not be fairer to Dr. Banda to say whether or not this statement is true?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I feel quite sure that Dr. Banda is well able to take care of himself—we have seen that on various other occasions. I would just say that I am not aware of any statement that he has made along the lines that the noble Earl has indicated.
EARL WINTERTON: In that case, may we have an assurance from the Minister that all steps will be taken in
598
the future to prevent such intimidation as has taken place in the past? I must not refer to other instances of intimidation, but some very serious charges have been brought against Dr. Banda in connection with this and other matters in the last few days by Africans themselves.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, on the question of intimidation, as your Lordships know, it is very often a difficult thing to prove. But where there is a ease which can be brought to court the Nyasaland Government will certainly take the necessary steps; and, as I say, they have done so in these instances I have already indicated.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as I indicated the other day when the statement on the Conference was made, we are all anxious to be fairly restrained as to what we raise about this matter just now, until we can see where we are going as regards the Conference? It is fundamental to have the best relationships possible. The other thing I should like to ask is this: is the Minister satisfied that in this vaccination campaign the local authorities have been able to achieve the reasonable target they set themselves in the number of cases dealt with?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, to the extent that there has been intimidation, clearly the target they set themselves has not been fulfilled
EARL WINTERTON: Does the Minister mean that intimidation was carried out on a wide scale; and, if so, why can we not have a more definite answer on the matter?
THE EARL OF PERTH: It does not mean that. I have said expressly that there were two cases of physical intimidation of the medical teams which tried to do the vaccination, and in both those cases the Nyasaland Government have prosecuted or are prosecuting.
EARL WINTERTON: But no doubt the Minister is aware that an African of great position stated on the wireless last Mat that he had been intimidated and, indeed, assaulted.
THE EARL OF PERTH: That, I believe, has nothing to do with the question of vaccination.

FOWL PEST AND FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
3.46 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave 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 to state the number of outbreaks, number of birds and beasts slaughtered and cost to the Exchequer to date in the current epidemics of fowl pest and foot-and-mouth disease.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, from the beginning of September to December 14, 633 outbreaks of fowl pest were confirmed in Great Britain, involving the slaughter of nearly 11 million birds. Compensation payable will be about £1 million. From November 6 to December 14, 235 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease were confirmed in Great Britain, involving the slaughter of about 17,000 cattle, 20,500 sheep and 7,000 pigs. Compensation will amount to over £1 million. In addition to compensation. there will be some cost to the Exchequer arising out of disinfection and similar ancillary operations.
I hope I shall not be out of order if I mention that, since the noble Earl put down his Question, his own farms have been struck by fowl pest and he has himself lost more than 50,000 birds. I thought your Lordships would like me to express our sympathy to him.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his reply? May I also assure noble Lords that the fact that I have put down this Question has no relation to my own troubles? Would the noble Earl venture to say whether or not, in his opinion, these diseases are now past their peak? Or is that an impossible question to answer?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I shall find that somewhat difficult to answer, because I hate to give hostages to fortune. I should say that the fowl pest epidemic is still causing us serious concern in the Eastern counties, but I should hope that we are over the worst of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, did the noble Earl's figures include Scotland, as well as England and Wales?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes. My figures were for Great Britain.
LORD WISE: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl, in view of the question which has just been asked by the noble Duke opposite, whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a dissection of these figures, county by county, so that we will know more or less where the outbreaks are?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes, my Lords, I think we can do that. I think a great deal of information has been given in the Press and over the B.B.C., who have been most co-operative throughout these outbreaks, and I think that information is readily available. But details can certainly be circulated as to where all these outbreaks have been.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say, in view of the fact that many persons quite uninformed, as I am, are a little anxious about it, why we have not adopted the vaccination method against foot-and-mouth disease?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think that that question hardly arises out of the Question. It is a very complex matter, but the very short answer is that the slaughter policy is a far better policy for a country which has a chance of stamping out the disease altogether (such as we have, as an island), and vaccination is really applicable only to countries such as the South American countries, where it is a very long-term process to keep the disease under control.
LORD LATHAM: It is done in Germany, is it not?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Germany is not an island.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave 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 will consider some form of licensing of poultry and cattle dealers in an attempt to curb the spread of fowl pest and foot-and-mouth disease, and to give the

601
agricultural community in general more confidence in its relationship with these people.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, though at first sight I was attracted to this idea, I fear that there are great difficulties. The mere licensing of dealers would not significantly lessen the spread of disease, because the risk is inherent in the movement of the stock. Again it would not only be extremely difficult to define a dealer, but it would also be difficult to determine on what grounds a license should be granted or withheld.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply, but does he not consider that in the matter of prevention of disease the dealers are in fact the weakest link in the chain? And is it not possible for some restrictions to be imposed on people who buy cattle at a market and then re-hawk them around other markets, thereby very much increasing the possibility of spreading disease?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should not like to go so far as the words of the noble Earl. I think we must admit that a very large number, probably the vast majority, of dealers in cattle or poultry are honest and honorable men. In applying myself to the question whether licensing would help in this matter, I am bound to say that I am very much afraid the difficulties would be too great.

ETHIOPIA: SAFETY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House a Private Notice Question—namely, whether Her Majesty's Government can make a statement about the safety of British subjects and protected people in Ethiopia? We are rather anxious to know of any late news at the same time, and whether arrangements have been made to give protection.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My
602
Lords, with the permission of the House, I will read a statement which has just been made in another place by my right honorable friend the Lord Privy Seal. The statement is as follows:
"I have received information from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Addis Ababa within the past two hours that fighting has broken out in Addis Ababa. As an immediate measure the Ambassador is admitting to the Embassy compound any British subjects who wish to take refuge there.
"It is too soon to say whether it will be necessary to provide facilities for the evacuation of British subjects and protected persons. In the meantime we are taking urgent steps to make the necessary transport facilities available, including aircraft, if this should be required. We are, of course, in constant touch with the Embassy.
"There are about 900 British subjects in Ethiopia as a whole, of whom about 440 are of United Kingdom origin and about 300 from other Commonwealth countries. Of those of United Kingdom origin nearly all, about 90 per cent., are in Addis Ababa itself.
"Communications outside Addis Ababa have been interrupted, but we have no reason at present to believe that there is any danger to the comparatively small number of British subjects and protected persons living outside Addis Ababa."
My Lords, that concludes the statement of my right honorable friend.
LORD REA: My Lords, is the noble Viscount in a position to say whether the Government know anything of this organization which is said to have taken over power, and whether they have been approached with a request for recognition, or matters of that sort?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think we have been approached formally. I understand that the Ambassador has had an informal approach. It is, of course, necessary to await further clarification of the situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, which I understand is customary at this time of year.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we pass what is almost a formality, perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would forgive my importunity in asking, so as not to take up other space of time, what are the present contemplations of the Government on the Business of the House for next week, on Monday and Tuesday, as a timetable? The sort of rumors I have heard are a little disturbing.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give this information.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I gather that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the continuation of the Committee stage of the Weights and Measures Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: We have a great deal of work to do on this Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to get through a fair amount to-day. However, I think it will probably be necessary to sit after dinner on Monday, and, according to how we progress, it may be necessary to sit late again on Tuesday in order to complete the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have already indicated to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House the kind of strain that is imposed upon a limited Opposition with a Bill of this length and this detailed technical character, sitting in Committee day after
604
day. To sit late at night two or three days before Christmas, with other engagements and work outside the House pressing on us, seems to me to be quite unreasonable. Reasonable and normal hours to deal with this matter next week would be quite right, but surely we have some limits to our endurance.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the number of new Amendments coming forward exceeds those already decided by the Committee?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the total number is something over 300, but we are at least catching up on the new intake and there have not been any recently. I fully appreciate what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said, but I feel that it will be to the advantage of the House if we can complete the Committee stage before Christmas, so that proper consideration can be given, between then and the Report stage, to all the various points which have been raised and which my noble friend Lord Dundee has undertaken to consider; and also so that there can be consultation. If we cannot complete the Committee stage till we return after the Christmas Recess, it will make it extremely difficult for all the points which have been raised by noble Lords on both sides of the House to be dealt with.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Earl has said, and, of course, if we can finish in good time before the Recess, we shall all go away much happier. But the real difficulty is that the noble Earl has set himself what I have always regarded as an impossible target if we are to consider this Bill properly. I do not think that we do ourselves justice, or do the Bill justice, if we are going to sit indefinitely on Monday and Tuesday on a matter which requires very great concentration. The noble Earl who is in charge of this Bill, and his colleague, are no doubt indefatigable; but many of us are not, and we do tire after concentrating on this Bill for, say, three hours, and even a break for dinner is not adequate for the occasion. Also there are some of us who have other engagements for dinner on Monday and Tuesday.
It really is not doing justice to the Bill to try to force matters in this way.

605
We shall do our best, but, of course, Cleat are a great many Amendments from the other side of the House as well. We shall all exercise moderation in our speeches and in their length, but if it should become impossible, except by using means of this sort, to get the Committee stage finished before Christmas, we ought to postpone it until after Christmas.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords. may I join in these slight words of protest? I think the noble Earl will agree that, so far in the Committee stage, all have been very brief. I think he will also agree that none of the Amendments made could be regarded as anything but serious. There are only a few noble Lords who are taking part in the Committee stage, and apart from the Members who sit on the Government Front Bench, the rest of us are part-time politicians. We have to conduct our everyday affairs in the mornings. If we are to be asked to stay in this House until eleven or twelve o'clock on Monday and Tuesday night, at this time of the year in particular, it will he a very great hardship which I do not think the Government should put on Members of this House.
I would put one further point to the noble Earl, and that is that it is now four o'clock. If my memory serves me correctly, we have never started on this Bill at an earlier time. To put it crudely, we have been put at the "dog end" of Business for the three days of the Committee, and we shall probably be treated in the same way on Monday and Tuesday—I do not know. I think that it is quite outrageous that honest, loyal Members of your Lordships' House should be put to this hardship by being expected to deal with Business in this way. And I do not think that it is treating the Government Business in the right way.
LORD REA: My Lords, I must agree that there is some substance in what has been said from the Benches on my left. I understand, though I may be wrong, that Members of another place are sitting next Thursday. Would it not be a solution to follow their example?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, another place is not sitting on Thursday. I should
606
have been only too happy to sit on Thursday—
LORD REA: Why not sit on Thursday and set them a good example?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the two Houses usually try to work in conjunction with regard to sittings. I should not like the idea of asking your Lordships' House to sit on Thursday if another place was not sitting. I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and I am very conscious of the full co-operation that all noble Lords have shown in dealing with this Bill. As has been said, it is a very complicated and complex Bill. I merely throw this out as a suggestion. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would like to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, to postpone his debate until after the Recess and to continue with the Bill on Wednesday.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, at the moment my noble friend is not here to be consulted, but I will consult him in regard to the wishes of the Chief Whip, though I do not think that it is likely that it can be arranged. In any case, I do not understand this tremendous pressure to get this Bill through before Christmas. What is the great pressure? I do not know of any, except to suit the convenience of the Government for reasons about which we have not been fully informed. I am rather surprised at the suggestion from the Benches on my right, because apparently noble Lords who sit there have not been interested in the Bill up to now, except for one solitary noble Lord, who has kept watch for them over the Amendments all the way through. We are being improperly worked on this Bill. If we are kept here late for two nights in Christmas week, that is completely unfair; and I protest. The Government cannot expect the voluntary work which all of us have put into this Bill if they continue in this manner.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps we could continue this discussion through the usual channels. I will certainly do everything I can to meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move the two Motions for the approval of Sunday Entertainments Orders which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Nelson, be approved;
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Kendal, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 39 [Annual reports by local weights and measures authorities]:
LORD BURDEN: This Amendment is one to which the weights and measures inspectors attach some importance. The clause requires local weights and measures authorities to report annually to the Board of Trade. Subsection (2) empowers the Board of Trade to include the information contained in any such report in any statement which they may publish, either generally or in relation to a particular area. Under Clause 40, the Board of Trade have power to cause inspections to be made and to hold an inquiry into weights and measures arrangements. Where a local inquiry is held, the report of the inspector shall be published together with such observations, if any, as the Board of Trade think fit to make thereon.
I submit that there is some danger that a local weights and measures inspector might find himself quite unjustly held accountable by the Board of Trade for some aspect of local weights and measures arrangements as indicated in the report of the local weights and measures authority. This position could easily arise, for instance, when the local authority, after having had their attention called to a certain set of circumstances, refuse to comply with the recommendations of their chief officer. I submit that it would be quite wrong, in circumstances of this kind, for any report to comment adversely on a weights and measures inspector where the real fault lies in the local authority

609
for not carrying out the recommendations of the officer concerned.
The proposed Amendment would require a local authority to include in their report to the Board of Trade a copy of any report made to them by their chief inspector in respect of the same period. This, at least, would ensure that the Board of Trade are aware of the facts put forward by the chief inspector personally, and would obviate any miscarriage of justice of the kind which I have indicated in my speech. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 38, leave out from ("Act;") to ("shall") in line 39 and insert ("a report under this subsection shall include a copy of any report for that financial year made to the local weights and measures authority by their chief inspector, and").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As the noble Lord has already observed, at the moment all that the local authorities are required to do is to send in statistics about the visits made by their inspectors to traders' premises and the equipment verified and inspected. It has been the increasing practice of recent years for inspectors to submit fuller details of their work to their authorities, and as a general rule these reports are forwarded to the Board of Trade with the statistical information required by law. The Amendment, if I understand it aright, seems to be designed to ensure that this is done in every case in future. But in the Government's view it is unnecessary to make this an absolute and general requirement. Subsection (1) of this clause requires the annual reports to be in such form and to contain such particulars as the Board may direct; and this power will enable the Board of Trade to require the inclusion of chief inspectors' reports in those sent in by local authorities.
There is nothing to prevent the present practice from continuing, but the Amendment seeks to make it obligatory to send to the Board in the statutory report under this Bill any additional report which the authority's chief inspector may have made about weights and measures matters. The reports which individual inspectors make to their local authority already receive widespread publicity and often cover many matters which are outside the scope of the Bill.
610
The Government do not consider that local authorities should be required to send on to the Board the comments made to them by their own officers, or that the Board should be required to accept these comments as part of the statutory report by the local authority itself. The Board are, of course, as they always have been, glad to consider any matters which local authorities wish to bring to their attention, either by way of letter or additions to the report required under the Bill. Similarly, the Board are always glad to hear from the Institute of Weights and Measures, the professional. body of the local inspectors: indeed, one of the Board's officers is at present in a personal capacity a Vice President of the Institute. This Clause and the next one are designed to encourage reasonable conformity in administration to match the uniformity in law. I hope, with that assurance, the noble Lord will agree that this is what is required and what is achieved by the clause as it stands.
LORD BURDEN: While appreciating the reply of the noble Lord and realizing that in future the Board may extend the scope of the information which they require, as they will have power to do, I think the noble Lord has rather missed what I feel is an important point: that should an adverse comment be made in a report following an inquiry on behalf of the Board, before that comment is published the weights and measures inspector himself should have the opportunity of being heard in his own defense and of submitting any relevant documents or recommendations which he may have made to his employing authority. I am sure it is not the wish of the noble Earl, the noble Lord or the Board of Trade that any man should be unjustly treated.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Indeed, I might have mentioned that point more specifically in my reply to the noble Lord. The chief inspector who was discontented with the rules laid dawn by his own authority could always tell the Board's inspecting officer conducting an inspection under Clause 40 about the fact, when the inspector was in the area. So no injustice is likely to the chief inspector of the local authority in the report to the Board of Trade. I thought the point had been covered, although I agree only

611
generally covered, when I said that the Board are always glad to consider any matters which local authorities wish to bring to their attention, either by way of letter or additions to the report required under the Bill. The noble Lord is more familiar than I am with the way these things are handled, but I should have thought that if an individual chief inspector wished a point to be made to the Board of Trade his local authority would not refuse to make it.
LORD BURDEN: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I would point out that it may be a case of the chief inspector as against the local authority, because the local authority had failed, for one reason or another, to carry out recommendations made by the chief inspector of weights and measures. If the noble Lord or the noble Earl will look at the point to see whether by regulation or in any other way it can be covered, in view of the state of our business I shall he happy to withdraw the Amendment. But as there is some importance attached to this matter, I hope I shall get that assurance.
LORD ST. OSWALD: As I have explained to the noble Lord, my own feeling is that it is still covered; but naturally I will look into the point carefully.
LORD BURDEN: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Inspection of and inquiries into local weights and measures arrangements]:
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment seeks a felicity of language which I hope will be the way to a felicity of action and of practice. Clause 40 deals with the question of inspection and inquiries into local weights and measures arrangements. Clause 40 (1) (b) states that the Board may
"require any inspector having duties under those arrangements to give such assistance and information as the officer may specify".
The Amendment which I have down suggests that there should be inserted before the word "specify" the word "reasonably". It is the view of the
612
authorities for weights and measures that there should be some element of reason in the actions of the Board's officers in carrying out the duties required of the weights and measures authorities; and that the powers which this clause, as drafted, would give to those officers are unreasonably wide and are unusual in connection with relationships between Government Departments and local authorities. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment, which I think will make for better relations between the two bodies than under the rather arbitrary and somewhat rigid wording of the clause as it presently stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 21, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not sure that this Amendment is really necessary, but I have looked at it carefully and it seems to me that it could not do any harm. Therefore, I will say no more than that I am willing to accept it.
LORD BURDEN: How reasonable! On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to eliminate what appear to us to be superfluous words, the words, trader or other". Clearly, a trader is a person within the meaning of the clause, and there would Seem to be no necessity to specify one particular class of person. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that lawyers take the view that there is danger in defining. I think there is a maxim that to define is to limit. I suggest that in those circumstances the clause would be improved, and its clarity promoted, if these words were left out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("trader or other").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether the intention is deliberately to limit this, because I think those words have a limiting effect. As my noble friend has said, there is a doctrine eiusdem generis, and when you say, "trader or other person". what I take it you mean is a trader or somebody in the position of a trader.

613
The object of the Amendment is to enable the officer to make inquiries over a much wider field. I should be grateful to hear what are the real intentions of the Government on this provision.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have helped me to save time by so clearly explaining that their intentions are merely to clarify what this means. It is perfectly true that the words "any person" include "trader", and it is intended to do so in the Bill. We want it to be as wide as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does. The reason why we have put in the word "trader" is that we want to make it clear to traders that the Board's inspecting officer is not going beyond his proper function in making inquiries of them, as well as of all other persons. Traders are a class of people who see a great deal of local authority's work in this field. They may suffer or benefit in many special ways from the way it is conducted, and therefore, in case there should be any doubt in the minds of the inspector or the traders about the propriety of their being consulted, we think it important to make it clear that they may be. That is not intended in any way to restrict the width of the term "person" as applied to everybody else.
LORD SILKIN: I wonder whether it does not restrict. I do not think my noble friend minds whether this Amendment is accepted or not, but I thick it ought to be looked alt to see whether those words are not restrictive.
LORD DERWENT: May I suggest that the proper wording—unless there is anything radically against it—is "any person including any trader." The trader is then mentioned as being included, but it still leaves it wide as "any person".
THE: EARL OF DUNDEE: I am quite willing to consider that.
LORD LATHAM: On that, I request the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Expenses of authorities and compensation of officers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall be agreed to?
LORD JESSEL: Before -I say a word on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Derwent for speaking and moving Amendments on my behalf at very short notice. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT, I can see that he performed his task quite admirably. I should like the noble Earl in Charge of this Bill to have a look at Clause 41 (2) to see whether he thinks the principle behind this subsection is right. At present, we have a local authority administering weights and measures, and under the Bill that duty is being taken away and given to the county. The local authority is then asked to compensate weights and measures officers. I think that is the principle. Whether that is right and fair, I am not quite sure. All I can say is that several town clerks have written to me saying that when they have a perfectly satisfactory service taken away from them, it seems to them unfair that the local ratepayers Should be asked to pay to compensate these officers. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has had no notice of this point, and therefore I do not expect an answer to-day, unless he likes to give me one. But I should like to draw his attention to it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am obliged to my noble friend for raising this point, and I should like to say how glad the House is to see him back again. My immediate answer to my noble friend's point—which, as he rightly implied, is "off the cuff"—is that the ratepayers who would have to pay for the compensation of a displaced employee of that kind would also. presumably, be ratepayers in the larger authority which would become the local weights and measures authority as a result of this Bill replacing the former Act. Therefore, it would not necessarily be unfair that they should pay this compensation which, I think your Lordships would agree, is necessary and must be paid by someone. But as my noble friend rightly said, we have not had notice of the point he has raised, and I think it always saves time if one looks at it before giving a fuller reply.
LORD LATHAM: I should like to comment upon the remarks of the noble

615
Earl. The fact that the authority losing these powers are part of a larger authority to whom the powers will be transferred does not in any way mitigate the fact that the authority losing the powers will have to pay the compensation. It is true that if they did not themselves pay the compensation, and the larger authority—the county borough or the county council—did, they would have to pay something, though only a proportion, because the cost would he spread over the ratable value of the whole area of the county borough or county council. Therefore, it seems to me that there is an important point to be looked into, as to whether it is fair on the losing authority that they should be required themselves to bear the cost of compensation.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Inspectors of weights and measures]:
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "if any (including a deputy chief inspector) as the Board may approve or require as being" and to insert, "as they may think". The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if the next Amendment is taken with it. This clause is an important clause. In fact, it goes right to the question of the esteem in which the Board of Trade regard local government. In my submission, it is a clause which is an unwarrantable affront to local authorities. It says that the local weights and measures authority shall appoint:
"… and reasonably remunerate, a chief inspector of weights and measures and such number of other inspectors of weights and measures, if any (including a deputy chief inspector) as the Board may approve or require as being proper and sufficient for the efficient discharge in the authority's area of the functions conferred or imposed on inspectors …"
Local authorities are not infants. They do not want a Government Department to prescribe whether or not a deputy chief inspector is necessary; nor, if he is, do they want the consent of the Board when they proceed to appoint.
Then the clause goes on to say—and this is rather amusing—that the local authority
"shall …provide suitable premises for use by the persons so appointed in the discharge of those functions."
Really! Is there somebody drafting this measure who does not know that local authorities are autonomous bodies; that they are not infants, as I have said, and that they do not need to be "wet-nursed" in this way. This clause as drawn is an unwarrantable reflection upon local government. Is it supposed that a local authority, being, or becoming, a weights and measures authority, would not provide suitable accommodation for the staff; or that they would provide, for instance, accommodation as bad as that which I understand is provided at the Royal Courts of Justice on certain floors for those who seek justice?
It must be remembered also that this is not a grant-aided service. It is true that it will be a part of local government expenditure which is one of the factors determining the block grant, but it is not a direct grant-aided service. Why should the Board of Trade, with no real direct continuous knowledge of the functions of local government, presume to dictate to local government in respect of this particular activity—technical I agree; complicated I agree, but, relatively speaking, limited activity—of local authorities? Why should it presume to dictate—that is the word—how a local authority shall discharge their duty? If the local authority do not discharge their duty there is ample in the Bill, or generally, to bring the local authority to heel. The local authorities feel very strongly on this point, and I hope the noble Earl will be able either to accept the Amendment now or to see to it that the matter is reconsidered. If it is expected that this service is to operate satisfactorily the Government must carry with them the authorities who will administer it, and this is not the way to do it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 3, leave out from ("measures") to ("proper") in line 5, and insert ("as they may think").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The noble Lord has put the case for the two Amendments, 72D and 72E, together, and I understand that he would like them to be discussed together. I will gladly do that, although in my reply I must make one or two distinctions between the two Amendments. The first

617
is on the question of whether the Board should have power to require the local authorities to appoint the number of inspectors which the Board think right. The noble Lord's Amendment would leave the local authority as the sole judge of what number of inspectors were required in their area, which is the position under the existing law. We fully accept the view that in most cases the local authorities will make a proper assessment of the needs of their areas, and will appoint a sufficient number of inspectors for the needs of the area; and in those cases the Board of Trade will obviously give approval to the arrange merits, as is provided for in this subsection. But if it becomes clear that in a particular area there is something amiss which suggests an insufficiency of inspectors, then the Board of Trade should, after investigation of the circumstances, be enabled to require the authority to appoint further inspectors.
While I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about the competence of local authorities, situations of this kind have arisen in the past—though they are exceptional—sometimes because the local authority has imposed too many ancillary duties on its inspectors. In such cases, all the Board can do at present is to make a recommendation to the authority; it has no power to do more than make the recommendation. I feel that, although cases of this kind are very rare, the Government ought to have powers available to deal with them if they do arise in future.
With regard to the noble Lord's other Amendment, about providing premises, this requirement its not a new one, like that with which the noble Lord's first Amendment was concerned because at the present time the obligation to provide premises conforming to certain minimum requirements is prescribed in regulations made under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904; and under that Act the premises have to be to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade. In the past, inspectors have sometimes shown that unsuitable premises have been provided, or that premises have become unsuitable in the light of changed circumstances, and I do not think that the Board's existing powers have proved unnecessary. Premises which are not suitable can result in harm to the standards, so that the service to the public in the area
618
is lowered. I do not think the Government would be justified in abandoning powers they have had since 1904 and which have in some cases been shown to be necessary.
If I may go back for a moment to the noble Lord's first Amendment, this Bill does of course extend, I think rightly, the Board of Trade's powers of control in certain directions, and we are very anxious to do so in a way that will carry the local authorities with us and not make them feel that they are being, as the noble Lord put it, treated as if they were children or being put in such a position that they may be unreasonably overridden. If the noble Lord feels, as he said, very strongly that the local authorities do resent this new provision at which his Amendment is aimed, I will consider it. He said that possibly the Board's other powers in this Bill—for instance, the power to publish its inspectors' reports, as well as the provisions enabling the Board to require local authorities to carry out their duties effectively in the interests of trader and consumer alike—might be sufficient to see that a sufficient number of inspectors was appointed, and we do not want to make the local authorities feel that we are acting unreasonably. If the noble Lord feels as strongly as he said he did, I shall be glad to consider whether we could not accept the principle of his first Amendment and rely on the more general powers that he mentioned in moving it.
LORD LATHAM: I am very much obliged, and I am sure the local authorities will be grateful for the co-operative and considerate way in which the noble Lord has been good enough to approach the first of these Amendments. In those circumstances, having regard to what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "Act", where that word last occurs. The noble Lord said: I should like to press this Amendment. It may well be that there have been one or two "black sheep" with regard to the provision of suitable premises for this particular service, but because of failure on the part of one or two I do not think that this aspersion should be cast upon the whole of the

619
local government authorities concerned. After all, happily, the whole tendency—a tendency which I am sure every noble Lord would wish to foster—is for there to be less and less interference by the central Government in the activities of local authorities. The orders and references which have been given to the traveling Commissions considering the structure of local government have stressed that point. Committees have been appointed to consider with the central Government how meticulous interference in local government activities could be avoided.
Now there is a proposal—I cannot think it is really serious—that especially and, so far as I know, only as regards the activities of local authorities in respect to weights and measures the local authorities shall provide suitable premises. So far as I know, there is no such provision in the Education Act saying that an education authority shall provide suitable premises for their administrative staff. There is, of course, provision in the Education Act with regard to providing schools. In connection with housing there is no such requirement cast on the authorities. If it is desired, as we all desire, that the relationship between the Board of Trade and local authorities in the operation and discharge of the duties to be cast on local authorities by this Bill are to be satisfactory and things are to work smoothly, I beg the noble Earl to go a little further—we greatly appreciate his consideration this afternoon up to this moment and take out these offending words.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 7, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 9.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Although I have already referred to this Amendment, I ought perhaps to say a further word since the noble Lord has said he would like to press it. I have done my best to meet him in regard to the first Amendment. On this Amendment I do not think the position is quite the same; nor do I think I can accept the noble Lord's view that we are casting any kind of aspersion on local authorities in putting these words in the Bill. As I have said, it is a provision which everybody knows is unlikely to have much applica-
620
tion to the majority of authorities, but it is not a new one. I could not help feeling that the noble Lord was arguing this matter as if we were doing something new. As I reminded your Lordships a few minutes ago, this power to require suitable premises to be provided has been possessed by the Board of Trade for 56 years, since the Weights and Measures Act, 1904.
LORD LATHAM: Not in the Statute; in Orders or Regulations.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, but it is not new. The Orders are under the Weights and Measures Act, 1904. We have found, in some cases, that these powers have proved necessary. The provision of premises for standard equipment is a very technical business indeed, and many authorities need advice and voluntarily seek advice. They are not too proud to come and ask especially for the advice of the Board of Trade; and I cannot feel that it is really unreasonable, or that it is derogatory to authorities in general, that these powers, which have existed for such a long time and have sometimes been found necessary, should be continued. I am sure that nobody would really expect that the Board of Trade intend to use them in any unreasonable or contemptuous manner.
LORD SHEPHERD: I support my noble friend in this matter. This is not a small point but an important point of principle. The Government are not, in my judgment, being very consistent. One moment they are saying that we must give local authorities greater power, I suppose to attract into the councils people of a higher standard. But the success of this measure will not he purely in the words of the Bill; it will he in the quality and the standard of the inspectors. These people will be appointed by the local authorities Therefore, I think that we could safely leave to the local authorities the decision as to what premises are to be provided. If inspectors of the right calibre are appointed, they will be the persons who will press the local authorities to provide the right premises, if the authority do not in the first instance provide them. I think the Minister must realize that many local authorities who are proud and give great service would

621
resent something appearing in an Act from which it would appear that the Government do not trust them in regard to the provision of premises. I hope that my noble friend will press this matter.
LORD LATHAM: There is one further point. It is the case, of course, that, by regulations made under the authority of the earlier Act (I forget exactly the date), a provision of this kind was included; but one must appreciate that the status and quality of local government is vastly different now from what it was then. For instance, in those days many local authorities had part-time officers; many of them had officers who were not trained. In those days, the powers conferred upon and exercised by local authorities were quite different from what they are now. After all, local authorities are now staffed by trained, qualified people—good, upright, honest citizens, discharging functions in the public good. Although it may, for reasons which were best known then, have been necessary to give this power to the Board of Trade by way of regulation, I submit that it is not necessary to impose this obligation at the present time upon self-respecting local government authorities in this country. I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider this, otherwise I feel that we ought to take the sense of the Committee.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course, I entirely accept the general remarks of the noble Lord about the quality and character of the local authorities. But many of these local authorities, not fifty years ago but now, voluntarily ask the advice of the Board of Trade about their premises—they do not always consider that it is a matter which they are able to decide for themselves—and I think that the local authorities are perhaps being a little unduly sensitive about this. I do not think there is anything derogatory to them in having in the Bill a provision which has existed for so long and which still now, in 1960, sometimes proves to be necessary and desirable.
On Question, Amendment negatives.
4.49 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to the clause:
"() So much of this section, with the exception of subsection (3), as applies to the appointment of a chief inspector of weights
622
and measures and a deputy chief inspector of weights and measures, shall not apply to the County of London, and references in the said subsection (3), and in any other place in this Act where it occurs, to a chief inspector of weights and measures or a deputy chief inspector of weights and measures shall, in relation to the County of London, be deemed to refer to such person or persons as the local weights and measures authority shall from time to time appoint."
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment and I shall not detain the Committee long in explaining it. Clause 42 provides that local weights and measures authorities shall appoint chief inspectors. This Amendment seeks to add a subsection to the clause, to exempt from the provisions of Clause 42 the County of London. It is an Amendment which may appeal to Her Majesty's Government since it seeks to maintain the status quo. At the present time in the County of London the functions that would be functions of the chief inspector are actually exercised by the chief officer of the Public Control Department. That has been found to be wholly satisfactory, and to appoint a chief inspector and deputy chief inspector would only add redundant staff to the establishment of the County Council. I would add that there is, perhaps, an additional reason why the present practice should be allowed to continue. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London presumably will result sooner or later in legislation, and we may therefore wish at that time to make different arrangements. I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD BURDEN: I am not in any way apposing what has been indicated as the intention of the Amendment—namely, to maintain the status quo so far as the London County Council are concerned—because, as my noble friend Lord Faringdon has explained, there is no chief weights and measures inspector to the L.C.C. but a specialized department, such matters being dealt with at administrative level. In the phrasing of the Amendment, however, the words "County of London" may be held to include the metropolitan boroughs. Those boroughs have weights and measures inspectors and I am sure that it is not the intention of the Amendment moved

623
by my noble friend to seek to disturb the status quo in relation to either the L.C.C. or the metropolitan boroughs at the present time, whatever the future may hold.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, for the brevity with which he moved his Amendment, and I will do my best to be equally short in replying to it. The present position in the London County Council area and one or two other areas is that there is a Public Control Department, with a chief officer and deputy chief officer who are responsible for the administration of a number of functions devolving on the authority, including weights and measures. They have in the area four weights and measures offices, each of which is in charge of a senior inspector, and comprising in all more than 20 qualified inspectors. The senior inspectors have actual physical charge of the local and working standards and are responsible to the chief officer of the Public Control Department for the day-to-day running of their offices.
I would assure the noble Lord that the provisions of this Bill and of the clause will not interfere with the present set-up in the L.C.C. The chief officer of the Public Control Department will still be able to retain overall administrative control of the weights and measures offices and staffs. But as Her Majesty's Government have accepted the Hodgson Committee's view that the Board of Trade should bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring efficiency in what is a locally administered service. I believe it is an essential part of the administrative arrangements proposed by the Bill that responsibility for technical matters in a local weights and measures service must devolve upon a properly qualified officer as provided in subsection (1) of this clause—namely, the chief inspector. The question at Issue is not the size or efficiency of the authority, but whether or not qualified officers shall be responsible for certain priority technical matters. I believe that if this principle is right, it applies with at least equal force to the larger authority which tends as a rule to have more technical equipment than the smaller one. I hope the noble Lord will agree with the justification of that.
LORD FARINGDON: The noble Earl says that the chief officer of the Public Control Department will retain his supervisory position in relation to the inspectors and sub-inspectors throughout the county area. Can he tell me whether, if this Bill becomes an Act in its present form, it will entail the appointment of two more superior officials, additional to those there are at present? And does he think that the operation of the Public Control Department or the chief officers has in fact been unsatisfactory and therefore that this provision is necessary?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think it would require the appointment of two more officials. What would be required would be that the chief inspector and his deputy must hold certificates of qualification as inspectors of weights and measures. That is laid down in Clause I of the Bill, and the Amendment would remove the necessity for that.
LORD LATHAM: I gather from what the noble Earl has said that there would be a kind of dichotomy of responsibility and that the Board of Trade would go not to the chief officer of the Public Control Department, who administratively is responsible for this as well as other functions and duties, but to the chief inspector. That is not good administration and I am quite sure that on reflection the noble Earl would not approve it as being proper administration. There is the additional point that the question of the government of Greater London is under consideration or, at least, a Royal Commission on it has published its Report; and on that ground also it seems to be imprudent to proceed, if not to appoint, to nominate, two persons who shall be chief inspector and deputy chief inspector, pending seeing what form the future government of London will take. I hope, in those circumstances, that the exception can be accepted.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: All that this subsection does, I think, to require local weights and measures authorities to:
"appoint from among persons holding certificates of qualification under section forty-three of this Act, … a chief inspector of weights and measures and such number of other inspectors of weights and measures, if any, (including a deputy chief inspector) as the Board may approve or require".
The chief inspector is responsible to the authority for technical matters:

625
and although I always appreciate the argument about doing things together. I do not think that the provisions of this particular clause would in any way prejudice the combination of the future consideration of the general responsibilities of the London County Council as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission and their particular functions under this Bill.
5.0 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will state quite clearly whether this clause will upset the arrangements under which the London County Council at present carry cut the duties of dealing with weights and measures? It appears, from the face of it, that it will require a complete reorganization of that department, which, so far as I am aware, carries out its duties acceptably both to the London County Council and to the Board of Trade. If it means entirely upsetting a completely efficient organization, surely the noble Earl ought to reconsider it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, I do not Wink there is any ground for the idea that the Board would have to go to the chief inspector behind the backs of the authority, because the chief inspector is responsible to the authority, not to the Board. I am sorry if I have put it the wrong way round.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Earl put it exactly the opposite way, I thought.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Then I have done so inadvertently. What I was trying to say, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in my original reply, was that the provisions of this Bill will not interfere with the present set-up of the L.C.C. The chief officer of the Public Control Department will be able to retain overall administrative control of the weights and measures offices and staff. The Government have the general responsibility, not of interfering with the particular way with which local authorities do it, but of seeing that they do it in a satisfactory way. We have accepted that responsibility as a result of the Hodgson Committee's Report. All that we feel entitled to require, as in
626
this clause, is that the chief inspector and his deputy shall hold certificates of qualification.
LORD SILKIN: If it is intended that the chief officer of Public Control should still be responsible and should be the person through whom the Board of Trade will deal, then, as the noble Earl has said, he must have a certificate as an inspector. Normally he would not have Will it not therefore be necessary for the London County Council to appoint a special person under the chief officer of Public Control who will have the qualifications of an inspector, in order to meet the requirements of this clause in the Bill? If that is so, is that not exactly what my noble friend has said—that it means the appointment of additional officers? May I suggest that if it is the intention that the chief officer of Public Control should be recognised in the way proposed, he would be in an exceptional position as against other officers and it should be stated so in the Bill? If it were stated that the chief officer of Public Control in the case of the L.C.C. is to be recognized as the person dealing with weights and measures, both vis-à-vis the London County Council and the Board of Trade, then I should have thought that that would meet the case. But it would still require an Amendment of the Bill and it would only be saying in other words what this Amendment says.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It might be that the L.C.C. would have to appoint additional persons if the present holders of office did not hold certificates. But surely an alternative would be that the present functionaries could obtain certificates by showing they had the necessary qualifications. I do not think that that is a matter for us to decide. What we require is that the chief inspector and his deputy, under subsection (1), should hold certificates.
LORD SILKIN: The chief officer of Public Control is appointed to administer a relatively large department. He is not a technician. It may be that the organization of the London County Council needs revision, but that is the way in which they have carried out that function. He administers a large Department which deals, among other things, with weights and measures. But to require

627
that a person appointed as an administrator should hold the technical qualifications of an inspector of weights and measures is to do something which I should have thought wholly inappropriate in order to secure tidiness in this Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think, with all respect, that the noble Earl is confusing administrative and technical matters. Administrative matters are not necessarily dealt with by technicians Technicians have their functions; administrators have other functions. I call to mind a case with which I was very well acquainted. The Metropolitan Asylums Board, when it existed, had as its chief administrator a layman, not a doctor; and it was never administered so well as during, that period, when it was administered very efficiently indeed. But he was not required to qualify as a doctor in order to be the chief administrative officer. It seems to me quite ridiculous to require the London County Council to upset a highly efficient organization in order to make it fit in with the pattern of what someone sitting in the Board of Trade thinks is the proper method or organization.
This provision, as it stands, will require the London County Council to compel a senior officer and his deputy, if they have not already got them, to acquire certain technical qualifications, or to sack those officers, or to appoint two superfluous officers who will be supposed to be doing very much the same work as the chief administrative officer is doing. Surely the noble Earl can look at this matter again and recognize, as legislation has recognized for a long time past, that the organization of the London County Council is of a distinctive character and is settled generally by legislative provisions different from those of the rest of the country.
LORD FARINGDON: I am rather distressed by the noble Earl's reply to this Amendment. To tell the truth, I thought he was going to accept it. His reply seems to me very curious in effect. What the noble Earl is saying is that the administration of the weights and measures organization in the County of
628
London is unsatisfactory. This is really what he is saying: that the Government do not consider satisfactory the present arrangement, under which a large number of inspectors, who no doubt have proper qualifications, come under the chief officer of the Public Control Department. If he is not saying that, then why does he want us to appoint two extra senior officials, at considerable expense, to do jobs which are already being effectively done and whose existence may, indeed, upset an administrative department which is working quite satisfactorily? I must say that I am a little surprised by the noble Earl's attitude.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should naturally like to pay attention to the noble Lord's arguments, which he has repeated with unswerving conviction. I gather that his contention is that, although in every other part of the country chief inspectors ought to be qualified persons and have a certificate of qualification, in the London area it is not necessary that they should because of the difference in organization between London and the rest of the country. I do not know that I could entirely accept that argument, but I will certainly look into the matter, in the light of what the noble Lord and others of your Lordships have said, because I recognize that your Lordships would not have pressed this matter so strongly if you had not been doing so with a very strong desire to improve matters.
LORD LATHAM: May I inform the noble Earl that legislation is littered with special provisions for the London County Council?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I did not know that any of them were of such a peculiar nature as to require that a very important officer should not possess a certificate which everybody else has to have in other parts of the country.
LORD LATHAM: In due time the noble Earl will learn the peculiarities of London.
LORD SILKIN: I would point out that everyone who has spoken on this matter has had years of experience of the administration of the London County Council, and speaks from that experience.
LORD LATHAM: And with complete impartiality, of course.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is because of that fact that. I have said I will consider what your Lordships have said. I should not dream of considering it if at had been put forward by people who had no experience of the London County Council.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl for the very accommodating way in which he has received this Amendment, and, on the understanding which he has given, I ask leave to withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall be agreed to?
LORD SHEPHERD: Before this clause is put to the House for approval, may I ask the noble Earl if he could give the reason why, on page 39, line 1, it calls for authorities to "reasonably remunerate"? Is it really necessary that that should be put in—that authorities will have to pay these people? Of course they will have to pay them. Why is it being put in the Bill in this manner?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Not long ago I accepted an Amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that the officers of the Board of Trade should behave in a reasonable manner. I was not quite sure if it was necessary to assume that they might not. It may not be necessary to assume that anybody will behave in an unreasonable manner; but I think that there are probably a few people who would he a little more happy and comfortable if this clause retained the provision that they must be reasonably remunerated.
LORD BURDEN: May I assure my noble friend that it is not an unknown thing for a tiny minority of local councils to act unreasonably so far as their officers are concerned?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: That is what, very diffidently, I have been trying to put to your Lordships with regard to some other Amendments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems to me, on this particular word in this particular place, that it is not put in to safeguard the
630
officer It seems to me that this is put in to safeguard the Treasury. I do not know; but it may be thought that local authorities are spending too much on the remuneration of their inspectors of weights and measures. You need to go back to the famous Standing Committee on Trusts of 1919 to look up the proper definition of the word "reasonable". You should go and look at it; it is extraordinary. It means that it satisfies one but does not satisfy the other. "Reasonable" means almost anything you like to make it mean. If the word was "properly" remunerated or "adequately" remunerated, then I think that perhaps there would be no such objection.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have heard differences of opinion about the interpretation of the word "adequate", too. But, whoever is being safeguarded here, it is perfectly obvious that somebody wants the safeguard to be reasonable.
LORD LATHAM: Somebody else.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Inspectors not to act as adjusters of equipment]:
5.14 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment runs with the other Amendments to Clause 44. Here again it is perhaps a matter of language. As the clause is at present drawn, it requires that there shall be provided
"an organisation for the adjustment of weighing or measuring equipment. …"
Local authorities take the view that in many cases there is no need to set up an entirely separate organization for the adjustment of weighing or measuring equipment.
It is incontestable that so far as the majority of local authorities are concerned, the work will consist merely of the adjustment of simple weights and measures. Such work is usually carried out by an assistant in a weights and measures office or a temporary verification center as the case may be. There would seem to be no reason at all why this arrangement should not be continued and why local authorities should be required to establish a separate organization. I suggest that, in those circumstances, the noble Earl—
LORD JESSEL: With great respect, they are not required. It is said that they "may provide", which is rather different.
LORD LATHAM: The words are "may provide and place under the supervision of. …"
LORD JESSEL: That is not the same as "required".
LORD LATHAM: It may be that it is not "required", but in any case why "an organization"? Why not just "arrangements" for dealing with the matter? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
>Page 39, line 41, leave out ("an organization") and insert ("arrangements").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Clause 44 prohibits weights and measures inspectors from acting as adjusters of weights and measures but allows the local authorities to set up a separate organization and put it under their chief inspectors. The existing law enables inspectors, with Board of Trade approval, to adjust weights and measures. This was criticized by the Hodgson Committee on the grounds that it is wrong in principle for inspectors to undertake the adjustment of weights and measures which they are subsequently responsible for testing and certifying as accurate. In response to the representations of local authorities, to the effect that they had been providing a useful service in certain cases which enabled small traders to escape quite unnecessary expenses, the Bill provides for such work to continue. There are however, two safeguards. The adjustment must be done by the local authority through an organization which, although it may be placed under the chief inspector, has to be kept separate from the work of the other inspecting staff. Secondly, the fees will be in future prescribed by the Board of Trade so as to avoid any question of the local authority competing unfairly with private traders who do most of the repair and adjustment work.
Until the noble Lord spoke, I wondered why he preferred "arrangements" to "an organization". Frankly, that puzzled me in this context. It is now clear, I think, why he wants it, but after
632
his explanation I must say that it seems to me that its use here would tend to blur the distinction between the adjusting organization and the weights and measures service, and on those very grounds we are opposed to it. In case noble Lords elsewhere put this interpretation upon it, I should say that the use of the word "organization" does not imply that separate premises need be used. Obviously, it is up to the council to decide how many of its departments should be housed together. It does, however, imply that the adjusting organization shall report direct to the chief inspector and have a separate system of accounting, so that the cost and charges for ordinary weights and measures testing work and for any special adjusting work carried on by the local authority can be kept separate—that is the purpose. The word "organization" indicates by intention, in fact, that the adjusting and the weights and measures service shall be seen to be separate, save in so far as they report to the local authority through the same officer, the chief inspector for the area. This is a point which we consider very important and which other noble Lords in the House, I think, by reason of Amendments they are moving, also consider to be very important.
LORD LATHAM: Having regard to that explanation, slightly exiguous though it be, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved in clause 44 to leave out "weighing or measuring equipment" and insert "weights and measures". The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. Arising out of what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, I must say that I do not like either "arrangements" or "an organization", because I do not see any need for this organization to be set up at all. As the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said, the Hodgson Committee were dead against it. I spoke about this matter in the Second Reading debate, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, replied to me. I confess that I was not satisfied with

633
his answer, and although he has since written me a very courteous letter I remain unsatisfied.
I see no objection to local authorities setting up an organization to deal with actual weights and measures, but what I do not want them to do is to start "monkeying about" with the equipment. If they were allowed to do this, I see a danger of weights and measures inspectors becoming easy-going and tolerant in the case of work carried out by an organization under their control. I think one might even have a situation where a trader might feel that it was to his advantage to go to that organization, because if he were found guilty of an offence, he could say "All my weighing equipment has been adjusted by the local authority", which he might think would give him an advantage.
I seriously contend that there is absolutely no need at all to give the local authority these new powers. Adequate facilities are already available. I should just like to quote a few figures. I am informed that to-day there are over 2,500 qualified weighing machine service engineers available, working from more than 500 service depôts. There are more than 500 service vans in current use. These service engineers are skilled craftsmen who have to keep abreast of developments by frequent training and refresher courses. In nearly every case where equipment goes wrong, it is a new spare part that is required. And where is it to be obtained? Not from the local authority. The new spare part has to come from the manufacturer of the weighing machine; and it is much better that he should do the maintenance.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, replying to me during his winding-up speech on Second Reading, said that it would be helpful to the small trader if he could get a minor adjustment made to some simple equipment. But how is one to ascertain what is a minor adjustment? I submit that the machine manufacturers are perfectly capable of looking after both major and minor adjustments, in the big towns, in the small towns and in the country. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again and accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 41, leave out ("weighing or measuring equipment") and insert ("weights and measures").—(Lord Jessel.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like strongly to support this Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Jessel. I am rather astonished that this clause should have found its way into the Bill. It not only disregards the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee; it goes even further in the opposite direction, and permits local officers to supervise an organization for adjusting weighing machines as well as weights. This seems to me objectionable, both on grounds of principle and in practice. In principle, it seems to me wrong that an inspecting authority should also have the authority to run an organization for making adjustments to weighing machines. This point was very strongly put by the Hodgson Committee. They said:
"We consider it to be wrong in principle that an inspector should adjust the equipment that he is later to certify as being correct."
In the second place, I think it is wrong in principle to extend this form of municipal trading into a field which, as my noble friend, Lord Jessel, has already explained, is adequately covered by the present organization. He has already told us of the difficulties which might in practice arise over servicing. He mentioned the question of spare parts. I would also mention the question of replacement machines, for any reputable manufacturer supplies a trader with a machine while his broken-down machine is taken away to be repaired. It would be a burden on any local authority organization to have to carry a stock of these machines to provide replacements. This clause is disliked by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and, I think, by other national organizations; and I know at least one very senior chief inspector of weights and measures who equally would prefer this Amendment. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at it again very closely.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, most of the background to this Amendment was already discussed in the last Amendment and does not require repetition. I should like to point out to my noble friends who have spoken on this Amendment that not all local authorities have

635
availed themselves of the present power to run an adjusting service; but experience has shown that in the more remote and less densely populated parts of the country such a service can be of great benefit to traders who cannot rely on scale-repairing firms to carry out the adjustment of weights and measures, because the firms find such repairs uneconomical.
My noble friend Lord Jessel gave figures of the numbers of such firms—and there is a very large number. But I wondered, as he was speaking, just how well spread they were through the country; how accessible they were to all parts of the country and, therefore, to all traders. For these reasons, the Government think that a local weights and measures authority should not be debarred from making available an adjusting service for weighing or measuring machines, as well as for weights and measures, if the authority is satisfied that there is a local need. And the criterion is the local need.
There is here an inherent conflict of interest between the scale-repairing trade and the local authorities who seek to give traders the speedy and economical adjustment service which they need to conform with the requirements of the law. Noble Lords have argued that it is wrong in principle for the local authorities themselves to enter into the field of trade in competition with some of their ratepayers. The Government agree that it would be undesirable for the local authority's service to compete unfairly with that offered by commercial repairers, by virtue of the fact that the local authority is also responsible for testing the equipment, but it would be equally undesirable, it seems to us, that the repairer should be enabled to press the trader to buy new equipment on the ground that adjustment was uneconomical for him when this was not really necessary, or was beyond what is necessary to comply with the law as to accuracy. And I am told that weights and measures authorities have, in fact, reported such cases.
As I pointed out earlier, there are two safeguards in the Bill. First, the fees are to be prescribed by the Board of Trade, so that the local authority will not be able to subsidise its service.
636
Secondly, this is one of the aspects of the chief inspectors' work which will be reviewed by the Board of Trade inspector under Clause 40, to prevent anything which noble Lords might regard as an abuse. I have now put my point of view to the noble Lords who moved and supported this Amendment, and I hope that they will see the sincerity and substance of it.
LORD DERWENT: May I ask my noble friend whether, if an organization of this kind is set up, it will deal with all forms of weighing or only such forms as it chooses, because it would not be economic unless it does all forms of weighing. Yesterday, in answer to another Amendment of mine, my noble friend Lord Dundee pointed out that the inspectors now have to inspect quite different machines, which weigh and measure large deliveries in bulk and this had not been part of their duties up till now. Presumably, they will understand all these heavier weighing machines. Or are they to look after only the simpler ones?
LORD LATHAM: In answering, could the noble Lord also say whether weights and measures authorities are at present doing the work it is sought to prevent their doing by this Amendment?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No; they are doing only part of the work. They are inspecting weights and measures, but not machinery: this is done under an entirely separate organization. They would have to extend their work to the inspection of weighing and measuring machinery. My answer to my noble friend is that I imagine, though again I am answering very much "off the cuff", that the type of inspection that a given local authority's organization could undertake would depend on the nature of that organization. I do not know that all the organizations will necessarily be absolutely uniform throughout the country.
LORD JESSEL: If local authorities at this moment are adjusting weighing machinery and equipment, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, seems to suggest, they are doing something illegal.
LORD LATHAM: I did not suggest that they were. I asked the question, whether they were.
LORD JESSEL: I stand corrected. I wanted to make the position clear. As regards the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, about whether existing makers of machinery are giving a service in the remote parts of England, I am informed that with service lorries they can give a perfectly satisfactory service dealing with any part of England. I am afraid that I remain completely unimpressed by the Government's answer, and I think that many of us on this side of the House will remain unimpressed. I do not think that the Committee stage is suitable for a Division—I believe that we are all agreed about that. We want to get on and see what the Government are going to do as a result of representations we have made during this stage. Therefore, to-day I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment and the two following deal with related matters, one of which has already been dealt with, and the earlier Amendment has been withdrawn—namely, the proposal with regard to organization. The clause leaves to the Board of Trade the determination of charges to be made. Local authorities take the view that weights and measures authorities should be the authorities to determine the charges to be made for work which they will carry out. It does not seem to me in any way to impinge upon the validity of the proposal that local authorities should be given a wider duty—namely, that of dealing with the adjustment of equipment—if they are allowed to determine the fees in respect of work which has been done. I imagine that if fees are to be determined and prescribed by the Board of Trade, it will be a pretty long list, saying how much will be charged to fit a bolt here or put on a nut there; to adjust this or that. This is a matter which I think, and the local authorities think, should be left to them. They are not uninformed or inexperienced in dealing with a matter like this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 42, leave out ("the") and insert ("such").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Under present law the Board do not have this power, but a recommended scale of charges is
638
circulated by the Board of Trade to all weights and measures authorities in an endeavor to achieve uniformity. While the Government have no reason to believe that any local authority would deliberately adopt an under-cutting policy in adjusting charges, nevertheless they consider that it would be in the public interest to make these charges uniform and statutory, so that the whole question of local authorities attempting to undercut private repairers and adjusters in efforts to get their business cannot arise. That is the reason why I would ask the noble Lord to leave the clause as it stands.
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord say how the Board of Trade propose to prescribe—by statutory instrument? If it is, then it can be altered only by legislative procedure.
LORD ST. OSWALD: That is a point on which I regret I cannot inform the noble Lord at the moment.
LORD LATHAM: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that information on that point may be available on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The second half of Clause 44 prohibits inspectors acting as adjusters of weighing and measuring equipment except during a period of two years from the commencement of the section. The implication of this is that during this period of two years they may act as adjusters of any weighing equipment if they are expressly authorized to do so by the Board of Trade. This covers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. This provision is intended to save their powers under the present law for two years. In fact, however, under existing legislation the Board has been able to authorize inspectors to adjust only weights and measures, and the saving under the provision goes too wide and carries the implication that inspectors could also, when authorized by the Board, adjust weighing and measuring equipment: other than weights and measures during the two-years period. This Amendment accordingly corrects this and restricts the saving to weights and measures only, and the Board's power to authorize inspectors to act as adjusters during those

639
two years is limited to the adjustment of weights and measures.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 45, after ("except") insert ("in the case of weights or measures").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Inspectors' fees]:
5.40 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: The purpose of this Amendment is to fill what appears to be a lacuna in the Bill. So far as I can see and I am advised, nowhere in the Bill is there any requirement upon the Board of Trade to prescribe the fees to be charged by local authorities, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said in dealing with the previous Amendment. Fees may be prescribed; but it is in the interests of local authorities that there should be a clear direction to the Board to do so. Clause 11 (2) of the Bill merely refers to "the prescribed fee", and there is no obligation on the Board to prescribe what the fee shall be. It is thought that that defect should be remedied, and with that in view, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 1, at beginning insert—
("(1) An inspector may take in respect of the testing of weighing and measuring equipment, and the costs incurred in connection therewith, such fees as the Board shall by order prescribe.").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment seeks to put into Clause 45 a specific authorization to inspectors to charge prescribed fees for testing, weighing and measuring equipment, and I appreciate that the noble Lord has put it down in the desire to fill a lacuna. I think the Bill already does what the noble Lord desires. He referred to Clause 11 (2), and at line 36 it says:
"… any regulations made under section fourteen thereof, and to the payment by that person of the prescribed fee …"
Then, if your Lordships look at page 48, line 16, under Clause 59—and that is the definition clause—you will see that "prescribed" is there defined as follows:
"'prescribed' means prescribed by the Board by regulations".
640
I think that as under Clause 11 the inspector is authorized to test the equipment brought to him only on the payment of the prescribed fee, and as under the definition given in Clause 59 "'prescribed' means prescribed by the Board by regulations", the noble Lord's point is already met by the Bill as it is now. I take it that he agrees with the desirability of having uniform charges of this kind for different parts of the country, and that he wishes to confine himself to making sure that proper arrangements are made for the fees being prescribed by the Board of Trade.
LORD LATHAM: That one is a clean catch. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Offences in connection with office of inspector]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (1)
"Provided that before canceling, or suspending the validity of, a certificate the Board shall give the inspector concerned notice in writing that he may make verbal or written representations to the Board within a period of twenty-eight days from the service of the notice; and if any such representations are made by the inspector within that period the Board shall take them into account before determining whether or not to cancel, or suspend the validity of, his certificate."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one deal substantially with the same point namely, that a weights and measures inspector should have the right of appeal in the event of a cancellation or suspension of the validity of a certificate, the cancellation or suspension being an act of the Board of Trade. The difference between the two Amendments, as I see it, is that my Amendment provides for an appeal to the Board of Trade, whereas the following Amendment provides for the setting up of a tribunal. I think, on balance, I prefer the second Amendment. seeing that my Amendment provides for an appeal to the Board of Trade who would be judge and jury in their own cause. It is, I think, the accepted principle in local government, in railways and in other large concerns that before a professional man has his livelihood finally taken away from him, even if he is thought to be guilty of certain unprofessional conduct, he should have a right

641
of appeal. In effect, that is what I am asking for by my Amendment and what my noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Silkin are asking for by theirs.
It is not anticipated that it will be necessary for the machinery provided for in my noble friends' Amendment to be called into operation often, yet it is a safeguard which the men feel they ought to have. They attach great importance to it, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to meet us in some way so far as one or other of these Amendments is concerned. I am not attempting to move my noble friends' Amendment—they are each more eloquent than I and can put forward their own—bust am merely moving the Amendment in my name on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD LATHAM: It may be convenient if we discuss these two Amendments together. The purpose, as has been indicated by my noble friend Lord Burden, is to give the right of appeal. The Board have an absolute discretion and power either to cancel or to suspend and inspect a certificate, and can really put an end to a man's life's work and his life's prospects. In those circumstances, I am sure we should all agree that there should be a right of appeal. I am not wedded to the form of appeal tribunal which indicated in my Amendment, so long as there is some adequate and proper appeal for a person in danger of having his certificate cancelled or suspended. I hope the noble Earl will he able to indicate that, in principle, the Board of Trade accept this proposal.
LORD SILKIN: I do not wish to argue the general principle of giving a person who may be deprived of his job and livelihood the opportunity of making representations, but I must say to my noble friend ford Burden that I do not like his Amendment. because in principle I do not like giving a person merely the right to make representations, possibly in writing, and for him never to know to what extent those representations have been taken into consideration and not to have the right to be heard and possibly to cross-examine anybody who has been called in evidence against him. Therefore, if the noble Earl feels dis-
642
posed to accept the principle that an inspector shall have the right to appeal in some form or other, I hope he will give careful consideration to it so as to make the appeal an effective one, with a right to state his case, the right to cross-examine any witnesses against him and the right to call witnesses on his own behalf.
LORD BURDEN: I think I made it clear that I was not particularly wedded to my form of words, either.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: May I say a word on Lord Burden's Amendment first? What his Amendment would do would be to oblige the Board, before canceling or suspending the validity of a certificate, to give the inspector concerned an opportunity of making representations to the Board as to why they should not take the action contemplated, and to take these representations into account in arriving at a decision. Of course, the Board would not think of canceling an inspector's certificate without giving him the opportunity of putting any arguments he might have for their not taking this action. I agree that in a serious matter of this kind it would be preferable for this to be specifically laid down in the Bill itself. I will agree to do this, but I should like time to consider a specific way in which it should be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has expressed a preference for a more independent tribunal, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has indicated that he prefers the Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Latham. I had intended to make a reply in not precisely the same terms to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, because it does not ask for quite the same thing, but as I have undertaken to consider Lord Burden's Amendment, perhaps I may save time by saying that I will give equal consideration to the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Latham and Lord Silkin. I appreciate that it might be better to have a tribunal rather than merely a right of representation to the Board.
LORD BURDEN: With that assurance, which I am sure will give satisfaction to the officers who will have to carry out the provisions of the Act in

643
the field, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Transitional provisions as to inspectors]:
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am honored to see that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin is associated with mine in this Amendment, which I do not think needs much explanation. As the clause is drafted at present, a person who has obtained a certificate of qualification under Section 8 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, to act as an inspector of weights and measures, but who was not actually holding an appointment with a local authority as an inspector immediately before the coming into force of this Part of the Bill, would, if he wanted to obtain a post as an inspector in this country, have to sit for another examination and obtain a fresh certificate of qualification under Clause 43 of the Bill. That is not what we intended, and this change of wording is put down in order to correct the omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, leave out ("that") and insert ("any")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SILKIN: All I need say is that I am proud to be in such distinguished company on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN: I should have thought that this Amendment was simply making abundantly clear what ought to be clear anyway, and that is that the person who holds the certificate, and whose certificate it is desired to carry over until the coming into operation of the Act, should have a certificate which is in force at the time and not a certificate which has expired. It may be that those words are unnecessary, and they can carry the implication that it must be a valid certificate on the day. I thought I would put it down in order to make quite sure that that is the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 43, after ("1904") insert ("and in force at the said date").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am obliged to the noble Lord for making this point
644
clear in Committee. I think I owe him an explanation of why I think the Amendment is unnecessary. Subsection (1) of Clause 47 maintains the legal status of local government officers who have obtained certificates of qualification as inspectors of weights and measures under Section 8 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904. Under that section there is no power which exists for the Board of Trade to cancel or suspend any of these certificates. They remain valid anyhow during the lifetime of the holder.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (2), to add after paragraph (b):
(c) appointed under any local Act regulating the sale of coal in a burgh or county in Scotland to act for any of the purposes of that Act for which such an inspector could act").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment should be taken together with the next but one, No. 77 AAA. Clause 47 safeguards the position of those unqualified officers who were appointed for limited purposes under the 1889 Weights and Measures Act, or under the provisions of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, for limited duties in connection with the sale of coal and of food respectively. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in Scotland certain coal officers have in the past been appointed for similar purposes under the provision of local Acts. These coal provisions of the 1889 Act were not applied to Scotland until 1936, and they were not applied when any county or burgh already had local powers and wished to continue to work under them. Therefore, some coal officers are appointed under local Acts, and we want to make sure that their position is safeguarded, which is done by this Amendment and the next one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment is another Amendment concerned with coal officers and sale of food officers who are now employed by some local

645
authorities. They are not qualified inspectors, but under the 1889 Act and the 1926 Act they can be used to test and inspect certain goods. The subsection enables them to continue to act in respect of corresponding functions under the Bill where sanctioned by the local weights and measures authority. But under this subsection as drafted, these men have all the rights and powers of an inspector of weights and measures including the power under subsection (3) of Clause 49 to apply to a justice of the peace for a special warrant to enter premises, if necessary by force. That would be an extension of the powers of these officers, and the Government consider that such an extension is unnecessary for the exercise of their limited functions. The effect of the Amendment accordingly is to remove this power. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 21, after first ("Act") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 28, at end insert ("but no person shall he appointed as mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection after the commencement of section forty-two of this Act.") —(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [General administrative regulations]:
6.0 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved to gait Clause 48. The noble Lord said: This is a weird and wonderful clause, I should say unprecedented in legislation dealing with local authorities. Here it is said that a Government Department shall make regulations with regard to the manner of the performance by local authorities of their functions under this Bill—that the Board of Trade shall be able to make regulations and, presumably, judge whether the requirements specified in the regulations are complied with. I am advised that no such sweeping power over the exercise of local authorities' functions is to be found in any other legislation.
If the Board of Trade wish to be satisfied that in some particular respects local weights and measures authorities are carrying out their duties, then the proper procedure is for the matters to be prescribed and for the powers to be made by order or otherwise, as the case may be. But to ask local authorities to accept this general clause as to the manner in which they carry out their duties is almost an affront to self-respecting local authorities, and I hope that a clause of this kind will not be persisted in. I should like to remind your Lordships that this service is not a grant-aided service, and even in respect of grant-aided services—which for the most part, unhappily, no longer exist as grant-aided—no Ministry ask for powers of this order to determine and judge as to the manner in which local authorities are carrying out their prescribed statutory duties. I earnestly hope that the noble Earl will, if I may say so, with proper obeisance, withdraw the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 48.—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This clause empowers the Board of Trade to
"make regulations with respect to the manner of the performance by local weights and measures authorities and inspectors of their functions "
under the Bill. It is clear from what the noble Lord has said that his Amendment to leave out the clause has been put down on the ground that this power would give the Board of Trade the right to interfere in the internal administrative arrangements of the local authorities. But the object of the clause is to enable the Board of Trade to give guidance to local authorities on the technical and practical aspects of enforcement work.
For example, it will be necessary to prescribe minimum requirements in respect of the number and frequency of visits of inspection by inspectors. Then regulations as to the record books, certificates, and so on, which inspectors should keep will need to be laid down. If this is not done the Board's task of collating information from all over the country for use in their Reports would he rendered impossible. Further, instruction will be necessary in regard to the procedure to be adopted by inspectors in respect of the liquids withdrawn from

647
traders' tanks in the testing of liquid-measuring instruments, and we feel that these regulations are an important way in which the necessary uniformity will be secured in the actual administration of the law to match the uniformity aimed at in the legislation itself.
I would remind your Lordships that one of the main purposes of this Bill is to replace the vast quantity of rather confused and conflicting practice all over the country by a greater measure of uniformity. I think that is generally agreed in principle. That has been recommended by the Hodgson Committee, and I should have thought that this was one of the things for which the Government have so often been blamed for delaying for eight or nine years. This particular power ought not to be looked on as an affront to self-respecting local authorities. I honestly do not think it can reasonably be regarded in that light at all. Moreover, it is not a new power. A great many of the regulations to be made under this clause will simply repeat those which have been made under the 1904 Act and which could not be made under the powers accorded to the Board by Clauses 14 and 22 alone. It is no more intended now than it has been in the past to use these powers or regulations to interfere in the purely internal affairs of the local authority.
LORD BURDEN: Will the regulations be laid before the House and require a Resolution?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should have to look up the distinction which is made later between Affirmative and Negative Resolutions. At the moment I do not know whether the regulations require approval of the House or not. I am now informed that it is a Negative and not an Affirmative Resolution in this case. But there are other instruments provided for in this Bill which will require an Affirmative Resolution. Whichever they are, they are of the same character as those already made under the 1904 Act.
LORD LATHAM: Having regard to that, I think it should be stated in the clause that the regulations will be as prescribed: how they can be made and how they can be altered. After all, the noble Earl said that the principal purpose of the clause was to give guidance
648
and instruction. If that is so, I submit that there are other English words which could be used to state that. This clause as drawn says, may make regulations with respect to the "manner"—that is the important word—in which the authorities carry out their duties. If the Board of Trade take the view that local authorities cannot be trusted to carry out the duties which will be cast upon them, let the Government prescribe the directions in which they think regulations are necessary, and let the regulations be discussed between the local authority associations and the Board of Trade. But this proposal that the Board should make regulations, of a character not yet indicated, with respect to the manner in which local authorities carry out their functions, is wholly unimaginable. If they want guidance, say they are to have guidance; make a list of the respects in which regulations will be made. I hope that the noble Earl will see the justice of my submissions. The local authorities think that this clause is something about which one could, quite properly, use language which would be improper in your Lordships' House.
LORD FARINGDON: I wonder whether the offence does not arise from the word "manner", and whether it could not be omitted.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not think that the word "manner" could be omitted without being replaced by something with respect to the performance. I honestly do not feel that there is any reason for local authorities to be affronted by this provision, and I cannot help feeling that they are being unduly sensitive about it. I have tried to explain to your Lordships that the purpose of this clause is not to interfere with their internal affairs but to help the local authorities to achieve the greater degree of uniformity which is desired. If it is strongly felt that the language of the clause causes offence I will certainly see whether it can be put in different language; but I am a little surprised to find that anybody should have taken this word so hardly. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, does not mean to imply that we are, so to speak, rebuking them in a clumsy and unstylish manner. That had not occurred to me. But I will certainly consider whether any language less

649
likely to offend the sensitive feelings of anybody can be found.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sure we are all most grateful for that assurance from the noble Earl. But may I put it to him that the Committee should not give such wide powers in principle as are laid down in this clause. I think the Committee would be much happier if the powers required were more carefully stipulated so that we understand what we are giving the Board of Trade.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I think the power to make regulations must be sufficient for their purpose, and of course we would always consult the local authorities, except on very small changes in methods of keeping records or something of that kind, for which consultation would be a waste of everybody's time. Apart from that, we would always consult the local authority. I think we must have power to make regulations which are sufficient to achieve the agreed purposes of this Bill. But I will consider whether that cart be done in a way which will not cause so much feeling.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [General powers of inspection and entry]:
6.13 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1) (c), to delete "not being premises used only as a private dwelling-house." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of this clause confers on inspectors of weights and measures certain powers of inspection and entry on premises. Paragraph (c) will authorize an inspector to enter any premises at which he has reasonable cause to believe there is any weighing or measuring equipment which is, or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be, used for trade or in the possession of any person for such use, or any goods which are or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be, goods dealt with by the Bill or by any statutory instrument made under the provision of the Bill. As it stands, however, paragraph (c) would exclude entry into premises used only as a private dwelling-house.
650
The whole point centers on the word "only". I submit that the restriction against entry into private dwelling-houses would unduly fetter inspectors of weights and measures in the performance of their functions. I am sure it is known to your Lordships that many street traders habitually keep all their equipment at home. They do not conduct any of their trade from their home.
I do not know how the clause will be construed, but it is possible that these premises would seem properly to fall within the definition of premises used only as a private dwelling-house. I am sure that while we do not want to do any injustice to street hawkers and similar people, the interests of the public and of consumers are such that street hawkers and similar people who keep their goods and weighing equipment and so on in a private dwelling-house should be liable to come under the inspection of weights and measures inspectors, and that those people should not be in a position of advantage which would he unfair to local traders whose premises are open to inspection because they are shops and so on. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, leave out from ("aforesaid") to the end of line 8.—(Lord Burden.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord has described the powers under this clause. He thinks that he has found a loophole in them. In point of fact, what he suggests in his Amendment would remove the only restriction on the general powers of entry—namely, as he has said, entry into a private dwelling-house which is used only for that purpose. But we feel that this would not only be a departure from existing law, under which an inspector has power to enter premises only where he has reasonable cause to believe that there is any equipment or goods which he is authorized to inspect, but would also be an unwarranted infringement of the rights of the citizen. If an inspector has reasonable cause to believe that what appears to be only a private dwelling-house in fact contains equipment or goods liable to inspection under the Bill, it is most probable that the house would not be being used solely as a private dwelling-house, in which event the restriction on entry would not apply. This would cover the house of a hawker such as the noble Lord has in

651
mind; it would cover his lodging or residence if he stored his wares or his weighing equipment in it.
If, on the other hand, the inspector has no cause to believe that a private house contains equipment or goods which he is authorized to inspect, then he should certainly not have the power of entry. I feel perfectly certain that the noble Lord would absolutely agree upon that. I think that is the definition that the noble Lord wanted—the definition of "only". I hope I have been able to satisfy him on that point.
LORD BURDEN: If the noble Lord can assure me that the word "only" will give the right to the inspector if he has reason to believe that goods or weighing equipment are stored in a house used otherwise as a private dwelling-house, then I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD FARINGDON: With great respect, I do not read this subsection as having the same meaning as the noble Lord has suggested it has. This concerns a right to enter premises on which he has reasonable cause to believe that there is any such equipment or goods on the basis of the premises not being used only as a private house. But he cannot go into the private house.
LORD BURDEN: It is the word "only" that I am concerned with.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The definition is that if he is storing his weighing machines or his wares inside, the inspector is entitled to enter because it is not, within the definition, being used only as a dwelling-house. In case the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is still worried about this, I can add that if any difficulty arises in connection with the inspection of goods or equipment in what appears to be a dwelling-house, but is suspected of being used for trade, the inspector may apply to a justice of the peace for a special warrant of entry, valid for one month, under subsection (3) of the clause. He will of course have to convince the justice by a sworn statement in writing that there is a sufficient reason for securing entry: but that, after all, is a most salutary restriction on an inspector's power, covering any eventuality.
LORD BURDEN: May I suggest to the noble Lord that the only word that is causing difficulty is "only"; and if the word "solely" was substituted for that, then I believe we should know where we were.
LORD SILKIN: Is the noble Lord saying that a dwelling-house which is purely a private dwelling-house ceases to be a private dwelling-house merely because someone takes his scales home at night? I should have thought that that was rather tenuous. While I should not like to be dogmatic about it myself, I can see the noble Lord opening the door to a tremendous amount of litigation on the subject; and I should have thought it would be wiser to have another look at this clause to make quite clear what the Government's intentions are. If what is meant is that because a person is living in a particular place the inspector must not come in, that is all right. But the noble Lord himself has defeated that by saying that the moment a man takes his scales home the place ceases to be a dwelling-house. I think a little clear thinking is needed.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I do not think I have quite said that. The noble Lord is a lawyer and I am not; but if a man takes his scales home with him on one occasion it would be stretching a point to say the place has ceased to be his residence and become his place of business. If, however, the inspector has reason to believe that a man keeps his scales or wares in the house as a habit, then the inspector has a right of entry.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord speaks of his wares, and I would agree that if a man took home his scales and his wares there could be little doubt that the place had ceased to be purely a dwelling-house. But take the case of a man who is a street vendor and merely takes his scales home at night. I should not like to be dogmatic and say that that fact means that the place ceases to be a dwelling house.
LORD FARINGDON: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has interpreted this correctly. The inspector has a right of entry to:
"any premises at which he has reasonable cause to believe there to be …equipment or goods …not being premises used only as a private dwelling-house."

653
In other words, although he has reasonable cause to believe that a private dwelling-house is being used in this way, he cannot enter Lit because it is a private dwelling-house.
LORD BURDEN: May I cut the discussion short by saying that if the noble Lord will look at this matter again between now and the Report stage we shall know where we are? That is preferable to trying to pass it backwards and forwards. On that understanding, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble Lord said: My original intention in putting down this Amendment was to find out from the Government why they were taking away from inspectors the powers to stop a vehicle which they have had under Section 29 of the Weights and Measures Act. But the more I have read this Bill, the more I have come to believe that if subsection (7) is kept in it will weaken the Bill. I would refer the noble Lord to Part IV, Clause 22, subsection (2), paragraphs (g) and (h). Under paragraph (g) when goods are:
"offered for sale, or … in the course of delivery 10 the buyer,"
documents are needed. Under paragraph (h), when goods are:
"carried in a road vehicle along a highway"
they must be:
"accompanied by a document."
It is quite clear that an offence will be committed if the person does not have documents when carrying goods on the highway and in course of delivery.
Then on page 24, in Clause 25, subsection (3) (b) there is a provision relating to:
" any goods … at or in the course of their delivery to a buyer,"
from which one anticipates that various requirements are needed in this Bill to cover goods in transit on a vehicle. Yet in subsection (7) the Government seek to take away from the inspector the power to stop a vehicle. I would submit that if an inspector has not the power to stop a vehicle on the highway he will not be able to make a check to see that the indi-
654
visual concerned is carrying out the provisions previously required in this Bill.
There is one other point I would raise with the noble Lord. It is perfectly true that in this Bill the question of taximeters is not involved. Such meters are not something which, under the Bill, an inspector of weights and measures is required to check. In London that power is given to the police, but I understand that there are certain local authorities who use inspectors for this task, and if this subsection is included in the Bill it means that those local authorities will be unable to expect inspectors to carry out the duties they have been given. I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, first of all to tell us why the Government are taking away powers which inspectors of weights and measures have had for a great many years; and secondly whether he would not agree that if the Bill proceeds with this clause as it stands it will weaken the position with regard to the two other points I have raised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 6, leave out subsection (7):—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: As much as anything else, this is a question of method and what one regards as practicable. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has made clear, the Bill confers on inspectors no powers whatever to stop vehicles on the highway. At present, apart from local Acts, the only vehicles that an inspector is authorized to stop are road vehicles carrying coal. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of that. In fact, such vehicles are more often inspected when they are already stopped; and under the Bill even the right to stop coal lorries is being brought to an end. The Bill does not hinder the inspection of goods on any vehicles already stopped on the highway; and if the driver of a stopped vehicle should drive away after being informed of the inspector's identity and requirements, the provisions of Clause 50 with regard to obstruction and noncompliance with an inspector's request would apply.
In general, the Government do not believe that power to stop vehicles on a highway is necessary to the efficient discharge of an inspector's duties. Existing powers to stop vehicles date from the days of the horse and cart; and nothing will persuade me that the noble

655
Lord belongs in spirit to those days. In future, absence of any such power may call for the exercise of more ingenuity and cause some little trouble to inspectors, but we think this is a small price to pay for freedom from another interference in the ordinary activities of traders and possibly of private individuals using their vehicles for private purposes. Existing powers have, in any case, not extended to sand and ballast, which is the outstanding case in which such powers might have proved most useful in practice. The point with regard to taxis is new to me and I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord an answer on that; but I hope he does not feel that any new imposition or frustration is being placed upon inspectors the effect of which will be to make their work appreciably more difficult.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not want to add to the troubles of the inspector —he will have quite sufficient under this Bill—and I certainly do not want to affect the rights and liberties of the individual. But you are requiring that when goods are moved they shall carry documents (the carrying of documents is important), and I should have thought that inspectors should have the right to stop a vehicle if they suspect that something is going on that should not be. It is not a question of an inspector having to track down a vehicle. I think the inspector should have the power as he has, I admit, on the question of coal. If you have these requirements in the earlier part of the Bill, I think we should give the power to the inspector so that he is able to carry out his duties
LORD ST. OSWALD: I would just emphasize one point which I made before. The most stringent provisions existing to-day in the matter of documentation of goods which can be carried alone the highway are related to sand and ballast, but even in those regulations no provision exists for stopping wagons on the highway. I quite appreciate the noble Lord's wish to assist inspectors. But I have referred, perhaps rather generally, to the need for increased ingenuity; and as the noble Lord is one of the most ingenious people I know myself, I am sure he would not put that past an intelligent inspector.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not quite know how to take the back-handed compliment, but I will look at this matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Obstruction of inspectors]:
6.33 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved in subsection (1) (c) to leave out "performance by the inspector of his duties under" and insert instead "enforcement of". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen paragraph (c) of Clause 50, which deals with the obstruction of inspectors. I understand that legal opinion has been expressed that the words "performance by the inspector of his duties" will prevent the inspector from applying for assistance or information which he might reasonably require for the purpose of general inquiries and investigations. The opinion has been expressed that the word "duties" would be limited to statutory duties, whereas there might be ancillary activities necessary for the purpose of his statutory duties which would not fall within the provisions of this clause dealing with obstruction. It is a little complicated, but the local authorities would be glad to have the matter cleared up in the light of the opinion which has been expressed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 17, leave out from second ("the") to ("this") in line 18 and insert ("enforcement of").—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: I see the noble Lord's purpose and the basis of his anxiety in this matter. There is a certain difficulty in wording, I agree, but, in fact, the word "enforcement" is nowhere defined in this Bill and it is difficult to see what place it could take in this particular clause. In other actions taken by the inspectors under the general excuse of obstruction the position is clear. I cannot advise the Committee Ito accept this Amendment, because it would appear in intention to be widening and making more vague the field in which the public might be held to be obstructing inspectors. That is the difficulty which I feel sure the

657
noble Lord will appreciate. A trader could be expected to know what were the duties of the inspector, but he could hardly be expected to know, or required to know, what might be entailed in the enforcement of the Bill as a whole. Inspectors cannot legitimately need sanctions in support of any steps they may take under the Bill, other than those which relate to the performance of their duties. The subsection as drafted gives them that sanction. As I say, the difficulty of wording is there, but I do not think that the noble Lord's wording here would make the position any easier for the inspector and I think it would certainly make the position very difficult indeed for the trader.
LORD LATHAM: I am not wedded to these words; nor am I wedded to the opinion that has been expressed by legal advisers. But if there is this risk and dubiety about the language of the clause as drafted, or the language of my Amendmen as submitted, I shall be quite content to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter will be looked into to see whether words can be used which do not unduly constrict the area of obstruction or the type of obstruction.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I should add that we are quite satisfied about the words used. I do not mean that because of that I will not look at the noble Lord's suggestion, but we are quite satisfied that the words as they stand do the job they are intended to do.
LORD LATHAM: It is a dangerous situation when a Department is quite satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Prosecution of Offences]:
6.38 p.m.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or the chief officer of police for a police area". The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) empowers the chief officer of police, in addition to the local weights and measures authority, to institute proceedings. This is a matter which I recall I mentioned on the Second
658
Reading of the Bill. The enforcement of the Act is entirely vested in the local weights and measures authority, and it is thought that the power to institute proceedings should be limited to that authority and persons acting in behalf of that authority. It is difficult to see what justification there can be for giving these powers to a chief officer of police, who has no other powers under the Bill, and may not be in any sense aware of the provisions of the Statute or of the arrangements for its operation and the arrangements made for the inspection and the like. He has no qualification, yet he is empowered to take action in connection with legislation or a Statute which will inevitably be technical and complicated.
I should be glad to hear from the noble Earl what is the reason for giving this power to the police. The police are certainly not looking round for extra duties, especially in London, and I believe that it is equally the case in the provinces. Suddenly, as it were, to permit the police to come in at one particular point, when they have had no previous association with the technicalities of this service, seems to me to be a proposal which will hinder rather than advance the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 46, leave out ("or the chief officer of police for a police area ").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As the noble Lord says, the local weights and measures authorities are the authorities responsible for enforcing the Act, but the police have had power to institute proceedings under weights and measures legislation ever since 1926. They have that power already, and I do not think it has ever led to any difficulties. The reasons why it seems desirable for them to possess it, although they may not be the chief agents in using it, are that the power of a chief officer of police to institute proceedings might be useful in cases where a number of offences, not all of them weights and measures offences, have been committed—for example, by a street trader. Or, again, what appears at first sight to be a straightforward weights and measures offence may sometimes, on investigation.

659
reveal facts which indicate the existence of a much more serious offence, such as larceny or conspiracy to defraud, which the police are the proper authorities to handle.
Cases of this kind have occurred under existing legislation, and when they do the inspector hands over to the police the facts which he has unearthed, and eventually appears in court as a witness for the prosecution. I am referring to cases of conspiracy to defraud, which might be begun by discovering some weights and measures offence. One other reason for the police having power to prosecute is that, in the event of a complaint by a member of the public of misconduct or neglect on the part of an inspector, the police would be the right authorities, and possibly the only authorities, who would be capable of making an independent investigation leading to the institution of proceedings.
LORD LATHAM: I confess that I am not only mystified but very disturbed at the proposal to mix up other offences, possibly serious crimes, with the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I should have thought that there was every reasonable objection to that. Apparently the processes of the general criminal law are to be available, in addition to the provisions of this Act, for the enforcement of this Act. I should have thought that that was a little unusual. While it may well be that this provision has not occasioned any difficulties since 1926, the noble Earl did not say that it had been an advantage, or that the enforcement of the existing legislation would have been less effective but for this provision. I should have thought that it was eminently desirable, in all the circumstances, to keep the two things quite separate. If the weights and measures authority are the authority to carry out the provisions of this legislation, let them be so, and do not bring in the police.
LORD SILKIN: I am a little puzzled by the examples which the noble Earl gave, because the examples of larceny, and so on, which he quoted are, of course, cases where obviously the chief of police in the area would come in, but this subsection in this clause provides that "proceedings for any offence
660
under this Act" shall be commenced by the chief officer of police. If it were a case of larceny, then, of course, it would not be under this Act; and similarly with the other example the noble Earl gave. I find it difficult to conceive of a case under this Act where it would be necessary to bring in the chief of police.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Offences under this Act might be connected with a more serious offence, such as a conspiracy to defraud, in which case the chief of police would obviously be the right person to handle it. I do not think that the noble Lord would suggest that there should be two separate prosecutions in two separate courts at two separate times, one for conspiracy to defraud and the other for some offence under this Act. I mentioned that the police had been permitted to institute prosecutions since 1926 simply to show that it is not a new power. It has existed since then; and when I said that it had not occasioned any difficulties, I did not mean, of course, that it has not sometimes been a good thing. It has sometimes been a good thing. Cases of the kind I have mentioned have occurred, and when they have occurred it has been the practice of the inspector up to now to hand over to the police the facts which he has discovered. The prosecution is then brought at the instance of the police, and the inspector may sometimes appear as a witness in the case.
LORD LATHAM: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took the remaining Amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin and myself—Nos. 77 BE, 77 BF, 77 BG and 77 BH—together. In the past, difficulties have frequently arisen in regard to the venial jurisdiction in relation to offences committed within the jurisdiction of one magistrates' court and detected in the jurisdiction of another. It is thought that the extended provisions of the present Bill in relation to transported goods may also produce many more difficulties of this character in the future unless suitable provision is included in the Bill.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This is Amendment No. 77 BG, is it?—at page 44, line 16?
LORD LATHAM: Yes.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): 77 BE was the one I called on, at the bottom of the page.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It concerned the time to elapse between the alleged offence and prosecution.
LORD LATHAM: Amendment No. 77 BE is, of course, the insertion after the word "committed", of the words "or from the date on which the offence is discovered by the prosecutor." It seems to me to be a reasonable proposal to extend the time in this way. It can be to the advantage of the authority, and I do not think it does any injustice to the person who is regarded as having offended against the provisions of the law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 5, after ("committed") insert or from the date on which the offence is discovered by the prosecutor.").—(Lord Latham.)
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The Hodgson Committee recommended two things with regard to this matter. They recommended that the period during which a prosecution could be instituted should be lengthened, and they suggested that the period might run, as it would under the noble Lord's Amendment, from the time of the discovery of the offence and not from the time of the commission of the offence. I ought to explain briefly to your Lordships why we have accepted the first of these two recommendations of the Committee without accepting the second. We are accepting the first because we think it is reasonable that the time should be lengthened. At the present time it is 28 days; under this Bill it is being extended to three months.
The reason why the Government do not feel able to accept the other proposal —namely, that the period should run from the time of the discovery of the offence—is a legal one, which perhaps would be better explained by a legal authority. But I think it is one which a layman could well understand, and I
662
will do my best to put it shortly. Our reasons are that we ought not to require a defendant who wishes to show that the action against him is out of time to bring evidence as to the date of discovery by the prosecutor, which could in many cases be quite unknown to him—that is, to the defendant. Particularly would that be the case in Scotland, where prosecutions are not instituted by local authorities but by procurators fiscal, and a considerable time could elapse between the date on which the inspector found facts which he thought might constitute an offence and the date on which a frill report was made by the inspector of the local authority to the procurator fiscal. Of course, the same would apply in England and Wales if the inspector referred the case to the police. But I will not press that aspect, since the noble Lord has already suggested that the police should not come into it.
May I also point out to your Lordships that the period mentioned in this clause during which proceedings can be instituted does not apply to proceedings under subsection (6) of Clause 26 for a false warranty; that is, a false statement as to the amount of goods made by the wholesale supplier or packer to the retailer—
LORD LATHAM: False representation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes—and it does not apply to proceedings under subsection (4) of Clause 28, where they are instituted against a third party whom the prosecution considers to be the real offender. That is, of course, a case similar in principle. If the proceedings ought to be instituted against the third party, the Bill already recognizes that, because of the prolonged investigations which may be needed after the original detection of the offence, there should be no special time limit. In these cases the provisions of Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, which permit up to six months for the institution of proceedings, compared with three months in this Bill, will apply.
LORD LATHAM: In the light of the explanation given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: This is the Amendment I was referring to, dealing with the

663
overlapping, as it were, of jurisdiction. As I was saying, it is thought that the difficulty could be overcome by giving the prosecutor the option to institute proceedings, either in the jurisdiction where the offence was committed, or, alternatively, in that where the offence was detected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 16, at end insert—
("() Where an offence under the Act is committed in the area of one local weights and measures authority but is discovered or continued within the area of another local weights and measures authority, proceedings may, at the option of the prosecutor, be taken either before a court having jurisdiction in the area within which the offence was committed or before a court having jurisdiction in the area within which lithe offence was continued or discovered.")—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: As this Amendment has again some legal aspects to it, I am relieved to see my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is here, but I hope to be able to get on without him. The Amendment would, in our view, have some consequences which are not desirable. For instance, if an inspector in Yorkshire discovered that the person in charge of a vehicle carrying goods consigned from London to a place in Durham had no delivery note for handing to the consignee, when he ought, according to this Bill, to be carrying such a note in the course and on delivery of the goods, this Amendment would enable that inspector to prosecute before the court in Yorkshire, not only the carrier for not having the delivery note but also the London consignor for not giving a delivery note to the carrier when the goods were dispatched.
This would no doubt be a great convenience to the Yorkshire inspector, but it would be a considerable inconvenience to the witnesses involved in these joint proceedings, both for the prosecution and for the defense, who would have to travel from Durham and London in order to attend proceedings. Among these witnesses would be a London inspector of weights and measures whose assistance would be needed to investigate the London aspect of the proceedings, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, under this Bill the Yorkshire inspector can exercise investigation functions only in his own
664
area. Moreover, the defendant consignor would be put to considerable expense in getting himself and his witnesses from London to Yorkshire; and even if he were acquitted, it is within the discretion of the Yorkshire court not to allow him any of the costs or expenses involved.
I hope your Lordships will share our view that any provision in this Bill which could produce such a result would be unfair. After all, until a defendant is convicted he is not an offender, and no one, in our view, should be put to unnecessary inconvenience and expense in answering a charge under the Bill save for the most exceptional reasons. I do not think there is anything, either in the purpose, the scope or the character of this Bill, or in any of the requirements it imposes, which would justify such a departure from the general rules relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the courts. And it would be undesirable, in my submission, except on very unusual grounds, to make a provision special to this Bill which constituted a departure from such general rules.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I think, on the whole, it is a satisfactory answer to my proposal, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.59 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is put down for the purpose of bringing in the appropriate and related section or sections of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. In some cases of prosecution under the Act, it is expected that it may be necessary to prove an analysis, and therefore suitable provision under the section relating to analysis should be included in the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 16, at end insert—
("() In any proceedings under this Act, the production by one of the parties of a document purporting to he a certificate of a public analyst in the form prescribed under subsection (5) of section ninety-two of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 or of a document supplied to him by the other party as being a copy of such a certificate shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated therein, unless, in the first-mentioned case, the other party requires that the analyst shall be called as a witness.").—(Lord Latham.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Possibly the reason why this Amendment has been put clown is to pave the way for certain other Amendments to the Schedule which would involve some analysis of various kinds of goods. I am sure your Lordships would prefer not to discuss these Amendments in advance until we get to them; but, meanwhile, there is not any provision in this Bill for any kind of analysis. The Bill is concerned purely with quantity—with weights and measures—and so long as there is no provision involving any analysis of goods, there is no reason why the evidence of an analyst should be better than the evidence of any other person. It is, in fact, not relevant to the purpose of the Bill.
LORD LATHAM: I confess that I am not altogether clear about the matter, but perhaps the noble Earl should have the benefit of the doubt, if I may say so with respect, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Penalties]:
7.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: This clause lays down penalties for specific offences, but there seems to be a curious omission: that is, the case of a continuing offence. May I give the noble Earl an example, though it may be a bad one? Suppose a person has been convicted of having unfair scales and goes on using those scales. We feel that such a person ought to be liable to penalties for every day in which he goes on using the scales in respect of which he has been convicted. It is a common thing to have a penalty for continuing offences. We find it in most legislation of this kind, and we think it is right that a penalty for continuing offences should be laid down in the Bill We have suggested £5 a day. The noble Earl may think that that is too much or too little, but we are prepared to discuss it. We certainly think that something of this kind should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 30, at end insert ("and if the offence in respect of which he was convicted is continued after the conviction he shall be guilty of a further offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding five
666
pounds for each day the offence is so continued").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: This Amendment would have the effect of introducing into weights and measures law the principle of special penalties for continuing offences. The noble Lord no doubt has in mind the provisions of Section 106 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, which prescribes a penalty of £5 for each day during which the offence continues after conviction. The Government feel that, whilst such provisions may be appropriate to legislation which is concerned to a great extent with matters of hygiene, they are inappropriate in a Bill dealing with weights and measures. Special penalties for continuing offences need very special scrutiny, and the offences covered in the subsection certainly do not, in the Government's view, merit this treatment. Faked or unjust scales, which the noble Lord has called into example, would be liable to forfeiture, which would enable the court to prevent a continuing offence in the form of their use.
LORD SILKIN: They may be liable to be, but may not in fact be, forfeited. The inspector may take the view that the penalty is good enough. If a trader goes on using such scales, I should have thought that a penalty of this nature would be appropriate. I should like to look at these offences again in the light of what the noble Lord has said and see whether, in addition to the example I have given, there are others where it would be appropriate to have a penalty for continuing offences. This is not a mere formality. I propose to put the Amendment down on Report stage unless the noble Lord, having considered the matter, feels that something of this kind is necessary. Then I should be prepared to give further examples of cases where I think this penalty is appropriate.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should like to say a word on the question of the liability as opposed to the fact of forfeiture. I cannot see why an inspector would be less likely than the noble Lord himself to consider that forfeiture was the proper course to take.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to reconsider this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LATHAM: This Amendment is intended to cover the offences of obstruction mentioned in Clause 50, where such offences are committed with the intention of preventing the discovery of some other offence for which the penalty might be higher than the penalty for obstruction. It is considered that in such circumstances the maximum penalty for obstruction should not be £20, as provided in this clause, but should be the maximum permitted by the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 30, at end insert—
"Provided that, in the case of an offence under subsection (1) of section fifty of this Act, if the Court is satisfied that the person committed that offence with intent to prevent the discovery of some other offence under the Act, or if he has within the twelve months last preceding been convicted of an offence under subsection (1) of section fifty of this Act, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence to which this proviso applies, a fine of two hundred and fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both."—(Lord Latham.)
LORD ST. OSWALD: Our view of this Amendment is that it would produce a result which would be quite inconsistent with the basis on which criminal justice is administered in this country. Under Clause 53, among the offences which attracts a lower maximum penalty of £20 are those which arise under subsection (1) of Clause 50 and relate to what can be described as impeding the inspector in the proper fulfillment of his duties under this Bill. An offence under subsection (2) of Clause 50 which involves fraud and deception will, of course, be subject to the higher penalties prescribed in subsection (2) of Clause 53.
What this Amendment seeks to do is to attach the higher penalties to any offence of impeding an inspector if the court is satisfied that the person committed the offence with intent to prevent the discovery of some other offence under the Bill or if, within the preceding twelve months, he has been convicted of the offence of impeding an inspector under subsection (1) of Clause 50. The criminal law of this country is administered on the broad principle of strict proof and not mere suspicion, belief or even probability; but it is clear that this Amendment means that the court would be entitled to have regard to the fact that the defendant was probably covering up
668
some other conduct which would be an offence under the Bill. It seems quite wrong, in the view of the Government, that any court should be entitled to have regard to something which they suspect has occurred or which may probably have occurred, but of which they have not had strict proof. The court ought only to be guided by other offences of which they have had strict proof in accordance with the proper rules of evidence; and if the inspector is able to establish another offence in accordance with that principle, then that other offence ought to be charged against the defendant. If he cannot so establish it, it ought not to be taken into consideration.
This Amendment, therefore, is unnecessary by any test, if one accepts the principle on which, in the view of the Government, this matter should be determined. The Government recognize that a person may repeat the offence of obstruction from time to time, but it will be a very weak inspector who allows himself to be so obstructed and yet can find no way of tracking down the more serious offence which he suspects is being concealed behind the obstruction. And if he suspects that that offence constitutes some large scale fraud, he can always invoke the assistance of the police. Certainly the fact that extra trouble and difficulty arise for the inspector does not outweigh the very real inequity which. would be involved in raising the maximum penalty on the mere ground of suspicion or probability that another offence is being concealed. These are the reasons for which I cannot advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LATHAM: I must say that I am by no means convinced that the Government are right in rejecting this Amendment. I do not think the Amendment suggests, and I certainly never suggested in the few remarks I made, that a person should be fined before he has been found guilty. I did not suggest anything that ran contrary to the corpus of British law. The offences will have been committed; if not, the court will ascertain whether they were, in fact, committed. Is that not so?
LORD ST. OSWALD: There may be some misunderstanding here. My understanding was, as I said, that the noble

669
Lord was referring to suspected offences. If that is not so, then we must look at it again. The whole of my reply, as the noble Lord realises, was based on that understanding. I do not think we can carry it much further to-night.
LORD LATHAM: It is a matter that might possibly be looked into, and I would only say this. The Amendment relates to offences committed "with intent to prevent the discovery". That would have to be proved. I do not suggest that the inspector could say to the court: I suspect that this man did so and so because of so and so. He would have to prove it; and once he has proved it, the offender would be guilty.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The inspector would also have to prove the major offence, of course.
LORD LATHAM: Yes. If the matter can be looked into, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Regulations and orders]:
7.13 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:
"Before making any order or regulations under arty of the provisions of this Act the Board shall comply with the provisions contained in the Twelfth Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment I am also arguing in favour of the insertion of a proposed new Twelfth Schedule—namely, Amendment No. 183—and I hope that it will be reached while I am still alive. Industry is not at all happy about the provisions of this clause, especially with regard to the provisions for consultation.
If your Lordships look at Clause 55 (2) you will see that it says:
"… the Board shall consult with and consider any representations with respect to the subject-matter of the order …"
It is not only the subject-matter in which industry is interested, but also the method of enforcing the order. In view of the exceptionally wide powers which it is proposed to confer on the Board of Trade to make orders and regulations, I think it is essential that opportunities should be given to persons concerned to
670
make their views known, and that they should be as wide as possible. The object of this Amendment is not only to provide for consultation—which is done in a limited way in the clause as drafted —but to provide for effective consultation. The special procedure set out in the proposed new Twelfth Schedule is modeled upon the requirements relating to the making of special regulations under the Factories Acts, which is understood to work extremely well. If this Amendment is carried, and also the provisions of the proposed Twelfth Schedule later, we shall then have a proper drill laid down to deal with objections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Subsection (1) of Clause 55 lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Board of Trade in the exercise of the powers given to them in the Bill to make orders or regulations. Subsection (2) requires the Board to consult interested parties before making certain orders, and subsection (3) indicates those orders which are to be approved by Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. Subsection (4) provides for the variation and revocation of orders, and subsection (5) provides for statutory instruments containing regulations to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House.
As an alternative to this procedure my noble friend has proposed his new Twelfth Schedule, for which this Amendment clears the way, at the end of the Marshalled List. This proposed Twelfth Schedule would require the Board to publish a notice of any proposal to make orders or regulations in the London Gazette, and in the event of objection being made in writing, to proceed stage by stage up to the holding of a public inquiry. The Amendment seeks to apply public inquiry procedure to the process of making orders and regulations under the Bill, a procedure which, in our view, is unnecessarily cumbersome, tedious and expensive to both industry and public, having regard to the matters likely to be dealt with in the orders and regulations and to the safeguards already incorporated in the clause, which I began by listing to your Lordships.

671
The Amendment will involve a complex and expensive procedure for all orders affecting individual commodities. Such procedures may be appropriate in particular cases, particularly where the general policy objection is agreed, but there may be differences between two interests as to how it is best effected in a particular case. Here, however, there is a variety of conflicting policy interests and frequently a large number of conflicting interests, one of the most important of which, that of the consumer or the man in the street, can hardly be expected to be represented by one or more organizations briefing the counsel who are to appear before the tribunal.
I feel that this procedure would greatly impede flexibility. I think that if it were adopted the Bill would become not at all a consumer's charter in the weights and measures field, but rather a charter for opposition to all attempts to keep our legislation flexible to meet changing conditions, whether these arise in big industry, in small manufacturing firms, in the chain stores or among the small traders, or whether they arise from changes in the buying habits and needs of ordinary consumers. I hope your Lordships will allow me to submit that it would be contrary to the main purposes of this Bill.
LORD JESSEL: I thank my noble friend for his reply and I will carefully consider what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdrew the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
House resumed.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce the arrangements which have been made through the usual channels for the future conduct of this Committee stage. The suggestion is that we should sit late on Monday, sit until dinner-time on Tuesday and, if necessary, sit on Wednesday morning after the Judicial Business, which should be concluded somewhere between 11.30 and a quarter to twelve.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL [H.L.]
Committee stage resumed.
LORD SILKIN: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Burden, I beg to move the next Amendment in his name, which is linked with the following three Amendments. The short purpose of these Amendments is that where it is sought to take away from an existing weights and measures authority the powers under Clause 35 (3) of this Bill, then they should have the right to make representations under Clause 55, which we are now considering. It seems to me eminently reasonable that a local authority such as, for instance, Winchester, which we discussed the other day, should have the right to put forward this argument if the Board of Trade decided to take away their functions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 9, at end insert ("() subsection (3) of section thirty-five;").—(Lord Silkin.)
7.20 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The first effect of these three Amendments is to kill the timetable which has been set, as described by the noble Lord, so leaving the whole timing established by this Bill unsettled. The second effect would be that any authorities which lose the function will not do so automatically under the Bill, but only as a result of an order made by the Board of Trade—presumably a separate order for each case. If the council of a non-county borough with a population below 60,000 decides not to appeal to the Board to be allowed to continue to exercise the function, it will automatically lose the function on March 31, 1963.
The Amendment is designed to enable the process of reducing the number of smaller weights and measures authorities to be spread over a longer and, indeed, indeterminate period. From that, we assume that there is no doubt as to the ability of the Board of Trade to consider individual cases put up by non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population below 60,000 to consult the county councils concerned and to reach a decision by March 31, 1964. The reason is no doubt that the noble Lord thinks that there would be advantage in letting decisions be deferred, at any rate

673
until the first round of recommendations are received as a result of the work of the Local Government Commission and of the county reviews. The Government recognize the force of this, and a non-county borough with a population of considerably less than 60,000, who are already exercising the function, may not be enabled by the Board of Trade order under subsection (5) to retain it. Yet a few years later its population may be increased to 60,000 or more by an order made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, following a report of the Local Government Commission or a county review, and the authority, as a result, will have the right to regain the function at five-yearly intervals thereafter. Thus, a long-established authority could lose the function for a few years, only to regain it later as a result of a boundary change.
This is, however, a field in which perfect solutions acceptable to all the interests concerned are hardly practicable. The Hodgson Committee recommended, in effect that only counties and county boroughs should be weights and measures authorities, and they even advocated that the smaller among these authorities should combine for all weights and measures purposes. There is a great deal to be said for this course, in the interest of both economic and efficient administration. It is not a question of the smaller authorities being inefficient, but that, particularly as trade is conducted more and more on a national or regional basis, the enforcement by bigger units becomes more efficient. Traders and manufacturers operating over wide areas have fewer authorities to deal with, and the establishment of local offices by the local authorities ensure that the enforcement is not remote from the consumer. It is also to the interest of business and consumer alike that the standard of enforcement should be uniform over wide areas.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has seen, the Government have not accepted the Committee's view, and the Bill provides for a large number of non-county boroughs and urban districts to exercise the function if they so wish. By no means all authorities entitled to the function in the past have exercised it. They have combined with other authorities or
674
ceded the function to the county. There are, however, some non-county boroughs which are attached to its exercise, and the Bill therefore enables any non-county borough or urban district with a population of 60,000 to be a weights and measures authority if it wishes. The Bill even goes further by enabling the Board to make orders by which non-county boroughs and urban districts with a population below that figure may, in special circumstances, be enabled to act as a weights and measures authority. So, in both these respects, the Bill constitutes a considerable watering-down of the Hodgson Committee's recommendations. The Government consider that this is a justified compromise between the arguments for the county and county borough only, on the one hand, and the need to keep a lively civic organization in the smaller units of local government.
LORD SILKIN: I cannot help thinking that, owing to the lateness of the hour and the long time the noble Lord has been sitting on the Bench, he has misconceived the point here and is reading the wrong brief. This is a very simple point. I am not arguing whether any particular weights and measures authorities should or should not remain. I am not arguing the case of the county boroughs or the non-county boroughs. All I am saying is that, before the President of the Board of Trade makes an order depriving a weights and measures authority of these powers, that authority should have the right to make representations in accordance with the particular section with which we are dealing. That seems to me so reasonable that I should have thought, subject to the drafting of the Amendment in the name of my noble friend—which I had not come prepared to deal with, but as he is not here I think his opinion ought to be put—the Government would at once accept it. Surely they will not deprive a local authority of its powers without giving it a right to make representations. That is all this series of Amendments really asks for. I am not saying that they should not deprive anybody. I hope that the noble Lord will examine this and see that no authority is deprived of its powers unless it has had the opportunity of making recommendations.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The series of Amendments which the noble Lord has

675
just moved on behalf of his noble friend are consequential on an Amendment which he withdrew on Tuesday at page 34. Therefore, since the noble Lord again moved these consequential Amendments, I was obliged, reluctantly, to repeat the same arguments which persuaded his noble friend to withdraw them yesterday.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think so. I do not think they are consequential. I think this is a new point, an entirely new thing—that if you deprive a local authority of its powers it should be able to make representations.
LORD ST. OSWALD: May I make a point? No formal requirement of consultation is needed in respect of local authorities who may lose the weights and measures function. They have the right of appeal to the Board of Trade if they wish to keep that function. It is in this form of consultation that the local authorities can lay before the Board all the arguments they wish to deploy in favour of their retaining the function. Does that answer the noble Lord's question?
LORD SILKIN: That comes much nearer to the point we are discussing. If the noble Lord is saying that they already have the right to make recommendations in some form, which I presume is acceptable—I will have another look at that—then, of course, there is no need to specify it still further. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation]:
7.30 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, in the definition of "pre-packed", after "proved" to insert:
"which may be done by a statement marked or printed on the container to the effect that the article is not for retail sale".
The noble Lord said: In various industries goods sold by the ton, or multiples of a ton, are made up, for the convenience of handling, into containers—for example, 1 cwt. bags or 5 gallon drums; but it is not intended that the individual
676
package or container should be sold by retail singly. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in such cases the manufacturer or trader may elect to treat such a consignment as a bulk sale provided that he gives due notice on the container that the package is not for sale retail singly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 12, after ("proved") insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We have now reached the definition clause, and one of the definitions in that clause is of the, word "pre-packed", which is stated to mean
"made up in advance ready for retail sale in or on a container".
The Bill makes it an offence to have in possession for sale unmarked containers of many categories of pre-packed goods, and the definition goes on to provide that any article made up in a container which is found on any premises where such articles are made up or stored for sale shall be deemed to be pre-packed unless the contrary is proved. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to establish that, in order to prove the contrary, it shall be sufficient that the container is marked with a statement that the article is not for retail sale; in other words that the bare statement on the article shall be accepted as proof. As the Bill is drafted it places on the packer who claims that certain packs are not pre-packed, within the meaning of the Bill, the onus of proof that this is in fact the case. And, of course, a statement on the package that it was not for retail sale would be prima facie evidence of this fact. But to provide that prima facie evidence is the same thing as indisputable proof would, I think, tear a hole in the protection which this Bill is intended to afford to the consumer of pre-packed goods, and I am afraid that the Government could not see their way to accept an Amendment of that kind.
LORD STONHAM: Might I ask the noble Lord a question on this point? The definition of "pre-packed" is not entirely clear to me. In dealing with his noble friend's Amendment he has not clarified the position. Does it mean that "pre-packed" could possibly cover the containers only? From what he said I thought that would

677
be possible. But in, my view "pre-packed" can mean only that the outer covering or container has something inside it. Surely it would not be an offence for the manufacturers of all sorts of containers to have them stored empty in a warehouse waiting to be sent to the people who are going to put goods into them?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: An empty container could not possibly be pre-packed. The definition of "pre-packed" in Clause 59 is at page 48, lines 7 to 15. What the Bill does is to place on the person in whose possession the goods are the onus of proving that (they are not pre-packed. As has often been explained on earlier occasions, we have felt this was the only way in Which we could give adequate protection to the consumer. The onus on the possessor is to show that the goods are not prepacked within the meaning of the Act. All this Amendment does is to propose that a statement written on the container that it is not for retail sale shall be sufficient evidence that it is not for retail sale; and that is what we can not accept.
LORD STONHAM: If a container has nothing in it that presumably would be reasonable evidence that it was not pre-packed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This sounds to me like a question out of Alice in Wonderland. I see no difficulty in agreeing to the fact that a container which contains nothing is not packed with anything.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should like to be quite clear. I am naturally very Interested in this sort of thing. The definition at page 48, lines 7 to 15, is, I think, fairly clear. It is concerned with the pre-packing of stuff ready for retail sale. But is it sufficient simply to put on the outside of a package which contains, say, two dozen (or whatever the quantity is) that it is for sale wholesale, to escape any inspection to discover whether the weight proposed to be sold to a retail customer by a retailer is the right weight? I am not quite clear what the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is after. If he could explain a little more I might be in sympathy, but prima facie it seems to me that the Government are right here.
LORD JESSEL: I do not want anybody to get into trouble because one pack is underweight. It is the whole bulk total which is to be the prescribed weight.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The container which is only for wholesale sale is the one on which you want to put the special marking? Could you name a commodity pre-packed ready for the retailer to sell which would have reference to one pack? I do not follow it. If you are going to have a cardboard container which has two dozen pots or cans or packages already made up, surely if they are being sold to a retailer to sell again each one should be the correct weight, should it not?
LORD JESSEL: They are not being sold to a retailer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What are they doing pre-packed?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Perhaps I could help. Pre-packed goods are exempted if it is proved that they are not for retail sale. My noble friend's Amendment accepts the fact that they should be inspected if they are not for retail sale. The Amendment proposes that the fact that they are marked not for retail sale should he sufficient evidence that they are not for retail sale: and that is what the Government cannot accept.
LORD SILKIN: There is very little difference between the two noble Lords, if I may help to reconcile them. It is that in the one case the Amendment wants this statement to be conclusive evidence, whereas the Government are saying that that can be put forward as evidence if there is a prosecution but that it is not conclusive. Is not that the only difference?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Exactly.
LORD LATHAM: It is a question of where the onus of proof lies.
LORD JESSEL: I am a little disappointed, because I was led to believe that this Amendment was acceptable. But in view of what the noble Earl has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD JESSEL: Although one cannot expect interpretations for all the words and phrases used in this Bill, there appear to be a number of occasions where an interpretation would assist your Lordships and the general public in understanding this difficult and complex piece of legislation. A meaning of "retail sale" which will not be open to argument seems to be necessary, and it appears essential in the public interest that the words should be defined in the Bill itself and not left to be settled in the course of a series of court proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 17, at end insert ("'retail sale' means a sale by way of trade to a person buying otherwise than for the purpose of resale or otherwise than for use or consumption in any trade or business;").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The phrase "retail sale" is at present used in the Bill only in one place, namely in the definition of "pre-packed" which we have just been talking about, and in that context the words do not occur in isolation but are part of a longer phrase which runs "made up in advance ready for retail sale". The Bill as drafted does not define the term "retail sale", and my noble friend's Amendment proposes to insert a definition of it in the interpretation clause. Possibly the object of my noble friend in moving this Amendment may be the same which led him to move the preceding one, which seeks to vary the definition of what is pre-packed—that is to say, that a packer should be free of all inquiry by a local inspector whenever he is packing goods which he intends for sale for ultimate consumption in a trade or business.
The essential question underlying the definition of "pre-packed" and the present Amendment is the position of the factory packer. Certain goods are, when pre-packed, required by the Schedule to be marked with their quantity, or in a few cases to be made up in specified quantities, as soon as they are held in possession for sale. The packer who is making up those particular goods in containers wants to know at the packing stage whether they must conform to these requirements. The answer given by the definition of "pre-packed" is that it depends on whether the goods are being made up in advance
680
ready for retail sale. In ordinary language, the question is whether the packer is making up what would ordinarily be known as a retail pack. If, the definition of pre-packed says, in effect, it looks like a retail pack, then it shall be assumed to be so unless the contrary is proved. In most cases the facts will be self-evident, one way or the other. The only difficulty which appears to arise is that of the packer who, first, has a substantial business in selling to processors and builders, as well as in supplying the retail market; who, secondly, also wishes to use the same pack for both markets, and who, thirdly, wishes to avoid a marking or other requirement of the Schedules when selling to what might be called the non-retail side of his business.
In order to deal with the special and limited problem which can relate only to one or two of the pre-packed goods covered by the Schedule, the Amendment introduces at the packing stage the question of exactly how the goods are going to be used some weeks or months later. The average packer cannot know this. Nor can the inspector. Nor could a court. In fact, if this Amendment were accepted without the previous one, which my noble friend has not pressed, it would mean that the definition of pre-packed would become nonsensical, because goods would only be pre-packed if they were going to be consumed by the man in the street, but this would be assumed in all cases unless the contrary was proved. I am afraid that the Government must, therefore, resist this Amendment, like the last, because it would produce a general weakening of consumer protection over the whole field in order to solve the problem of one or two particular trades which can be properly considered only in the context of those particular cases as they arise in the Schedule.
LORD JESSEL: I am afraid I shall have to read that reply in order properly to understand it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN had given notice of his intention in subsection (1) to insert the following definition:
"'volume', in relation to wood fuel, may include the overall cubic measurement of a regularly piled stack of such fuel".
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I understand that this Amendment is not moved.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was rather hoping to get the feeling of the noble Earl upon the effect of this Amendment. I know the Amendment is not moved and therefore we cannot have it as an Amendment before the Committee. If it had been moved is it likely to have been accepted by the Government or by the Board of Trade? Because, it follows that it might have some effect upon businesses of different kinds concerned both with the farm and with retail distribution as well.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It does indeed, and if my noble friend had moved his Amendment I should have said that I was considering the whole question of fuel, which I think needs more examination in relation to this Bill—particularly wood fuel.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF DUNDEE THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved to add at the end of subsection (1)
"and, without prejudice to paragraph (b) of this subsection, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section eighty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 (which relates to the authorities responsible for enforcing certain of the provisions of that Act) the reference to local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, shall be construed as a reference to local weights and measures authorities for the purposes of this Act."
The noble Earl said: We have got now to Part IV of the Bill, which provides for regulating certain transactions in goods and which will not come into operation until two years after the passing of the Bill. In the meantime, the marking of pre-packed commodities will be controlled by the marking regulations made under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, and that Act will be repealed when Part IV of this Bill comes into operation. Those marking regulations specify, and are required by the Act of 1955 to specify, that they are enforceable by the local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936. When Part V of this Bill comes into operation six months after its enact-
682
ment, there will be no such authorities, because the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, will be repealed and replaced by the provisions of Part V of this Bill. It is necessary, therefore, to enable the marking regulations made under the Act of 1955 to provide for their enforcement, but by the local weights and measures authorities exercising functions by virtue of this Bill. Until that is done there will be no authorities capable of enforcing those regulations after six months from the enactment of this Bill. The Amendment which I now move does this by providing that the reference in the Act of 1955 to local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts is to be construed as a reference to local weights and measures authorities for the purposes of this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 66 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Measures and Weights Lawful for Use for Trade]:
LORD FARINGDON: This is a small Amendment, intended principally to protect the small householder. Builders merchants frequently sell small quantities of goods, principally of sand and ballast and things of that kind, to the people who were referred to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Latham yesterday, as "Do-it-yourself" buyers. There is a particular reason why I hope the Government may be prepared to accept this Amendment: it is that this one-quarter cubic yard will, I think, satisfactorily replace the bushel which, five years after the entering into force of this Bill, will no longer be an approved measure. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 9, leave out ("Measures of, or of any multiple of,½ cubic yard") and insert ("Measures of ¼ cubic yard, ½ cubic yard or of any multiple of ½ cubic yard'').—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: For the reasons which the noble Lord has given,

683
and one or two others, the Government are willing to accept this Amendment in principle. It has been represented to the Board of Trade that measures of ¼ cubic yard and multiples of that size are needed in connection with the sale of ready-mixed cement and ready-mixed concrete. The Amendment would not permit this, although the Government recognize that when the bushel, ½ bushel and peck measures are abolished under Clause 10 five and a half years after the enactment of the Bill, a ¼ cubic yard measure may help traders who supply certain goods, such as horticultural sundriesmen, selling peat, soil, proprietary composts and so on. The measure is equal to 6¼ gallons and is therefore almost midway in size between the bushel and the half bushel. At a later stage I propose to table Amendments which will provide both for the ¼ cubic yard and also its multiples.
LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Earl has referred to horticultural establishments. I am particularly interested in measurement in relation to reject stones from a gravel works where there are different methods of sifting and so on. If a farmer under this new legislation, when it becomes statutory, wants so many cubic yards or part cubic yards for making his roads and paths, will that be in order under this new proposal?—because at present there is no difficulty in getting a cubic yard at a time. I am not quite sure how this new arrangement will work.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I gave only some examples of commodities with which this will be more convenient, and I am glad to hear from the noble Viscount that there will be others. The Schedule applies, of course, to measures of volume which are legal for all purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
7.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Paragraph 1 of Part IV of the Third Schedule, as presently drafted, would permit any
684
measure of capacity, no matter of what material it was made, to be subdivided if its capacity was one quart or over. The only subdivisions permissible would, however, be gallons, quarts and pints, in the case of measures of over 1 gallon capacity; quarts and pints, in the case of measures of 1 gallon capacity; and pints, in the case of measures of 1 quart capacity. The existing regulations permit glass measures of 1 pint capacity and over to be subdivided into half pints, and it is the Government's intention that this should continue to be permissible. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 21, leave out from ("which") to end of line 23 and insert ("shall not be marked with divisions or subdivisions except in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed.")—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: This Amendment corresponds with the Amendment I have just moved to paragraph 1 of this Part of the Third Schedule and is designed to put the subdivision of metric measures on the same basis as that of the imperial fluid ounce, fluid drachms and minim measures. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 12, leave out from ("which") to end of line 14 and insert ("shall not be marked with divisions or subdivisions except in such cases and in such manner as may be prescribed.").—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: We have now reached the end of the Fourth Schedule. In the Fifth Schedule there are a fairly large number of Amendments. I feel that we have made extraordinarily good progress to-day, and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your help and co-operation in accelerating our proceedings on this Bill. I feel that if only we can get an early start on Monday we might make very good progress indeed on that day, and possibly it might not then be necessary to sit on Wednesday morning, which I am sure none of us wants to do; but that is partly a question of luck, as we all realize.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Our progress on this Bill must depend upon what other Government Business is put on the Order Paper before the Committee stage of the Bill on Monday and Tuesday next. That is one thing about which we are nervous So far I am not too gloomy, but one cannot be certain.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is a question of whether we can get an early start on Monday.
House resumed.

  VISITORS' EXPENDITURE IN GREAT BRITAIN
  VISITORS' EXPENDITURE IN GREAT BRITAIN
  PLANNING PROCEDURE AND HARROW ROAD OFFICE BLOCK
  PLANNING PROCEDURE AND HARROW ROAD OFFICE BLOCK