Sitting of 16 February 1960

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

    Africans (Technical Training)
    Mr. Pargiterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities exist in Northern Rhodesia for Africans to receive elementary training which will enable them to qualify for training as engineers or technical experts; what qualifications are required for such positions; and how many Africans receive training or qualify outside the territory.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): As the Answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Pargiter: While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for promising to circulate an Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I say that I hope it will be rather more instructive than previous Answers have been and indicative of a very much greater effort in this direction than there has been in the past? After all, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not much good our complaining about the activities of the European Mineworkers' Union on behalf of the Africans whilst we are doing so little ourselves?
    Mr. Macleod: It is a very detailed Answer giving all the information that I have, and if the hon. Member would like to raise other points on it perhaps when he has studied it he might like to come to see me.
    Following is the Answer:
    Northern Rhodesia Africans have the opportunity to obtain the Cambridge Overseas School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate, possession of which makes them eligible for bursaries to enable them to obtain further training at a university or college. The
    1102
    Hodgson Technical College in Lusaka provides courses at craftsmen level in the engineering and building trades up to the Intermediate Certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute. Under the Northern Rhodesia Apprenticeship Ordinance opportunities for apprenticeship are open equally to Europeans and Africans who have completed two years of secondary education.
    The qualifications required for engineering and technical posts vary, but the same qualifications are required of both European and African applicants.
    One Northern Rhodesia African has recently obtained an engineering degree at Leeds University and he is now receiving practical training with a firm of agricultural engineers. It is hoped to send two technical teachers for training in the U.K. during 1960–61 and thereafter up to four a year on technical (craft) courses under the Commonwealth Education Conference schemes.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Students and Teachers
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is given by his Department to encourage students and teachers, respectively, to participate in exchange or other schemes in Colonial Territories; and what is the number of each, respectively, who have taken part in such schemes in the year 1958–59.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: There are no exchange schemes. But about 17,000 students from Colonial Territories were studying in the United Kingdom during 1958–59 and in 1959 the Colonial Office alone recruited 257 teachers for service in Colonial Territories.
    Mr. Millan: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether, now that a number of universities are developing in Colonial Territories, he does not think it very important that the exchange of students should take place in other directions as well? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something positive about that, because my impression at the moment is that very few British students do, in fact, go to universities in the Colonies?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree that in the future this is a development that we would like to see; we would like to see a two-way traffic develop. We help in one small way through Colonial Development and Welfare grant to one organisation, and if there are other ways of helping I shall be very glad to study them.

    Passports
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why applications for passport renewals or endorsements from British subjects and British protected persons from British Colonial Territories, now temporarily resident in this country, are referred to the Governors of the Territories concerned, so causing unnecessary delays and annoyance to the persons concerned and whether he will take steps to discontinue this practice and simplify the procedure for such passport endorsements.
    Mr. Marshasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will discontinue the practice of referring to Governors of Colonial Territories in Africa applications for endorsements of passports held by Africans temporarily resident in this country.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): The power to issue passports under Royal prerogative to persons belonging to Colonial Territories is legally and constitutionally vested in the Governments of those Territories. It follows therefore that the renewal or endorsement of passports is also a matter for their discretion, with which by longstanding practice my predecessors have not interfered. I do not propose to depart from that practice.
    In fact, many applications for renewals or endorsements of Colonial passports are, by arrangement with Colonial Governments, dealt with by the United Kingdom authorities without reference back; but it is plainly open to Colonial Governments to require that some or all applications, or classes of applications, should be referred to them for decision.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this bureaucratic system leads, very often, to quite unnecessary delays and that the second part of his reply indicates that there is political discrimination? As an illustration of that discrimination, will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look again at the case of Mr. Manda, a very responsible person from Nyasaland, who was prevented from going on a visit to Tunis by an unnecesary delay in his application being endorsed?
    Mr. Amery: I believe that Mr. Manda's case was cleared by telegrams. I do not think that the delay was excessive. I do not think that this is a case of bureaucratic interference. The more self-government a Colonial Government have the more it must be left to their discretion what they do in the issue of passports.
    Mr. Marsh: Is it not monstrous that a British citizen in this country should be denied freedom of travel, which is the right of any other person in this country? Is the Minister aware of the case of Mr. W. D. Colley, which I raised with him in December? Mr. Colley applied for a passport to go to Gambia in June, but did not receive a reply until 31st July, when he was told that he could have a temporary passport provided he gave the reasons and proof of where he was going and why—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Also, does not the Minister think that the liberties of people under the control of this House are important enough to discuss in full?
    Mr. Amery: In reply to the hon. Member's first point, I am sure that he will appreciate that, as self-government increases, certain powers must necessarily be more and more delegated to the Governments of the Territories concerned. I will gladly look further into the case of Mr. Colley, which he has sent to me, but Mr. Colley was offered certain facilities of which he did not choose to avail himself.
    Mr. Stonehouse: How does the hon. Member's point about self-government apply to Nyasaland?
    Mr. Amery: I think that that is a very different question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not such a difficult question, but a different question.

  BRITISH SOMALILAND

    Pan-Somali Conference, Mogadishu
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what official representatives from British Somaliland attended the Pan-Somali Conference at Mogadishu on 31st December last; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The persons from the Somaliland Protectorate who

    1105
    attended the recent Conference in Mogadishu of the Pan-Somali National Movement did so as representatives of their political parties and not as official representatives of the Somaliland Protectorate Government.
    Mr. Rankin: Since Somalia will become independent in July of this year and British Somaliland will get responsible government later on, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that a feeling is growing up that these two Territories may eventually form a viable unit? Has he given any thought to that aspect of the conference and its results?
    Mr. Macleod: We have certainly studied this possibility. Indeed, more than a year ago, on 9th February, my predecessor said that if after Somalia became independent there were a desire for such discussions we would facilitate them. That remains the position of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Rankin: May I take it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman will give some encouragement to this movement?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman may take it, as I have said, that the position of Her Majesty's Government remains this February as it was last February.

  MALTA

    Demonstrations
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why demonstrations on Labour Day and National days have been prohibited in Malta, especially in view of the fact that no incidents have occurred on these festivals for several years.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: There is no such prohibition. During 1959 demonstrations were held on both May Day and National Day.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware, that, according to my information from Malta, the conditions laid down for meetings and demonstrations are such as to make it almost impossible for a demonstration to be held? Is not it right that we should give these men every opportunity to express themselves in a democratic spirit in every way possible?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, but the hon. Member asked a specific question—are demonstrations being prohibited? The answer is that not only is there no such prohibition but last year these demonstrations did take place.

    Mr. Mintoff (Letters)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why letters addressed to Mr. Dom Mintoff, former Prime Minister of Malta, are being opened by the authorities; and what authorisation, by warrant or otherwise, is required before such letters can be opened in Malta.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No letters addressed to Mr. Mintoff have been opened by the authorities in Malta. For this to be done a Governor's Warrant under the Seditious Propaganda (Prohibition) Ordinance would be required, and no such Warrant has been issued.
    Mr. Benn: While I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, which will be very well received elsewhere, may I ask him whether he is aware that Mr. Mintoff has received letters from Mr. Nehru and from the United Nations, both in new envelopes and both containing the note, "Found damaged and secured in the post", and that his suspicions, not unnaturally, have been aroused by these events?

    Political Demonstrations (Film)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the police in Malta took a cine-camera film of the political demonstrations held on 8th December, 1959; who authorised this; what use is being made of the film; and whether he will make it available for Members of the House who wish to see it.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The police practice of taking films and photographs of gatherings which might possibly lead to disturbances originated over twenty years ago. They are taken only on the direct authority of the Commissioner of Police. The film taken on 8th December is being kept for record purposes and a copy can be made available for those Members of the House who may wish to see it.
    Mr. Benn: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his

    1107
    reply, which will enable Members of this House to see the strength of feeling among the people of Malta about the policy which is being pursued.

  NYASALAND

    State of Emergency (Financial Assistance)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what assurances have been given to the Financial Secretary of Nyasaland as to the financial assistance which will be forthcoming from this country towards the cost of the emergency in Nyasaland;
    (2) what steps are being taken to expand the police forces in Nyasaland, and at what cost to the British Exchequer.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Assistance is being provided to the Government of Nyasaland towards financing a programme to strengthen the provincial administration and the Police Force, which has been worked out since the emergency.
    Towards this programme, and certain costs arising out of the emergency, Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide up to the following amounts in the period to the end of the financial year 1961–62:

    (a) £1,268,000 capital expenditure on the police;

    (b) £254,000 capital expenditure on the provincial administration;

    (c) £288,000 for emergency items.

    The Nyasaland Police Force establishment at 31st March, 1959, was 54 gazetted officers, 103 inspectors and 1,109 other ranks. It is proposed to expand the Force by an additional 40 gazetted officers, 62 inspectors and 1,037 other ranks.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the Nyasaland Government have announced their intention of expanding the Police Force so as to provide one policeman to every 850 inhabitants, as compared with one policeman to every 1,500 inhabitants in this country, and this at a time when barely half the children in Nyasaland are receiving any education at all in schools? Would not it be far better (a) to abolish the emergency and to save British taxpayers' money, and (b) to see that British taxpayers'
    1108
    money is spent on educating the people of Nyasaland instead of repressing them?
    Mr. Macleod: No. I think anybody who studies the situation would agree that the police force in Nyasaland was far too small. It is not being expanded wholly as a result of the emergency. It is quite true, as the hon. Lady says, that after this expansion has taken place there will be one policeman to every 850 people. Before that the figure was one policeman to every 1,420 people. In Northern Rhodesia, for example, there is one policeman to 537 people, and I do not think that anybody would suggest that this new expansion is one which will make the police force in Nyasaland relatively too large.
    Mr. Callaghan: As this additional burden, of more than £1 million, is to be borne by the British taxpayer wholly as a result of the opposition of the people of Nyasaland to federation, may I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he proposes to make any approach to the Federal Government to see whether it is willing to bear part of the cost of this emergency for so much of which its policy is responsible?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that the hon. Member can have heard part of my answer to the supplementary question put by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Quite apart from the emergency, the ratio of one to 1,420—as will be appreciated by the hon. Member who knows police matters very well indeed—indicates that the Police Force is far too small. Quite irrespective of the emergency, it would certainly be appropriate to increase the strength of the police force in Nyasaland.

    Blantyre Incident (Inquiry)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made to make available to the Southworth inquiry the evidence of journalists who were in Blantyre at the time of the Prime Minister's visit.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The editors of those newspapers and agencies whose correspondents were present on the occasion are being invited to make them available to give evidence before the Commission.
    Mrs. White: Does that mean that they will be sent to Nyasaland at the expense of Her Majesty's Government, or will Mr. Justice Southworth come to this country to take evidence?
    Mr. Macleod: No. The Governor has agreed that, if people wish to give evidence in person, their fares can be paid from Nyasaland public funds. Alternatively, it is possible for them, if they wish, to put in sworn statements.

    Dr. Banda
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress he has made in his promised consideration of the proposal that Dr. Banda should be transferred from a Federal prison to a place under his own control.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: When Dr. Banda was first detained, the Governor of Nyasaland considered that his removal to a place outside Nyasaland was essential to the restoration of public order in the territory. In the Governor's opinion it would not be in the interests of public order to remove him to a place of detention in Nyasaland.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: In that case, will the Colonial Secretary consider releasing him altogether?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that that is a point which has not escaped me.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the position really this: that the Government want to release Dr. Banda, Dr. Banda refuses to be released unless his compatriots accompany him, and the Governor says that he proposes to resign if the Government release him? Is there any chance of escaping from this muddle?
    Mr. Macleod: At the most, one of those three propositions is correct.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS

    Dentists
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the people of the Falkland Islands have been without the services of a qualified dentist since last April; and what action he is now taking to ensure the appointment of a suitable man.
    Mr. J. Amery: It has proved very difficult to recruit dentists for the Falkland Islands but the Department is now in touch with two suitable dentists. An offer of appointment has been made to one of them and we are awaiting his reply.
    Sir A. Hurd: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is a serious matter that people in the Falkland Islands should be deprived of the services of a qualified dentist? If he cannot now make a permanent appointment, will he see that some qualified person is sent there as soon as possible to catch up with the arrears of work now outstanding?
    Mr. Amery: We are doing the best we can. The idea is that someone should go for one-and-a-half years.

  ST. HELENA

    Union Castle and Clan Line Ships (Visits)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how frequently vessels of the Union Castle and Clan lines call at St. Helena; and what subsidy per ship is paid to the companies concerned.
    Mr. J. Amery: Once a month in each direction. With effect from 1st January, 1960, a subsidy of £2,500 is paid per call at both St. Helena and Ascension Islands by a passenger ship and £1,000 per call by a cargo ship.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Under-Secretary aware that one passenger vessel provides an income of £500 for the island where the population is extremely poor, and that therefore this is a major source of income? Would he consider having discussions with the shipping companies concerned to see whether more frequent calls can be made at St. Helena?
    Mr. Amery: We have been looking at this matter. I can tell the hon. Member that it has not been easy even to make arrangements on the lines on which I have just spoken.

    Constitution
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what constitutional developments are proposed for St. Helena.
    Mr. J. Amery: The Governor has submitted to my right hon. Friend his proposals for a revision of the Advisory Council to include elected members. My right hon. Friend has now been able to consider these and is communicating his views to the Governor.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the elected members will be in the majority over the nominated members on the Council? Would he be good enough to say to which of the two Councils they are to be elected?
    Mr. Amery: I think it would be wrong of me to disclose the exact details until the Governor has had an opportunity of commenting on my right hon. Friend's reply to him.
    Mr. Reynolds: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended that, wherever possible, any of these proposals shall be extended to Ascension which, at the moment, as he is aware, is under benevolent company dictatorship?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot anticipate the reply of the Governor.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES

    Civil Services (Conference)
    Mr. Tapsellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what current steps are being taken to review the need for building up local civil services in Africa.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: A conference of senior officers from the African Territories will be held at the Colonial Office, under the chairmanship of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, beginning on 1st March, to exchange information on the measures adopted in various Territories to build up the locally recruited element in their public services and to consider what further steps can be recommended to the Governments of the Territories to expedite this process, to which Her Majesty's Government attach very great importance.
    Mr. Tapsell: I welcome that reply. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether overseas unofficial Ministers will be invited to attend this conference?
    Mr. Macleod: No, this is a conference of officials, and elected Ministers will not attend. But naturally I shall study the
    1112
    recommendations of the conference, as will the Governor and the Ministers who have responsibility in this sphere.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that we shall be very happy to give him our support in the arrangement of this conference and we hope that it will be successful?

  FIJI

    Disturbances, Suva (Inquiry)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given to the request of the Association of the Sons of the Pioneers of Fiji that a parliamentary delegation should be sent to act as observers at the inquiry that is to be conducted by the Chief Justice of Fiji into the recent disturbances in Suva, following the strike of oil workers.
    Mr. J. Amery: Neither my right hon. Friend nor the Governor has received such a request.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Association is the only one in Fiji in which the representation is part-European and the members want to give evidence before the Commission, but in the difficult racial position which now exists, they want it made clear to them that they will be given every assistance in giving evidence? May I ask whether that assistance will be provided?
    Mr. Amery: We shall certainly give all reasonable assistance to all representative groups to express their views. The purpose of the Commission is to find out the facts and that is why the Chief Justice has been appointed to it.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Bills, Regulations and Enactments
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will arrange for the Bills, Regulations and enactments of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland to be made available in the Library of the House of Commons immediately on publication.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am always ready to make particular documents of interest to hon. Members available in the Library

    1113
    of the House, but it does not seem to me to be practicable to make the entire legislative proceedings of any Colonial Territory available in this way.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Cannot the Minister be a little more forthcoming? Does not he appreciate that during this critical period of development in Central Africa it is immensely important that this House should be kept up to date and fully acquainted with the legislative enactments carried out there? Does he appreciate that in the Public Security Bill provision is made for drastic measures, such as conscripting labour, and, in so doing, discriminating between black and white? Does not he further agree that it is extremely important that this House should be kept fully informed at the earliest possible moment about what is going on?
    Mr. Macleod: I am very ready to help the hon. and learned Member, or any hon. Member, on this matter, but it cannot be done in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I could not make the documents available immediately on publication because to do so I should have to have copies of them before they were published. But I do not think it right—because what I do for one Territory I should have to do for all the others—that we should try to keep under the microscope the individual legislative programmes of the thirty-eight Territories. That is against the whole theme of devolution of responsible Government from this House. On the other hand, I will try to help the hon. and learned Gentleman or any other hon. Members who would like special arrangements made for them in special circumstances, but I would not do this for all Territories, nor would I wish it to be a continuing process.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the Minister appreciate that precisely for that reason and owing to the critical situation in Central Africa at the moment the Question was limited to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia? Would he not make a special arrangement owing to the special circumstances that apply there?
    Mr. Macleod: I fully understand that. If I were to do that for these Territories, I do not see how I could resist doing it for other Territories. I am very ready to consider whether the information that
    1114
    comes is adequate. I know the great interest of hon. Members in these matters, but I should like to leave it in this way. If an hon. Member would like information about a particular document, I will try to make it available to him or put it in the Library of the House. I will look into the question whether the main legislative enactments of particular Territories can be made available in the light of what the hon. and learned Member has said.

  KENYA

    Constitutional Conference
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the progress of the Constitutional Conference on Kenya.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The main groups concerned have stated their position in relation to proposals which I have circulated to the Conference. Some measure of agreement was revealed, and I welcome this. The Conference has now gone into committee to consider safeguards and other outstanding matters. I hope to be able to make a full statement to the House in a few days.
    Mr. Wall: Does not my hon. Friend agree that for a real solution to these very difficult problems it is necessary for the two major parties to agree to work the new constitution at least for a period of years and for the African elected members to agree to take part in the Government?
    Mr. Macleod: I have always sought a wide measure of agreement, and this is one of the reasons why the Conference has gone on so long. I think that it has been well worth the search. I am sure that we must try to seek agreement in Kenya. I am also sure that it would help if the African elected members were able to take part in the Government, but, of course, that is a matter for them.

  BAHAMAS

    Health and Education Boards (Appointments)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why no women have been appointed to the Boards responsible for health and education in the Bahamas.
    Mr. J. Amery: In making such appointments the Governor, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board concerned, selects those best fitted to serve irrespective of their sex.
    Mrs. White: Will the hon. Gentleman consult with the Governor in this matter? Is he aware that women have no vote in the Bahamas and do not sit in the Legislature? There is no reason why they should be completely deprived of any say in such matters as the health and education of children.
    Mr. Amery: As the hon. Lady is no doubt aware, women have been appointed to other boards—for example, the visiting committee to schools and the child protection committee.

  MAURITIUS

    Hurricane Damage (Cost)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the estimated cost of the damage in Mauritius due to the recent hurricane; and what arrangements are being made to finance the work of reconstruction.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: My Answer last Thursday to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) set out the extent of the damage. Discussions with the Mauritius delegation have just begun and I am not yet able to make any statement about these.
    Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend think that there will be sufficient funds available from various sources to rehabilitate the island?
    Mr. Macleod: I am not ready to make a statement about that. There are four Ministers from Mauritius in this country at present and financial discussions are going on at the moment with my Department.
    Mr. Callaghan: May we take it that, in view of the very heavy loss sustained by Mauritius, this initial payment of £15,000 will not be a final payment but that the Government will be much more generous when they see the extent of the financial loss?
    Mr. Macleod: The direct cost to the Government of Mauritius appears to be about £900,000. The proposals that have
    1116
    been put forward to Her Majesty's Government cover about £6½ million and, therefore, clearly go beyond the question of replacement and must be considered on the basis of comparative need as part of a reconstruction programme. As I have said, these discussions are going on, but I am afraid that I cannot anticipate their conclusion.

  WEST INDIES

    Sea Island Cotton
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recent discussions there have been on the question of sea island cotton; and if he will make a statement on the present condition of that industry.
    Mr. J. Amery: I understand that there were discussions in the West Indies in December. I am asking the Governor-General for information about the outcome, and for an assessment of the present condition of the industry. I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT when I have his reply.
    Mr. Royle: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Does not he agree that this is an industry which is being rather neglected as compared with, say, the sugar and citrus industries? Is he prepared to initiate those discussions?
    Mr. Amery: I should like to get the full report from the Governor-General. I agree that the position of the industry has become serious with the drop in the price of long staple cotton.

  HONG KONG

    Women and Young Persons (Hours of Work)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the operation of the labour regulations in Hong Kong limiting hours of work of women and young persons, which came into operation on 1st January, 1959.
    Mr. J. Amery: During the first six months of 1959 transitional provisions operated to give industrial employers the opportunity to adjust working conditions. The regulations are now being

    1117
    vigorously enforced. All factories maintain a register of women and young persons employed. A comprehensive system of inspection is aimed at ensuring that hours of work, meal breaks and rest days comply with the regulations and that there is proper reporting of overtime.
    Mr. Thornton: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Colony's factory inspectorate is adequate to deal with the complex administrative problem of ensuring that each woman and young person has a rest day each week when the mills are operating on a seven-day week?
    Mr. Amery: I hope we shall never be satisfied about these matters. Complacency is a very dangerous thing in a Government Department. The considerable number of prosecutions for evasion of the regulations should encourage the hon. Member to agree with me that the vigilance of the authorities is fairly good.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say what powers the United Kingdom Government have over the Colony to insist that decent labour standards are observed in these factories?
    Mr. Amery: The Colony's new regulations go a long way to improve the working conditions for women and young persons in comparison with what they used to be.
    Sir J. Barlow: How many days a year are the women and children permitted to work under the new regulations?
    Mr. Amery: Under the new regulations, overtime may be worked up to one hour a day or six hours a week within a limit of 100 hours a year and may not take place in any undertaking in more than twenty-five weeks in any year.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Did not the hon. Gentleman recognise, in answering his hon. Friend's supplementary question a moment or two ago, that there is a strong moral obligation on the Government of this country to exercise whatever powers they possess in this respect, since the result of this kind of labour condition in Hong Kong is materially to help the deterioration of the cotton industry in Lancashire, which the Government are doing nothing to assist?
    Mr. Amery: As a Lancashire Member, I recognise the point, but the hon. Member would, I think, be the first to agree that there is also our duty to do as the trustees for Hong Kong.
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to take further steps to reduce the maximum hours of work of women and young persons in industrial establishments in Hong Kong, and so bring maximum hours into line with general Asian standards.
    Mr. J. Amery: When the present regulations were introduced the Hong Kong Government made it clear that they were only a first step in its policy of raising minimum standards of employment. But the hon. Member will realise that the regulations have involved a major adjustment of working conditions in many undertakings. The problems of adjustment have already been overcome in all spinning mills and in more than half the larger weaving mills by changing over to 8-hour shifts. This process is spreading to other industries, but I am not yet in a position to forecast a date when maximum hours of work could be further reduced.
    Mr. Thornton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the maximum hours of work of women and young persons in India and Pakistan, now independent Commonwealth countries, are nine hours per day, whereas in Hong Kong even now they are ten hours a day, six days a week, with an average of two hours' overtime throughout the year? This means that the maximum legal hours of work of women and young persons in Hong Kong are still sixty-two hours a week with only four days' holiday a year. Having regard to the surplus of labour which exists in Hong Kong and to the very high profits that are made there, is it not the sensible and humane thing to reduce hours of work to general Asian standards?
    Mr. Amery: As I have said, the present regulations introduced by the Hong Kong Government are regarded only as a first step; but it takes a little time to adjust the economy of the Hong Kong community to these new regulations.

    Refugees
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of refugees that have entered Hong Kong since January, 1959.
    Mr. J. Amery: No figures are available.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister realise that saturation point has already been reached in Hong Kong and that this is one of the main factors contributing to cheap labour in that part of the world? Does he not realise that we should know the exact position so that remedial measures may be taken?
    Mr. Amery: We are well aware of the problem, but it is extremely difficult to control immigration into Hong Kong and almost impossible to get accurate figures of the position.
    Mr. J. T. Price: If the authorities in Hong Kong are unaware of the extent of the influx of refugees—in other words, they do not know the population of Hong Kong—how can the Hong Kong Government set about the task of arranging proper social services, labour standards and protective legislation, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) was ridiculed in this House when he came back with his shocking report some months ago?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Member must realise that there is a good deal of fluctuation in all this and that our statistics are naturally invalidated by the flow of immigration.

  ESTATES (PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION)
  Mr. Iremongerasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to raise the value of estates, in respect of which probate and letters of administration may be granted on application at a district registry instead of the Principal Probate Registry, to take account of the fall in purchasing power of the pound sterling since that value was most recently laid down by Statute.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Grants of
  1120
  probate and letters of administration can be issued by district probate registries for estates of any value.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    The Mall (Car Parking Facilities)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Works whether he will reopen the car parking facilities on the north side of the Mall to relieve the continuing congestion of traffic in the Central London area.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): No, Sir.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: When thinking of the setting up of a comprehensive scheme of parking meters for the central area, will my hon. Friend consider reopening this little part under the trees temporarily during the summer months?
    Mr. Nicholls: I assure my hon. Friend that we are being very co-operative, recognising the importance of the traffic problem. To help until the parking meters are available in parts of Mayfair, we have agreed for the Horse Guards Parade still to be available for parking.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that something like 60,000 cars come into Central London every day? If he thinks that that influx of cars is right and proper, when will he do something about accommodating them?
    Mr. Nicholls: The particular part of London mentioned in the Question would not make all that difference. We co-operated in the Christmas arrangement and, as I have said, we are still leaving the Horse Guards Parade available for parking.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that the Horse Guards Parade and the Mall provide a very good car parking arrangement except for the fact that the facility terminates at 10 p.m.? Is he aware that if he wants to get cars off the streets in the West End of London, the time should be extended to 11 p.m. so that the theatre-going public can put their cars off the main streets and into the car parks?
    Mr. Nicholls: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Wrest Park, Bedfordshire
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works when the work of restoring the gardens at Wrest Park, near Silsoe, Bedfordshire, commenced; when it will be completed; what is the total cost, including the wages bill, for the gardens up to the latest convenient date; what are the total receipts from admission charges; and how much did they cost to collect.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: As the Answer is rather long, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dodds: But does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that the facts will show a very sad state of affairs? Will he consider with his right hon. Friend seeking some advice from someone who knows something about this work, like the Duke of Bedford, or better still, in the interest of the taxpayers, appointing him Minister of Works?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am rather glad that the hon. Member was able to ask that supplementary question, because I noticed in a newspaper that "Mr. Norman Brooks" was to ask this Question. Now I see that it was not Mr. Norman Brooks but the hon. Member.
    Following is the Answer:
    The house and gardens at Wrest Park are leased by my Department to the British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering and occupied by the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering.
    The Institute spends about £2,000 a year on the maintenance of the gardens. My Department is restoring the historic garden buildings and ornaments, which are of exceptional interest as features of a garden layout which is unique in this country. Work on these started in September, 1949, and the main buildings are due for completion in 1961. So far some £40,000 has been spent on the buildings.
    Since 1954, the historic parts of the gardens, including the garden buildings and ornaments in my care, have been open to the public on Saturdays and Sundays during the summer months. Total receipts since 1954 amount to about £250.
    Custody services for the gardens are provided by my Department and the total cost of these since 1954 amounts to £1,440. It is not possible to give the cost of collection separately within this total.

    Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works when Iver Grove, Buckinghamshire, was bought by his Department with
    1122
    a view to opening it to the public; what was the purchase price; how much has been spent on the house and gardens; and what it is now proposed to do with it.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply on 26th January, 1960, to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). The property has now been sold to a private purchaser, subject to contract, and will be open to the public by appointment.
    Mr. Dodds: But is it not a fact that it was bought in 1956 for the public for £3,000 and that at a local inquiry the Government were warned that it would be a white elephant but the man from Westminster or Whitehall knew best? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what the Minister said. Does not this indicate that when it is all gone into and everything is taken into account, there will be a big debt for the taxpayer to bear once again?
    Mr. Nicholls: The property will be open to the general public and any facility that this sort of property usually gives to the public will continue to be available. As to its value, the Historic Buildings Council has said that, after the proceeds of sale are credited, the net expenditure will have been justified. I am certain that the hon. Member will find that this property was worth while preserving in this way. It will be an asset to the nation and it will be open to the general public.

    Works Contracts (Tenders)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Works if he will undertake to adopt free and open competitive tendering for all his Department's contracts, and the widest possible use of the usual channels for the securing of maximum public advertisement.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: It is my Department's policy to place contracts for construction work after competitive tendering, but my right hon. Friend does not consider that advertising for an unlimited number of tenders is a satisfactory system. The system of inviting tenders from a selected list of approved firms is the one recommended by several independent committees since 1944 and was commended only a few months ago in the Code of Procedure for Selective

    1123
    Tendering published by the Joint Committee of Architects, Quantity Surveyors and Builders.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if he does not give firms an opportunity to show what they can do his Department will never be in a position to know whether these firms are fit to do the work?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can assure the hon. Member that any firm can get on to the Ministry's list of approved firms. If he has a firm in mind which he thinks ought to be on the list I shall be delighted to look into the matter.
    Mrs. Castle: May I say that I am very sorry that the Minister has influenza? Will the Parliamentary Secretary remind him that this problem has arisen in connection with the provision of facilities in the Palace of Westminster? Is he aware that the Stokes Committee commented adversely on the fact that certain urgently needed improvements to the Library were not carried out because of the high level of Ministry of Works estimates and that the Committee recommended that this work could be put out for competitive tendering? Could the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister why this has not been done?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady has added to the point that I was making. One has to be certain that firms which are invited to tender are capable of doing the work. As far as this Royal Palace is concerned, one would invite only people who had the facilities, the ability and the knowledge necessary to get the work done. As I have said in reply to the main Question, it is possible for any firm which has the facilities and which can show that it can do the work to be put on the Ministry's list to be invited to tender.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Spriggs.
    Mr. Spriggs: With reference to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was calling the hon. Member to ask the next Question.
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Works how many firms or companies receive invitations to tender for Departmental contracts; and why his Department refuses tenders, or does not allow interested firms to tender, in view of the
    1124
    specialised knowledge of some firms which wish to tender.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Four to eight contractors are normally invited to tender for works contracts according to the size of the job, selected from the Department's list of approved firms. These arrangements are satisfactory to the industry generally.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is not the Minister's policy perhaps in danger of creating a monopoly or a price ring of some kind?
    Mr. Nicholls: I think that if there were any difficulty about any firm getting on the approved list there would be that danger to both the public—as I heard interjected from the Front Bench—and the building industry. Tendering is best covered by firms being asked to tender for work which it is known they are capable of doing.

    Windsor Castle (Central Heating)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Works whether he will ensure, before allowing the Windsor Castle heating installations to be converted to oil, that every alternative heating method using coal or coke has been examined with the National Coal Board and the British Coke Industry Association.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The scheme for an adequate central heating installation at Windsor Castle was designed some years ago and an oil-fired installation was decided upon after careful consideration of all the circumstances. It is now some months since this contract was let and the work is too advanced to consider changing the system. In the case of new schemes it is the current practice of my Department to consult the National Coal Board before deciding on the heating method.
    Mr. Wyatt: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why his Ministry did not consult the Minister of Power before the arrangement was made? Is he aware that what is now being done is to compare a modern oil-burning installation with an old-fashioned coke installation? Does he not know that there are many modern coal- and coke-burning systems which are cheaper to use than oil-burning systems and that they also eliminate the use of labour? Is he further aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Progress will be better if hon. Members keep silent.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary further aware that, even though money may have been spent on this oil installation, it is still possible to convert it to coal- or coke-burning without any increase in expenditure? Does he not realise—[HON MEMBERS: "Speech."]—that the conversion of the Windsor Castle heating system to oil-burning will be taken as a very grave insult by miners who will suffer a very grievous blow to their morale?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is manifest that the hon. Member's supplementary question is too long. Mr. Hector Hughes.
    Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. Even though my supplementary question was made too long by the interruptions of hon. Members opposite, it is not as long as many other supplementary questions that have been asked this afternoon. Furthermore, am I not entitled to a reply, because this is a very important matter?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I have an obligation to try to help the House to cut these supplementary questions shorter. I am sure that from time to time I make mistakes, because one goes on listening to a long question hoping that it is coming to an end. It is therefore difficult to be fair about it.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point, surely it would be right and proper to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) asked a number of important questions.
    Mr. Speaker: The position is that if the question is out of order there is no need for a reply, but I should like to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of answering before we go on to the next Question.
    Mr. Nicholls: I assure the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) that we do compare like with like and that the advisers at the Ministry of Works have detailed knowledge of the relative merits of all forms of heating. The structure of Windsor Castle, the availability of a storage place for coal and questions of amenity all show that an oil installation would be the most satisfactory.

  SCOTLAND

    Midlothian County Council Development Plan (By-pass Road)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the completion of the preliminary arrangements for commencing the Wallyford, or Musselburgh, by-pass.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The line of road has been included in the Midlothian County Council Development Plan which has still to be approved.
    Mr. Willis: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that there will be great disappointment that nothing much has been done about this? Will he not urge upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the urgency of getting on with this road which joins the Edinburgh by-pass, particularly in view of the progress made with the Forth road bridge and what is happening in the Lothians?
    Mr. Macpherson: I will convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said, but the hon. Member will realise that there are certain procedures which must be followed.

    Land (Reclamation Grants)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres of land in Scotland were reclaimed for agricultural purposes with assistance of reclamation grants during the year 1958–59.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): During the financial year 1958–59 grants totalling approximately £34,000 were paid under the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, the Marginal Agricultural Production Scheme and the Crofters Agricultural Grants Scheme in respect of the reclamation of some 2,000 acres for agricultural purposes. It is not possible to say how much of this reclamation was actually carried out in 1958–59 and how much in earlier years.
    Mr. Willis: I had difficulty in hearing that reply, but, if I heard it aright, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is scandalous that the amount being reclaimed is falling, and that there is a

    1127
    vast area in Scotland about which something ought to be done? Will he press this matter upon his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Leburn: The figure of 2,000 acres is not substantially less than that in previous years, and I consider that there are ample incentives under existing schemes to bring land back into agricultural use.

    New Housing Schemes (Land)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acres in Scotland have been used for new housing schemes from 1950 to 1959, inclusive.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No exact figure is available, but it is estimated that some 29,000 acres were used for new housing schemes in that period, not all of which is lost to agriculture.

  AFRICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Minister of the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): During my visit to Salisbury, I had a valuable exchange of views with the Federal Prime Minister and his Cabinet, covering topics of common concern. These discussions were private.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the Prime Minister aware that he deserves to be congratulated on the stand he took when he said to Sir Roy Welensky that there is no chance of Dominion independence for the Federation until the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland agree to it? May I ask him whether he also told Sir Roy Welensky that we intend to confirm and continue our protection of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia until those Africans ask for that protection to be removed? May I also ask him to confirm that we intend to trim our policies in Rhodesia and Nyasaland to the wind of change?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the question of my discussions with Sir Roy Welensky, I have nothing to add to what I have said. I did, however,
  1128
  make a statement in public at Salisbury, and I stand by what I said then.
  Mr. Gaitskell: With reference to that statement, the Prime Minister pointed out that the people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia would have a choice between either entering an independent and free Federation or remaining under British tutelage. May I ask him if that is the only choice which will be available to them, or whether they will also have the right of secession and continuing as an independent country?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman meant to misrepresent me in any way, but I would not accept his version of my Salisbury speech in the quite simple way in which he has posed it. I made it after considerable thought and care, and would not like to make glosses upon it in the interchange of question and answer.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If the Prime Minister disagrees with my interpretation, is he prepared to tell me where I was wrong?
  The Prime Minister: If necessary, I will send a copy of the speech to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I have taken the precaution of obtaining a copy for myself beforehand, and I should like to repeat my question. Did not the Prime Minister say that in effect the people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia would not be forced into a free and independent Federation, but that they would have the choice between going into that and remaining as they are now under British tutelage? I am asking him whether they have not a third choice, and that is the right to remain as an independent country on their own?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite another question from the one I dealt with at Salisbury. The question I dealt with at Salisbury was to try to set out as clearly as I could what was meant by the Preamble to the Act and by other statements made on behalf of the Government. I think that, in doing so, I made it perfectly plain what the situation was with regard to the Federation receiving complete Commonwealth independence.
  Mr. Grimond: Did the Prime Minister notice, while in Africa, that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia said that

  1129
  in certain circumstances he might have to secede from the Federation? Is it the view of the Prime Minister that that is a correct interpretation of possibilities under the present Constitution?
  The Prime Minister: That is an entirely different question. I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on these statements that were made. We have a very difficult task here during tae next year and I would appeal to the House as a whole that we should try to face them in as little partisan spirit as possible.
  Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that, although the Prime Minister is unwilling to comment on what he said, Sir Edgar Whitehead is commenting on what the Prime Minister said, as quoted in the official news-letter put out by the Federation? Is it not important that the Prime Minister should get away from this masterly evasiveness about the future of these Territories, and state clearly whether, if Southern Rhodesia in certain circumstances is able to leave the Federation, the people of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, if they so choose, should be free to do the same?
  The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to answer these hypothetical questions. I think the hon. Gentleman is suffering from some sense of disappointment at the result of my visit.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. de Freitas.
  Mr. Callaghan: May I ask—
  Hon. Members: No.
  The Prime Minister rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have given the hon. Gentleman in opportunity, but I did not see him in the act of rising until after I had called the next Question.
  Mr. Callaghan: On a point of Order. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is our view on this side of the House that the formulation of a correct policy for Africa is much more important than the scoring of party points, and that the Prime Minister ought to know this by now?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not an observation that the hon. Member can address to me. Mr. de Freitas.
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister what discussions he had in South Africa on the future of Basutoland.
  The Prime Minister: Apart from discussions with the High Commissioner and his officers, I held some talks with the political leaders in Basutoland.
  I naturally had certain private discussions with the Prime Minister of the Union about the Protectorates generally.
  Mr. de Freitas: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Union Prime Minister has threatened that, unless the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the natives of Basutoland conforms to the Union's policy towards its own native population, he will deny the right of the immigrants from Basutoland to earn a living in the Union of South Africa? In view of this serious economic threat, may I ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do about it?
  The Prime Minister: I know of no such statement, and I think it is extremely unlikely that any such course will be taken.
  Mr. de Freitas: Is the Prime Minister aware that reports of such a statement were published in many Sunday newspapers, including the Observer, this weekend?

  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. C. Royleasked the Prime Minister, in view of his official statement on the subject of race discrimination during his visit to South Africa, whether he will restate the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to future action within the United Nations Organisation on this matter.
  The Prime Minister: The attitude of Her Majesty's Government on matters arising at the United Nations depends on the nature of the items to be inscribed on the agenda, the terms of the resolutions which may be introduced and the provisions of the Charter which govern United Nations proceedings.
  Mr. Royle: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will recall a short passage in his speech to the South African Parliament, of which, for the sake of

  1131
  greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy? He said:
  "As a fellow member of the Commonwealth, it is our earnest desire to give South Africa support and encouragement, but there are some aspects of your policy which make it impossible"—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that quotations from speeches are out of order in Questions. Perhaps the hon. Member can frame his question in some way as to avoid that difficulty.
  Mr. Royle: I think I may be able to do so, Mr. Speaker. I will ask the Prime Minister if what he said to the South African Parliament can in any way relate with consistency to the United Kingdom vote in the United Nations Organisation in the past two years and also with the way in which this country voted or refrained from voting in the years before? Is it not a complete contradiction of what the Prime Minister said to the South African Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: No, I do not think so. I said clearly that there were certain questions on which we could not give them our support. What our right and proper course is when a particular resolution is introduced into the Assembly depends upon our view as to the rules governing the Assembly.
  Mr. Donnelly: In warmly welcoming the Prime Minister back from his trip to Damascus, may I ask him about the garden party which was given in his honour by the United Kingdom High Commissioner in South Africa? Could he tell me how many coloured people were invited to that garden party and how many accepted?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I could not.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Prime Minister tell us if he has yet received a congratulatory telegram from Mr Khrushchev on his speech in South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but I had an interchange of birthday greetings with Mr. Khrushchev, which I think were published in the newspapers.
  Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware—if I may abandon political warfare for a moment or two—that, taken by itself, the speech he made to the South African Parliament was a jolly good speech?
  The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Oram: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you ruled just now that my hon. Friend was out of order in quoting from a speech. Earlier the Prime Minister had refused to answer a supplementary question from the Leader of the Opposition because he had not quoted from the speech. Does not that put us in rather a difficult position?
  Mr. Speaker: I should like to look at what happened to the Leader of the Opposition, but I have no doubt that my Ruling in the other instance was right. I am afraid that it is an old-established matter.

AFRICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on my journey to Africa.
Soon after I became Prime Minister I determined, if it were at all possible, to make visits during my period of office to all the independent members of the Commonwealth.
In the early weeks of 1958 I visited five of the independent Commonwealth countries in Asia and Australasia—India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand. I went, also, to Singapore, but, unfortunately, I was not able to include Malaya in that tour.
I had hoped to complete my Commonwealth travels in 1959, but, in the circumstances which arose, and after careful thought, I decided to postpone the rest of my Commonwealth tour and to undertake instead a visit to Moscow. I am happy to say that this decision was supported by the Governments of all the Commonwealth countries.
In the concluding months of last year arrangements were made by which I could fulfil my ambition of completing my Commonwealth journey by a tour of Africa. As a result, I have recently visited four countries of Africa which have attained, or are well advanced towards, independent membership of the Commonwealth—Ghana, Nigeria, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Union of South Africa. I am

1133
most grateful to the Governments of all these countries, who invited me to visit them and made such admirable arrangements for my tour.
My purpose in these visits has never been to negotiate or to settle any particular problems which there might be between the United Kingdom and the other Government concerned. Matters of that kind are better left to the normal channels of communication and to the Ministers who have special responsibility for them. My idea was that the visits of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to London—which we welcome so much when they take place, which is at intervals of some eighteen months or two years—excellent as they are from our point of view, ought not to remain what I have called a one-way traffic. I felt that the presence, even for a few weeks, of a British Prime Minister in office would be both a symbol of the links which bind the Commonwealth and a practical method of holding informal discussions on broad general issues such as are appropriate on a visit of this kind. I may add that it makes my work in London much easier, and I think, more fruitful, if I have some personal impression of the character of these countries, their problems and their ambitions. In addition, one is able to have personal discussions in their own homes with the Prime Ministers and other Ministers concerned.
I have now visited all the independent countries of the Commonwealth with the exception of Malaya. I have, therefore, nearly completed the task which I set myself on assuming office. I would certainly not over-estimate the value of these visits. Still less would I claim that in a few days or weeks one can gain any expert knowledge of the problems of each country. Nevertheless, I hope that these journeys will at least have demonstrated the faith of Her Majesty's Government and people in the United Kingdom in the value of the Commonwealth as one the greatest forces for peace and progress in the world today.
With regard to my few weeks in Africa, I see that there are a large number of Questions on the Order Paper and I have no doubt there will be others in the weeks to come. I will do my best to give the information sought, where it is proper to do so, and to answer the points raised in these Questions so far as
1134
possible at the proper time. I shall not attempt today, Mr. Speaker, to anticipate them. I shall confine myself to some general comments.
The countries in Africa which I visited represented almost every different facet of the African problem. In Ghana, where I was most hospitably entertained by the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, I had the opportunity of seeing the great economic, social and political progress which is the culmination of many centuries of contact with the West. Europeans are playing a great rôle in the economic development and progress of this independent African country. I believe that they will continue to do so in the future. For I felt a real sense of friendship for the British people, and a full understanding of the debt which Ghana owes to them.
In Nigeria, I was fortunate enough to be able to address the Assembly on a historic date. This was the first meeting of the Parliament elected under the agreement reached at a series of conferences presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), to whom many tributes were paid. This historic meeting which I had the privilege to address represented the last stage in the country's progress to independence, which will be finally achieved in October this year. Nigeria is of course, an immense country. In area it is four times the size of the United Kingdom. In population it is the largest single country in Africa and the fourth largest in the Commonwealth. It has a great future before it. The recent discovery of oil and the development of agriculture should give it a sound economic basis. I hope and believe that the federal structure which has been devised will enable the three regions to work together in the development of a truly national spirit.
In the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland I was able to have talks with the Prime Minister of the Federation and his Cabinet, with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and his Ministers, with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and his Council, and also with the Governor of Nyasaland and his advisers. I was also able to see representatives of a large number of political and other groups and to form at least some picture of the difficult

1135
problems, as well as the impressive prospects, of this immense territory.
At the moment when my noble Friend Lord Monckton and his colleagues are just about to start work I do not think that the House would wish me to comment upon the constitutional problems, except to say this. We know that, in the course of the next year, important decisions must be taken. The final responsibility lies, of course, with the Governments. But they will, I am sure, be well served by the preparatory work which is to be undertaken by the Commission. We shall come to the final conference well prepared. Meanwhile, I must say that everything I saw confirmed my confidence in the future. Much progress has been made in recent years and great possibilities for future development lie ahead. The formal opening of the Kariba Dam by the Queen Mother this May will be an impressive symbol of what has been done and what may be achieved in the future.
In the Union of South Africa I had only a few days to make a tour covering a very large area, but I was able to see a little both of the mining and of the various industrial developments, and to have long and intimate discussions with the Prime Minister—who kindly entertained me in his own house at Cape Town. The Union of South Africa is about to celebrate the fiftieth year since its foundation. It should not be forgotten that it came into being as the result of a decision of the British Parliament in 1910 in an attempt to build a single nation after the long struggles between the Afrikaaners and the British.
While I was in South Africa I was able to pay visits to each of the three High Commission Territories—Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland. The visits, however short, were a demonstration of the interest shown by the people of the United Kingdom in the progress and welfare of these territories.
Here, then, was contrast; I began with Ghana, which became independent two years ago, and I ended with the Union, which became independent fifty years ago—both by decisions of the British Parliament. I began with a purely African country where there has never been and never can be a European resident population. I ended with a country where, as well as the large African
1136
population, there are 3 million Europeans, many of them descended from ancestors who entered the country more than three hundred years ago. In between these two we have the Federation—containing, in Southern Rhodesia, a large European population and smaller European communities in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They are citizens of these countries and cannot be citizens of any other country, for their homes are there.
All these varying situations, as well as the immense distances and size of these territories, convince me more than ever that it would be wrong to try to apply a single and simple solution to a multiform and complex problem.
In a speech of some length in Salisbury I tried to state the point of view of the United Kingdom Government on certain aspects of policy for which the British Government and Parliament have varying degrees of responsibility. In Cape Town, where the Prime Minister kindly invited me to address the Assembly and the Senate, I tried to set out courteously, but, I hope, clearly, the broad British point of view on the handling of these problems. Of course, I made it clear that in the Union we had no direct responsibility beyond that which every man of good will has towards his neighbours in trying to understand their problems. I made it clear, also, how deeply we treasure and value the Commonwealth connection and how great I believe the contribution of the Union can and will be towards the strength of the Commonwealth.
Perhaps, Sir, I might make two final observations. In the first place, I am more and more impressed by the need and duty of the people of the United Kingdom so to try to manage their economic affairs as to be able to make increasing contributions, from genuine savings and a favourable balance of trade, to the economic welfare of the less developed countries of the Commonwealth. The more we are able to improve our position at home the more we shall be able to follow the policy of the good neighbour overseas.
The second is this. We have to face, within a few months, certainly in this coming year, the next stage in attempting to reach some settlement, whether permanent or temporary, of the differences between Soviet Russia and the

1137
Western Powers. I feel more than ever convinced, as a result of this journey, as well as my previous Commonwealth journeys, that the contribution which the United Kingdom Government may be able to make towards this—the supreme question which faces the world today—can be enhanced by the sense of comradeship and fellowship which we have in the Commonwealth. I am very glad to think that we shall have an opportunity of consulting with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London in the week preceding the Summit Conference.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I, first, welcome the Prime Minister back from his African tour? We have always taken the view that these tours in the Commonwealth by the Prime Minister could be of immense value and it is apparent, I think, that the Prime Minister has learnt a good deal during the course of these last few weeks.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement in Cape Town in particular was warmly welcomed by this side of the House, particularly his references to the march of African nationalism, to the importance of a society based solely on individual merit, and his forthright denunciation of the policies of apartheid? May I express the hope that when he addresses this Parliament he will be equally clear and forthright? Is he aware, however, that declarations are all very well, but that the real question is what policies are pursued? In that connection may I put three questions to him?
The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree that one of the key points in the present situation in Africa is Nyasaland and he will not, I think, under-rate the importance of proceeding with constitutional advance there. This largely turns on being able to negotiate with African leaders. What are the right hon. Gentleman's intentions regarding the release of Dr. Banda and his colleagues? Is it not evident that their release is a necessary condition before effective negotiation can take place with the leaders of African opinion in Nyasaland? The sooner this is done, the better.
Secondly, reverting to a matter raised at Question Time, the Prime Minister made a speech in Salisbury, to which he has referred in his statement, about the
1138
rights of the people of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in relation to federation. We have all studied this speech with great care and we are very anxious to find out exactly what it means. Is he saying to the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland simply that they will not be forced against their will into a free and independent Federation, or, in other words, that without their consent Dominion status cannot be accorded to the Federation? Is that all he is saying, or is he saying that they will have a choice not only between federation as a free and independent Federation and a Federation as it now is, but also between entering a free and independent Federation and becoming self-governing independent States?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia laid down quite specifically four conditions without which he would feel obliged to consult the opinion of his electorate before taking part even in the conference later in the year on the future of federation? Two of these conditions are that the Federation must remain governed by "civilized" people and that there must be no African Nationalist Governments in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I put this straight question to the Prime Minister: is he going to accept the conditions laid down by Sir Edgar Whitehead?
The Prime Minister: On the position in Nyasaland and the possibility of bringing the emergency to an end, I would only say that I have no statement to make today.
The first interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put upon my speech is correct. I said—and it is stated in the Preamble and elsewhere—that if there is to be a question of an independent Commonwealth country as we know it under the Statute of Westminster, then, as was intimated at the very start, the consent of the peoples of the two Northern Territories must be forthcoming. That is the right interpretation.
I have not seen what Sir Edgar Whitehead said. We have quite a difficult year ahead of us. We shall end having the Monckton Commission. We hope that that will help us. Then we shall have negotiations. What we hope to achieve is that these negotiations are entered into by all the people concerned

1139
in the best possible spirit. I do not think that it would help if, every time a Prime Minister or notability out there made, or was alleged to have made, a Press conference statement, I made some answer to it.
We realise the difficulty and the responsibilities to everybody—all our peoples concerned, whether white, European, coloured or African—[HON. MEMBERS: "So do we."] So do hon. Members opposite. I do not believe that to try to make comment on this or that statement will help. What we have to do is to get these negotiations going under the best possible terms that we can. If we fail, then we fail. But we are going to try.
Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister said he had not seen Sir Edgar White-head's statement. May I offer him a copy? This question has been raised in his absence and it is an extremely important matter. If he really has not seen the speech before, we would wish him to have time to consider it and we would like a statement at an early date commenting on what Sir Edgar Whitehead said.
In reference to the earlier question, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that a limited statement about the future of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, to the negative but important effect that the people of those two territories will not be forced into a free and independent Federation against their will, is leaving far too much in the air the question of their future? Does it not imply that they will not have the right to self-government and independence without federation?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked me what I said and which of two interpretations was correct and I have told him. Having made my speech, I cannot alter it.
Mr. Gaitskell: Amplify it.
The Prime Minister: I hope that I do not have to make another speech.
I will study the Press report of an interview, but I repeat that I would much rather concentrate on trying to steer this ship home than having a continuing battle this and that way about what somebody did or did not say.
Sir T. Moore: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that we on this side of the House, and, indeed, people in the country as a whole, are deeply indebted to him for the courage, tact and endurance which he has shown on this uniquely successful trip?
Mr. Grimond: I am sure that we are all glad to see the Prime Minister back and hope that he had a happy birthday on the way. The right hon. Gentleman made it very clear in South Africa that he disapproves of apartheid. He has also said today that the Commonwealth has a great part to play in world affairs. Clearly, it is made more difficult for us to play that part when apartheid is practised by one of the most important members of the Commonwealth. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give us any ray of hope or optimism that the present policies of apartheid practised in South Africa—which, as he said, came into being in the hope of combining together different nationalities and which has failed to some extent—may be diminished, or broken down, or improved in any way?
The Prime Minister: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks about my return. Things seem to be going on very much in the same way as when I went away—very familiar and very friendly.
Mr. Manuel: Go away again.
The Prime Minister: Every word which any of us says about the Union is watched in the Union. I tried to put my point of view in a speech which I prepared carefully and which, I hoped, was clear but also courteous, as it should be when one is visiting an independent country of the Commonwealth which has been good enough to invite one. South Africa comes to our conferences and I hope that it will play a great Nile in the Commonwealth.
The hon. Gentleman asked me how I thought things might develop. The purpose of stating our views, and what I believe to be the views of all British people, is that they may be studied and thought about and, perhaps, be of some use in the development of opinion. If I have done anything in that direction, I am quite content, but I do not want to add words which might have the

1141
opposite effect. I would rather leave it there and have, as I have, faith in the development of the future.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this of the House and elsewhere, who have not always agreed with him about this or other matters, are very grateful to him for the courage and eloquence of his speech in Cape Town?
With regard to the very important last part of his speech, to which he obviously attached, as we all do, great importance, was any communication made to him, of any kind, or did he gather any evidence himself, as to whether any harm had been done, or was likely to be done on that aspect of the matter by the recent tests of nuclear weapons which our French ally has insisted, against all protests, in having on African territory?
The Prime Minister: I am being led into another difficult subject. We made our position clear at the United Nations when this matter was discussed. I still hope and believe that we shall be able to obtain, by one means or another, an agreement on the tests, whether at Geneva, where we are labouring on, or perhaps at the Summit—perhaps confirmed at the Summit.
The French Government thought fit to make their tests—as, indeed, we have made many, the Americans many more and the Russians many more still. I do not feel that it would be right for us to take any line except that of working for an agreement to which all countries could adhere, it is for those countries which have made the largest number of tests and who are now great nuclear Powers—those three countries—to take the lead. Otherwise, I cannot help thinking a little of the mote and the beam. We three countries have made a tremendous development of nuclear power. If only we can agree, we can go to other people and ask them, "Will you adhere and on what terms and how can it be arranged?"
Mr. C. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the difficult and delicate questions in Africa would be
1142
helped towards a solution if hon. Members exercised some restraint—[Interruption.] I am grateful to see the Leader of the Opposition is nodding his assent to the point which I am making—in the barbed questions they put, because matters which are raised in the House are exaggerated in different parts of Africa and given an importance which sometimes they do not deserve?
Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are delighted to have him back in the House and that, for a Conservative Prime Minister, his tour was quite successful and that we congratulate him on it?
Why did he have arrangements made for seeing Dr. Hastings Banda suddenly cancelled when he was in Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Can he clear the muddy waters, which were revealed in the Answers given by the Colonial Secretary earlier this afternoon, and say when Dr. Hastings Banda is to be released?
The Prime Minister: No arrangements were made or cancelled. On the second question, I have nothing to add to what I have said.
Mrs. Castle: Does the Prime Minister really think that he can acquire a personal knowledge of the problems of these countries, their character and conditions, when, during a visit to any one of those countries, he met only the representatives of the white minority and no representative of the black majority, as in South Africa? Can he tell us whether he made any protest to the Prime Minister of South Africa about the nature of the itinerary arranged for him there?
The Prime Minister: I was very careful in what I said to disclaim any intention of posing as an expert after a few days' visit. I think that what I said was exactly the opposite. No one can do anything except to get a few impressions which may be helpful in reading the papers and telegrams which come. I do not pose as an expert. I do not propose to write a book, even if I can find a publisher.

RAILWAYS (NOTICE OF STRIKE)
Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on a matter of very great importance to all hon. Members. Because of the delay which we have experienced, I will be very brief and at the end of my remarks I shall seek your guidance and help, Sir.
This is a question of the way in which the possible railway strike was brought to the notice of the House. Last week, the House of Commons entered into a self-denying ordinance. It was agreed by most hon. Members that, while it was possible to have some form of settlement and while negotiations were continuing, the House should enter into a self-denying ordinance.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should not be fair to other hon. Members unless I asked the hon. Member to state what his point of order is.
Mr. Donnelly: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I am seeking your guidance in a matter affecting the whole House. Last week we entered into a self-denying ordinance when we were threatened with a railway strike. We appreciated that it had a sound basis. When the House met yesterday, it would have been perfectly reasonable, because of the ordinance that the House entered into, for us to have had some form of statement from the Government about the railway strike.
The basis of my point of order is that this was possibly a grave national emergency which affected everybody in every part of the country. The House did not discuss it while the emergency was pending. When the emergency was
1144
over it was only right and proper that a statement should have been made to the House. We are ultimately answerable to the nation for some of the various aspects of the settlement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot, within the rules of the House, allow the hon. Member to address me except on a point of order. I gladly do that, but he must make it plain that it is a point of order.
Mr. Donnelly: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I will make it very brief and clear. The point is that the settlement has been discussed in every other forum. It has been discussed on the radio, on television, in the newspapers, and by hon. Members in all parts of the country on all sorts of platforms, but it has not been discussed in the House. The point of order that I wish to address to you, Mr. Speaker, is how we are to retain the attention of the nation if a crisis can come and go without being discussed in the House. What are you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, doing about safeguarding the interests and rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Speaker: My first duty in safeguarding the rights of hon. Members is not to allow a matter which is not a point of order to be raised in the guise of a point of order. I do not hear a point of order in what the hon. Member has been saying to me. For his assistance, I would suggest that the House and not the Chair decides what it should discuss, except in very exceptional circumstances. The hon. Member might consider addressing himself to the Leader of the House privately, or raising the matter when we have a discussion on business on Thursday.

TRANSPORT ACT, 1947 (AMENDMENT)
4.3 p.m.
Mr. John Baird: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the British Transport Commission to manufacture and repair locomotives and rolling stock for use other than by the Commission.
During the last few weeks this country has been faced with what might have been a national catastrophe—a railway strike. The problems facing British Railways are still there, and have to be solved. We are only tinkering with the problem just now.
The Bill I am asking leave to introduce will make only a small contribution to the problem, but I hope that, at the same time, it will do something to alleviate the difficulties of British Railways. Under the Transport Act, 1947, British Railways are allowed to manufacture locomotives and rolling stock only for use by themselves. They are not allowed to manufacture for sale or export. If the Bill is accepted by the House, British Railways will have the right to manufacture locomotives for sale and for use by themselves.
A large number of private firms in this country manufacture rolling stock, and it is not my intention to disrupt those firms in any way. I do not want to interfere with them. They are doing a good job, but surely British Railways, if they so desired, should have the right to manufacture not only locomotives, but rolling stock. I am, however, concerned chiefly with the manufacture of locomotives, which has always been the prerogative of British Railways.
I do not know whether the House as a whole realises it, but some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been faced with this problem. There is grave disquiet in railway towns today about British Railways' modernisation plans. There will be a lot of redundancy in the locomotive shops. There is a grave fear of unemployment and, what is more important, a large number of skilled workmen who have been trained—and some of them who have followed in their father's footsteps—in the manufacture of locomotives will be lost to British Railways. A large number of locomotive shops will be closed
1146
and staff dismissed under the modernisation plan. The manufacture of new diesel engines is to be undertaken to a great extent by private enterprise.
That, of course, is in line with Government policy. The Government intend to hive off the more prosperous aspects of the nationalised industries and hand them back to private enterprise. This is true not only of the manufacture of locomotives and diesel engines. The Government are also handing back to the Pullman Car Company much of the dining car trade. Those services are still run by private enterprise, although the Government have a controlling interest.
Mr. Gerald Nabarro: A very good thing.
Mr. Baird: The other day the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) spoke about selling land belonging to British Railways to private enterprise.
Mr. Nabarro: I must correct the hon. Member. I have never made a proposition of that kind, either publicly or privately.
Mr. Baird: It is at least in line with the argument which the hon Gentleman has been putting forward since he came into the House.
It is the deliberate policy of Her Majesty's Government to hand back to private enterprise the more lucrative aspects of the nationalised industries.
Mr. Nabarro: That is better
Mr. Baird: The coming of diesel traction has raised a grave problem. British Railways still have locomotive shops, but the majority of these diesel engines will be manufactured by private enterprise. The argument is that under the Transport Act, 1947, British Railways are allowed to manufacture for use and not for export, and, therefore, the manufacture of diesel engines must be given to private enterprise because there is a growing market overseas for diesel engines and we must have a home market in which to experiment if we are to sell these diesel engines. Therefore, private enterprise must get the majority of the new engines which are being manufactured.
I am all against that. I believe that, instead of constricting the nationalised industries, we should expand them.
Mr. Nabarro: I do not.
Mr. Baird: I know. That is where we disagree.
The nationalisation Acts which were passed between 1945 and 1950 are not sacrosanct. Many mistakes were made, but they were not of a kind which would bolster the arguments of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. Those Acts did not give the nationalised industries enough power. The weakness about nationalisation arises because we nationalised without socialising. I want to see more power given to the nationalised industries.
There is much disquiet about the situation in railway locomotive workshop towns today. Two or three weeks ago a meeting was held which was attended by representatives of all the towns which had railway locomotive workshops. Everyone was worried because of the possibility of unemployment and redundancy. Representatives came from Eastleigh—which is represented by a Conservative Member—Crewe, Swindon, Wolverhampton and Darlington. Wolverhampton considered the matter to be so important that it was represented by the mayor, the town clerk, the chairman of the Trade Council and other leading councillors, and I believe that Crewe sent similar representatives. A grave problem faces British Railways, because highly skilled staff is being made redundant and is dispersing into other industries, where its labour will not be nearly so valuable to the nation.
British Railways locomotive workshops have some of the most modern equipment in the country. They have skilled workmen and managements. I sometimes wonder whether the so-called modernisation plan is not really a plan to dismantle rather than to modernise British Railways are a national asset, whatever hon. Members opposite may say. I want to see them expanded instead of being dismantled. That is the only way we can solve the problem of British transport.
The Bill will strengthen British Railways by giving them an opportunity to go into the markets of the world and use their highly skilled labour, technical power and equipment to sell their goods. I want to see nationalisation strengthened, and not weakened.
4.13 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I oppose the Motion. I would make it clear at once that I have no financial interest in the making of locomotives, carriages or wagons. I do not propose to ask the House to reject the Motion because of any prejudice against nationalisation. Whether a business should indulge in extraneous activities is a question to be decided upon the basis of widely differing facts. It depends whether the business is heavily pressed at the time, whether it has the organisation to deal with extraneous activities, and what its financial position is, besides many other considerations.
I suggest that we should oppose the Bill, first, on the ground of national interest; secondly, on the ground of the interests of the Commission; and, thirdly, because it is causing grave anxiety in the 50 or more private enterprise workshops which have been established to make these goods. I have no prejudice against nationalisation; indeed, my only pride and prejudice arises from the fact that I come from Crewe, and, therefore, have some knowledge of these affairs.
The Bill is against the national interest, first, because it would increase the amount of available capacity for making locomotives, carriages and wagons, and we do not want that. If we increase that capacity, there will be a surplus within a relatively short time. We shall not be serving the national interest by establishing a capacity beyond our requirements. Secondly, because of its set-up, the Commission is not suited to indulge in the sale of locomotives overseas.
This requires very special procedures; it requires special staffs, brochures and contacts of all kinds, and the Commission is not equipped to engage in such extraneous activities. Moreover, a severe limitation has been placed upon what it can do. The hon. Member mentioned the question of modern locomotives. Even if the Commission started to make locomotives for export it would have to go to existing private manufacturers for as much as two-thirds of its requirements.
It is wrong to argue that if the Commission is not allowed this extension undue hardship will be suffered by

1149
those who are engaged in making locomotives in the Commission's workshops. Locomotive manufacture plays a very small part in the sum total of work done in railway workshops. Some people may say that it accounts for 6 per cent., and others will say 10 per cent., but at any rate it can safely be said that 90 per cent. of railway workshop work relates to maintenance and not to new construction.
Mr. David Price: Can my hon. Friend explain why it is against the national interest for a heavy engineering machine shop—which is what a locomotive workshop is—to take up slack as any commercial engineering works is free to do? As things are at present the Commission is not allowed to do this. That is the point behind the proposed Bill. If British Railways are required to operate commercially, why should they not be allowed to do the same as any other machine workshop?
Mr. Shepherd: There is no basic reason why capacity should not be used, except that in providing the equipment necessary to make new locomotives the Commission will be providing equipment which will not be required in a few years' time, when we have carried out most of our modernisation programme. This is a question not of nationalisation, but of sound business judgment. It is essential that we should condition the size of our manufacturing plants to suit our requirements.
The private manufacturers of locomotives have had to depend almost entirely upon export orders for the past thirty years. They have been in an exceedingly difficult situation. Their position has become even more difficult now. For the past decade or so we have had a preferred market overseas, with Colonies and various British establishments ordering for British sources, but that market does not exist today. It is now exceedingly difficult for private manufacturers to sell locomotives overseas. If we take away from them the small consolation that they now have
many of these private workshops will have no further basis for existence.
It would be highly undesirable to place in jeopardy these privately owned manufacturing plants, which are of great value to the community and upon which many people depend for their livelihoods. If we allow the Commission to proceed as it is at present, manufacturing rather more than half of its main locomotive requirements in its own workshops, there will be enough work for all the men who seek work in those workshops.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: Nonsense. The hon. Member ought to go there and ask them.
Mr. Shepherd: If there is some diversion of employment from a single source to a wider source it would not, in my view, be to the detriment of those who work in railway towns. I feel that there is a grave disadvantage, and I speak as one who comes from Crewe.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No standing Order permits me to hear several hon. Members at once and this Standing Order permits me to hear a short statement only in opposition.
Mr. Shepherd: I was saying that I think that it is not in the interest of these towns to be dependent utterly upon one source of employment. It is my strong conviction that if this situation is allowed to rest as now, with the Transport Commission supplying its own requirements as to about 60 per cent. and allowing the private operators to have a small market in this country with some assistance for their export drive, this will be, in the long run, a fair balance between private and public enterprise. On those grounds, I ask the House to reject the Motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Cornmittees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 189.

Division No. 41.]

AYES

[4.22 p.m.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bourne-Arton, A.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Awbery, Stan

Boyden, James

Callaghan, James

Bacon, Miss Alice

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist' I, S. E.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Chetwynd, George

Blackburn, F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Cliffe, Michael

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Ross, William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Darling, George

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kelley, Richard

Short, Edward

Deer, George

Kenyon, Clifford

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Dempsey, James

Lawson, George

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Dodds, Norman

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Small, William

Donnelly, Desmond

Lipton, Marcus

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Logan, David

Snow, Julian

Evans, Albert

Longbottom, Charles

Spriggs, Leslie

Finch, Harold

Loughlin, Charles

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Fletcher, Eric

McCann, John

Stonehouse, John

Foot, Dingle

MacColl, James

Stones, William

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

McInnes, James

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Ginsburg, David

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Swingler, Stephen

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mackie, John

Sylvester, George

Gourlay, Harry

McLeavy, Frank

Symonds, J. B.

Greenwood, Anthony

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

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Grey, Charles

Manuel, A. C.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mapp, Charles

Thornton, Ernest

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Marsh, Richard

Wainwright, Edwin

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Millan, Bruce

Warbey, William

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Monslow, Walter

Watkins, Tudor

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Moody, A. S.

Weitzman, David

Hayman, F. H.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Healey, Denis

Oliver, G. H.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Owen, Will

Whitlock, William

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Peart, Frederick

Wigg, George

Hilton, A. V.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Wilkins, W. A.

Holman, Percy

Prentice, R. E.

Willey, Frederick

Howell, Charles A.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Hoy, James H.

Proctor, W. T.

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Rankin, John

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Redhead, E. C.

Woof, Robert

Hunter, A. E.

Reid, William

Wyatt, Woodrow

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reynolds, G. W.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Mr. Scholefield Allen and Mr. Baird.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Costain, A. P.

Hocking, Philip N.

Aitken, W. T.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Holland, Philip

Allason, James

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hollingworth, John

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Critchley, Julian

Hopkins, Alan

Atkins, Humphrey

Currie, G. B. H.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Balniel, Lord

Dance, James

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Barlow, Sir John

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Barter, John

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Batsford, Brian

Doughty, Charles

Jackson, John

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Drayson, G. B.

James, David

Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

Duthie, Sir William

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Eden, John

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Elliott, R. W.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Berkeley, Humphry

Emery, Peter

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Biggs-Davison, John

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Bingham, R. M.

Farr, John

Kershaw, Anthony

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Kirk, Peter

Bossom, Clive

Freeth, Denzil

Lindsay, Martin

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Gammans, Lady

Litchfield, Capt. John

Box, Donald

Gardner, Edward

Loveys, Walter H.

Braine, Bernard

Gibson-Watt, David

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Brewis, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

MacArthur, Ian

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Goodhart, Philip

McLaren, Martin

Bullard, Denys

Goodhew, Victor

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Burden, F. A.

Gower, Raymond

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

McMaster, Stanley

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Green, Alan

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maginnis, John E.

Channon, H. P. G.

Grimond, J.

Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

Chataway, Christopher

Grimston, Sir Robert

Marten, Neil

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

Cleaver, Leonard

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mills, Stratton

Cole, Norman

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)

Morrison, John

Collard, Richard

Hendry, Forbes

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Cooke, Robert

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Cordle, John

Hiley, Joseph

Nugent, Sir Richard

Corfield, F. V.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

1152

1153

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Simon, Sir Jocelyn

Turner, Colin

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Page, Graham

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Stodart, J. A.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Peel, John

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Wade, Donald

Percival, Ian

Storey, Sir Samuel

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Peyton, John

Studholme, Sir Henry

Wall, Patrick

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Watts, James

Pilkington, Capt. Richard

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Webster, David

Pitt, Miss Edith

Tapsell, Peter

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Pott, Percivall

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Teeling, William

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Prior, J. M. L.

Temple, John M.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Ramsden, James

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

Woodhouse, C. M.

Rees, Hugh

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Woodnutt, Mark

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Worsley, Marcus

Roots, William

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Seymour, Leslie

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Nabarro and Mr. Shepherd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Cornmittee), considered.
  4.31 p.m.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This Motion will give me the opportunity, as far as it is in order, to look again at the progress of the industry, because it is nearly three months since we had our general debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and these are three months in a year that everyone agrees to be of immense importance to the industry.
  I made it clear in my speech on Second Reading, on 23rd November last, that my Department had co-operated in the estimate that the Coal Board made in its "Revised Plan for Coal"—an estimate on which the provisions of the Bill are based—which put the likely demand for coal in 1965 at between 200 million and 215 million tons. On that occasion, I said that the Government had accepted that estimate as a "reasonable basis for planning."
  I went on to say that for this year, 1960, the Board had planned to produce 188 million tons of deep-mined coal, and 7 million tons of opencast—a total of 195 million tons against a demand estimated by the Board at 196 million tons. I still remain of the opinion, three months later, that the Board's estimates represent now, in February, the best basis for our future plans, but in the intervening three months I have had certain doubts cast on these figures from both sides of the House and I would very much like to say something about those doubts.
  I am the first to agree that forecasting the demand for any product—indeed, any kind of prophecy at all—is a very dangerous thing to do, but I have constantly re-examined these Coal Board estimates, which I stated last year to be a reasonable basis for planning, I shall continue to re-examine them in the future, and my opinion at the moment is that the evidence for the estimates is a good deal stronger than the evidence against them.
  1156
  They are based on several assumptions, none of which, I think, is unreasonable to make. The first assumption is that in the coming year there will be less run-down in distributed stocks. The second is that the present economic activity will continue at a high level. The third concerns something that none can know—whether or not it is likely that the weather in 1960 will be less warm than it was in 1959. The last assumption is that exports of coal will be rather above the very low level at which they ran last year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the debate, has suggested that, in 1960, 25 million tons of coal will be added to the stocks, and has thus implied that, in spite of all the measures the Board is taking to bring that production more into line with demand, production in 1960 will, in fact, be 8 million tons greater than last year. My hon. Friend is certainly entitled to his opinions, but he will be aware that the Board has taken steps to reduce production by about 11 million tons. I would, therefore, be surprised, to say the least, if the Board over-produced on the scale suggested by my hon. Friend—
  Mr Gerald Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will not assume from my silence at this moment that I accept his interpretation of the interpretation that I previously placed on the situation, or that he is correctly stating my figures.
  Mr. Wood: I certainly never base any assumptions on the silence of my hon. Friend. I would merely state that, at the moment, both production and consumption are broadly in line with the Coal Board's estimates.
  I am aware, and I should like to deal with the matter at once, that hon. Gentlemen may point out that inland consumption in the first four weeks of this year, is, I understand, about 3½ per cent. less than it was last year. They may suggest that this vitiates the premises on which the estimates are based, but I think that it is true to say that in 1959 the one cold period occurred in the first few weeks of the year, and that consumption in January, 1959, was inflated as a result. I honestly do not think that we can base

  1157
  any reliable comparison between the two years on comparisons of these four weeks alone, when the weather played quite a considerable part.
  Some hon. Members rightly attach considerable importance to the speed of the run-down of stocks. My hon. Friend, among others, attaches importance to the speed at which the stocks are diminished. I am glad to say that the total run-down of both distributed and undistributed stocks was quicker in December and January—that is to say, in the eight weeks—than in a comparable period in any recent year. Perhaps I may give the figures for the last five or six years of the stock-lift of undistributed stocks—and it is of the stock-lift of undistributed stocks that I am talking for the moment.
  The figures are quite interesting. In December, 1953, and January, 1954, the figure was 10,000 tons. In the next year, stocks increased in this period by 32,000 tons, and in the next three years there were stock-lifts varying between 83,000 tans and 243,000 tons. Last year the stock-build, the addition to stocks, in these two months was 782,000 tons. The comparison with this year is that there has been a stock-lift in this period of 1½ million tons, which is of a completely different order than the stock-lift or stock-build in previous years.
  I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) is interested in this problem. The figures I have given refer to undistributed stocks only. In addition, there has been a lifting in December and January last of more than 3 million tons of distributed stocks. The total stock-lift in this period has averaged a little over ½ million tons a week. It is obviously normal to have a fall in distributed stocks at this time the winter, which is balanced by a corresponding increase in the summer, but the fall in total stocks in recent weeks has been fully in accord with expectations that undistributed stocks at the end of 1960 will, in fact, be lower than they were at the beginning of the year.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman gave us an illustration only a week ago yesterday, when he said that the undistributed stocks, for instance, of the east Midland coalfields
  1158
  were 3·8 million tons more for January this year than for January, 1959.
  Mr. Wood: I should have to look at the exact figures, but I have been trying to compare the run-down of stocks in the country as a whole in December and January compared with the figure at which they stood at the beginning of December, the global figure. It is a comparison from the beginning of December to the end of January of this year with other years. That is not strictly comparable with the figures I gave the hon. Member the other day.
  During the last few weeks I have discovered a matter which is causing some of my hon. Friends—and, no doubt, some hon. Members opposite—a certain amount of concern. It is the question of safety from deterioration of coal stocks which are at present on the ground. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster recently suggested that the coal at present in stock will deteriorate by about 25 per cent. over a two-year period. I have made very careful inquiries into this and should like to give the House the result of those inquiries. I have discovered, not greatly to my surprise, that the extra handling involved in stocking the coal certainly results in some degradation, which reduces the market value of the coal stocked. There is also—again, not greatly to my surprise—some loss in calorific value due to oxidisation.
  I have discovered that my Scientific Advisory Council advised my predecessor that it was perfectly satisfied that under good storage conditions the average loss of calorific value of coal stocked was less than 2 per cent. a year. It said at the same time—here I wish to be perfectly fair and honest with the House that—with bad storage coal might deteriorate a great deal more quickly. In fact, the Fuel Research Station had records of a 10 per cent. loss in two months where spontaneous combustion was taking place.
  I know that my hon. Friend is considerably interested in spontaneous combustion, but I wish to assure him that it takes place most infrequently and that where it does take place—I think that he was interested in one particular dump of coal—the hot coal is very quickly removed. The average loss in calorific

  1159
  value, taking the stocks over the country as a whole, is consequently small.
  The advice I have received from the Scientific Advisory Committee is borne out by three investigations carried out before the war by Coal Survey, the Fuel Research Station and I.C.I. These experiments extended over a period of up to five years, covering a considerable variety of different kinds of coal. Their discoveries bore out what I suggested to be true about deterioration, that the loss of calorific value is between 15 per cent. to 1 per cent. a year. That is very very much below the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend, but they found that in the very smallest coal—less than 1/20th of an inch—there was a greater deterioration. That does not apply to the situation at the moment, because only a very small proportion of the stocks is of coal of this very small size.
  I am convinced that the correct techniques of storing coal are well understood nowadays and are being applied by the National Coal Board. It is carefully watching the temperature of this coal and is prepared quickly to take action with any part of a dump of coal which shows signs of overheating. The Board tells me that it is quite satisfied that over the stocks as a whole the average deterioration in calorific value is not more than 1 per cent. a year. On the basis not only of my own inquiries, but of earlier experiments carried out before the war, I see no reason to dispute the Board's figure.
  Another matter which has exercised hon. Members is the allied question of the value of these stocks of coal. When the Board values stocks for its published balance sheet, it subtracts from current market value an allowance to cover degradation and expected loss of calorific value based on the estimates to which I have referred. Secondly, it allows something for all double handling and marketing expenses and adds a general contingency provision. Therefore, the average valuation—I think it important that we should have the figure quite clear—which the Board places on its coal stocks is about £3 6s. a ton. The valuation of its stocks of coke is rather higher, £5 4s. a ton—making the average for stocks of coal and coke about £4 a ton.
  1160
  I have no wish to keep the House, but merely to commend the Bill. Its purpose is to try to increase the efficiency of the industry and to increase during the next few years the competitive power of coal. Things have been said in earlier debates which have suggested that some hon. Members, particularly hon. Friends of mine, are not anxious to make the nationalised industries efficient. I certainly cannot speak for all hon. Members, but I can speak for myself. I have come to the firm conclusion that there is nothing which could conceivably be gained—economically, politically or in any other way—from the inefficiency of any industry.
  We very resolutely opposed nationalisation. We still oppose nationalisation—and I understand that even some hon. Members opposite are beginning to have some doubts about nationalisation—but we do not intend to denationalise the coal industry. I am convinced, and I believe that the nation agrees, that our object must be to help the industry and the other nationalised industries towards greater efficiency. That is, as I see it, the object of the Bill, and I therefore ask the House to give it its Third Reading.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Finch: We had a very full discussion of this Bill both on Second Reading and in Cornmittee, when we debated the various aspects of the problems facing the mining industry at this time. It is not my intention to speak at any length on Third Reading, but it is necessary now to draw the attention of the House to some important features connected with the Bill.
  I must point out that this Measure merely provides for a loan to the industry, a loan which has to be repaid with interest. It is a matter of raising a loan for the industry. Even so, the Bill provides for only about one-quarter of the capital investment for the next five years. The remaining three-quarters will be found from the resources of the Coal Board.
  These borrowing powers must be distinguished from subsidies. A line must be drawn between a loan and a subsidy, such as that which is being given to the agricultural, aircraft and cotton industries. This matter of subsidy and loan will, I am sure, have the attention

  1161
  of the House in months to come. Here we are asking only for a loan, not for national assistance to private industry, such as agriculture, aircraft and cotton. The Bill will not cost the taxpayer one penny. This is a loan.
  That cannot be said of some of the subsidies given to private enterprise, which are costing the taxpayer money. Right from the inception of nationalisation, this industry has not cost the taxpayer a penny. During private ownership, there were times when the coal owners came to the Government for assistance and got it and the mining industry, under private ownership, did cost the nation money. Under nationalisation, it has not done so.
  As I said in Committee, and as the Minister has pointed out, the Bill is to enable the Coal Board to fulfil its "Revised Plan for Coal". It will enable the Board further to increase its efficiency and productivity and to reduce costs and will help it in its efforts to compete with oil. That is the purpose of the revised plan on which the borrowing powers in the Bill are based. In advocating the need for a fuel policy, some hon. Members opposite said that the industry must make itself efficient to compete with oil. The Bill proposes to add to the efficiency of the programme of the Coal Board. Yet, some hon. Members opposite were prepared to diminish the borrowing powers of the Board and thus cripple it in its efforts to fight oil.
  Hon. Members opposite have argued that these loans for capital expenditure are not getting results. The House will, I am sure, appreciate that the coal industry must have long-term planning. It is not possible to reconstruct pits, or to sink new ones in a few months. This takes years. However, past capital expenditure is now bearing results. Output per man-shift overall increased by well over 5 per cent. in 1959 compared with the previous year. At the face, output went up by 6 per cent., the highest increase for more than thirty years. We are now reaping the fruits of capital expenditure.
  Since nationalisation, productivity has risen by 30 per cent. This improvement in productivity has helped to lower production costs by 1s. 9d. a ton compared with 1958. These are substantial
  1162
  achievements. If the demand for coal equals approximately that estimated by the Board during the next five years, there are good prospects of productivity rising still further.
  On these results, the Government should congratulate the Coal Board. They should congratulate the miners on their achievements during the past few years. The results are a credit to the coal mining industry. It must be realised that coal mining is an extractive industry. Considerable investment is required each year simply to maintain existing capacity. Every ton of coal which is taken out of a pit makes it more difficult to mine the next ton. The law of diminishing returns must operate in this industry. Therefore, a part of this capital expenditure under the Bill must be used for maintaining as well as increasing output.
  Much capital expenditure has been involved in reconstruction and the sinking of new pits. Such expenditure was essential because there was very little reconstruction for years prior to nationalisation. Much of this capital expenditure has been necessary, because, as it is stated in the Reid Report, the industry was suffering from age and bad planning. Prior to nationalisation, not one pit was sunk for thirty years. The industry generally was in a derelict condition. Huge sums of money had to be spent to put the industry on anything like a normal footing.
  Pits have been sunk in recent years and these borrowing powers will give the Board the opportunity to proceed with its programme and to construct further pits similar to that which Sir James Bowman opened recently, the Brynlliw Colliery, near Swansea. This is a classic example. The work has been completed nine months ahead of schedule. The industrial correspondent of the Western Mail and South Wales News said on Saturday:
  "I toured the colliery yesterday and saw how coal is being mined the modern way, untouched by hand. Mine cars pull electric motors travelling at 15 miles per hour, taking miners to the coal face, and unload coal by remote control at pit bottom."
  That is a different sort of colliery from the ones which we had in the inter-war years.
  Mr. James Griffiths: If I may remind my hon. Friend, this is one

  1163
  of the pits which was closed in the early 'twenties by private enterprise. It has been reopened under nationalisation.
  Mr. Finch: This is the way to make the industry efficient. More collieries of this kind will be opened in the near future.
  During 1959, 25 major colliery reconstructions were substantially completed, making the total 127 since the reconstruction programme began in 1947. The number of schemes for new collieries and drift mines and the construction of new collieries in progress at the end of the year was 146. A lot of money has been spent on improving working conditions and the safety of the men in the industry, and I am sure that the House will agree that this capital expenditure is essential. I am confident that the Coal Board's plan will produce results in the near future.
  We are all concerned about the stocking of coal, but had coal not been stocked we should have been faced with considerable unemployment in the coalfield. Large sums of money would have had to be paid in unemployment benefit. The lower purchasing power of the £ would have percolated through the economy generally and we should have been faced with serious social and industrial consequences if coal had not been stocked, however regrettable that may be.
  The Coal Board has taken the burden from the country. The Board need not have stocked coal. It could have put men on short time, but it preferred not to do so. It bore the brunt of the burden by paying for the stocking of coal. If it had not been for the stocking of coal, there is no doubt that the industry would have shown a profit this year. While we are very much concerned about the position, we are glad to hear from the Minister that there is some decline in the stocking of coal.
  I know that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has always been interested in the question of stocking, but I have always had difficulty in following him in this matter. Not so long ago, he thought that that was a proper and efficient course to take. Yet, on Second Reading, or in Committee, he was very critical of the increase in stocking. What did he say on 1st December, 1958?
  1164
  "If we are to mine 200 million tons of coal a year, the rationalised figure I referred to, I would not regard it as unreasonable to have an aggregation of distributed and undistributed stocks of 50 million tons, which is one-quarter of a year's production. Any prudent business engaged in large-scale operations normally keeps about three months' stocks in hand at any one time, and 50 million tons is 12 million tons more than the 38 million tons which we have today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 1235.]
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has omitted to refer to my response to that point on 27th January, 1960. I said:
  "I have been absolutely consistent. I have with me the speech that I made on 3rd December, 1958. I said that three months' stocks would be about the right figure and that 50 million tons would be reasonable as an aggregation of distributed and undistributed stocks. I still hold this view. These Amendments are designed to prevent a further increase in the stocks after next April"—
  that is, April, 1960—
  "above 50 million tons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 262.]
  The whole of my efforts in Committee were devoted to preventing a rise in stocks above 50 million tons, which I regard as the maximum that the nation may prudently and judiciously hold.
  Mr. Finch: The hon. Member must now be satisfied with the position.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am.
  Mr. Finch: I am very pleased to know that, because throughout the Committee stage of the Bill a great deal of criticism was levelled against the Coal Board in such circumstances.
  We support the Bill. It is essential to the industry to enable it to get on with its programme, not that we regard the Bill as meeting the situation. We do not. We do not think that this Measure in itself is sufficient. We are still faced with a very serious position in the industry. We should be glad if the Government would underpin the Coal Board plan and help it by adopting a fuel policy in which the demand for coal can be sustained in these circumstances.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I am so surprised to have been called at this stage of our deliberations that I have not quite overtaken the intervention I made a few moments ago in the speech

  1165
  of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). Throughout our deliberations on the Bill there has been a cleavage of opinion between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and myself.
  Mr. J. B. Symonds: That is normal.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member says that it is normal, and he is right. It has been normal during the last few years.
  In my speech on Second reading I drew attention to the fact that the corpses of former Ministers of Fuel and Power littered the Tory benches. They litter the Tory benches because successive Ministers of Fuel and Power have consistently been wrong in their future estimates concerning the coal mining industry. That is why there has been a cleavage of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself dating from our respective Second Reading speeches on 23rd November last and the Committee stage speeches on 27th January; and I have no doubt that there will be a cleavage of opinion this afternoon.
  I stress the word "opinion". My right hon. Friend is advised by the senior officers of the National Coal Board. I take no exception to the fact that they give him advice.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: That is very good of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, it is very good of me. I take no exception to the fact that they give advice to my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that they are always as accurate as they might be.
  My right hon. Friend maintains a small coterie of ministerial advisers who act as liaison officers between himself and the heads of the nationalised fuel and power boards. As was so clearly demonstrated in the book published a few months ago by Mr. Kelf-Cohen, who was for many years the second senior civil servant at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, those ministerial officers are very largely bound by the advice, in the context of coal, which comes to them from Hobart House.
  The cleavage of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself on the Bill has been fundamental. First, my right hon. Friend has vouchsafed to the House that in 1960 there will be a consumption of coal of 196 million tons, a production
  1166
  of coal of 195 million tons, and, therefore, stocks of coal will decline by only 1 million tons. We are at the coldest time of the winter at present. We have about six weeks of the coal winter to run.
  From 1st April stocks will begin to rise. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member said that last week."] I said it last week and I say it again, because in the Bill we are dealing with very large sums of money which, contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bedwellty, ultimately have to be found not from the Consolidated Fund resources but from the taxpayers' purse. They may be losses, but the Bill is an exercise in deficit financing for a nationalised industry. It is exactly analogous to deficit financing on the railways.
  It is no good my right hon. Friend shaking his head in disagreement. He is disagreeing with me already, thus demonstrating once again the cleavage of opinion between us. A few weeks ago I had to drag an admission from his entrails, and reluctantly he gave way to me. He had said that the losses on the Coal Board's accounts up to the end of 1958 were about £28 million. I told him that I calculated that by the end of 1959 the losses forward would rise to £50 million. He indicated dissent at first, shaking his head as he has shaken it this afternoon. Finally, he capitulated and wrote me a letter confirming that they would be about £50 million up to the end of 1959.
  Our cleavage of opinion is the extent of the losses in the current year. My right hon. Friend will not even confide to the House—I regard it as a dereliction of his duty that he refuses to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I repeat the words. I regard it as a dereliction of his duty that he refuses to do so. He will not give the House an opinion on whether the Board is likely to make a profit or a loss this year. My interpretation of the position is that the Board will make a substantial loss during the year 1960, having regard to the level of stocks—
  Mr. B. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman mean an operating loss or a loss after commitments, such as interest payments—not only to the old coal owners, but to the royalty owners—and subsidence charges and other added

  1167
  burdens? I am anxious that we should have a clear picture.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will be perfectly clear. The Board will make a trading loss this year after all charges. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) framed the Statute in 1947 and wrote into it the provision that the Board should pay its way, taking year by year. He was responsible for putting interest charges to the account of the Board. Do not let any of us be mealy-mouthed about it. We are all agreed about the basis, that the Board should pay its way taking year with year. The losses forward up to the end of 1959 were £50 million.
  My right hon. Friend will not tell the House his estimate of the loss for the current year. He is shaking his head again, indicating that he will not do so. I believe that it is a dereliction of duty on his part not to tell the House that the Board is likely to add to its £50 million losses in the current year. That is the first cleavage of opinion between us.
  The second cleavage of opinion between us is in regard to stocks. Of course, I have said that a proper stock at the beginning of the coal winter, that is to say, November in each year, should be a quarter's reserve. That is 50 million tons on an annual production of 200 million tons. My Amendments in Committee were designed to prevent the very real danger of these stocks rising above 50 million tons after 1st April next.
  My right hon. Friend says that stocks will be reduced by 1 million tons during the whole of 1960. I say that stocks are much more likely to rise during 1960. I have said that, if production proved to be higher than 195 million tons and consumption proved to be lower than 196 million tons—the ministerial estimates—then stocks would rise sharply. I estimated that they might possibly rise to 75 million tons.
  Mr. Finch rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish.
  The Minister pooh-poohs that. His Parliamentary Secretary had the impertinence to say that statements of that kind were wild. The Parliamentary Secretary, as an earnest of his personal faith in the
  1168
  nationalisation of the coal industry, promptly left the coal industry on nationalisation. That is how much he supports nationalised coal.
  Mr. Finch rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: I will give way in a moment.
  Mr. B. Taylor: It is a long moment.
  Mr. Nabarro: The effluxion of time will show whether the Parliamentary Secretary is the wilder of the two of us. I rest content that I have always been opposed to deficit financing of nationalised industries. I have always taken the view that these large sums in deficit on State boards, supported by unlimited borrowing powers, are a burden on the taxpayer. The Parliamentary Secretary outdoes the Socialists themselves by the glib and specious reply that it is not taxpayers' money. He says that it comes from the Consolidated Fund. Pray, who furnishes the Consolidated Fund?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but—
  Mr. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman please let me finish this passage? I will give way. At least, I am purer in my Tory beliefs than the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Taylor: Purer?
  Mr. Nabarro: I said purer—purer in my Tory beliefs than the Parliamentary Secretary, who is more Socialist than the Socialist Front Bench itself.
  Mr. Griffiths: I was trying to charge my memory, and, so far as I recall, the hon. Member for Kidderminster was not in his place yesterday when the Government were proposing to give public money, taxpayers' money, to the private aircraft industry.
  Mr. Nabarro: I cannot go into that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): We cannot discuss that on the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I entirely agree with that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. You will have observed my purity in Parliamentary procedure in that I have not even mentioned the aircraft industry in my speech.
  May I reply, not in terms of the aircraft industry, to the point of principle

  1169
  which the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has raised? On Thursday, we shall debate iron and steel. I shall express my view about subventions by the State to private industry on that occasion, which is the proper time to do it. My Tory faith will outshine even the demonstration of Tory faith and beliefs which I am giving today.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has very little to do with this Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this occasion. I have been misled.
  The second cleavage of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself concerns the extent of stocks.
  Mr. Finch rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: Very well. In weariness, I give way.
  Mr. Finch: I do not understand the hon Member at all. He has supported the policy of having stocks and more stocks time after time in speeches he has made in the House of Commons. I have quoted one of his speeches, and I will quote another. On 14th July, 1958, he said:
  "In view of this new political crisis in the Middle East, we would be ill advised to place increasing dependence on fuel oil. Rather would I have a policy here at home of continuing to mine the maximum tonnage of coal, even if it means storing increasing quantities,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 910.]
  Mr. Nabarro: I shall deal with all these points in the course of my speech. I am at the moment addressing myself to my right hon. Friend. I have given two fundamental cleavages of opinion between us.
  I come now to the third fundamental cleavage of opinion. My right hon. Friend believes that the rate of deterioration and degradation of these huge stocks of coal is 1 per cent. per annum. Yet 16 million tons of these stocks are represented by unscreened, unwashed, low grade coals with a high ash content. I believe that it is manifest nonsense to say that coals of that type and nature deteriorate by only 1 per cent. per annum.
  Mr. Woodrow Wyatt rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: I do ask hon. Members to let me finish.
  None of us can be absolutely sure about the rate of deterioration, but what I am quite convinced about—here lies the third major cleavage of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself—is that the Coal Board is "cooking the books" by writing into its accounts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, "cooking the books", I said, in writing into its accounts the sum of £141 million—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A deliberate charge has been made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster against the Coal Board, for which the Minister is responsible. He says that the Board is cooking its books. Since the Minister is, under the Act, responsible for the industry, may I ask whether he will now rise, as I think it is his duty, and say that, as Minister responsible, he refutes that gross charge?
  Mr. Wood: I should like to take the opportunity of pointing out to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that he is not only making accusations against the National Coal Board, but he is making accusations of a very serious character indeed against its accountants and auditors.
  Mr. B. Taylor: Will the hon. Member for Kidderminster make outside the House the statement that he has just made?
  Mr. Nabarro: Surely, there cannot be any point of order in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I used those words to Mr. Speaker on 8th February last. I said to my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not suggested that there was a point of order in it.
  Mr. Nabarro: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your protection.
  Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not very much against the traditions of the House to make accusations of that kind against accountants and auditors who are quite unable to defend themselves, quite apart from accusations against the Minister and the Coal Board?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not out of order. The responsibility rests with the hon. Member who makes them.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it not in accordance with the traditions of the House that, if an hon. Member makes a charge which reflects upon the honour of persons who are not here to defend themselves, for example, auditors, he ought to make the statement outside so that the people so charged can have their own remedy, which is not open to them so long as such statements are made within the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am conscious of the heavy responsibilities which rest upon my shoulders, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Referring to the accountancy practice of the Board's accountants, I said to my right hon. Friend on 8th February—he did not deign to reply—that
  "… the best accountancy practice requires that these stocks shall be put into the accounts at cost or market value, whichever is the lower. Will my right hon. Friend be precise on that point as more than £140 million is involved?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 13.]
  Cost or market value, whichever is the lower, is the accepted formula throughout industry, commerce and the accountancy profession in this country for the evaluation of stocks. I believe that the cost of these stocks is higher and the market value is certainly much lower than the figures which the Board has written into its accounts. For this reason, I believe—
  Mr. Griffiths: That is different from "cooking the books".
  Mr. Nabarro: The Board is seeking to minimise its loss forward and when the true evaluation of these stocks is taken, that is, when they are sold—if ever—and when they have to be sold at a greatly written down figure, if ever, then the losses forward will be greatly increased. I give way now to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt).
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe the figures given by the Minister this afternoon, based on the expert and scientific advice which he has received on the rate of deterioration of stocks, because it can only be on that basis that the hon.
  1172
  Gentleman is saying that the stocks are valued wrongly in the accounts? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the Iron and Coal Trades Review of 14th November, 1958, where he will find the whole of these investigations set out very carefully, calculated by the best experts in the land?
  Mr. Nabarro: I will consult the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers after I have finished my speech. I do not carry it around with me in my waistcoat pocket.
  I am sorry that this afternoon the hon. Gentleman was trying to foist on the Royal Family at Windsor Castle a deluge of "nutty slack". Poor souls, why should they suffer!
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This has nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall relate it in a moment to the Third Reading.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the stocks of coal and to minimising those stocks. The hon. Gentleman's question this afternoon was directed to keeping Windsor Castle on coal burning.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will not pursue the point about Windsor Castle.
  I have mentioned the three main cleavages of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself. There is a ministerial hypothesis in this regard and also a hypothesis expounded by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I believe that, in the event, my hypothesis will be more accurate than the ministerial hypothesis. I believe, therefore, that the losses of the Coal Board will increase during 1960, for the reasons I have stated. That will undermine the probity of the Bill before the House today and it will cause my right hon. Friend to come back to the House for additional borrowing powers at a substantially earlier date than he envisaged in his Second Reading speech.
  My right hon. Friend's predecessors at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, in Conservative Administrations, were invariably obliged to come to the House for more and more borrowing powers at earlier and earlier dates than they estimated.

  1173
  I shall not oppose the Bill in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Why not?
  Mr. Nabarro: Why not? I will tell the hon. Gentleman why not. I do not suppose that he was present during the debate on 27th January, 1960—
  Mr. Silverman: Why does the hon. Gentleman suppose that?
  Mr. Nabarro: —to vote on that date. And he did not vote.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Member that this is the Third Reading debate?
  Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  I was saying when I was interrupted that I shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because a part of the increased borrowing powers is necessary to the Coal Board. I sought in Committee to reduce the extent of the additional borrowing powers. I was defeated in the Lobby on that count, but that does not make me any the less right, and I counsel my Conservative colleagues—I would not expect acceptance of this view by Socialists—to note the marked analogy between the two nationalised industries to which I have referred and the words written in The Times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on 15th February, with all the authority of an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. I am a faithful disciple of his. My right hon. Friend said:
  "Wage fixing without regard to profitability is the method applied in the Civil Service. If it is to be applied to railways it might be applied to coal mines, also."
  That is the danger with deficit financing for State boards—endless borrowing without profitability. That is the policy of my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary, endless borrowing—
  Mr. Silverman rose—
  Mr. Nabarro: —without profitability. And hanging over my right hon. Friend's head—I hope that he will look this way—is the £75 million pay claim of the National Union of Mineworkers. It goes to arbitration. If it is conceded wholly or in part it cannot be met by advancing
  1174
  or increasing the price of coal, because if the price of coal in increased further it will lead to a diminution of demand and to the greater use of oil. If the miners wage claim is conceded on arbitration it would increase the losses of the Coal Board further, and it will cause my right hon. Friend to come back to the House even earlier to seek a renewal of increased borrowing powers.
  My right hon. Friend would not respond to that point which I made on Second Reading of the Bill. He took the view, haughtily, that these matters were none of his concern. They are the concern of all taxpayers, because it is the taxpayers who are having to underwrite the huge sums of money in the Bill. As I have said, I shall not vote against the Bill. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to sneer, but I voted with 12 of my hon. Friends in Committee against the Government on the extent of the borrowing powers. I took 26 hon. Members on this side of the House into the Lobby against the Government on the same issue on 10th May, 1956.
  The Board needs some extra borrowing powers, but it does not need borrowing powers to the great extent to which my right hon. Friend is demanding in the Bill.
  Mr. Silverman: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's statement that he does not propose to vote against the Bill. No one doubts his courage; he has, as he has said, frequently voted with a minority against his own side. I would further concede to him that many of us have voted for things with which we do not entirely agree because something is there with which we cannot dispense. But the hon. Gentleman has used strange language. He has talked about "cooking the books". That means a fraudulent prospectus. If the Bill proposes to borrow money on a fraudulent prospectus, ought not the hon. Gentleman to vote against it?
  Mr. Nabarro: The trouble is that the whole of nationalisation is a fraudulent prospectus. It is a source of great grief to me that hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, and who masquerade as Conservative Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry

  1175
  of Power, should support such a fraudulent prospectus as that contained in the Bill which we are discussing today.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I was very pleased to find the Minister supporting nationalisation in this Measure, but I was disappointed that he did not mention some of the achievements of the National Coal Board in making itself more efficient, thus demonstrating the exact opposite to what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has been saying. The Board has achieved a very fine record in the last year or two in increasing its efficiency, and this money is to be devoted precisely to that.
  If one looks, for example, at improvements made in power loading, one finds that in 1947 only 2 per cent. of coal was power-loaded whereas in 1959 it was 32 per cent. Again, if one looks at mechanical cleaning plants, one finds that in 1958 22 new plants were brought into operation with a capacity of 12 million tons. At the moment, 63 new plants are in the process of being constructed to deal with a further 48 million tons. This money is being devoted to improving the efficiency of the coal industry. One of the weaknesses of the Conservative Party's economic policy for the last two or three years has been that not enough capital has been devoted to increased capital investment or increased efficiency. Here we have a nationalised industry which has set an example in increased productivity, investment and efficiency.
  If we take some standard techniques of mining, shaft sinking for example, we find shaft sinking techniques have become faster, safer and leading to greater capacity. Nine new shafts have been sunk during 1958, more than in any other year since vesting day, and 20 new shafts are in process of being sunk. Tunnelling has become more efficient. In that respect, too, 1958 was a record year for length of tunnelling leading to more efficient methods and faster and cheaper production.
  The proving of reserves has taken on a new aspect. Off-shore boring towers have provided additional information. The one in Scotland has added considerably to the knowledge and ultimate
  1176
  efficiency of the Scottish coalfield. There is, at the moment, one operating off the Durham coast which has been doing precisely the same for the East Durham coalfield. Six new coke ovens were operating by the end of 1958 at a cost of about £48 million. This has borne hardly on the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) and Durham (Mr. Grey). Men are being sacked as a result of improvements in efficiency, but the National Union of Mineworkers has not been protesting about that. It accepts, particularly in Durham, the efforts of the Board to improve efficiency.
  In addition, the Coal Board has been reducing its overhead costs. There has been a reduction in the holding stocks of materials of £6 million in 1958 and there have been improved methods of stock control. Five new central stores were brought into operation in 1958, and now there are 28. There have been central purchasing economies. Standard procedures were introduced for letting constructional and engineering contracts in 1959. There have been electronic data processing machines for pay bills and so on. We have one in Durham. All these are signs of a great increase in efficiency and productivity on the part of the Coal Board partly based on these loans.
  One of the striking facts which has emerged in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) was the fall in production costs of 1s. 9d. a ton in 1959. This is quite remarkable when set against the biggest fall in the demand for coal since 1932. With this fall in demand there have been the biggest increases in productivity because the Board has been playing the game by the nation. At the same time the workers have not suffered. If one recalls the slumps and crises of pre-war days, it will be remembered that the first people who bore the brunt were the miners. Fortunately, in 1958 and 1959 conditions for miners improved. The pay award of September, 1958, gave £10 million in 1959 to the miners and this well-deserved pay award was based on increased productivity.
  In September, 1958, there were improvements in miners' sickness benefit amounting to 30s. a week for 30 days' sickness absence and 15s. a week for a

  1177
  further 30 days absence at a cost of £2 million a year, which was borne out of increasing productivity. Widows' benefits were increased by one-third to £200, and who would argue against that? I do not think that the most reactionary of Tories would criticise that benefit. The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation spent £1 million in benefits throughout the industry, and several of my former students have benefited enormously from schemes supported by this organisation. Now 95 per cent. of the industry is provided with pithead baths, which has helped to improve the self-respect and general demeanour of the coal miners. In 1958 one-third of a million pounds was spent on canteens.
  It is all very well to look at the question of profit in terms of a balance-sheet and judge it from the point of view of private enterprise. But one of the public obligations of the Board is to raise the standard of conditions for the miners in addition to increasing productivity. It has done that, and I hope it will continue to do so.
  Mr. B. Taylor: I am sure my hon. Fiend would agree that quite as important as the provision of pithead baths and canteens is the provision of medical centres at quite a number of collieries during the past few years.
  Mr. Boyden: I am grateful for that intervention. In my notes I have spelt out "pneumoconiosis" so that I should be quite sure to pronounce it properly, though I am familiar with the disease. There has been a great improvement. In 1958, there were 2,902 cases compared with 3,756 in 1957 and 4,853 in 1956. I think that is conclusive proof of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor).
  There has also been an improvement in industrial relations. There were fewer stoppages in 1959. When one recalls that in those black days, the five years before the war, 44 per cent. to 68 per cent. of the industrial stoppages were in the coalfields, one can appreciate the considerable improvement which has taken place, not only in productivity and social conditions, but also in industrial relations within the industry. All these things have been accomplished with considerable difficulty not only over the stocking of coal but also what the economist might call frictional disturbances outside the control of the Board.
  1178
  For example, during the last quarter of 1959 450,000 tons of coal had to be stocked because of a shortage of railway wagons and in the same quarter 60,000 tons of production were lost for the same reason. In January of this year 360,000 tons of coal could not be delivered to the consumers who required it because of the shortage of railway wagons. In the first week of this month 120,000 tons could not be delivered. That makes a total of almost 1 million tons of coal required by consumers which it was not possible to deliver because of the shortage of railway rolling stock. If ever there was a matter requiring Government intervention and remedies, both immediate and long-term, it is the question of co-ordinating transport and the policies of British Railways.
  I think it fair to say that the blame for the fact that nearly 1 million tons of coal has not been delivered to consumers in the last few months lies fairly and squarely on the Government. I understand that the situation in the Midlands is that the National Coal Board has been negotiating with the British Transport Commission to deliver 50,000 tons of coal a week by road.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I find it difficult to relate what he is saying to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Boyden: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will return to the vital point. I was trying to stress that these difficulties are within the control of the Government and this investment will enable the Coal Board to become still more efficient.
  Great play has been made with the argument that the public is bearing some of these costs, but in fact the miners are bearing the cost. It is a tribute to nationalisation that a blow which in the past would have been dealt against the miners has been cushioned by stocking.
  Nevertheless, the miner still bears the cost. Old men who want to work are unable to work. Young men are transferred and, while they are provided with a job, they often have to work at lower wages and in a strange environment. There is loss of pay, loss of Saturday working and loss of overtime. There is considerable inconvenience to them in travelling, and many of them have to

  1179
  migrate. What is worse, the prospects for their sons and the prospects for those who are sick or only partially fit are particularly poor in the coal-mining areas.
  It therefore ill behoves some hon. Members opposite to criticise the measures which are being taken by the Government, because the Coal Board, the mining industry and the men in the industry have risen very well to the demand for increased productivity and increased efficiency in the last few years. This is the smallest measure which can be taken to help them to continue the viability of the industry and the maintenance of this reserve of energy in the country which in the last few years has rescued us from industrial crises of shortages.
  5.41 p.m.
  Colonel C. G. Lancaster: Nobody would quarrel with the speeches of the hon. Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), in which they have drawn attention to the definite improvement which is occurring in the coal industry as a result of the very large infusion of money over the last ten or fifteen years. This is beginning to show results. It is because we are satisfied that this improvement is occurring and because we want it to continue that hon. Members in all parts of the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
  We are, however, concerned and worried about the stocks, and if I dwell for a few minutes on this subject it is because I want to give a slightly different slant to it from that which my right hon. Friend gave when he was making his very clear explanation of the situation as he saw it.
  The coal winter is a period of five months extending from 31st October to the end of March. During those five months it is normal to have a run-down of stocks. During the remaining seven months of the year it is normal for the stocks to increase. What is causing me some concern is that the run-down of stocks from 31st October to date has been about 5 million tons.
  I think that perhaps a little confusion has arisen between distributed and undistributed stocks in that respect, because when there are large undistributed stocks it is quite normal for the distributed
  1180
  stocks to be somewhat lower than usual. In the old days, it was normal to have distributed stocks of 19 million to 23 million tons. This year we started with about 16 million tons. This was because both merchants and industry realised that there was available at a moment's notice in undistributed stocks all the additional coal they might want. We have to look at the whole picture.
  During the four months which have elapsed since 31st October about 5 million tons has been raised from stocks. If we continue at roughly the same rate, then by the end of the coal winter about 6 million or 6½ million tons will have been raised from stocks, both distributed and undistributed.
  We then have to face seven months during which it is normal for stocks to start rising again. Whereas in the old days there was some flexibility between winter production and summer production, there is now none at all. We have the guaranteed week and the guaranteed wage. The days of the bull weeks and Saturday working are over. We must therefore assume that production during the subsequent seven months will be on the same level as has been occurring during the five months to which I have referred.
  There will be the gradual effect of pits going out of production which have been earmarked to end their days, but against that there is the additional productivity which is occurring in the industry day by day. That is not a constant. It is bound to be on a rising scale. If a great mass of machinery is introduced, as has been done, and if all the improvements which have been mentioned this afternoon are occurring, and continue to occur, then the ratio of productivity will continue to rise. Where I find myself a little at variance with my right hon. Friend is that I am not as sanguine as he is that there will be no rise in stocks. I do not join my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the level which he thought likely, but I am inclined to think that there is bound to be some rise in 1960.
  What are the possibilities before the National Coal Board in that respect? If productivity continues to rise, as I think it will, the Board will have three possibilities before it. First, it can work short time, but, as I said a few weeks

  1181
  ago, that would make the Board's new recruiting campaign a hopeless proposition. I assume that the Board would not do that. Secondly, it can say to management, "Go easy" That is a very difficult thing to do. Once an industry is tooled up, to ask management not to work at the maximum production within the limits which have been ascribed to it is excessively difficult, because it affects the morale of management and in due course the morale of he men. I do not think that that is a practical proposition. The third possibility is to close down more pits. We want to see that avoided at any cost until the right moment arrives.
  If none of these three methods is applied, there is no alternative to seeing some additional stocking take place. I read today in one of the trade journals that one of the Coal Board's divisions has made arrangements to take an additional 170 acres of land for additional stocking. I do not believe that that sort of thing happens unless it is envisaged that some stocking will occur. I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to consider for a moment how much land is represnted by 170 acres. It is a very large area. If it is envisaged in one division that it is necessary to take so much additional land for stocking, there must be some doubts within the industry of the likelihood of the diminution in stocks by 1 million tons in 1960 to which reference has been made. I hope that I shall be found wrong, but I should certainly be wrong if I did not utter my warning of the possibility of a rise in stocks during the ensuing year, in the light of what I have said.
  May I say a word about the condition of these stocks? When the findings of the Minister's Scientific Committee declare that it is satisfied that the effect of deterioration is only about 1 per cent., it is difficult for anyone to say that the Committee is giving us incorrect information, but I ask hon. Members opposite, in particular, who are familiar with the properties of coal, to recognise that in many of our best seams—the top hard, the Barnsley Bed and many of our coking coals—there is an element of pyrites which creates a risk of oxidisation, and that that has a bearing on the condition of these stocks unless in all these cases they are very carefully watched. In any event, that would be
  1182
  a small matter. As has been said, the important aspect of stocking is the condition of these untreated smalls, of both types, the unscreened and the untreated, amounting to about 16 or 17 million tons.
  During the Select Committee's inquiry into the coal industry a year ago, we tried to get a satisfactory answer concerning the ash content of the coal then being mined, but we never got any satisfaction in that regard. I am inclined to think that the ash content has gone up considerably over the last few years. That is no reflection on the Coal Board which has introduced methods which in their very nature increase the ash content. Apart from that, however, we are mining a great many seams which, possibly, are not of the same quality as those mined twenty or thirty years ago.
  Generally speaking, these untreated smalls have a large ash content. I do not say that that in itself brings about deterioration. What I am saying is that the coal, apart from what is taken by power stations, is not an acceptable commodity to the great mass of industrial consumers. It will inevitably have to be taken and treated before it is a saleable article. The double handling required for that purpose in putting it through the preparation plants and the like is a costly affair.
  What we must also remember is that quite a proportion of this coal has inevitably been dumped at positions outside the normal channel of its use. It will have to be lifted and brought back, in many cases by road haulage, into the areas where it is to be sold, and in a great majority of cases it must be retreated also.
  I find it difficult to believe that within the orbit of 4s., which is the figure that is applied after the first two years to our stocks of coal, it will be practicable both to bring that coal back into its proper channels and to retreat with the double handling which is thereby involved. I find it difficult to believe that all this can be done within the orbit of the 4s.
  Although it is difficult to ignore the advice on which my right hon. Friend, quite properly, is basing his opinion of a very low figure for actual deterioration, nevertheless the incidence of what I have mentioned—the factor of pyrites in one direction and the high ash content in

  1183
  another direction—is such that the requirement to put the article on to the market in an acceptable condition will be expensive.
  Those are the two points I wanted to make. I have made them not so much to try to suggest that I am necessarily right in my forecast, but to sound a note of warning to my right hon. Friend, who is faced in these matters with a difficult situation. Inevitably, he has to accept the advice of those who, in many ways, are best able to give it. Nevertheless, we should be wrong to ignore all past experience in these matters. Stocking took place in the years before nationalisation and we had experience of what it cost in the long run. Often, anything over six months turned out to be a costly affair, not only in degradation, but in the condition in which stocks were lifted and in the necessary additional double handling that was needed for the coal. There is quite a wealth of experience, which, on the whole, is somewhat disturbed by the forecasts which are being made. Here again, I hope I shall be proved wrong, but, equally, I should be wrong in not giving this note of warning to my right hon. Friend. I know that he will give the matter careful attention.
  Having said that, I want to get back to the fact that I, like, I think, almost everybody in the House, am anxious to see that my right hon. Friend has the money to go forward with the good work which is being done by way of reconstruction, development and the like, which not only will put the mines into first-class order, but will give them a fair chance of competing with other forms of fuel.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: One always listens with interest to the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), because one knows that not only has he had great experience in these matters but that he really cares about what happens. When he makes suggestions to the Minister I am sure that he makes them with the most sincere intention.
  I am not quite so sure that that applies to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), whose convolutions are so extraordinary that it is always difficult to follow them or to fathom which way
  1184
  he is going. This afternoon the hon. Member reached a new low in his juggling when he attacked the Coal Board and its auditors for dishonesty. That was not the right thing to do, and the hon. Member did it, I think, on a misapprehension of his facts.
  The last time that we had one of these debates, to take a leaf from the hon. Member's book, I had to correct his figures, which were wrong and out of date. He had not read the corrections. The Minister confirmed that I was right and that the hon. Member was wrong.
  Mr. Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Member is not, therefore, the infallible oracle that he sometimes makes himself out to be. If only he would look at the Iron and Coal Trades Review of 14th November, 1958, he would find set out in the utmost detail the calculations on which the Minister has partly based his statement this afternoon that the deterioration in the stocks is somewhere beween 15 per cent. and 1 per cent. a year for most of the coal, whereas for coal of less than one-twentieth of an inch it may be as much as 3 per cent. in a year. As, however, that type of coal is less than 5 per cent. of all the current stocks this does not very much affect the issue.
  That survey lasted for five years. It was carried out by experts of considerable standing, some of them from private enterprise, which may console the hon. Member for Kidderminster. It was thoroughly exhaustive. As nobody has yet disproved the proposition on which it was based, there is no reason to suppose that it was wrongly based.
  It is wrong, therefore, to accuse the Coal Board and its auditors of dishonesty when they value the stocks in the Board's books on the basis of that sort of figure. They have made more allowance for deterioration, I think, than they would be entitled to do on the basis of those surveys in the report.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster ought, in decency, to withdraw his accusation. He is not infallible. He is very funny when he gets up, waves his arms and juggles with papers. He makes many amusing remarks, but it is not very funny when he makes an accusation of dishonesty against people who

  1185
  are trying to do their job properly, particularly when it cannot he substantiated. In fact, if the hon. Member is right the Minister this afternoon has been dishonest, and I do not believe that. I do not believe that his advisers, either from the Coal Board or from the Ministry of Power, are engaged in trying to "cook the books", which is what the hon. Member for Kidderminster has said. He ought to withdraw this accusation, and I will give him the chance to do so.
  Mr. Nabarro: That is kind and generous of the hon. Member. I do not propose to withdraw anything. What I said was that the National Coal Board had not followed the widely accepted accountancy practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—of evaluating its stocks on the basis of cost or market value, whichever is the lower. If the Board has not done that, it results in a cooking of the books.
  Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Member is wrong again, because the Board has done that. It has included handling and deterioration in the stocks in assessing value. Does the hon. Member ever inquire from the Coal Board about these matters, or is all this a figment of his imagination and little bits of gossip picked up in the bar or from local newspapers?
  Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has his adviser by him on the benches opposite, the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport).
  Mr. Nabarro: I willingly answer the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt). What is the market value of unsaleable coal? A lot of this coal will never be sold. It is unwashed, unscreened and unsaleable. Therefore, its market value is nil, and it is wholly wrong and misleading to the taxpayers to put it in the books at £3 6s. a ton, as has been suggested.
  Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Member makes the wildest accusations that a considerable amount of this coal is unscreened and unwashed. It is perfectly saleable. He never listens when he is answered. No wonder he never faces the true facts on "Panorama." I think that an investigation by the hon. Member would be a very wild affair.
  1186
  The Coal Board is now aware of the enormous danger that faces it. It is trying as hard as it can to modernise its systems of sale and research and so on. I hope that it will use this money to further competition with oil. I listened to the hon. Member for Kidderminster and others saying that a nationalised industry should be run on a commercial basis. It is interesting to note the split in the party opposite on the issue of nationalisation.
  Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have had more experience of nationalisation than any other party. They have been running the nationalised industries for the last ten years, and if there is anything wrong with those industries it is entirely due to the failure of the party opposite to put them right. I can see the quarrel in the Conservative Party about nationalisation becoming a very serious and fundamental one, of which, no doubt, we shall hear a great deal more in the future.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster may be right. He wants the coal industry to be run as a commercial institution. I do not think that that was done sufficiently in the past when there was an easy market for coal. I hope that the Coal Board will use some of this money to counter the insidious propaganda on the part of the oil companies which seem to have found their way into the ears of advisers at the Ministry of Power. When the Clean Air Act was passed, owing to the inadequacy of propaganda and of the funds available to the Coal Board, automatic exemption was given under that Act to appliances burning oil, even when that oil was Middle East oil which has a 3 per cent. sulphur content—and 70 per cent. of oil burned in this country comes from the Middle East.
  The oil contains twice as high a proportion of sulphur as is contained in coal. When it is remembered that when coal is burned a good deal of the sulphur is left in the ash, it can be clearly seen that oil from the Middle East is far more dangerous to the health of the population than is coal, yet because the Coal Board did not have the funds to engage in the propaganda which the oil companies were able to carry out, this extraordinary provision was put in the Act giving exemption automatically to oil-burning appliances.

  1187
  The Minister was not sufficiently well briefed the other day on this matter. Perhaps the Coal Board could not afford to send him leaflets to explain it, but the money provided under the Bill will now allow the Board to do much more propaganda on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it is impossible to have legislation to apply to oil-burning appliances which discharge great quantities of sulphur into the air. This is not true. There is legislation in Los Angeles which prohibits during the winter months the burning of oil containing ½ per cent. of sulphur. That legislation was passed in Los Angeles to save lives. Owing to the Coal Board not having resources to do its own propaganda, not only have the Government allowed the coal industry to be partly throttled but they have done that at the expense of the safety of the lives of the population in allowing installations to burn this sulphur-bearing oil.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I find some difficulty in connecting this with Third Reading.
  Mr. Wyatt: The point is that if the Board had been able to borrow more money it might have been able to counteract the insidious effect of the propaganda put out by the oil companies and might have been able to afford to print leaflets which might have reached the Minister's desk.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is far from the Third Reading, and I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue it too long.
  Mr. Wyatt: I think that I have made that point clear.
  There is a great project on foot on which, I hope, some of the money provided under the Bill can be spent. It is the creation of a high pressure gas grid system from Manchester to London. That is not entirely the responsibility of the Coal Board, but research into this project could well be part of its responsibility. It is certainly the Board's responsibility to see that it sells coal for use in such a system, and 70 per cent. of the low-grade coal of the country lies on the line of the proposed grid. It is the type of coal required for gasification to work a high-pressure gas grid system. It
  1188
  is also the fact that 70 per cent. of the gas used in the country today is used by consumers on the same line.
  It is very bad that the Government have not done far more about this already and have not done more to help the Board to do something about it, because the ideal way of using coal is in the production of gas. It is much the cheaper way of using coal for heating purposes, for domestic cooking and for industrial use by small firms. If only some of the money provided under the Bill were spent on this project one could have such a scheme working within three years. A scheme of this kind is working already in America.
  Sir William Robson Brown: The hon. Member is doing scant justice to the Gas Council which for a number of years has been making the closest investigation into the very matter about which the hon. Member is talking. It has a glorious record, and I pay high tribute to the Council. It has nothing to learn from America or anywhere else.
  Mr. Wyatt: I admire the hon. Member's patriotism, but I do not follow his logic. The Council has been dithering about this for years. The best scheme was propounded by Mr. Burns of the North Thames Gas Board, but nothing has been done about it, although the scheme has been available for development for four or five years. The Coal Board should now spend a great deal of money on this. It should also subscribe money to the institution at Leatherhead where research is being carried out into the gasification of coal.
  Another matter on which the Board should spend money is that of alerting the country to the appalling dangers inherent in the rising imports of fuel. The Minister should understand this. I put a Question to him not long ago and asked what the annual increase in production in United Kingdom refineries had been since 1953 and what had been the annual increase of inland consumption of fuel oil in the same period. The Answer was that whereas production had gone up by only 5 million tons, the inland consumption had gone up by 10 million tons. There is no way round this, however much the Minister argues about it. Fuel oil is being imported at the rate of 5 million tons in excess of United Kingdom refinery production

  1189
  and this at a time when the coal industry is suffering severely. I want the Coal Board to be able to spend a little more money explaining the facts—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is very ingenious, but the hon. Member is not keeping within the rules on Third Reading.
  Mr. Wyatt: I will try again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I have one or two other points that I want to make.
  Another thing which I think needs to be done by the Minister of Power, with the aid of the Coal Board, is to provide quickly some sort of co-ordination between Government Departments in order to see that any proposal which suggests a conversion from coke or coal to oil is notified at once to the Minister of Power so that he can do something about it. We had an instance this afternoon about Windsor Castle, where the Ministry of Power and the National Coal Board knew nothing whatever about the proposed conversion until it was too late to do anything about it. Mere we have—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not come within the scope of this debate.
  Mr. Wyatt: I respectfully suggest that if the National Coal Board got more money it would be able to set up a bigger staff in order to keep in touch with all these developments going on in Government Departments about converting heating appliances from coke and coal to oil. It is up to the Minister to see that he gets the best advice on how to find out about these things, and if that can be done a great deal of loss to the Coal Board will be saved. If the conversion of Government-owned installations goes on at the present rate it is quite true that the estimates of coal production by the National Coal Board may not be reached. The Government themselves are making it impossible for the Board to fulfil its own estimates of coal production by allowing Government Departments to change over from coke and coal to oil. I think that the Minister has got the point, and I hope that something will be done about it.
  I do not wish to say anything more, except that the Minister may have been referring to me when he said that some of us on this side of the House thought
  1190
  that the Government did not want to make nationalisation work. I think that is true of the Government as a whole. It is obviously logical, from the Conservative Party's point of view, to keep every nationalised industry ticking over, producing to the bare minimum needed by the country, thus making nationalisation unpopular in the country and saying that it is all the Labour Party's fault. How they get away with it I do not know, because they have been running the nationalised industries for ten years and we ran them for only three years.
  I would except both the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary from this charge, because I know that their conduct in debate and at Question Time over the last few months has shown their great anxiety to help the coal industry, the miners and the Coal Board. Those of us on this side of the House who take an interest in this subject will back them up all we can in their efforts to make a success of the National Coal Board and the coal mining industry.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I listened to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) with considerable interest, but I thought that his last suggestion, that the Government have sought not to establish the success of the nationalised industries, was less than worthy of him. I should have thought that there is evidence which could disprove that assertion on his part. It is notable that some of the nationalised industries have been considerably more successful than others.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but this is the Third Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
  Mr. Gower: I was replying to a point made by a previous speaker, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I will certainly leave it now and proceed with what I sought to say about the Bill.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that, on these benches, as well as on the benches opposite, and outside this House, there is a general recognition of the extraordinarily difficult task with which he is confronted, as well as the tremendous task with which the Coal Board is faced. I think that my right hon. Friend will

  1191
  also appreciate that there is on these benches, as well as elsewhere, a realisation that the increased borrowing powers provided for in the Bill should be granted. Nevertheless, it is true to say that, while my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) spoke in extremely exaggerated terms, there was a germ of truth in some of his observations which reflect some apprehensions in the country.
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), in opening this debate for the Opposition, said that this money will enable the Coal Board to carry out at least three tasks, namely, to fulfil its "Revised Plan for Coal", to increase its efficiency, and to enable it to compete with oil. I am not quite sure whether this revised plan will be the final word or not. It is possible, indeed probable, that this plan may have to be revised again. I fear that we are by no means near the end of the road, and that the Bill may be an interim Measure rather than the final one which we shall have to discuss on this and similar subjects.
  I agree with the hon. Member that this money will enable the Coal Board to increase its efficiency. It has done so already, and, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), I agree with hon. Members opposite who have given examples of how that efficiency has been increased. I would only observe, in passing, that it would be very strange if any industry were not more efficient today than twenty or thirty years ago. This is something which is happening in practically every industry.
  The Board is, then, increasing its efficiency. If we are to advance this large sum of money we must be concerned to know whether that efficiency is increasing quickly enough, because the task of, and the challenge to, this industry is very great. While we welcome every evidence of increased efficiency, it is absolutely essential that both my right hon. Friend and the Board should not tire of well-doing in this field. Efficiency here is synonymous with continued existence and with meeting this tremendous challenge.
  The third point is how it is to compete with oil, and here I would be out of order if I developed this point unduly.
  Mr. Boyden rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Gower: I did not know that any hon. Member was on his feet, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I willingly give way.
  Mr. Boyden: Would not the hon. Gentleman regard the saving in cost of 1s. 9d. a ton in one year as a successful achievement?
  Mr. Gower: Yes, I said I appreciated, like many of my hon. Friends, the marked increase in efficiency. I merely wish to emphasise that the tremendous challenge which faces the industry is of such dimensions that we may have to look for even greater efficiency, because it has to meet the challenge of what may possibly be a more efficient and more suitable fuel for the needs of the modern world. This is not only happening in Britain, but in practically every highly industrialised country. It is not an isolated phenomenon, but something we are seeing all the world over. For that reason, we cannot fail to stress its importance.
  There has been an increase in output. That, again, is also essential, but on this side of the House the anxieties expressed in exaggerated terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster are not confined to him. There are anxieties about the growth in stocks. It would be unreasonable if there were not. We want as soon as possible to see some prospect not merely of not increasing the stocks, but also that the deterioration in them will not be greater than my right hon. Friend believes. I do not think for a moment that there has been any dishonesty or misrepresentation here, but, on the other hand, there may be some over-optimism about the amount of deterioration, and that would be just as dangerous as the broad assertion which has been made.
  Having made those points in a relatively abridged form, to enable other hon. Members to speak, may I add that I am sure that my right hon. Friend has the support and good wishes of all hon. Members in the extraordinary task which he and the National Coal Board have to face.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Taylor: I do not want to interfere with the expedition or business at this hour, but I do want to say that I support the Bill, because since vesting day the National Coal Board has done a good job from every point of view, sometimes under great difficulties.
  I should not have ventured to intervene if it had not been for some of the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), not only in this debate but in previous ones. It mystifies me whether the hon. Gentleman is an expert on coal, carpets or camouflage. After his remarks today, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps he is most expert in the last named. I thought that his remarks about the Minister, who fortunately, is able to defend himself, were wide of the mark.
  On the question of the efficiency of the industry since vesting day in 1947, when output per man-shift was 21·5 cwt., in 1958, the last year for which we have had the figures, it has risen by 25 per cent. to 25·6 per cent. This is the justification for the great amount of money invested in the coal industry since vesting day. I believe that the overall figure spent by the Coal Board on improving efficiency with a view to increasing productivity has been no less than £760 million.
  I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster about the losses made by the Board. During the last few days I have looked up some figures, one or two of which are illuminating. Since vesting day there has been an operating profit of no less than £185 million and in the light of that operating profit I draw the attention of the House to some of the burdens carried by the Board. It may be that in the not-too-distant future we shall have to consider these with a view to easing some of those burdens.
  Since vesting day there has been paid by way of interest to the Government, through the Minister of Power, £221 million. I was alarmed yesterday at some information I received in reply to Questions regarding the liability which the Coal Board is carrying in respect of compensation to the old royalty owners. I learned from the figures given to me by the Minister yesterday that there has been paid £12 million, reducing the capital liability from £78 million to £66
  1194
  million. Then there is the increasing cost of subsidence, the loss of imported coal and the question of stocking. All these burdens are being carried by the Board and they have made it necessary for the Minister in charge of the Department to come to the House and ask for increased borrowing powers.
  I come to my final point. During the Second Reading of the Bill, in reply to an intervention of mine, the Minister said that he was glad to announce that this was a borrowing Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, since vesting day not one penny piece has been given by the Government to the Board. The help given has been in the form of loans, and upon those loans substantial interest has been paid. It is my submission that the House and the country should know these facts, since the Coal Board is the subject of so much criticism. For those reasons I suport strongly the Bill, which the Minister has recommended to us this afternoon.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: In a few words I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) has said in paying his tribute to the National Coal Board. It goes without saying that since 1951—not 1947—we have had constantly severe "digs" at the mining industry, and particularly at the Coal Board, as I said a week or two ago.
  We have just listened to a speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who has more or less changed his attitude. The hon. Gentleman has been praising the Coal Board and has been asking that more money should be allocated to it so that it may continue with the work it started in 1957. In my opinion, some of the criticisms that we have had, both inside this Chamber and outside, particularly from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), would have been much better left unsaid.
  From time to time, on the Order Paper, and in his speeches, not only in this Chamber but also outside, the hon. Gentleman has had a "dig" at the Board. It does not matter who is the Minister of Power; every time, it is said, the Board is to blame. Now, however, we are reaching the stage when there is

  1195
  a change of front. I ask myself, why this change of front? Why could not words of encouragement and inspiration have been given in the past to a body of men who have been trying their best to produce what the nation requires?
  As I listen to the speeches that are made here, I sometimes think that hon. Gentleman opposite underestimate the problem facing the Coal Board. Throughout the years since its inception it has been facing a problem which no private industry has ever faced. To repeat what I said three or four weeks ago, if the old owners of the coal mines had done what they should have done—I know that I am skating on thin ice, Mr. Speaker—according to the Reid Report, the problem would not have been as severe as it is today.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster fails to realise the costs of maintenance. The Parliamentary Secretary, as a mining man, would fully realise that if underground work were stagnant this would not be so much of a problem, but work is taking place during all of the 24 hours of the day and there has to be constant maintenance. In 1958, total output was 216 million tons, valued at £900 million. Now we have an hon. Member opposite, assisted by two colleagues, trying to bring down to the lowest possible depths the work that the Board has done.
  I support the Bill wholeheartedly and I hope that we shall hear no more, either in the Chamber or outside, castigation and condemnation and criticism of the Board, who are facing up to the problem magnificently after all the difficulties with which they were confronted in 1947.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I shall be very brief, because I want to give the Parliamentary Secretary ample time to reply to the various attacks that have been made upon him and his right hon. Friend from the benches behind him. These Tories attack each other with venom. Talk about controversy within the Labour Party! It is not in it. We have heard from the benches opposite today references to "cooked accounts", "cooked books" and Ministers who do not tell the truth. What a revelation for the country! We have never had it so bad.
  1196
  The purpose of the Bill is to provide the money, by which the Board will be enabled to carry out its revised plan, finance stocking, increase efficiency and find itself a secure place in the future. Why a revised plan? The fact is that all Governments since the end of the war and until recently have made tremendous demands upon the coal industry. It began in 1945 with an industry which was run down after thirty years of neglect. Suddenly for the first time in peacetime during my life, the industry was asked to respond to the demands of an economy working to full pressure. Over a very short period it had to meet an increased demand of 30 million to 35 million tons per annum, and met it.
  I was a Minister at the time and I remember being asked by the then Prime Minister to go to the miners and ask them to increase their output. I went to them as an old miner and they did it. They did it with broken-down tools and a broken industry. Not only was machinery broken, but the spirit of the men was broken and it all had to be repaired.
  Then, suddenly, there was this change. This is not the first time that the industry has been confronted with a sudden adjustment and an almost catastrophic reduction in demand. It has happened before, but what a difference in the way it was done in past years and the way it has been done now. Think of the size of the problem with which the Board was confronted. From 1956 to 1959 there was a reduction in demand of 33½ million tons—28 million tons in the domestic market and 5½ million tons in the export trade. This was a tremendous reduction.
  We had this situation in the 1920s and 1930s, and we all know what was done then. Pits were closed, communities were made derelict, miners were put on short time, wages were cut to £2 a week. By the end of 1932 there were nearly 400,000 miners out of work. That is the other way of treating this situation. At that time the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was not here, nor was I.
  Mr. Nabarro: It must have been a long time ago.
  Mr. Griffiths: The then Conservative Government—a true Blue Tory Government—gave an open subsidy to the industry of £25 million. It all went down the drain. The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who made a constructive speech, will not deny that. The money was used in nine months by the coal owners in intense competition in the domestic market and in the export market, and at the end we were in a worse position than at the beginning. Now the present Government, like previous Tory Governments, are building up a record on subsidies.
  The Government would not dare to adopt the methods of 1925 to deal with this problem. We have to meet the situation in this new way. I compliment the Board on the way it has handled it in consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers. The falling demand to which they have had to adjust themselves is equal to the output of South Wales, Northumberland and Cumberland put together. That was a problem, after many years in which we all asked them to get the coal out, no matter what the size or shape.
  Because of these circumstances the capital investment in the coal mines has been distorted. I should like to have seen a better relationship between the amount of capital spent on production and the amount spent on cleaning, but at the time both sides of this House, all Governments and industry generally asked the coal industry to get out the coal anyhow.
  Now the Board has to meet this problem. It has met it during the last four years and I pay tribute to it and the union and the Ministers who co-operated. There are 70,000 fewer miners than before. The whole of this terrific problem has been got through smoothly. I come, of course, from an area which has paid part of the price, but I think that we ought to pass a vote of thanks to everybody in the industry for the way in which they have handled this task.
  In circumstances of this kind it is almost natural, where an industry meets a falling demand, to cut down output. I remember that the first president of the South Wales miners, Mr. William Abraham, whom I eventually succeeded, and who sat in this House for many years, had his own way of dealing with
  1198
  the situation. He went to a conference and said that the demand for coal was falling, and that if they allowed it to fall their labour would become cheap and wages would be cut down. The only way to deal with that, he said, was to stop producing. He suggested that they stop work on the first Monday of every month. He was known also as "Mabon" and these days became known as "Mabon days."
  That was the old method, but what has happened now? With all the fears, in 1959 output per man-shift at the coalface rose by 6 per cent. and o.m.s. overall rose by 5·3 per cent., while the cost of production came down by 1s. 9d. per cent. Let us occasionally pat on the back the men who, faced with a threat to their livelihood, have made such efforts. It may be said that there has been an enormous injection of capital, but it need not have been as large in the last few years if it had been larger in the 'twenties and 'thirties. The Board deserves our full support.
  I am disturbed about stocks and I now come to the constructive speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde, whose speeches of pre-1939 days I remember. I listened with much interest to what he had to say today, that unless we reduced stocks by increasing industrial production, we had to face three possibilities, with which I do not quarrel—short time, "going easy" and closing pits.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in the coalfield with which he was closely associated one method of dealing with this sort of problem was to have short-time working, three days a week, in the summer months. Most pits in the Midlands worked only three days a week in the summer. That remedy is now closed to us. It is closed because the men have a guaranteed working week and because the National Union of Mineworkers would not tolerate it for a moment—and nor would I.
  As the hon. and gallant Member appreciated, in the 1930s men in pits in the Midlands and South Wales had to work only three days a week, for they had nowhere else to go, but nowadays it would not be possible to have men working in the pits for three days and in a factory for three days a week. If

  1199
  we are to keep miners in the industry, we must provide them with a full working week in the industry. Short time is no longer a remedy; "going easy" would be impossible, for this momentum of increased productivity must be kept up.
  We are, therefore, left with the choice of helping the industry, and I throw out a few suggestions. I ask the Government whether they will allow the Coal Board, unaided and uphelped, to face the competition of fuel oil, which is dumping of the worst kind? Will they now ensure that there is closer co-operation among the fuel and power industries, notably electricity, gas and coke? Thirdly, it is essential that the Government should give every encouragement to the Board to meet what is a new problem which has arisen from the Clean Air Act, which was piloted through the House by the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
  I was recently told that by 1965 we should need ½ million tons more smokeless fuel than we are now producing if we were to meet the demands arising from the gradual extension of clean air legislation. The best smokeless fuel in the world—and I declare my interest—is anthracite, and we can produce more of it. We are not stocking anthracite. I hope that we are well on the way to solving the problem of how to mix coal so that it does not give off so much sulphur, and so on.
  The export trade is declining and in the European market we are facing Polish exports. In the 1930s we tried the policy of beggaring each other and we should not start that again. The Poles are selling coal almost certainly for shillings below the cost of production, because they must, somehow, get foreign currency. In this modern world, we have a nation driven to sell a product which is dearly bought with life so that it can get foreign currency! Can we not do something about that? Poland is making bilateral agreements with Denmark. What are our Government doing?
  The mining industry has thrown up some very fine men, and I speak with personal pride of a contemporary of mine who started working life very much in the way that I did—he started at fourteen years of age and I started a little
  1200
  earlier—Jim Bowman. He has proved to be one of the ablest administrators which the country has seen in post-war years. I am proud of that and I pay my tribute to him. I hope that his work continues. I hope that he will be asked to continue it. The industry needs his constructive leadership as well as the co-operation of the union. I hope that he will go on to face this crucial situation in the industry to which he has given so many years of his life and which, given the help of the Government and the House of Commons, will come through the crisis.
  We shall need coal and coal miners for many years. They have not always had a square deal from Governments. If they are given a square deal now, they will give a square deal to the nation.
  6.46 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has given me at the last moment a catalogue of important questions and I am sure that he will not expect me to make widespread policy pronouncements on the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind. I assure him that the Minister is constantly trying to induce greater co-operation among the three power industries which he mentioned, electricity, gas and coal, and that that will be his continuing objective.
  Plans are going ahead to provide increased output of smokeless fuels for the years immediately to come. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that two great new anthracite collieries are nearly ready in South Wales to help with that important problem.
  Exports are a very wide subject. We are facing intense Polish competition. In 1959 the Poles were selling at £2 a ton f.o.b., which scarcely covers the cost of transport from the pit to the port. We are selling at very cut prices ourselves. But neither the Poles nor we, even together, could rule the foreign selling prices of coal, for we are faced with competition from American coal and cheap oil and even Russian oil. It is not a practical proposition to think that we can fix the prices at which coal will sell. Nevertheless, this is a matter for serious consideration, which it is now having.

  1201
  Since there has been general support for the Bill, I shall confine myself to answering the questions which have been put to the Government. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) stressed that the Bill dealt with loans and not subsidies. That should be made absolutely clear. The National Coal Board has not defaulted on any of the loans made to it or on any of the interest payments which it was due to make. The Bill is a continuation of the policy of financing the Board by Government loans which are repayable at proper rates of interest. The purpose is to raise the efficiency of the industry in accordance with the "Revised Plan for Coal".
  It would be churlish not to recognise that some of the results are now becoming apparent. I have criticised the National Coal Board as much as anybody when I have thought that it needed criticism, but I shall give the Board credit when I think that credit is due to it, and I shall not be restrained from doing that by anyone behind me calling it a Socialist action.
  The improvement in the results from deep mines has been noticeably rising in recent months. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) quoted figures of production from 1941 onwards and concluded by saying that in 1958 output per man-shift was 25·6 cwt. as against 21·5 cwt. in 1947. I am sure that he and other hon. Members will be glad to know that in the week ended 6th February, this year, overall output in the industry was approximately 28 cwt. per man-shift. That is the fruit of the policy of providing finance to create greater efficiency within the industry. The "Revised Plan for Coal" envisages that in 1965 output per man-shift will be 30–31 cwt. It is obvious that that is easily attainable at the rate we are going now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that this was a case of endless borrowing without profitability. The N.C.B., and here I quote from the "Revised Plan for Coal", has said:
  "It is the Board's objective to secure a substantial reduction in the accumulated deficit over the period 1960–1965 as a whole, by reason of improvements in productivity and reductions in costs."
  It seems obvious that improvements in productivity will be forthcoming—for that is what is needed to allow the Board to square the books and not cook them.
  1202
  The hon. Member for Bedwellty was right when he said that about half the capital expenditure so far incurred has been met from inside the industry. It has reached a point where the National Coal Board can look forward with confidence to seeing 80 per cent. of its output coming from new or reconstructed collieries by 1965. The industry can look forward to a sound future if productivity is allowed to rise.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) raised a point with which I should like to deal. Targets have been sent out to the coalfields which will limit output this year. It is not an easy task to decide whether that should be done. The right hon. Member for Llanelly recited three conditions necessary to achieve the target output and not to exceed it. First, working short time. That is "out," because of the guaranteed five-day week agreement. Secondly, closing more pits. The National Coal Board has set its face against that. It has entered into settlements in good faith and intends to keep them.
  We must reluctantly look at the third suggestion. It is a moral destroyer. It would be inadvisable to take such action, but if output is to be fixed for the year at a certain level it may well be necessary. It may, regrettably, be necessary to tell the management to go slow on productivity. There is no other way. It is regrettable, but it may have to be done because it is the intention of the Board not to increase stocking in 1960.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde also made another important observation. He shared the natural worry about the position of stocks. He thought that my right hon. Friend was too sanguine when he said that there would be no rise in 1960. He gave a warning that 16 million tons of untreated smalls might undergo deterioration at a greater rate than that mentioned by my right hon. Friend. We must pay attention to the wide experience of my hon. Friend on these matters, but I am sure that he would agree that my right hon. Friend can do nothing better than take the best possible advice on the deterioration of coal stocks. My right hon. Friend has the best possible advice, and he is bound to

  1203
  accept it. My hon. Friend went on to say that he doubted whether the 4s. allowed by the National Coal Board after the first two years—I should correct that; it is, in fact, after the first year that the charge becomes 4s.—would be enough to bring back the untreated coal for treatment.
  That is not the purpose of the 4s. That meets the interest charges and nothing else. The allowance for treating coal is part of the original £1 a ton, so the National Coal Board has made arrangements for the treatment of untreated coal and allowed money for that purpose.
  I now turn to deal with efficiency. I hope that hon. Members who raised this matter during the debate will feel that the improved efficiency justifies the money that has been spent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster suggested that the estimates accepted by my right hon. Friend were made by officials in the Ministry who were more or less under instructions from the National Coal Board.
  Mr. Nabarro: Not instructions.
  Mr. George: The estimating of future demand for coal is treated as a serious matter both by the National Coal Board and by the Ministry. The Board does not pluck figures out of thin air and set them before the Chairman of the Board. It engages in widespread consultations with the largest customers and from its experience, and, after allowing for optimism or pessimism, it produces figures which will approximate to the real demand. There are experts in Hobart House who deal with this, but that is not the end of the matter. Our experts in the Ministry make their own estimates of future demand. With their experience and close contact with all new methods in industry they estimate the future consumption of coal. The estimates are prepared along parallel lines, and these two sets of experts then come together, look at each other's estimates, trim them and then put them before the Minister. They do not pretend that they are forecasting with complete accuracy the demand for coal in the future. They cannot do that. No one can do that because there are too many imponderables.
  1204
  My right hon. Friend is getting the best possible advice. The estimates are prepared by people best qualified to make them, and I am sure that the House would agree that my right hon. Friend has no course open to him other than to base his plans on those estimates. He cannot accept suggestions about consumption which are put forward from this side or the other side of the House which are not backed by experience and consultations like those which I have mentioned. They are real estimates in many cases, but others are simply hunches which are unacceptable to the Minister.
  My hon. Friend went on to make some serious charges He said that the loans made to the Board were ultimately payable by the taxpayer. That is wrong. He asked me who finances the Consolidated Fund. I expect that he knows the answer, or he should do. The Consolidated Fund borrows its money on the market and it lends it to the National Coal Board at proper rates of interest and with stipulated times for repayment.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, the National Coal Board has not defaulted in any repayments. It is wrong to suggest that it is being financed by taxpayers' money. My hon. Friend went on to charge the Minister with deficit financing. That would be a dereliction of duty. It would be wrong for the Minister to indulge in deficit financing. The deficits incurred by the Board have been, and will be this year, financed by reserves within the Board itself, and not by the Minister.
  My hon. Friend charged the Minister with dereliction of duty for not guessing the results for 1960. How unwise and unhelpful it would be if a Minister of the Crown stood up and guessed what the results of the Board would be in 1960. My right hon. Friend replied to that proposition earlier. It would be unwise and unhelpful, and we have no intention of trying to forecast results for 1960.
  My hon. Friend further charged the Board with cooking the books. I think that my hon. Friend should give that matter serious consideration because he has charged not only the Board but the accountants with cooking the books. That is regrettable.

  1205
  If there are any questions which I have not answered I hope that I will be excused. I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  DEVON WATER BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir Henry Studholme: I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends will be very properly putting forward the views of water undertakings which disagree with the terms of the Bill, but I hope that when they have voiced those views they will agree to the Second Reading so that it can go upstairs to Committee and the details can be thrashed out. The Bill is right in principle, and is necessary for the water supplies of Devon.
  As explained in the statement issued by the county council, the object of the Bill is to regroup the water undertakings in the administrative county of Devon and certain adjoining areas and to adjust the finances of those water undertakings so as to distribute the cost of the water supplies more fairly between the consumers and the ratepayers of Devon. At present, there are 22 water undertakings in the county, and the Bill proposes to reduce that number to three by reconstructing the North, South and East Devon Water Boards so that they absorb the smaller water undertakings in their respective neighbourhoods.
  When the three water boards were formed and enlarged in 1945, 1950 and 1951, it was thought that the county ratepayers would have to contribute only a few pence in the £ towards the cost of the water supply. That would have been quite a fair division as between the county ratepayers and the consumers. But, as unfortunately so often happens, costs increased, and today the rate has risen to 1s. 5d. in the £, with the result that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the Board's net expenditure is
  1206
  now being financed by the county council, and the extraordinary position has arisen wherein the county council has no control over the rate of expenditure by the water boards. That is very unsatisfactory, and is wrong in principle.
  I now want to read out what the Bill proposes, as described in the statement from the clerk to the Devon County Council. The statement says that the Bill proposes that
  "the County Council should make grants related to rural capital expenditure on similar lines to the grants made by County Councils under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, but more generous in amount. The balance of the deficiency of each board would be borne by the constituent councils of the board and, therefore, paid for out of the district rates instead of out of the county rates. The control of the board by the constituent councils will ensure that the funds of the board are used to the best advantage of both ratepayers and consumers."
  I have heard it said that the county council has rushed into the matter with undue haste and inadequate consultation, but that is not true. The question of regrouping the water supplies in Devon has been discussed for about fifteen years, to my knowledge, and the time has now come when if the county council had not introduced the Bill the Minister would have had to issue an order for the regrouping of Devon water undertakings. Some of these water undertakings, notably the North Devon Water Board, which have liked this, because they would then have had a local inquiry. But the county council is introducing the Bill because the present financial arrangements are extremely unsatisfactory as between the boards and the county council, and are wrong in principle. Regrouping cannot be settled unless the present unsatisfactory financial formula is altered, and it cannot be altered unless, at the same time, the regrouping is settled. Regrouping and financing therefore have to be treated as one operation, and that is why a Bill is necessary.
  Mr. Robert Mathew: I hope my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the proposals contained in the Bill have been discussed for fifteen years. Various other proposals for regrouping have been discussed since the Minister received his Report in 1954, but the proposals contained in the Bill have not.
  Sir H. Studholme: Of course, these proposals have not been discussed for fifteen years, but local authorities were given an opportunity to discuss them and to negotiate with the county council. Some authorities have done so and some have not. But the whole question of regrouping has been discussed for many years, and the time has come when something must be done.
  I am not competent to discuss the financial formula and the various arguments of the different authorities. I would only say that 11 authorities oppose the financial provisions of the Bill and are trying to get preferential terms for their consumers. That is only natural. Two water boards, nine rural district councils and one municipal corporation, on the other hand, think that the county council is being unfair to them because it is proposing preferential terms to some of the urban authorities, which they themselves have not got. That attitude is also very human and understandable.
  Of the three water boards, only the North Devon Board is opposed to the proposal to alter the basis of the county council contribution, and that board has produced an alternative formula. The other two boards do not disagree in principle, but they want to alter the basis suggested in the Bill to one which is more advantageous to themselves. Everyone wants to get the best deal he can, but the only thing the county council is interested in is in getting a just settlement between the conflicting claims of the different authorities.
  I think I have said enough to show that this is not a simple question. The best solution would be to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill today so that it could be sent to Committee where the petitioners and the county council would have an opportunity to state their cases.
  I am convinced that the time has arrived when the water undertakings of Devon must be reorganised, and three boards would seem to be the logical solution. We can no longer allow water to be taken piecemeal from the rivers. That is why I opposed the Torquay Water Bill last year. Our water resources must be regrouped into larger units. That is the only way in which we can meet the water needs of the county in the long run. A mass of small undertakings will not do that. This was shown very clearly in the drought in South Devon
  1208
  last summer. It was only because the South Devon Board came to the rescue of other smaller undertakings that we avoided a complete breakdown in the water supplies and the chaos that would have followed.
  Hon. Members ask why there should not be voluntary amalgamations. That would be ideal, but voluntary amalgamations have failed sufficiently to reduce the number of water undertakings in Devon. It is therefore clear that some means of compulsory amalgamation must be used. It is no good putting off things any longer. Delay may be very dangerous, and if we have a dry summer like that of last year there might be a very serious water shortage in many parts of the county.
  I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading. The Bill can then go to Committee, where any questions which have not already been decided as a result of negotiations between the different parties—any question, for instance, as to how much urban and rural consumers should contribute, respectively—can be decided after a proper hearing and a full discussion.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Mathew: My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), in supporting the Bill, said that this was not a simple question. That is a very great understatement. As he said, we have been considering this problem ever since the Water Act. My submission to the House tonight is that the Bill has been hastily conceived. It has been brought forward without proper consultation with the many interests, which, in a number of cases, are conflicting, and it is not a proper solution of the problem in the county.
  I much regret that the House, under the Private Bill procedure, has to decide whether or not to take a decision on Second Reading on a matter which is a mass of detail. My hon. Friend referred to the great detail and complications of the various financial differentials proposed in the Bill. I should like to see our procedure allow a debate after the Select Committee has considered the matter in the very great detail which is necessary in view of its complexity.
  It is some measure of the shortcomings of the Bill that, although my hon. Friend

  1209
  said that 11 local authorities have petitioned, in fact, out of the 47 local authorities in the county, 41 are objecting to the Bill in one form or another, either in their own name or through boards in whose areas they are. This large number of petitions, should the House decide to give the Bill a Second Reading, will come before the Committee in due course.
  At this stage of the debate I am not of a mind to ask the House to reject the Bill, because I think that this whole problem and its many difficulties should be looked at by the Committee. I say that subject to anything that may be said by my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite at a later stage.
  My criticism of the Bill is that in its present form it has been hastily conceived and that there has been insufficient time for consultation. In fact, although we knew that a Committee was sitting during the latter part of 1958, and again during the first part of 1959, it was only in July that it was realised that there was an intention on the part of the Devon County Council to deposit a Bill in this House in what was then the next Session of Parliament.
  In my own area, East Devon, there is very great dissatisfaction and the authorities are taking widely different points of view. Although an agreement might have been arrived at had there been time for consultation, it was impossible after the Bill had been deposited at the end of last year. To some extent the Devon County Council confronted the local water undertakers with a fait accompli, by saying, "There is the differential structure and we would like you comments now." There was very little time for proper consultation. I say with all respect to the Devon County Council that its public relations slipped up very badly.
  I say that the Bill was inspired, as indicated by my hon. Friend, by financial considerations and financial considerations only.
  Sir H. Studholme: I did not say "only". It is partly financial consideration and partly regrouping, as I tried to point out.
  Mr. Mathew: My answer to that is the water engineering considerations have not been given enough attention. There has not been time to work them out.
  1210
  Too little attention has been given to the very great engineering problems. My hon. Friend said that he supported the Bill partly in principle and partly because of the financial considerations, but I should like to know whether the county council area of Devon will get one pint of water more as the result of the Bill. I think that the answer is "No". I hope that the Committee will have that very much in mind when examining the Bill.
  I say that the Bill is inspired by financial considerations primarily from the point of view of the county council rather than the constituent local authorities and other water undertakers in the proposed areas. It ignores the recommendations of my right hon. Friend's own Report, the Vail Report of 1954, which went into great detail about the future of water in the county from the engineering point of view and recommended four boards—the East Devon Board, the North Devon Board, the Plym Area Board and the South Devon Area Board. It recognised the main financial fact which comes out if one looks at the Bill.
  Devon is the largest geographical county after Yorkshire and the largest administrative county in the country and has a very sparse population so far as those areas are concerned. Yet Exeter, with a higher rate product, is left out, although the Minister's Report recommended that it should be brought into any regrouping in East Devon. I hope that the Committee will have this matter very much in mind. It goes to the root of the financial problem and to the root of the problem of getting agreement in East Devon, which is my own area.
  In East Devon, there have been a great many consultations, in trying to come together with the Minister and his officials, towards some form of regrouping so that we may face, in the spirit of the Water Act, the problems of the future for supplying, in particular, the rural areas. Of course, there were some disagreements. At the time when the county council intervened partly on financial grounds we were moving towards agreement.
  May I remind the House that the present Postmaster-General, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in an

  1211
  Adjournment debate on this matter, said, in reply to me:
  "Towards the middle of last year"—
  that is, 1958—
  "it seemed that a fairly large measure of agreement—I do not put it any higher than that—had been reached. I think that there was also hope that the terms of the draft Order might be settled quite soon. As my hon. Friend knows, however, regrouping, not only in East Devon but throughout the whole of the County of Devon, is marking time due to the decision of the county council to examine the financial arrangements for water supply in the county as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1682.]
  I am convinced that, given time, there could have been an agreement, but in the circumstances in which the Bill has been deposited and brought before the House such agreement was quite impossible because of lack of time.
  So far as my own undertakings, which are to a very large extent self-sufficient, are concerned—the urban districts of Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth and Seaton—I am quite certain that they were prepared to work out a proper agreement had they been given time. My right hon. Friend has assured me before now that Exmouth has a first-rate, viable water undertaking, pumping as much as 1½ million gallons a day. Already, under a bulk agreement, it supplies the rural areas and fulfils what I would call the spirit of the 1945 Water Act; but it stands to gain absolutely nothing by being taken over. I have no doubt that they would take a very different view of this Bill, or of any regrouping proposals that my right hon. Friend might propose, were Exeter included in order to bear its proper share of the financial burden.
  The East Devon Water Board has done a very good job in supplying the rural areas. I have had a great deal to do with the Board over the last five years, and I want to pay tribute to it for what it has done. That Board should have been a nucleus of any regrouping in the East Devon area. It has the experience, and it has the officials to carry the work out. It is petitioning against the Bill because, again, it is dissatisfied with the differential arrangements. In fact, something has been introduced by the county council that does not please anyone at all in the county.
  1212
  I am sure that a number of the petitioners who are asking for rejection of the Bill would, had it been put in reasonable form, have accepted the underlying principle, but I do not think that the county will benefit if the Bill passes into law in its present form. In East Devon, we have, on a long sea coast, a number of highly efficient undertakings. Tribute has been paid by my right hon. Friend and by the county council itself to the Exmouth undertaking, and I am absolutely certain that East Devon, which has throughout maintained a reasonable attitude towards the proposals, would have been prepared to negotiate to see that the financial arrangements were on a proper basis; and to support a regrouping proposal that faced the reality that water and engineering considerations should come first.
  Sidmouth is included. It is a first-rate small undertaking, but I understand that it is not technically possible, because of geographical position, to bring one gallon of water into Sidmouth or to take one gallon out of it. Yet it is included in the Bill.
  I hope that if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Select Committee will study all these considerations with the closest care, because this is a bad Bill. It is bad, in my submission, because it is reasonable only from the financial point of view of the county council. It is wholly unreasonable from the point of view of the ratepayers in the rural areas, and it is wholly unreasonable for those areas where the local authorities already have their own water undertakings. It is also inequitable over the county.
  I ask my right hon. Friend, if he intends to intervene in the debate, to say that the inclusion of Exeter is really very important to the rural areas. To refer, again, to the debate on 23rd July, I would remind him that the Parliamentary Secretary then said:
  "With regard to the vexed question—as, indeed, it is—of the inclusion or otherwise of Exeter, my right hon. Friend has made it known that he does not look upon Exeter's inclusion as essential for the effective organisation of water supplies in East Devon, although I concede to my hon. Friend that the inclusion of Exeter was recommended in the 1954 water survey. It is true that if Exeter were to come in, it would be financially advantageous to the other authorities and I have no doubt that the county council is not excluding this

  1213
  consideration from the review which is at present under way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1683.]
  My information is that the county council did not settle, until very late, the all-important question whether or not Exeter should be included. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will look at the Bill through a magnifying glass, and will come to the conclusion that this is a bad Measure and that other steps should be taken to deal with Devon's water problem.
  7 25 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Those of us who are opposed to the Bill recognise the need for amalgamation and the strength of the case for rationalising the supply of water in the County of Devon. There are, however, three points that I want to make. The first relates to the background to the Bill and bears out all that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) has said about the behaviour of the county council. I do not want to wash dirty Devon linen, but, as the hon. Member has said, the county council has succeeded in alienating 41 out of the 47 local authorities in the county. That is a fairly good percentage.
  The reason for that alienation is largely the way in which this Bill has been introduced. The first indication that it might be promoted was given on 2nd February of last year. The next thing that happened was that authorities were invited, on 27th May, to a meeting, when they were told that there would be working parties which would discuss the financial arrangements in detail. No such working parties were ever set up, and no such meetings ever took place.
  The next thing the local authorities knew was when they were told in the autumn of last year that the county council had decided to promote the Bill, first, because there was an urgent need so to do and, secondly, because otherwise the Minister might make an Order. They were summoned in October to Exeter. They were given a vague indication of what the differentials would be, but were told that the North Devon Board was not prepared to accept them as it had not yet had an opportunity of inspecting the undertakings that it would have to take over.
  The next they heard was that the county council had decided to promote
  1214
  the Bill, and next day they were asked to send particulars so that that could be proceeded with: no detailed discussion, no working parties, no real, genuine attempt to get the voluntary co-operation of the constituent authorities involved. Finally, at the end of October they were given the figures proposed by the county council. It seems relevant that next Thursday there is to be a discussion at a meeting of the county council on a Motion that this whole Bill be withdrawn. The necessary number of signatures has been obtained to enable the matter to be debated.
  I therefore say that the expense that would be involved, the amount of time that the Committee would have to spend, and the heat that would be engendered have all been brought about by the refusal of this county council to have adequate consultation—
  Sir H. Studholme: I think the hon. Gentleman said that regrouping had not been considered until last February. It has been considered for years. It has been on the tapir for many years.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme)—no doubt my speech has made the same wrong impression on him as his did on the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). This particular regrouping plan has not been considered since February last. There have obviously been other and voluntary regroupings, which I shall mention in a moment, that have been extremely successful, but these proposals were given to the local authorities only in February of last year and, as far as I know, there has been practically no detailed discussion of them with the constituent authorities.
  The second point is that the North Devon Water Board is to take over four constituent authorities. One of them is South Molton. All I can say, in passing, about that is that it is a water authority with the lowest rate in the county and has connected 94 per cent. of the houses in its borough. It has supplied water free to its market for the last seventy years. On the strength of this asset—there are obviously others—it is to spend £30,000 in developing its market premises. This is the lifeblood of a rural town. What it will be faced with under the new scheme is buying its water from someone else and forcing the market to

  1215
  pay for it. That will have a tremendous economic effect on the life of this borough. At the moment, it is continuing with its extension in the borough and, in the course of the next two years, I think there will be only thirty houses left without piped water.
  The third and, in my submission, as important a point as any, is the reaction of the North Devon Water Board itself. The hon. Baronet said that only one of the constituent water authorities objected. I should have thought the fact that one had objected was of vital importance. Not merely one of the constituent bodies, but one of the boards, which is told it is to be the taker-over, has objected. Its objections are strong and clear. It recognises the need for amalgamation. It was created by a Bill introduced in this House and promoted by Devon County Council in 1945. Since that Bill was introduced, under Section 33 of the resulting Act, five corporations have voluntarily joined the North Devon Water Board, five urban district councils, and one rural district council. Since 1945 it has brought water to 400 villages and hamlets and to well over 2,500 farms.
  In every case, the expansion of its operating area was by voluntary agreement with the constituent bodies concerned. Those constituent bodies joined only on the basis of the 1945 financial proposals contained in that Act. They were that, after the 6d. rate, the balance of the deficit should be shared among the constituent authorities, which would include Devon County Council. Devon County Council had that obligation under Section 150 of the Act. When it appeared before the Select Committee in the House of Lords there was no suggestion at all that this scheme would be on a temporary basis; quite the reverse. Now, nearly fifteen years later, a complete variation of the financial agreement which the council itself agreed to in the Bill it promoted fifteen years ago is asked for.
  It was on those financial terms that the constituent authorities voluntarily joined the North Devon Water Board. They felt, as do the constituent authorities now, that the financial terms had not been properly thought out and that Devon County Council wanted to make a take-over bid with inadequate compensation, that by reason of the financial
  1216
  provisions it was going to restrict rural development of water supplies which, Heaven knows, are bad enough at the moment, and that this is going greatly to cramp their style and operations.
  This is the Bill which the county council is bringing in without any proper consultation with the authorities concerned. The Bill itself is a misnomer. One would have thought that it related to the whole of Devon. One would have thought, if one accepted the idea of a more equitable distribution of the burden of paying for water, that Exeter and Plymouth would have been included, but they are not to be included in this Bill. Any suggestion that this is going to be a proper county Bill is shown to be illogical in that respect because the two largest areas of population which are more able to help subsidise or assist in the cost of rural supplies are being deliberately left out of the Bill altogether.
  It is a misnomer to call it a Water Bill. It relates to water, but it is not going to produce an extra drop of water throughout the whole of the county. I hope the Committee will bear in mind that this is an ill-considered Bill. It is illogical, the technical objections have not been properly met, there has been no real attempt at consultation, and the tremendous opposition which will follow will be as a direct result of the way in which the county council has promoted the Bill in the House. By Thursday the Committee may have had the news that this Bill has been withdrawn if the county council now has the power to do that. The Bill is causing very great opposition in the County of Devon, which I suggest need never have happened if the promoters had gone about it in a reasonable way and attempted to promote a Bill with the same diligence and concentration which they showed over the 1945 Water Bill.
  Sir H. Studholme: The hon. Member said that this Bill would not produce any more water in Devon, but if the Bill goes through we shall get a very much better supply of water in South Devon from the River Dart.
  Mr. Thorpe: Do I take it that the hon. Baronet is interested only in South Devon regrouping?
  Sir H. Studholme: That is a most unworthy suggestion. I am interested in the whole county.
  Mr. Thorpe: Obviously the hon. Baronet is interested in the county, but his knowledge of South Devon is greater than his knowledge of North Devon. I am taking the particular point of the North Devon Water Board. I have the honour to represent North Devon, and I should not claim to know more about South Devon than the hon. Member would know about North Devon. The fact that the hon. Baronet may make a case for his district is not a reason for saying that a case could be made for the whole county.
  Sir H. Studholme: That is not an argument for saying that if the Bill goes through there will not be more water. There will be.
  Mr. Speaker: I think this interchange had better cease.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I may throw my hat into this ring, so to speak, I should say, with reference to the exchange which we have just heard, that that this Bill is not necessary to provide additional water for there are many other ways in which that could be produced without this Bill. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) would not wish to mislead the House.
  As hon. Members may know, although I represent a constituency called Torquay, it also comprises, apart from several villages, Paignton and Brixham. I should like at the beginning of my remarks to bring as much comfort as is available in the general onslaught on the Bill to the promoters, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock in particular, by saying that I carry with me tonight the welcome message that Brixham stands in favour of the Bill and has requested me to say so tonight. It is also right to say that, although Paignton has objected and its objections, in my submission, go to prove the lack of proper prior consultation, those objections are not to the Bill in principle but to certain Clauses and aspects which, if they could be remedied, would meet the point of view of Paignton.
  Having given that limited amount of comfort, I must now move on to the
  1218
  question of Torquay and the general attitude there which coincides very largely with what other hon. Members have said in this short debate. First, I wish to reiterate that it appears abundantly clear on the face of it that there has been a lack of proper prior consultation, as is shown by the fact that we have such imposing numbers and varieties of people objecting to the Bill. I have listened to a number of second readings of such Bills in my time. I was the victim of one to which there was considerable objection, the Torquay Water Bill, when I heard much of the weight of objection, but, my goodness, it was nothing like the weight of objection clearly apparent to this Bill. Not only are there forty-one out of forty-seven authorities objecting, but, in addition, three water boards—not one as the hon. Member for Devon North (Mr. Thorpe) said—have filed petitions against this Bill. That only strengthens the point he made.
  Mr. Thorpe: I apologise for interrupting, but I wish to say that I am delighted to know that the other two water boards have joined the sacred throng.
  Mr. Bennett: I will not read the names of all the authorities which are opposing the Bill, but they include urban and rural district councils and three water boards. Even N.A.L.G.O.,—and this should interest some hon. Member opposite—has joined in the general affray. It should be apparent to the Promoters of the Bill that if they proceed on the present lines rather than take the advice of most of us who want to see some sensible regrouping in Devon, they will not only cause even further disturbance within the county but will involve the county ratepayers in further considerable expense. I cannot say exactly how much that expense will be, but if hon. Members think of 41 Petitioners and their lawyers calling and giving evidence in Committee upstairs, they will realise that, whatever else it may be, this will surely go down in history as one of the most expensive ever Water Bills, in view of the large number of objections to it which will have to be heard.
  It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock said, that regrouping generally has been under discussion for a long time, certainly long before I represented Torquay in the House. We

  1219
  are, however, discussing the Bill and not earlier Measures, which may have been considered hitherto. Torquay was first informed formally of the intention to introduce this Bill only last July. That was the first meeting, and at that meeting Torquay was given a specific promise—I stress that point—that working parties would be set up to consider all the rival interests which were affected. It is known that that promise has not been kept and that the working parties have never been set up.
  The county council has said that the Bill is needed urgently because of the water shortage. The point has been made quite fairly, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks when intervening in the exchanges between the hon. Member for Devon, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, that, and it is generally admitted, this is not a Bill to find more water but a Bill, rightly or wrongly, prepared from the financial and administrative point of view. To use the water shortage in Devon as an argument for the Bill is, therefore, not fair.
  Torquay has already reached agreement for the development of a new source of supply from the lower reaches of the Teign. I should like hon. Members, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, to know that this time Torquay has the agreement of the representatives of the Devon Water Board in this scheme and the agreement of the Legal and General Purposes Committee of the Devon County Council. Torquay, therefore, does not need this Bill in order to obtain more water.
  As the main object of the Bill is financial and not engineering, it seems to me that we must bring Plymouth and Exeter into it, too, if we are to consider the case fairly. If the argument were being advanced on engineering grounds, the county council could argue the need to provide more water, but the county council cannot have it both ways, and since it is principally a financial Bill, there is a strong case for bringing in Exeter and Plymouth and for having consultations with them to this end. If, on the other hand, it is introduced on engineering grounds, there is no logical reason for including a number of authorities which do not want to be included,
  1220
  among them Torquay and the water board which the hon. Member for Devon, North mentioned, which does not want to be brought into it.
  It would surely be wise of the county council not to try to steamroller this Bill through upstairs. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I do not think that it would be right or appropriate to have a Division on Second Reading, not because I feel that it would be lost by the opponents of the Bill but because I do not think that in such a short debate we have all the technical knowledge available to us to enable us to reach a fair considered decision. That is one of the disadvantages of the present procedure.
  Although I do not feel that it would be right to have a Division on Second Reading, it seems to me that there is a very good case for the county council thinking again about it, having the consultations which a number of local authorities thought would be held and then bringing forward a more generally agreed Measure than this Bill is at present. In that context it is worthy of note that this Thursday, in only two days' time, a meeting is to be held, at Exeter, sponsored by a number of opponents of the Bill—the requisite number to call such an emergency meeting—to urge on the county council, from within the county, the withdrawal of the Bill which we are discussing. That produces a paradoxical situation. I do not know exactly what would happen if we allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and the county council passed a resolution in two days' time urging its withdrawal. That is a problem which will have to be decided in due course, fortunately by someone other than myself.
  Although the Minister has on a number of occasions urged sensible regrouping in Devon and has never hidden his point of view that in the last resort it may be necessary to have non-voluntary regrouping, I suggest that all the weight of the evidence which has been produced shows that that ultimate situation has not yet been reached and that there is still an opportunity for the voluntary regrouping which the Minister has himself said he would prefer to see.
  For these reasons, although I do not intend to urge my hon. Friends to force a Division tonight, I seriously wish that

  1221
  my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock would convey to the promoters of the Bill the widespread feeling among hon. Members representing a variety of constituencies that the Bill has not been handled very well and that the county council ought to think again.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Browne: I add my voice to those which are protesting against the terms of the Bill, although I am quite certain that it was put together with the best intentions in the world. I say this particularly because the chairman of the Devon County Council, Sir George Hayter Hames, has done a great deal for the county. Moreover, I have an ulterior motive in that he is one of my constituents.
  The Bill is ill-conceived. As other hon. Members have said, this must be the case because of the number of authorities which are opposing it—41 out of 47. That is quite enough to break the back of Tom Pearse's grey mare. Since this is a debate with a Devon flavour, it is appropriate to say that this is not a fable and that I have two people in my division who claim direct descent from Tom Cobley in spite of the fact that Tom Cobley never married.
  There are three basic objections to the Bill by the authorities in my division—Bideford, Okehampton and Crediton. One of those objections is shared by the North Devon Water Board, which is also an objector. The first objection—that of failure to consult properly before the Bill was put together—has been dealt with very fairly by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). The authorities were asked to go to Exeter, where they were told what would happen.
  I believe that the reason the county councillors voted for the Bill was that they were told that if they did not do so the Minister would make an order. I believe that the whole nub of the problem is the shortage of water in South Devon. Although the hon. Member for Devon. North said that the Bill would provide not one more drop of water, it is interesting to note that in the memorandum put out by the Devon authorities they say,
  "… last summer showed that there is an urgent need for further and better water supplies in South Devon."
  I suggest that the Minister would not have had to make an order for North
  1222
  Devon or East Devon and would have had to concern himself only with South Devon. That would be the albatross around his neck. Perhaps I could quote "The Ancient Mariner",
  "Water, water, everywhere.
  Nor any drop to drink."
  If the Bill had not been promoted, would the Minister have made an order to amalgamate the Devon water undertakings into three boards?
  The second objection has been aired already, namely, the exclusion of Exeter and Plymouth from the three boards. The Vail Report of 1952, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), suggested that there should be four boards and that Exeter and Plymouth should be included. That would result in lower water rates all round throughout the county, and one can only cite the position that the South Western Electricity Board would be in if Bristol were removed. There has been a lack of effort by the county council to persuade Exeter to join.
  The third and fundamental principle is this. In my division, three perfectly good and capable water undertakings will be taken over by the North Devon Water Board without any compensation whatsoever. This is absolutely wrong. We have guarded, perhaps highlighted by Crichel Down, the principle that there should be compensation for property taken over. The memorandum issued by the Devon County Council says:
  "… it is now clear that compulsory powers will have to be used".
  That is exactly what is happening. The council offered differential terms to these undertakings if they would go to Exeter and disclose the figures requested. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that they refused, particularly because they already contribute 1s. 5½d. in the county rate towards water undertakings from which they derive no benefit at all. It is doubtful if the county council has an obligation to supervise the county water supplies. The objectors' petition, which came today, says that the duty to distribute
  "water supplies throughout England and Wales … and to secure the effective execution by water undertakings of a national policy relating to water, is specifically imposed on the Minister of Housing and Local Government by the Water Acts 1945 and 1948".

  1223
  Apart from those three main points, there are three subsidiary ones, all of which are financial. First, the North Devon Water Board objects because it will no longer be able to precept on the county council. This will slow down its rate of rural connection. It will be necessary for it to make frequent changes in its charges, which, under the circumstances, is almost impossible.
  Secondly, the rural councils which object to the Bill will have to pay considerably more. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), perhaps for the first time since I have been a Member of the House. Clause 50 (1, a) and (1, b) bear this out. This means, in the words of Major Allhusen, who is the chairman of the North Devon Water Board:
  "The cost of carrying water to the rural areas will have to be paid for by the district, and not by the County Council".
  This would aggravate the lack of water in remote rural districts, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Devon, North. It will be further aggravated because today the water is going to the remotest districts and the Ministry pays a grant in proportion to the amount of benefit which will be derived from the water. Therefore, the remoter the areas covered the smaller in proportion is the grant.
  Thirdly, the urban and borough councils which object to their undertakings being taken over are naturally very worried also about the financial side. Crediton Urban Council now pays 1s. 5½d. as a county precept, from which it derives no benefit. At the same time it pays its own rate of 1s. 4d. making a total of 2s. 9½d. Under the Bill it will pay a county precept of 11½d. and 4s. to start with—that figure will rise—for water, which will make a total of 4s. 11d. It will cost Bideford Borough Council an extra £80,640 in the next ten years, assuming that it will not have to spend more than £40,000 on capital works. Thereafter, it will cost the council an extra £14,400 a year. That is a great deal of money for a smallish borough. There are also complaints of the new concept introduced in the Bill of using the prescribed 1d. rate product in place of the actual 1d. rate product as heretofore.
  If the Minister wishes to see the number of undertakings in the county
  1224
  reduced he should make an order. The Bill is introduced mainly for financial reasons, the idea being to stop the boards precepting on the county council, because the county council has no control over this. I sincerely hope that the Bill, in its present form anyway, will not become law. If it is to become law at any stage, there must be drastic alterations, and the objectors whom I have mentioned and the objections which I have outlined must be given rightful consideration.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. Clifford Kenyon: I make a short intervention only, but as one of the hon. Members who sat on the Select Committee which dealt with the Torquay Corporation Water Bill last year, I feel somewhat guilty that behind this Bill lies our rejection of the Torquay Bill. When we were considering that Bill we felt that the piecemeal taking of water from Dartmoor ought to stop and that there should be large authorities able to take over the collection of water and serve it out to those areas requiring it.
  It is perfectly true that no water Bill produces any more water. It collects what water is there and serves it out. That is what the Bill will do in a far better way than has been done before. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong in saying that the Devon County Council will be the only authority that can set up the three separate boards. From the evidence which we heard, it appears that in setting up three boards the council will be taking a proper step. One board would have been too large. It was stated by a representative of the Torquay Corporation that the North Devon Water Board was too large. I do not think so. I have been a member of a very large water undertaking for nearly twenty years. These three water boards, if set up as provided for in the Bill, will serve the interests of the inhabitants of the whole area in a far better way than they have been served previously.
  Mr. P. Browne: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Vail Report? If not, will he please do so? He will find that the Vail Committee suggested splitting the county into four water boards, bringing in Exeter and Plymouth, which we think is particularly important.
  Mr. Kenyon: I read that Report at the time of our discussions in the Committee.
  Mr. Bennett: Since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Torquay. I think it only fair to point out that the criticisms which proved decisive for him on the Torquay Bill have been met independently since, in that the Torquay Corporation has now, with the agreement of the Devon River Board and the legal and general purposes committee of the county council, devised a new scheme for a new water supply, and as to regrouping has voluntary local agreement for a much larger area surrounding Torquay, for the Teign area and for a quarter of the population and rateable resources of the whole county. While making his criticisms, the hon. Gentleman should note that one of the reasons which led him to throw out the Torquay Bill has been met without this Bill, and this new scheme would, in fact, be put up if it were not frustrated by the Bill now before the House.
  Mr. Kenyon: That was only one reason why we threw out the Torquay Bill. There were other reasons. I would not agree with dividing Devon up into four areas. I think that the areas of Exeter and Plymouth which have been left out should be brought into one of the areas now.
  This whole question concerning the three undertakings proves one thing. In all our consideration of water supplies throughout the whole country, it is becoming clearer with every Bill that comes forward that there ought to be one national board to take charge of all water and apportion it throughout the country through smaller undertakings such as are envisaged in this Bill.
  8.1 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I shall not venture into the somewhat controversial matters which the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) opened in his last remarks. I am glad, however, that, despite his desire for further nationalisation of some sort, he still recognises that there must be local water undertakings. Water is a local service, and it becomes intolerably expensive if one seeks to bring water over excessive distances from one catchment area to another.
  1226
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) referred to Uncle Tom Cobley. It seems to me that the disputatious differences among Devonians of which we have been conscious this evening indicate why things did not go altogether happily on the way to Widdicombe Fair. I wish to be a peacemaker rather than otherwise. I express my plain view that the Bill should have a Second Reading, and I appreciate very much the fact that even those of my hon. Friends who have spoken most vigorously against it will not stand in the way of the Bill being read a Second time and being examined, as, of course, it should be, thoroughly and meticulously in Committee.
  On a water Bill, the Minister is in a position somewhat different from that in which he stands when he is invited to give advice on, let us say, the ordinary Private Bill promoted by a local authority inasmuch as Parliament has imposed upon him definite duties with regard to water, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington reminded us. I ought, I think, to begin by reading Section 1 of the Water Act, 1945, because it is essential to an understanding of these matters and it is bound to govern my approach Parliament has said in that Act:
  "It shall be the duty of the Minister … to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of water supplies in England and Wales and to secure the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national policy relating to water."
  Those words do not imply that the Minister must do everything himself. Indeed, they specifically refer to "effective execution by water undertakers". The Minister, therefore, must have a direct interest in seeing that there are water undertakers in existence or brought into existence which will be effective in carrying out the responsibilities for water supplies. I do not demur to help from any quarter in this task. Whether it be a county council, an hon. Member of the House or anyone else who has suggestions to bring forward, it does not seem to me that we should lightly reject them. Indeed, the grave shortages of water in certain places brought about by the drought of 1959—a drought which in these days, perhaps, we are on the point of forgetting, but which was very vivid to all of us who

  1227
  had any knowledge of the areas of shortage last summer—put, I submit, a special responsibility on Parliament.
  In certain parts of Devon, as my hon. Friends know, there were severe shortages of water last summer. In addition, there are many people in the county, who, unfortunately, have not yet a piped water supply laid on. It is my desire to co-operate with all who assist towards ensuring that Devonshire and other counties are safeguarded against the constant risk of water shortage if prolonged drought recurs.
  My concern, also, is to try, so far as I may, to achieve for as large a percentage of our population as reasonably possible a piped water supply. We already have a larger percentage of our population served with piped water than any other country in the world. It is 95 per cent. or more. We may never be able to reach 100 per cent. because there are outlying farms and cottages which, perhaps, can never be reached, but we shall press on, and I am quite sure that everyone who has taken part in the debate, and, indeed, every hon. Member of the House, would wish to see the water supply of Devonshire organised so that those who have not yet piped water will have the best possible chance of receiving it.
  My sole concern in relation to the Bill is to further those two purposes. But, as I think will have become apparent from our debate, the water problems of Devonshire are more complex than the problems elsewhere because of the system of water finance embodied in the North Devon Water Act. In July last, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who was Parliamentary Secretary at the time, pointed out that, until the financial arrangements were reviewed by the county council, it seemed almost hopeless to have any further Measures of water regrouping adopted in the county.
  As Minister, I frankly say that I am not vitally concerned about what precise method of water charges is adopted or what precise method of allocation between direct water charges and rate liability is adopted. That must be a matter for the people of Devon themselves. In passing, I will say that it would always strike me as unsound if people were to pay far less than the
  1228
  actual cost of the water they consumed and the difference were made up by very substantial contributions from the rates.
  In general, each person should pay the cost of what he uses. It is particularly unfair if an exceptionally heavy burden falls on local rates in an area where a substantial proportion of the population is not provided with water, because in that event the people are having to pay and they are getting nothing back. All these points, no doubt, will have to be considered in relation to the Bill.
  I say again that the precise arrangements for charging and for division of cost between water rates and general rates is certainly a matter which the Committee should examine with care. It is the affair of Devonshire rather than primarily the affair of the Minister. It is, however, very much my concern that something should be done about that, because I believe that until it is done all hopes of further voluntary regrouping will be frustrated. That has been the experience hitherto. The efforts which have been made have broken on that rock.
  These financial changes can only be brought about by an Act of Parliament. They cannot be done by the Minister or anybody else by Order. They spring from the North Devon Water Act and they can be altered only by a further Act of Parliament. That is why the Bill is important to the cause which I have at heart—the cause of regrouping.
  I am determined that there must be some further regrouping in Devon. It could be in three boards or in four boards. I think that three would be preferable, but I grant that four would be possible. None of that, however, can take place until the present arrangements relating to bearing the cost of water have been reviewed and altered.
  The Bill may be open to serious criticism—I do not know—but it is a serious-minded attempt to strengthen the structure of the water industry in Devonshire for the provision of water for the people of the county. I am quite sure that, as such, it deserves and requires examination in Committee.
  I come back to the Report of the Committee on the Torquay Water Bill of last Session, to which the hon. Member

  1229
  for Chorley referred. That Committee, in its Report dated 21st April, 1959, said:
  "The Committee recognise that in the near future Torquay Corporation will need additional supplies of water and that a supply of piped water is urgently necessary in some rural areas. They consider, however, that the first step should he some form of regrouping of the water undertakings in South Devon and that thereafter the new authority or authorities should come to Parliament to seek powers for any additional supplies which may prove to be necessary. The Committee feel that, in considering the sources of such additional supplies, serious attention should be paid to the problems raised by abstraction of the headwaters of rivers where these are already being heavily exploited."
  That is a Report to the House from a responsible Committee. Although there may be individual differences of opinion, I believe that the House as a whole would accept that as a fair and just assessment of the situation in South Devon. I certainly do. I agree with the Committee on that Bill that some form of regrouping in South Devon is essential.
  Reference has been made to the Vail Report. There are, of course, two Vail Reports. There is the Vail Report of 1954, which was before the Committee in the last Session, and there is the second Vail Report, which was produced after the Committee had reported, when my inspector paid a further visit. His report is not a secret document. It was made available to all the water undertakers of the county. The substance of the second Vail Report was that there are both short-term and long-term problems of water supply in the area which can only be satisfactorily solved if the development of new sources is looked at over a wider area than is covered by individual undertakings now, preferably over the whole of the southern part of the administrative county west of the Exe.
  As Minister I accept that view. I believe that it is right. I believe this to be an area where careful consideration must be given to the right way of meeting the growing demands of South Devon, where there is known to be water shortage, at least at all times of summer drought, and I do not think that a satisfactory solution can be secured without some substantial measure of regrouping.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) said that there was no need for the Bill to supply
  1230
  Torquay with water, because Torquay had found an additional source. That may be so, but Torquay, of course, does not yet have the powers to exploit that source. I have no idea what objections might be raised to it. In any case, I would have, in my consideration, to come back to the second Vail Report and its strong recommendation that the problems of South Devon should be looked at as a whole, whatever may be found, in the end, to be the best final way of meeting them.
  If, by the Bill, the existing financial arrangements in the county, which have proved a serious obstacle to further regrouping, are altered either in the manner embodied in the Bill, or in some other manner which, after consideration in Committee, may be found to meet the case better, what has proved to be a lasting obstacle to the progress of regrouping will be removed. That will open the way to objective—I hardly dare say dispassionate—examination of the problems of regrouping in North and East Devon, too. From the water viewpoint, it is the South Devon problem that is the urgent one—I grant that at once. For my part, however, I do not think that the structure is right either in North Devon or in East Devon, nor do I believe that any progress can be made until the financial arrangements are altered.
  If the Bill receives a Second Reading today, as I hope it will, it then will become my duty in the ordinary way to submit a report to the Committee on all the relevant provisions of the Bill. Certainly, nothing that I say on Second Reading today should be taken as an indication that I consider that the Bill as drafted should be regarded already as the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered. Very likely, improvements can be made in Committee. I hope the Committee will be able to find means of meeting some at least of the strong objections which are raised to the Bill.
  As regards the position of Exeter, I can simply say this. I would always be reluctant to see compulsory powers of any kind used against a water undertaking which was strong enough to continue on its own. Exeter is strong enough to continue on its own. In an ideal world, some wider arrangement covering large parts of Devon might be better. We have,

  1231
  however, to proceed from where we are at present and the Exeter undertaking being in existence, I cannot see that I would be justified in seeking to ask Parliament to use any form of compulsion to bring it into a still wider group.
  Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. Friend please clarify that? He says that Exeter is strong enough to stand on its own. What is the criterion? Is it size, or, as has often been said by officials of the Ministry, a question of having a full-time water engineer? In fact, Exeter has only a part-time engineer and Sidmouth in my constituency has a full-time engineer.
  Mr. Brooke: There may be in an individual case a number of criteria, but an undertaking, to be strong enough to stand on its own, must have the requisite population, the requisite financial strength and be well-fitted to employ a full-time and qualified engineer.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: If that is the criterion, I am a little surprised, because earlier by right hon. Friend referred to Torquay. I did not interrupt him then, though I was tempted to do so. Is he suggesting that under the new proposals from Torquay, on the one hand as to the new supply with the agreement of those who have been approached, including the Devon River Board and the General Purposes Committee of Devon County Council, and, on the other, as to regrouping with agreed representation of one fourth of the resources and population of the county, Torquay is not capable of standing on its own?
  Mr. Brooke: When I referred to the particular project of Torquay for exploiting a new source of water, I was not discussing the strength of the Torquay undertaking or its qualifications to be an undertaking on its own. I was simply mentioning that Torquay would need to obtain powers if it was to exploit this source, and until it had been advertised and representations and objections had been invited it would be quite impossible for me to know whether substantial objections would arise or not.
  As for Devon County Council, I am not proposing to intervene in the arguments about its behaviour. I am not qualified to say whether the county council
  1232
  has or has not done all it should have done. I must say that if no one in the county, neither the county council nor anyone else had initiated action of some sort at this time, I believe that I should have had no option as Minister but to intervene in some way, because the danger signals were out last summer. If we were to continue with the existing financial arrangements which could be altered only by legislation, and if no one proposed to alter them, it would not be consistent with my duties under the 1945 Act if I sat back with folded hands and simply hoped that something would be done by voluntary arrangements.
  I cannot escape the responsibilities laid upon me by Parliament and, if the Bill were to fail or have to be withdrawn I should have no choice but to take some initiative from outside. I do not wish to take that sort of initiative. I would much prefer that Devon solved its own problems from within the county and that a scheme should be worked out which, after scrupulous examination by a Committee of the House, would be a real solution and, if possible, would meet many of the objections which have been enumerated to the detail of the Bill. That is the better way and I cannot help but think that, with all the resources of mind and understanding and keenness in Devon, that should be possible.
  I have only to add that if it really proves to be impossible, the duty laid upon me by the 1945 Act would compel me to do something which would be in itself distasteful, and that would be to call people together and perhaps impose or demand a solution. But I cannot effectively impose a solution, as one or two hon. Members have suggested that I might, because I cannot do this by compulsory Order. No compulsory Order will solve this problem until the financial arrangements are altered. That is the complex which we have to face, and it is because of that complex that I greatly hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading in a spirit of reasonable good will and wish the Committee luck in what may possibly be a prolonged series of sittings in examining in detail all that everybody has to say about its provisions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  UKRAINIANS, GREAT BRITAIN
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharples.]
  8.25 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I am glad to have the opportunity this evening of making a plea on behalf of 40,000 Ukrainians who are at present very welcome guests of this country. Of all the peoples who have been forced by man's inhumanity to man to seek asylum with us there are none that have a greater claim to our sympathy and understanding than the Ukrainians. None have adapted themselves more easily and happily and unselfishly to our way of life. They are thrifty and industrious people. They are doing a fine job in this country in agriculture, in the coal mines and in many other under-manned industries. One has only to consult the police of the large cities in which they have settled to learn what a high reputation they have and how richly it is deserved.
  I believe that the position is the same in all the countries where they have settled. Almost a million Ukrainians form a highly respected party in that nation of many races, the United States. Over 40,000 of them were among the volunteers in the Canadian armed forces in the last war. They fought very gallantly on our behalf in Africa, in Italy, in France and in Germany and they earned many distinctions. However, despite the Ukrainians' happy faculty of integrating themselves into the lives of the nations in whose countries they live, there is perhaps no nation that has such a passionate feeling of patriotism and sense of nationhood as they have. It is a flame which they have kept burning brightly through many hundreds of years of persecution and attempted genocide such as we in this country find difficult to understand.
  The story of the mass deportations, the individual torture, the deliberate planned annihilation by starvation which they have suffered in these years at the hands of Communist Russia is perhaps one of the most terrible stories in the world. I have neither the time nor the desire to harrow the House with details of those
  1234
  days, nor do I wish to weary hon. Members with a history lesson. Nevertheless, I think it is right to remember that the Ukraine was the first Christian kingdom of Eastern Europe, and that the Ukrainians have always been and remain to this day a very deeply religious people. The Ukraine was a nation which was greatly respected and of high culture in Europe many years before William the Conqueror conquered this country, and it was indeed a nation of considerable renown in Europe when the Russians, and indeed ourselves, were still in a state of barbarism.
  Scattered over different continents, there are about 47 million Ukrainians, and approximately 45 million live in the Ukraine proper. At least they did, though that number has been considerably reduced. It has been reduced by millions by the horrors of which I was speaking earlier. At any rate, sufficient remain there to form a nation not so very much smaller in population than our own, which has succeeded in keeping itself during all that time as a separate nation, with its own traditions, its own culture, and, perhaps most important of all from the point of view of the plea which I wish to make tonight, its own language.
  I hope that in these very few words I have perhaps said enough to persuade my hon. and learned Friend that, morally at any rate, the Ukraine has as much right to be considered as an independent nation as any other nation, and indeed a great deal more right than some. Nevertheless, we in this country, for reasons that may seem adequate to the Government, deny them that right, and it was the latest manifestation of this denial that caused me to initiate this debate tonight.
  Early last December the Nottingham branch of the Anglo-Ukrainian Society, of which I am very happy to be a member, approached me in very great distress of mind and told me that its members in Nottingham had been summoned to report to police headquarters and had there been pressed to change their nationality from Ukrainian, as then registered, to either Russian or Polish.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: Were any of them in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency asked to accept the term "uncertain"?
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I shall go fairly fully, I hope, into the question of registration as "uncertain" later on.
  At any rate, this request—I will not use a stronger term—was made to them by the police. I hope I have said enough already for hon. Members to realise how deeply humiliated and indeed horrified the Ukrainians were by such a request. It was worse than merely a question of humiliation. There were indeed many among them with a definite sense of panic. They feared that this was merely the prelude to their deportation to Russia. It might seem quite ridiculous to us that they should have had any such feelings, but I think we should appreciate that people who have suffered the hundreds of years of persecution that the Ukrainians have react very differently to a situation of that sort as compared with ourselves.
  In proof of that point I should like to quote from two letters which I have received, the first from the secretary of the Anglo-Ukrainian Society in Nottingham, which I received in December, and in which he says:
  "The Ukrainians here in Nottingham just cannot understand why some of them are now being called to the police station and pressed to change their nationality, and underlying their worry is the fear that possibly they may be forced to return to the U.S.S.R. or Poland, although, personally, I do not think that this particular action will be taken."
  With this letter was enclosed a copy of a letter which the secretary of the Nottingham branch had written to the chief constable of Nottingham. I quote from it as follows:
  "A number of Ukrainians have approached our society asking questions as to why they are being sent to the police station and being pressed to change their nationality to Russian or Polish. This action of the City Police is causing the Ukrainians a great deal of worry and, I might say, a sense of panic. They are beginning to wonder if by being forced to change their nationality this might be the prelude to some further step. Naturally this does not serve to better the relations between the British and the Ukrainian people. There has always been a great respect by the Ukrainians towards the British people and they have always tried to adapt themselves to the British way of life and to cause as little trouble as possible to the authorities. The Ukrainians are a freedom-loving people and millions of them have died in their struggle against Communist Russia, and it is a great humiliation indeed for them to be called now to change their nationality to Russian or Polish."
  1236
  Of course, I am aware that this action by the police was not due to any new Order by the Government or indeed to any change of policy. It was in fact due—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but if he is referring to action by local police which is not due to any Order of the Government, he may find himself in difficulty in keeping his speech within the rules of order.
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not suggesting that. The action of the local police was entirely due to Government action. The point I was making was that it was not due to any new Government policy or Government Order. It was due to the action of the Government in sending out Home Office Circular 119/59, dated 10th September, 1959, which calls the attention of the police to a previous Government instruction which I will quote. It probably dates from some ten years back. The relevant part, dealing with the question of the registration of aliens, reads as follows:
  "Special considerations apply in the case of Ukrainians. The Ukraine is not a sovereign state and aliens coming from this area should correctly be described as nationals of the country of which their place of birth actually forms part. Thus, Czech Ukrainians, Polish Ukrainians, Rumanian Ukrainians, Russian Ukrainians and U.S.S.R. Ukrainians should, respectively, be described as Czechoslovaks, Poles, Rumanians and Russians. Permission has, however, exceptionally been given for aliens who claim to be Ukrainian and who object to their correct nationality being entered in their registration certificate to have 'Uncertain (U)' entered under the heading 'Nationality' in their certificates and on their registration cards".
  The Home Office Circular in question called the attention of the police to this Order. I can only assume that Circular 119 was sent out last September because the majority of police forces in this country, with commendable common sense and human understanding, had taken no notice of the instruction which I have quoted. It seems to me that the latest circular must have originated from somebody in Whitehall with what I would call an over-tidy office mind, but with no appreciation whatever of the human problems involved.

  1237
  As regards these human problems, I have dried to show that there is no race who, morally, are more entitled to consider themselves an independent nation than the Ukrainians. But I would now like to advance four practical reasons why I think they are entitled to demand that recognition.
  Firstly, the Ukraine is a full member of the United Nations and is, of course, recognised by our country as such. Secondly, it has its own Government and its own Foreign Office. Thirdly, it was recognised by this country and eight other European countries as an independent nation in 1918 and did, in fact, maintain that independence until 1923. The Ukraine again successfully asserted its independence in the last war in 1941. Fourthly, it is, in fact, at the present time in Russia a criminal offence for a Ukrainian to register himself as anything except Ukrainian.
  I would also like to know what practical purpose this Home Office instruction is intended to serve. It will not in any Sense assist the police. I discussed this matter with the acting chief constable of Nottingham and he has told me that he would very much prefer Ukrainians to be registered as Ukrainians. He said that if in the city, as sometimes happens in all cities, they had some sort of trouble or feud between different races or, indeed, between different political parties, the police would want to know of just what nationality every alien actually was. For instance, the police would always know that no Latvian or Lithuanian or Ukrainian would be in sympathy with any Communist or pro-Communist group, but the police might not find their task quite so easy if all these people were simply labelled as Russian. In the same way, of course, the police would know very well how the sympathies of most of the Spanish refugees in this country would be likely to lie in any political quarrel
  At any rate, that is the strong opinion of the police in Nottingham, and I have no reason to believe that it would be different in the case of any other police force. Moreover I put this specific question to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State: what would be the position of Ukrainians in this country, if they were registered as Russians, if we went to war with the U.S.S.R.? Would they then be automatically
  1238
  interned as enemy aliens, despite the fact that they would, of course, be among our most fervent supporters?
  Finally, I would advance this argument. How would we feel if we had lost the last war and the Germans had occupied our country and it had been incorporated into the Reich, and, while living as refugees in some other country, we were ordered to register ourselves either as Germans or as of uncertain nationality? Of course, we should contemptuously refuse to do anything of the sort. We know that we are British and in exactly the same way the Ukrainians know what they are—they know they are Ukrainians. They are not Russians, never have been Russians and are absolutely determined that they never will be Russians. They have fought and died and suffered martyrdom for hundreds of years to prove that they are Ukrainians.
  Will my hon. and learned Friend rescind this Order and allow Ukrainians to register themselves as what they are, Ukrainians, and will he do it soon? In Nottingham, as a result of Home Office Circular No. 119, 38 Ukrainians have now registered themselves as Polish after having been called to police headquarters. Fifty-two have registered themselves as of uncertain nationality. There remain still to be interviewed 317. Will my hon. and learned Friend rescind the Order as soon as possible and save those remaining 317 this distress and humiliation?
  I know from answers which my hon. and learned Friend has given to questions that he is sympathetic to this plea. I ask him, therefore, to try as quickly as he can to overcome this red tape, which, presumably, has caused this Order and the issue of this latest circular, and to put the thing on a better footing. If he cannot do that at present, will he at least adopt a suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) and allow Ukrainians to register themselves as Ukrainian refugees? That is a practice which is adopted in France with, I understand, perfectly satisfactory results. If he cannot do that, will he adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. M. Macmillan) and allow them to register as Ukrainian with a P or R or some other letter in brackets after their name?

  1239
  The Government recognise and sympathise with what is generally called the "upsurge of nationalism" in Africa and elsewhere. Indeed, they encourage it and hustle the nations concerned along the road to independence. Yet few of those nations have suffered at all in their march to nationhood. In order to maintain their nationhood or to attempt to maintain it. Ukrainians have suffered fearfully. Surely, in World Refugee Year of all times, it must not be said that we have added this humiliation to their suffering.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. John McCann: In reinforce the plea of the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) that the Ukrainian contingent in this country should have fair play. I, too, am a member of the Anglo-Ukrainian Association. There is a strong association in my constituency of Rochdale, so that I have had an opportunity to see how closely knit is this organisation for the benefit of the people who have suffered so long and been so persecuted in their attempts to maintain their own nationality.
  I cannot say how strongly these people feel about the type of treatment which they are receiving and how disappointed and hurt they were when the Home Office Circular asked that they should be registered as Russian, Polish, or uncertain. They are neither Russian nor Polish. They are Ukrainians and proud of the fact that they are Ukrainians. They have their own language and their own culture. To make one small criticism of them, they tend to stay together as a group of Ukrainians rather than to integrate themselves into the life of the community, and that is especially the case in Lancashire. So strong are the racial ties that that is bound to happen.
  These are not the flotsam and jetsam of the world. These are hard-working, deeply religious people. Knowing many of them for some time, I feel that the least that we can do is to allow them to register under their own title. Instead of "U" for "uncertain" let them register as "U" for "Ukrainian", and if there has to be a "T" for "Temporary" or "R" behind their name, that does not matter.
  1240
  It is rather strange that someone in the Civil Service, knowing the history of the Russian domination of these people, should ask them to register as Russian. It is true that we do not recognise the Ukraine, although she is a full member of the United Nations. I am certain that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at this again, the point that has been made so many times from both sides of the House can be met.
  I have had correspondence with the hon. and learned Gentleman on this problem. I recognise his difficulty. I appreciate the sympathy he has extended both to me and to the people on whose behalf I have spoken, but this is a festering sore in the heart of these people. They have come here to find refuge. They have found a way of life which, even if they cannot go back to their own country, has given them hope of being able to live as a community. They live in a strange land, but they follow their own customs, language and religion. If we could recognise them as Ukrainians that would make one group of people, whose loyalty to this country has never been in doubt, very happy.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I do not want to repeat the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann). The only difference between us on this issue is that east of the Pennines Ukrainians seem to integrate fairly well, because not long ago I came across a family in which two sisters had married, one an Italian and one a German, and the children spoke four languages, all with a strong Yorkshire accent.
  Mr. McCann: They integrate in the marital sense, but instead of the Ukrainians becoming English the wives become Ukrainian.
  Mr. Macmillan: That is possibly a tribute to the virility of the Ukrainians.
  There is no doubt that the Ukrainians are part of a nation, even if we do not recognise their independence as a State. In this context, it is important to remember that by these regulations we are removing not only their independence—that has been done by others—

  1241
  but their nationhood, and that is something about which they feel, and I think rightly, very strongly.
  May I quote from a letter I received from a Ukrainian in Halifax? The letter says:
  "Perhaps I should point out now that the word 'Ukrainian' is to our people symbolic of our long-fought-for independence, and to be registered as any other nationality is a bitter blow to our national pride."
  If this country had been defeated, how would we feel if we were compelled to register as refugees in another country?
  I am not convinced by the Minister's reasons, although they have been put forward with the utmost sympathy. There is no real purpose behind the regulations. I went so far as to make inquiries about whether there was an ulterior political motive in them, but I was told that there was no sinister purpose involved. It was simply a question of securing consistency of records. I have managed to reassure the Ukrainians in Halifax that they have no need to fear that there is any question of foreign policy behind the regulations, or any difficulty about deportation and so on. I have assured them that these regulations have been made because all other nationals are registered as belonging to some State which is recognised as being independent.
  There is some point in registering other nationals who are not refugees but who are merely visitors or work here on a permit, because if they misbehave they can be deported. Also, many of them will ultimately return home, but the Ukrainians have no home to go to. We have already told them that we will not deport them. What does it matter what labels they are given, among the many shifts and changes which occur in Central Europe? If there is some adjustment of the Oder-Neisse line will their registration be changed once again?
  I hope that the Minister will admit that we have shown that little practical purpose is to be served by forcing Ukranians to register as other nationalities. My hon. Friend has pointed out that in certain cases an inter-Slav quarrel, which happens from time to time, might lead to slight confusion. Certainly a Ukrainian will not cease quarrelling with a Pole simply because the Ukrainian is also called a
  1242
  Pole. If anything, that will add fuel to the flames.
  I know that my hon. and learned Friend is sympathetic. Those of us who have dealings with these nations are used to hearing them referred to as the captive countries. We cannot liberate them, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can liberate himself and cease to be the captive of his officials, who have insisted upon this method of registration. Various methods have been suggested to overcome the difficulty. These people may be registered as Ukrainian refugees. If it is absolutely necessary that the nation in which they were born be identified, that could be done by putting an initial letter, in brackets, after their classification. But in any case, I beg my hon. and learned Friend to show that this country is not dead to sentiment, and that mankind and the national feelings of men and women are more important than any machine, even if it be a Government machine.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I support the plea put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I was very relieved to hear the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) say that he was satisfied that there was no political motive or inspiration behind the recent action of the Home Office. It had passed through my mind that Mr. Khrushchev might have complained to the Prime Minister about this situation when he and the right hon. Gentleman met not long ago, and that this was one of the many prices that we have to pay for Anglo-Soviet amity and understanding. I am glad to hear that that is not so.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I can assure the hon. Member that if it were so Anglo-Russian amity would have been bought at the expense of a family rift.
  Mr. Houghton: I am glad that we can consider this question upon the practical basis of consistency of record. That helps tremendously. It reduces the matter to the proportion of a filing system—a classification of records in the Home Office—and on that basis we might bring some sense to bear on the question.
  Why did the hon. and learned Member cause—if he did cause—this reminder to

  1243
  be sent to the police as recently as last September, when the original regulation was some years old and the police had apparently been exercising their discretion as to whether or not they acted on it? Why was it necessary to do this? I do not want to attack civil servants, or to cast aspersions upon them; my connections with the Civil Service are far too long and too deep to allow me to do that. But the political and social judgment of a Minister must be brought to bear upon any passion of clerks or civil servants for consistency of records. That is what I complain of.
  It may be that, theoretically, these Ukrainians are the nationals of an independent State, be it Russia, Poland. Czechoslovakia or some other country, but they nevertheless passionately desire to retain their description as Ukrainians. Shall we deny it? That is the question. I ask the Minister: when Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were swallowed up without the consent of the peoples there did we then, automatically, and at once say, "Well, we are very sorry. You are Russians. We cannot help that. You have lost your nationhood, your independence. You have just gone. You are sunk without a trace, and you are indeed Russians." Is that what we do for the sake of the consistency of the record, or any other purpose? If we do. I think that it is an abomination and an outrage on the pride and the dignity of human beings.
  A number of Ukrainians live in my constituency. It is no accident that the hon. Member for Halifax, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and I are all here. We all have Ukrainians in our constituencies and not until recently did we know how many we had. They lived quietly and decently, mixing with the communities in our respective areas without any fuss or palaver. But when this happened they were deeply moved. I saw a very agitated deputation of Ukrainians recently in my constituency. They had the sympathy of all those around them, and that is important.
  What do we gain by this? How does it help anybody to look up a book and see on the top line, "Nationality, uncertain"? What does it tell them
  1244
  except that there is some uncertainty about it? If it is ever necessary to take any action on the nationality of these people, I would shrink from speculation on the treatment of this matter in the event of war between this country and the Soviet Union.
  I just cannot contemplate that situation, so I do not want to speculate upon the problem that might arise in this context. What I think is of more practical importance is that we are not thinking of sending these people back anywhere. In any case, we would have great difficulty in deciding where they should go, and would have to ponder hard and long on the conditions into which we might be sending them. One of the important aspects is that the Ukrainians live peacefully and without disorder amongst us.
  I am very puzzled about this. I am used to bureaucracy in all its forms—agreeable and aggravating. I thought, "Well, why have they done this? What is this fuss about? Why could not they leave the matter alone?" The police were leaving it alone but, for some reason that he has not yet explained—and I hope that he will explain tonight—the Minister caused the police to be reminded. Why? What harm was anyone doing? What did it matter if they were left alone in peace and happiness and contentment among our fellow citizens in our constituencies?
  Now, all this disturbance has been created. Men and women have been made unhappy, and have been given a feeling of insecurity when we know that they need have no such fear. As the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central has said, when people are living as the guests of another country they naturally have a feeling of insecurity. They know that they cannot demand the rights of an Englishman, and that it is our tolerance that permits them to stay here.
  We have a reputation of being an hospitable country. We are the refuge of those who flee from persecution and from disagreeable conditions. Throughout history we have offered our protection to those who have wanted to escape from intolerable conditions. When we do that, we want to make those who come here for refuge feel as secure as we possibly can. That is the whole point of offering them refuge—to give diem a sense of security, and to make them

  1245
  feel that they are out of harm's way and that they may rebuild their lives somewhere else.
  If we are now to create this uncertainty in their minds we are doing them a disservice and causing unhappiness. One of the functions of Ministers is to prevent people being made unhappy unless there is a real and overwhelming reason for something being done that makes them unhappy. I cannot, for the life of me, see what this is all about. I hope that the Minister will understand how deeply we all feel about this matter, and that he will take steps to repair the damage that is being done at present.
  There is no real difficulty about it. If there are some rules—alter them. If there is a "sacred cow" of consistency of records—kill it. There is no reason why we should be made slaves to a fine insistence on record systems unless there is a real practicable purpose—and I do not think that there is. These people are aliens in the eyes of the law. They must have alien registration books. Their photographs are in the books. Their descriptions are in the books. They have to report to the police. They have to obey the rules governing the residence of aliens. The police have track of them all the time. What does it matter what appears on the first line of the book—that is what I want to know—especially when their nationality, if it had to be defined in terms of the word of today would, in many cases, he difficult to determine?
  If Ukrainian is their nationality, I see no reason why Ukrainian they cannot be. Just recently, I received the first of a series of booklets being published by the Soviet Government on the 15 independent republics in the U.S.S.R. The first book I got was about Georgia; the second was about the Ukraine. One reads all about the Ukrainian nation, its people and the rest.
  The Russians probably portray the Ukraine as being more independent than it really is—I do not know what the real facts are about that—but, at least, the Ukraine is defined as a separate country for the purpose of Russian geography a id the Russian information services throughout the world. One reads in this booklet of a separate Council of Ministers, and a separate administration
  1246
  of the Ukraine. That, of course, is the Russian Ukraine but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, part of Poland was originally within the scope of the Ukrainian people.
  I have said probably more than I ought to have said on various aspects of this matter, but I hope that the Minister will take the question to his heart, and see wheher the requirements of administration, the consistency of records, the obedience to the rules, cannot be moulded to the human problem present here, and so give back to these people their feeling of security and of dignity; and ease their minds, whose peace has been seriously damaged in recent weeks, and give them the happiness with the people amongst whom they have chosen to live, since, for various reasons, they are debarred from returning to their homeland.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Minister will make a very definite attempt to answer the question which has just been put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—why cannot they leave the Ukrainians alone? I, for one, see absolutely no reason why the Government should insist in carrying out what obviously is a purely bureaucratic system. When my hon. Friend talks about bureaucracy, in view of his background, I believe there is something very pertinent in the case he makes.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) say that we cannot liberate the Ukraine. We cannot liberate any of these countries which happen to be under Russian rule. At least, we certainly cannot liberate them by military methods. The more we get that fact implanted upon our own Government and our allies, the more we shall succeed in getting at the reality of life in that unfortunate part of the world. I should not say that at present it is so unfortunate, but it is a part of the world which has had an unfortunate history. It has been overrun in two world wars by Germans, there has been the ebb and flow of wars and the unfortunate victims of the war are still with us.
  I represent some of them. In Scotland also there are people from the Ukraine. They were first captured by the Germans

  1247
  and brought into Germany. They then came over here. Whatever they call themselves, whether they call themselves Ukrainians or not, is not a matter of vital importance, surely, to the administration of alien justice in this country. They have a different language from the Russians and a different language from the Poles. It is true that some of these nations may be obsessed with their sense of nationality.
  I remember one occasion when I was visiting East Germany, occupied by the Russian forces. I went to Weimar and discovered a rather strange thing. I found a Russian church which had been built two or three hundred years ago because a Russian princess married a German duke, the Duke of Weimar. He had a Russian church built for the benefit of his wife. Curiously enough, when the Russian army of occupation marched in, it decided to use the church for religious purposes for the personnel that accompanied the Russian Army.
  To my great surprise the church was opened and I was shown round by a priest of the Russian Church. I asked him whether he was a Russian, and he replied, "No, I come from the Ukraine. Do you come from England?" I replied, "No, I come from Scotland." I could well understand that if any unfortunate Scots were in the Soviet Union in the same circumstances, one of the biggest insults which could be offered them would be to insist on registering them as English.
  Mr. McCann: Or "uncertain".
  Mr. Hughes: I see no rule or social reason why these people cannot be left alone. At about this time last year I was in Kiev with the Prime Minister. As he walked through the crowd, who were very pleased to see him, he shouted out in Russian—not in Ukrainian—"I wish you success. I wish you success." If he wished the people of the Ukraine success, surely it is a mistake for the Home Office to insist on an arbitrary regulation of this kind.
  I do not think this is a subject on which Mr. Khrushchev tried to bargain with the Prime Minister. Indeed, I am sure that the subject never entered the discussion. I also doubt whether Mr. Khrushchev would at this time want to see beck in the Ukraine several thousand
  1248
  people who have been living in the West. Of course, if the seven-year plan is successful, things may change. I never permit the Prime Minister to forget his tribute to Mr. Khrushchev, in which he said that he had done the greatest constructive work in the world.
  In the U.S.S.R. they are pointing to the promised land. If this is achieved, then in another seven years, if the standard of life in the Ukraine has risen to the level of that in the United States, there may be an opportunity for these people to return to their native land. I hope that that time will come, that the Ukraine will be prosperous and that its agriculture will flourish. I hope that its organisation will result in a high standard of life and that these unfortunate people and their families, who felt the brunt of the cruelty of one of the most cruel phases of the war, will eventually be able to go back to a prosperous and flourishing Ukraine.
  I am sure that the Government hope that this time will come. In the meantime, why cannot the Government accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Halifax and leave these unfortunate people alone?
  9.19 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I am grateful, as I am sure is the whole House, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) for giving us this opportunity to consider the question of the registration of the Ukrainians in this country. I am particularly grateful because, as I hope the House will find, it gives me an opportunity to remove the misconceptions and fears which, as has been shown by some of the moving speeches which we have heard tonight, have undoubtedly arisen as a result of some instructions in a regulation issued by the Aliens Department of the Home Office on 10th September last year.
  I should like to join with my hon. and gallant Friend in paying tribute to the qualities of the Ukrainian people who came here during and after the war. We in the Home Office know what good and, mostly, hard-working people they are. We record with great satisfaction the way that they have settled down in

  1249
  this country and the contribution that they have made to our efforts at postwar reconstruction. I personally have come across some of these people and therefore have reason to share the admiration that has been expressed.
  My hon. and gallant Friend alleged that the Nottingham police requested people who were registered as Ukrainians to change that registration to Russian or Polish. We in the Home Office do not know exactly what the Nottingham police have said to individual Ukrainians. As Mr. Deputy-Speaker correctly pointed out, that is not a matter which can engage the responsibility of the House except in so far as it was the result of a Circular issued on behalf of a Minister of the Crown.
  I stress that—as under the Circular of ten years ago so under the Circular of last September—people who claim to be Ukrainians and are registered as Ukrainians or have expressed a wish to register as Ukrainians are asked by the police to register either as being of a specific nationality or as being of uncertain nationality and the letter "U" is added afterwards as indicating "Ukrainian". I shall have more to say about this procedure in the course of my remarks, but I felt that it was right at the beginning to restate what I think is the main cause of contention in the debate so that the House may feel, as I hope it does, that I at least understand what I have to reply to.
  There was a fear—it was the principal fear expressed by the Ukrainians, and certainly by the community association on their behalf—that as the result of the action taken by at least one police force on the Home Office Circular some change was intended, or would be made, in their status as refugees in this country. It was even suggested, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), that some pressure had been exerted from the other side of the Iron Curtain. I am very glad indeed that he stressed that there has been nothing whatever so sinister and, as I hope to show, the police circular was not in any way prompted by any such pressure or consideration.
  I wish to give the categorical assurance that no change in status has occurred or was intended. I wish to
  1250
  make it clear that Ukrainians who came here as refugees and have made their homes among us are as welcome now as they were when they came and as welcome as they have ever been. Further, there is no question of any action against them. They have no cause whatever to feel disturbed, insecure or in any way alarmed by the corrections which have had to be made in a comparatively few individual cases to the registration particulars under the Aliens Order.
  In saying this I am repeating and reaffirming the unqualified assurances given to the Nottingham branch of the Anglo-Ukrainian Society and the Answer I gave in this House at Question Time on 28th January. I want to make this assurance as emphatic as I can because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is most anxious that these worthy, honest and hard-working people should continue to live contentedly among us in the way hoped for by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
  Their position as residents here has not been altered in any way as a result of the Circular of 10th September, but I should explain the procedure which has given rise to their apparent uneasiness. I do not dispute that there has been uneasiness. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax referred to the possibility of my being a captive of other people. The truth is that those other people and I are captives of the law of the land which, at the moment, is the Aliens Order, 1953, which in this respect is a continuation of aliens legislation of many years' standing.
  Under Article 13 of that Aliens Order—this answers the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Sowerby—particulars of aliens have to be registered with the police. We have to go to the Second Schedule to the Order to find out what those particulars are. One particular required is:
  "Present nationality. How and when acquired. Previous nationality, if any."
  I will explain how, as a matter of administration, that is interpreted and applied.
  Nationality is something derived from citizenship of an independent political state recognised as such by our Foreign Office. It cannot be acquired from membership of an ethnic, geographical or linguistic group which has no recognized

  1251
  political status. In modern history, certainly during the last few centuries, whatever the greatness of its past as the earliest eastern Christian kingdom, the Ukraine has had no independent political status. It follows from that general proposition that we cannot in practice allow—
  Mr. F. H Hayman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Ukraine is not an independent political State. Is it not one of the States which is a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
  Mr. Renton: That, of course, is a matter of opinion, but on these questions of recognition it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) will be familiar with the terms in which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs wrote to him about that very matter, pointing out that, although within the United Nations after the war recognition was given to the Ukraine and to Byelorussia as separate States for the purpose of recognition by the United Nations, we have never recognised the separate existence of those two—whatever noncommittal word one can use—countries. We look to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Soviet Russia, as the Soviet State within which those two so-called countries are contained. The Ukraine is not recognised by the Foreign Office as an independent State.
  Once we have that conception of nationality, it follows as a matter of practice that we cannot allow separate groups which are not identical with political States to be registered under descriptions chosen by people who claim to have such a position. If we did so, we might find ourselves registering, for example, Slovenes, Croats, Armenians or Catalans. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) explained in converse the situation in which a Scotsman might find himself when travelling abroad and not wanting to register as British. It reminded me that I had a friend who whenever travelling abroad attempted to register as Cornish and found himself in difficulty.
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain more clearly why people should not be
  1252
  registered as Serbs, Croats or Slovenes? What would be the harm of their being so registered? For the reasons I tried to give during my speech, would it not also be of advantage to police forces? These people are of different nationalities.
  Mr. Renton: As I have pointed out, the recognition of States for this purpose is a matter upon which we have to accept the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend's question would be more correctly addressed to a Foreign Office Minister.
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I will see that it is.
  Mr. Renton: I want to deal next with people, of whom these are a great many, whom we admit as people with refugee status and who are entitled to protection under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. The principles which I have enunciated as to deciding what is their nationality holds good even when the people regard themselves as refugees from the State from which they came. For example, we have many Polish and Hungarian refugees here. They are registered with us as, respectively, Polish and Hungarian.
  We do not, however, deal with the Ukrainians in that way. For the past ten years we have deferred to their feelings. It was decided under the previous Government of ten years ago, after discussing the matter with representatives of the Ukrainian community here, that Ukrainians who wished to be so registered officially could be registered as being of uncertain nationality and the letter "U" was added after their name. That was in deference to the feelings of Ukrainians. It was an exception which was made on their behalf. There is no other racial group which has any special arrangement of that kind made.
  Strictly speaking, I suppose, the alternative would have been to register them as Stateless persons, who also have to be registered as Stateless when there is no nationality to state within the terms of the Aliens Order. But we do not register them simply as Stateless persons. We register them as of uncertain nationality with "U" added after their names. About 8,000 Ukrainians have been registered in that way.

  1253
  No difficulty of the kind which has been described tonight might have arisen but for the fact that a few police forces did not in all cases use either that form of registration or register the original nationality of the Ukrainians concerned, which may have been German, Russian or Polish.
  When it was brought to the notice of the Home Office that a good many Ukrainians were registered by the police simply as Ukrainian, the Home Office, not for bureaucratic reasons but to ensure consistent application of what is undoubtedly the law, decided that as it had in any event to get out fresh instructions for the police dealing with a considerable number of points, it should try to get clarity and uniformity of practice by dealing with this point too.
  That is how it was that last autumn, while getting out new and full instructions for the police so that they should have full and proper guidance in the administration of the Aliens Order, we took advantage of the opportunity to put the matter right in a minority of cases which had not been properly registered in accordance with the law.
  Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree that such a consistent application of the law, as he called it, without using commonsense methods or considering the whole question of humanity is, in fact, bureaucracy?
  Mr. Renton: That is a matter of opinion, but I would have hoped that the explanation which I have given on the first requirement that nationality has to be stated would have satisfied my hon. and gallant Friend. If my hon. and gallant Friend accepted the definition of nationality as being citizenship of a recognised State of independent status, I would have thought that he would have had a different view about it and would not have intervened as he did just now.
  Both at Question Time on 28th January and again tonight two alternative suggestions have been made to me about registering Ukrainians in other ways than those I have mentioned. First, there was the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that they should be registered as Ukrainians with the letters G, P, or R added after their
  1254
  names, indicating German, Polish or Russian. Secondly, there was the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) that they should be registered as "Ukrainian refugees," which is what is done in France. I have considered both suggestions carefully; I regret that under the law as it stands at present I cannot accept either suggestion, but I can offer a ray of hope.
  As I indicated in the debate on the renewal of the Aliens Order, which we had in the early part of the new Session of the new Parliament, we are considering the whole question of the registration of aliens with the police and these articles of the Aliens Order which govern the present position. We will consider those two suggestions made by my hon. Friends when we are considering this general question of the registration of aliens. It is a major exercise. We have to consult all the police forces and the other Government Departments in connection with it. Therefore, I cannot say anything more precise at the moment, but we will consider all the views which have been expressed in the debate when we are dealing with those parts of the Aliens Order.
  Mr. Houghton: I am sorry to trouble the hon. and learned Gentleman, but another suggestion which I have heard deserved as being preferable to "uncertain" was "Stateless". Would the hon. and learned Gentleman offer an observation on that clasification as to whether it is permissible in these circumstances?
  Mr. Renton: The expression "Stateless" has a very special significance in this context, and I do not think that that expression alone would give any satisfaction to the Ukrainians because it would merely place them in the same position as all the other Stateless people who are registered as Stateless. What they are obviously anxious to have is something distinctive, and they have something distinctive to the extent that they are described, as no other racial group is described, as being of uncertain nationality with the letter "U" added after their names. I am grateful for all suggestions, but with the greatest respect I do not think that that suggestion would give any satisfaction.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central raised

  1255
  some questions, which are necessarily hypothetical, about the position of the Ukrainians who are here in the event of war between the United Kingdom and Soviet Russia. I am glad that the hon. Member for Sowerby said that he could not speculate on such a thing, and I shall not give speculative answers to hypothetical questions. It is seldom wise for Ministers to deal with hypothetical questions if they can avoid doing so. That is a general principle which is well observed, but it is certainly most undesirable to make such answers against such a terrible background. The general nature of war and the security measures which it might demand are, I am sure, matters which hon. Members would not wish me to discuss in this debate.
  In the event of any such emergency, the treatment of Ukrainians would be related to their real and known loyalties. I can say no more, but I say again that any Ukrainian who feels himself, however groundlessly, to be at risk by reason of any specific national registration, can avail himself of this ten-year-old concession and have himself registered as of uncertain nationality with the letter "U" after his name, if
  1256
  he so wishes, so that even that fear can be allayed.
  In conclusion, I say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central and to other hon. Members whose moving speeches have been a great contribution to the debate, as well as to those many hon. Members who have written to me about this subject—I have had a great many letters in the last few weeks—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is always mindful of the strong and understandable feelings of people of Ukrainian origin on the subject of their nationhood, which is the expression which has been used several times tonight, and their identity as a race, and also their community of feeling and distinctive traditions.
  We respect them, and I hope that they will take comfort from the restatement of assurances which I have given, and from the explanation of the limited scope and purpose of the action recently taken to ensure that their status is correctly recorded in accordance with our present law.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

NYASALAND
  Prices
  Prices
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Public Security Ordinance (Measures)
  Public Security Ordinance (Measures)
KENYA
  Detainees
  Detainees
SCOTLAND
  Factory Trawlers
  Factory Trawlers
  Forestry and Agriculture
  Forestry and Agriculture
  Fish Meal
  Fish Meal
  New Roads (Design)
  New Roads (Design)
  Housing, Glasgow (Summerston)
  Housing, Glasgow (Summerston)
  Wallyford By-pass
  Wallyford By-pass
  Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council Reports)
  Treatment of Offenders (Advisory Council Reports)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Woollen Textiles (United States Tariffs)
  Woollen Textiles (United States Tariffs)
  Local Employment Bill (Development Districts)
  Local Employment Bill (Development Districts)
  Industrial Development, Aycliffe
  Industrial Development, Aycliffe
  Fish Meal
  Fish Meal
  Merseyside, Wales and Scotland
  Merseyside, Wales and Scotland
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
  Chemical Fertilisers (Report)
  Chemical Fertilisers (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Inter Vivos Gifts
  Inter Vivos Gifts
HOUSING
  Ex-service Men
  Ex-service Men
  Demolition Order, Bristol (Compensation)
  Demolition Order, Bristol (Compensation)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Council Members (Expenses)
  Council Members (Expenses)
  Special Procedure Orders
  Special Procedure Orders
  Sewage Disposal Scheme, Cranford
  Sewage Disposal Scheme, Cranford
  Beachy Head (Coast Protection)
  Beachy Head (Coast Protection)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Supplementary Estimates (Cereals, Oils and Fats)
  Supplementary Estimates (Cereals, Oils and Fats)
  Great Ouse Flood Protection Scheme
  Great Ouse Flood Protection Scheme
  Fishermen (Storm Losses)
  Fishermen (Storm Losses)
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
  Experimental Farm Buildings
  Experimental Farm Buildings
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Eagle Airline Company (Malta—London Service)
  Eagle Airline Company (Malta—London Service)
  EGYPT (BRITISH CLAIMS)
  EGYPT (BRITISH CLAIMS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Aircraft and Radio Industries
  Aircraft and Radio Industries
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  War Disabled Pensioners
  War Disabled Pensioners
HOSPITALS
  Administrative and Clerical Staff
  Administrative and Clerical Staff
COAL
  Domestic Supplies
  Domestic Supplies
TRANSPORT
  Mopeds
  Mopeds

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield
The Lord Trevethin and Oaksey—Took the Oath.

COMMONWEALTH NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION
2.37 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 in regard to policies of Commonwealth expansion what (for the past three years)—

(a) expenditure for nuclear development has to date been—

(i) sanctioned but still unexpended,

(ii) expended;

(b) expenditure to support Commonwealth migration has been—

(i) authorised by Parliament,

(ii) expended.]

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this Question conveniently falls into two parts. As to the first part, expenditure in the United Kingdom by the Atomic Energy Authority is sanctioned on an annual basis. The figure included in the Civil Estimates for the financial year 1959–60 is £93 million.
Other Commonwealth countries are, of of course, responsible for their own expenditure on nuclear development; but there is close and continuous co-operation with them, and the United Kingdom assists their programmes in many ways—for example, by the exchange of information, the sale of materials and equipment and the provision of places in United Kingdom establishments for training. The mutual benefit is considerable, but it is not possible to assess it precisely in figures.
In answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the total sum authorised by Parliament for the purpose of supporting and assisting emigration from this country to other parts of the Commonwealth amounts to £578,900 for the past three complete financial years. Of this sum, the Government have spent £572,042. The details for each year are as follows: in 1956–57. £189,575 was expended out of an authorised sum of £198,200; in 1957–58, £190,127 out of £192,675; and in 1958–59, £182,340 out of £188,025 voted.

3
The Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts, 1922–1957 set an upper limit of £1½ million per annum on expenditure for the purpose of assisting emigration of our people who wish to settle in other countries of the Commonwealth. But the amount to be spent each year has to be voted each year by Parliament: the amounts actually voted are those I have already quoted.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I hope that he will give consideration to the expenditure of a larger proportion of the £1½ million that he has just stated is annually provided for the purposes of assisting emigration to the Commonwealth?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think the most important thing is that we should get value for money. If anybody could suggest a scheme that would do that and improve on the existing situation, we certainly would be willing to consider it.

DARTMOOR PRISON
2.39 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, to facilitate an accurate assessment of the practical nature of alternative proposals, they will publish, at a reasonable interval prior to the public inquiry, a statement showing the cost of the scheme to rebuild Dartmoor Prison, and if they will include in this the annual cost of maintenance of the existing prison and its ancillary buildings, the cost of building a new prison adjacent to the present one, the capital value (excluding the prison) of buildings such as staff accommodation constructed in connection with Dartmoor Prison, showing the method of valuation and the amounts allowed for annual depreciation, and the cost of rebuilding and subsequent maintenance of the prison outside the Dartmoor National Park.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, a statement will be made available before the inquiry which will include, among other things, an estimate of the cost of
4
replacing the existing buildings and services in Princetown connected with the prison. It is not at present possible to estimate the cost of replacing the prison itself, whether at Princetown or elsewhere.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that his reply will give considerable satisfaction to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other amenity societies who are vitally interested to see that the right decision, both on economic and on amenity grounds, is arrived at in this matter? But can he say whether it is not in fact the case that the answers to all the questions that I have put will have to be found by the Government before a decision is arrived at, and would it not be better to see that those answers are made available to everybody concerned at the inquiry?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the first part of his remarks, but I do want to make it clear that this inquiry is not meant to be a financial inquiry. It is purely to ascertain the views of the interests concerned as to whether the prison should be built at Princetown or elsewhere.

EXPERIMENTAL FARM BUILDINGS
2.41 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement about plans for the development of experimental farm buildings.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before I answer this Question may I, in order to apologise, draw attention to a printer's error contained in the Notices which were circulated last Friday? In that Notice, the word "farm", which correctly appears in the noble Lord's Question, was omitted between the words experimental "and buildings". The Question is relating to "experimental farm buildings".
Much research has been and is being done on the basic requirements which

5
farm buildings should supply. It has, however, become increasingly apparent that there is a lack of facilities for development work to bridge the gap between research and practical application, and a need for trials of experimental buildings. Development work and trials of this kind can best be carried out on farms, which can be chosen to provide the necessary range of conditions, rather than at a research centre or centres.
To meet this situation, and at the same time to overcome the difficulty that buildings of an experimental or unproved nature would not qualify for assistance under the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Agricultural Research Council proposes to introduce a scheme of co-ordinated experiments under which grants, up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the approved cost, would be available for the erection in approved cases of experimental buildings or structures on farms, or for incorporating experimental features in traditional buildings. The scheme will be administered under the supervision of the Farm Buildings Research Committee of the Council, of which Sir Walter Drummond is the Chairman, and the experimental work will be under the control of the Council's Farm Buildings Unit. In return for a grant under this scheme, the farmer or landowner by whom the building is erected will be required to co-operate with the Farm Buildings Unit in the design of the building and to provide facilities for the inspection of the building and the observations required during the course of the investigation.
The scheme will be administered and the grants will be payable by the Agricultural Research Council. In no case will a grant be awarded for a building project for which a grant is being made under any other Government scheme. Experimental or unproved buildings are not in any case eligible for a grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme, where grant may only be given if the building is such as a prudent landlord would erect and is such as would clearly provide longterm benefit to the land at a reasonable cost.
It is not intended to give grant-aid in respect of all projects which comply with specified conditions but only in respect of proposals that can suitably form part of the experimental programme of the Farm Buildings Research Committee.
6
Applications for grant will not in any case be considered in respect of building projects which have already been started. Further particulars of the scheme, and the way in which application should be made for grants under the scheme, will be announced in due course. Farms in England, Wales and Scotland will be eligible for grants under this scheme. The scheme will not cover Northern Ireland.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that very comprehensive Answer, which I am certain will be acceptable to the industry. I hope that in the long run it will have the effect of improving our farm buildings. There is just one question I should like to ask: that is, whether horticulture comes into this scheme. Will horticultural buildings receive a 50 per cent. grant aid, as I understand that at the present time they are entitled to only 33⅓ per cent.?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, horticultural buildings now qualify for grant under the improvement scheme, but this scheme is outside that and there is not necessarily an analogy. So far as I know, they do, but I should wish to have notice, if I were to give a final answer to that question.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is writing to my noble friend on that point with regard to horticultural experimental buildings, would he include in his answer information as to whether these sums on horticultural experimental buildings will be additional to any of the grants which the Government are going to provide under the Horticultural Bill—some £7½ million?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I will certainly consider that point. I do not know what the answer is.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Viscount say whether there is a ceiling to the amount of money available for this excellent scheme? And is it being done in collaboration with the recent work done by the Nuffield Division of Advanced Architecture on Experimental Farm Buildings?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the work which is being done by the Nuffield organisation is being done, I hope, in a full sense of scientific liaison

7
with the Agricultural Research Council. But this scheme will be under the Council only and would have to be considered as a separate entity by Parliament.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, will there be a ceiling to the amount of money available?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means by "ceiling". No doubt the amount is not unlimited.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal consider submitting to the Agricultural Research Council the advisability, when preparing to deal with any project under this scheme, of keeping in mind the necessity for having experiments in different climates within Great Britain, in different rainfalls and on different sizes of farms, and the like, so that we can get the best advantage from the results of the experiments to all the people concerned?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I certainly will bring this point to the attention of the Agricultural Research Council. My recollection is that this is exactly one of the reasons which led them to prefer grants to farmers on farms rather than carry out experiments themselves at agricultural research stations.

THE PRIME MINISTER'S AFRICAN TOUR
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he is going to make any statement to your Lordships' House this afternoon on the Prime Minister's report of his visit to Africa?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the statement which the Prime Minister will make in another place is of rather a personal kind, as your Lordships will understand, but I think that your Lordships like to have statements made by the Prime Minister also made in your Lordships' House; and as it is your Lordships' wish, I will make it.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
2.50 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Order Paper. These Amendments to Standing Order No. 209 are designed to remove certain defects in the existing Standing Order prescribing the procedure in Joint Committees on Petitions against Special Procedure Orders and to bring the procedure into line with the actual practice which has been developed. Under the existing Standing Order it has become the practice for the Minister to make a short statement on the scope and purpose of the Order before the Petitioner presents his case in support of the Petition, and in bringing the Standing Order into line with this procedure the provision of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, that the onus should be on the Petitioner to oppose the Order, is safeguarded by limiting the Minister's opening address to a brief factual statement which has been agreed with the Petitioner and the Counter-Petitioner, if any.
It is agreed that this clarification of procedure can properly be made under Section 9 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, which empowers both Houses to make Standing Orders connected with the provisions of the Act and, in particular, paragraph (f) for regulating the proceedings of such a Joint

9
Committee. The Amendment to Standing Order No. 210 provides for the order of proceedings in a Joint Committee in the event of a Counter-Petitioner being heard against a Petition which is not covered by the existing Standing Orders.
In view of the fact that the new Standing Order on the Order Paper is rather formidable in length, I might perhaps add that much of it is really unchanged, but it has been found to be more convenient, and I think more efficient, that the whole of the original Order should be taken away and replaced by an entirely new Order, rather than have a lot of amendments to the old Order. Your Lordships may therefore like to know that the proviso to paragraph 1 and paragraphs 2 and 4 of the old Order are unchanged by the new Order. The important Amendment is in paragraph 1. Paragraph 3 of the new Order is new but, I think, comparatively unimportant.
The difficulty that has arisen is due to several causes, but perhaps the chief one is that at present, if the existing standing Order is strictly carried out, the Petitioner has to attack a case before he has heard it, which I am sure your Lordships will agree at once is not a satisfactory procedure. It has also been found to be confusing for a Committee to hear this happening, the Committee, as is right and proper, not knowing what the case is before they sit. It is to try to remedy these defects that these Amendments are proposed. Perhaps the most important change is the introduction into the Standing Order of what has been happening in effect over several years—namely, the brief factual statement which is made at the opening of the proceedings by the Minister. That statement has to be agreed by the Petitioner before it is made so it must be factual. This is the first of the six possible stages which it is proposed will operate in the future.
The drafting of this new Standing Order has not been particularly easy, because we have had to be careful to preserve the onus, which under the Act has always been upon the Petitioner, and we must not amend the Standing Orders in such a way as to transfer the onus from the Petitioner to the Minister. If there are any points which are not clear I shall be glad to try to answer them.
Moved, That the following Amendments be made in the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, etc:—
Leave out Standing Order 209 and insert the following Standing Order:—
("209—(1) Where under section 4 of the Special Procedure Act any Special Procedure Petition stands referred, or has been referred by order of either House, to a Joint Committee, the Committee of this House shall consist of three Lords to be named by the Committee of Selection and the order of proceedings shall be as follows:—

(a) the Minister shall, if required by the Committee, briefly explain the Order by means of a factual statement, to be agreed with the Petitioner and Counter-Petitioner if any;

(b) the Petitioner shall be entitled to be heard in support of the Petition;

(c) if the Committee are of opinion that he has a case to answer, the Minister shall be entitled to be heard against the Petition;

(d) the Petitioner shall be entitled—

(i) to reply, or

(ii) before replying, to call rebutting evidence, with the leave of the Committee, on which the Minister shall be entitled to comment;

(e) the Petitioner and the Minister may appear by Counsel or Agent:

Provided that the Minister may give notice in accordance with the following paragraph that he desires that the rights and functions conferred on him by sub-paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of this paragraph shall be exercised by any Applicant specified in the notice, and thereupon the said sub-paragraphs shall have effect as if that Applicant were substituted for the Minister.
(2) Any such notice shall be delivered, or despatched by registered post, to the Petitioner or his Agent at the address endorsed on the Special Procedure Petition and to the Applicant specified in the notice at his address as endorsed on the Special Procedure Order, within a period of four days beginning—

(a) with the day on which the report of the Chairmen is laid before Parliament under subsection (5) of section 3 of the Special Procedure Act; or

(b) if the report is so laid on different days, with the later of the two days;

and copies of any such notice shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons within the said four days.
(3) The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee shall he laid on the Table.
(4) If any member of the Committee of this House is prevented from continuing his attendance, the Joint Committee may, with the consent of all parties, continue its sittings in his absence, provided that the number of the Committee of this House he not less than two and that the Joint Committee

11
report accordingly to this House at its next meeting; but if the consent of any party is withheld, the Joint Committee shall adjourn and shall not resume its sittings in the absence of such member without leave of this House.").
Standing Order 210—page 85, line 33, at end insert ("either before or after the Minister or Applicant has been heard as the Committee may direct").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if the drafting of this Order has been difficult, I can assure the noble Lord that the reading and comprehension of it has been even more difficult. We are therefore obliged to the noble Lord for having explained the object of these Amendments and how they arise. I think I understand it, and I think most of your Lordships will, after the lucid explanation that we have heard; but there is one point which rather puzzles me.
The noble Lord explained that hitherto one of the difficulties has been the making of a case in opposition to something that has not yet been made. I take it that the 'Minister's statement is intended to provide for that omission. His statement, however, will be a purely factual one: he will not be acting as an advocate for the Order and will make a statement which has been agreed by the Petitioner and the Counter-Petitioner. If after that emasculated statement, as it is bound to be, we are going to get the case for the Order, I shall be very surprised. That being so, I cannot see in what way a Petitioner will be any better off. He will get merely a brief factual Statement of what is contained in the Order, which of course be can ascertain by reading it, provided it is intelligible. He will not get to understand what is behind it, what is its purpose, and he will not be able to make his case in opposition to any advantage. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but that is how it strikes me. I wonder whether it really is necessary to try to get agreement between the Minister, the Petitioner and the Counter-Petitioner on a factual statement, and whether it will not create considerable difficulties which do not arise at the present time.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, in the case of Private Bill procedure the Promoters of the Bill open the proceedings, because the onus is upon them
12
to prove their case before the Petitioner is required to answer it. Under this procedure, on the other hand—that is, under the procedure under the 1945 Act—the onus is not upon the Minister who produces the Order, but upon the Petitioner, and the Committee have to bear that in mind throughout the proceedings. They have to remember, of course, that it is for the Petitioner to defeat the Order, if he can, and not for the Minister to justify it. That really the root of the trouble, if trouble it is.
The original Standing Order was drafted in accordance with the Act in an endeavour to carry out the wording of the Act as best we could. Therefore the original Standing Order provided that the Petitioner should open. The position was that the Petitioner was arguing against a case which had not been made in the Committee Room. That was the real difficulty. It was increased because the Committee, following the usual practice, had been chosen, as is proper, from those noble Lords and Members of another place who did not know anything at all about the Order; they did not know what was the case for the Minister or for the Order. It was therefore difficult to begin by hearing the Petition against the Order.
Now, though not according to the Standing Order, the practice has grown up in the rooms upstairs whereby the Committee ask the Minister, or his counsel, to open the proceedings by telling the Committee, to put it shortly, what the Order is about. That is what has been done. I understand that has proved to be convenient, but it is not statutory. There is nothing in the Standing Order at present to give effect to it. It begins by saying:
"The Petitioner shall be entitled to be heard"
and then the Minister. Representations have been made for some little time to see whether we could improve this procedure. We thought we could do it in another way, but that has not proved possible because it was essential—and we are all agreed on this—that the place where the onus has lain all along under the Act must be unchanged; it must remain on the Petitioners. That has been the difficulty. Therefore, it is now proposed to give statutory effect to what has been a custom and practice, for a

13
short factual statement to be made so that everybody in the room will know what it is all about. I should like to tell the noble Lord this. The next stage, after that statement has been made, will be for the Petitioner to call his case and to bring his witnesses.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not mind my interrupting him, but I am anxious to put my difficulty very clearly before him. I cannot see the value of the Minister making a factual statement which has to be agreed by the Petitioner and Counter-Petitioner. I cannot see that that furthers the proceedings at all. If the purpose is to explain what the Order is all about, and to provide an adequate background against which a Petitioner can make his case, I should have thought that what was wanted was that somebody should stand up and make the case for the Order, not merely to explain the Order in this, as I said, emasculated way. But that is precisely what is not proposed under this Order. The Minister makes a statement which is entirely non-controversial, out of which all the "guts", so to speak, have been taken. He merely explains, after agreement with all parties, what the Order is about, and it is not a great help, so far as I can see, to the Petitioner to make his case.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, first of all, perhaps I should explain that after the factual statement has been made the Petitioner will then present his case. After that the Minister will present his case. If your Lordships will look at the Amendment, that is laid down in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and so forth. So we have first the factual statement, then the Petitioner's case, then the Minister's case, after which the Petitioner may be heard in reply, and the Minister may then comment on the reply. There are admittedly six different stages.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me interrupting again, but the real point is that the Petitioner has to make a case against something that has not been made, so to speak. If that is the difficulty that you are trying to meet, I cannot see how this Amendment meets it by providing for a mere factual statement by the Minister. If it
14
were a statement which made the case for the Order, I could understand it. If it is a pure factual agreed statement, how does it meet the difficulty which the noble Lord himself said has been the cause of the Amendment of the Order?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, needless to say, I do not in the least mind the noble Lord interrupting me, but I was going on to say this. It could have been done possibly by the Minister's case coming first. But there is one rather important flaw in that procedure, and it is this. If the Minister makes his case first, and before the Petitioner's case is heard at all, there will be a tendency at least to assume that the onus is on the Minister. That is the important point. The unusual thing in this procedure—and it is all laid down in the Act—is that the onus is on the Petitioner and not on the Minister. It is thought, I believe rightly, that if the Minister opens his case in full before the Petitioner is heard at all it will be assumed, wrongly—there will be a tendency to assume it, perhaps without knowing it; quite unconsciously—that the onus is on the Minister. This point is considered of considerable importance, and I am sure that if I came here to-day with the Standing Order in the form which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, requires, I should not be able to obtain agreement to its passing. It might be that I am not in any case able to do that, but I am quite sure that I should not be able to get the agreement of the House if I came here with the Standing Order, so to speak, the other way round.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say that I am very disappointed to-day at the position in which we find ourselves. For one thing, the lay Members of your Lordships' House will, I am sure, have had some difficulty in following the rather professional discussion which has been taking place between the Chairman of Committees and my legal friend Lord Silkin. If we could have had printed on the Paper an actual representation showing everybody concerned in the matter the difference between what is now proposed and the existing Order, possibly by the use of different type or by drawing special attention to the real change, we could have understood it better. While I have no intimate knowledge of the working of these particular

15
Committees in considering these Petitions, I have had a considerable amount of experience of handling my own cases before a good many statutory tribunals. It is not quite the same thing, but I must say that I have never come across the tribunal yet in which a petitioner's case, being heard first, is not already fairly well anticipated and replied to effectively by the counsel on the other side. I should have thought that, unless there were special circumstances here, the case has not yet been proved, to me at any rate, that there is a need for this particular Amendment.
3.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Lord Chairman would allow me to help, for one reason only, which is that fifteen years ago I was largely responsible for the Special Procedure Act, 1945. I left it to the Government of which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were both members. They were good enough to approve of the scheme that I put forward and to put the Bill before Parliament, and it was passed. I hope the House will bear with me. I am speaking from memory, but I think this meets the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had in mind.
We were very anxious that this special procedure and the Orders should start with the advantage of being what was acceptable unless the contrary was proved; that is, we were anxious to preserve the Petitioner's right but not to put the onus on the Minister of proving his Order. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will remember the policy at the time the Act was passed. We all thought, in all quarters of both Houses, that there would be a great rush of Procedure Orders to deal with the time lag after the war; therefore we wanted the Minister to start in that position: that his Order would never be refused without a case being made out against it. That is why one came to the procedural position that the Petitioner had to begin.
That caused a practical difficulty: that if a Petitioner starts to attack something before people who do not know anything about it, they are in a difficulty. That was the difficulty which our policy
16
to meet the situation created. Therefore, the practice grew up—and I think this is the point that meets the doubt of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition—of dealing with that practical difficulty by making a statement of this kind, and that was found convenient to all the parties engaged. Therefore, in order to validate the practice which had been found necessary through the difficulty of the situation, this Order has been changed. As I understand it, and I think my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees will agree, this does not change or make any worse the position of either party. It simply means that the Committee will have a factual, but not an argumentative, statement of the matter before them. If the Petitioner on that develops the case, then the Minister will have every chance of meeting it. I hope my noble friend will forgive my intervention. I thought it might help if I reminded noble Lords of the background of fifteen years ago.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, speaking with some experience, may I say that although this does not go far enough, I think it is a step in the right direction. It is helpful in the special case which the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, has outlined. May I ask whether steps have been taken or are being taken in another place in order to see that their procedure is in accord with this?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for explaining to the House much more clearly than I had done the effect of this change. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that this was unusual. I venture to say that, although it is, the reason for its being unusual is, in my submission, that the Act upon which it is based is unusual. As I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor explained, the Act was passed early in 1945 when circumstances were unusual. And of course it is unusual principally in this sense: that whereas in the ordinary law the onus of proof is on the plaintiff in the ordinary way, with some exceptions, here the onus is upon the Petitioner, the party who is opposing something. That is fundamentally the reason for this somewhat unusual procedure. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, may

17
I say that I know that a Motion to the same effect as the one I have moved today was moved in another place yesterday. I cannot actually say that it was passed, but I have no reason to suppose it was not.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, for their explanations, but they do not convince me a bit. The noble and learned Viscount said this was done under an Act passed by a Government of which I was a member, but I was not a member of that inner Cabinet which dealt with things of this sort. I was busy running a great establishment called the Royal Navy. I was never brought into this matter. If I had been, I would have drawn on my lay experience of dealing with tribunals, of which I have great experience. I really do not know how both parties are going to be satisfied by a Minister's statement, carefully prepared and jointly submitted to a body which ought to be so excellent in its personnel as to be able to understand any case, for and against, put to them. Surely they are not elementary schoolboys. I am hardly convinced at all by the arguments so far. I am willing to be convinced. I wish the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, could have had a word with us before. Perhaps he did not anticipate difficulty, but I should like further explanation, and if he could adjourn the matter for twenty-four hours I should be obliged.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I should have said there was no objection whatever to adjourning it and I do not think there is, except this: that to-morrow one of these Joint Committees is actually sitting. It is not essential for them to have the new procedure, but I believe it would be for their convenience if they did. It would put into statutory form what they will probably actually do in any event, because I expect the factual statement has already been prepared.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do I not understand that in fact one of the arguments put in favour of this amended Order today is that you have been doing it in
18
practice already? I do not see how the failure to formally pass the Motion can hold the practice up to-morrow. Why not give us a chance of having a real discussion before you make this final?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, to-morrow there is a Joint Committee of both Houses—I think the Chairman has to be appointed by the Committee, so do not know the Chairman—on the Newcastle and Gateshead Water (No. 2) Order, 1959. I should have liked them to have the new procedure to work on, but I admit straight away that if they do not I do not think it will be disastrous. Therefore, as there is some doubt about it, I would ask leave to withdraw the Motion and put it down another day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Thank you very much.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (EARNINGS) REGULATIONS, 1960
3.18 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dundee, who is indisposed, I beg to move that these Regulations, which stand in his name on the Order Paper, be approved. These Regulations have nothing to do with the rates of pensions or the principle of the earnings rule. They are made under Section 2 of the National insurance Act, 1956, and are the instruments whereby Parliament may approve the raising of the limits of the disregarded earnings. These particular Regulations have been before the Special Orders Committee and received the assent of another place last night.
If your Lordships agree, these Regulations will raise the level of the disregarded earnings, from the present 60s. to 70s. in the case of retirement nensioners under the age of 70 for men and under the age of 65 for women and for widow pensioners. Those pensioners will now be able to earn £6 10s. 0d. before the pension is completely withdrawn at present, the figure is £6. In the case of widowed mothers, the Regulations raise the level of disregarded earnings from the present 80s. to 100s. A widowed mother will now be able to earn £8 net before her personal allowance of 50s. is completely

19
withdrawn; whatever her earnings the more favourable child allowances for the widowed mother are paid in full: that is, 20s. each for the first two children, and 22s. each for any subsequent child, inclusive of the ordinary family allowances.
Those are the bare bones of these Regulations, but in order perhaps to forestall a question from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence (who, your Lordships may remember, last time the Regulations came forward, reminded us that he and his wife were more or less instrumental in getting the extra provisions for the widowed mothers) I should like to tell him that these Regulations will be in force on March 21, which is the earliest date they can be brought in.
I commend these Regulations to your Lordships, and, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move that they be approved.
Moved, That the National Insurance (Earnings) Regulations, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
3.21 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like briefly to ask the noble Earl two questions on points which it was not proper for me to pursue when this matter was considered by the Special Orders Committee. I am afraid that he has not already forestalled my two questions. First of all, I should like to ask the Government why they have not taken this opportunity of putting widows and widowed mothers—those who are widowed through the illness of their husbands, if I may so put it—in the same position as widows and widowed mothers whose widowhood has arisen as the result of an industrial accident. As the noble Earl is aware, if a man is killed as the result of an industrial accident his widow, whether or not she has dependent children, can earn as much as she is able to without any sort of deduction from her pension or the allowances of her children.
The noble Earl indicated that these Regulations are in line with the retention of the earnings rule or principle. That may well be the case. But the pension enjoyed by a woman who is widowed as the result of an industrial injury arises, in part at least, from the contributions
20
which have been paid earlier by her husband and, as such, may be already re, garded as a serious breach of the earnings rule, and one of which I think people throughout the country would approve. But this is a serious anomaly. My first question, therefore, is why the opportunity has not been taken to remove this hardship and this anomaly altogether, whereby if a woman is widowed because her husband was killed down the pit she can earn as much as she likes without deduction, but if her husband has been run over by a bus, or killed in some other way, she is subject to this restriction.
The other anomaly is one which is actually increased by these Regulations. The noble Earl pointed out that these Regulations alter the position whereby at present a widow can earn up to 60s. before there begins any deduction from her pension, and a widowed mother can earn up to 80s. before deduction; and, of course, any allowances paid to her children are in addition to that. So that in some cases under the present circumstances the widowed mother may be able to earn as much as £4 or more before there is any deduction from her pension compared with the £3 which the widow without dependent children is able to earn. That is a most serious difference and one which, for the moment, I am not opposing. But under these Regulations the position of the widow is improved so that she can earn up to £3 10s. without deduction, and the widowed mother so that she can earn up to £5. At the moment the gap is 20s., the difference between the 60s. and the 80s., as between the widow and the widowed mother; but under these Regulations the gap is increased to 30s.—in other words, the relative disability of the childless widow is considerably increased. I should like to ask why that has been done.
I can see the justification, if the earnings limit is to be retained, for keeping the gap as it is now, but I can see no justification for adding an increased relative penalty, as it were, in the case of the ordinary widow, particularly having regard to the fact that many of them, though they do not have dependent children, do inherit after the death of their husbands other expenses in assisting their parents, parents-in-law and so on. It seems to me, therefore, that, whilst

21
we all support this rather meagre improvement—that is the only way one can describe it—in the relaxation of the earnings limit, nevertheless the Government have made a retrograde step in increasing the gap between the widow and the widowed mother.
3.26 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, there is just one point that I should like to put to the noble Earl. Possibly I did not quite understand what he said, but my recollection from what he said is that the old people, the pensioners, will get the new increases at 70, for a man, and at 65 for a woman. My recollection is that once upon a time if you reached the age of 70 you could make as much as you wanted without deduction from your pension, and that the same applied to women at the age of 65. My recollection is that originally when you were 65 the money was deducted, but that when you got to 70 you could make as much as you wanted. I wonder whether that has been changed, and if so, why we could not go back to that comfortable state of affairs.
3.27 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, first and then turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. In the case of male pensioners who reach the age of 70, and in the case of women 65, whatever they earn at that age, they are deemed to have retired. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, I fancy that he is still out of Order in raising these points, which these Regulations really do not affect at all. However, it is true that they carry on the differences—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may just interrupt, I would point out that I took what I thought was the highest advice I could get—namely, from the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lord took the best advice in regard to everything. Nevertheless, these Regulations cannot do anything about the points which he has raised. It is agreed that they do carry on the difference in treatment between the widowed mother and the widow. This has been the practice of previous
22
Governments, to give the widow with children the extra benefit. It has been the feeling of Members of your Lordships' House and of another place that if she is able to earn extra money she should not be discouraged from doing so. The ordinary widow, the widow without children, has probably fewer expenses than has the widow with children; I think that must be agreed by all your Lordships. It is agreed that it is not a complete solution, but at least it is a solution which allows the widow with children some extra concession.
With regard to the Service pension and the pension of the widow whose husband is killed in an industrial accident, these widows' pensions do not in fact come within the scope of pensions subject to the earnings rule. Again, it has been a tradition in the past that the Service widow and the "industrial accident" widow deserve something a little extra. Her Majesty's Government and preceding Governments have agreed that that is fair in order to meet their special circumstances. But I want to make it quite clear that these Regulations have no connection with those cases—they are purely for the purpose of raising the earnings limit in relation to National Insurance pensions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1959
3.30 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I beg to move the first humble Address standing in my name on the Order Paper. As a result of the Brussels Treaty of 1954, the Agency for the Control of Armaments of the Western European Union was established. This Agency is responsible for controlling the levels of stocks of offensive weapons held on the Continent of Europe, excluding the United Kingdom, by the member States of the Western European Union, and for ensuring that the West Germans abide by their undertaking not to manufacture certain weapons listed in the Brussels Treaty and, in particular, atomic weapons.

23
The Agency was given powers under the revised Brussels Treaty to inspect arms factories and examine the commercial documents of any arms companies which were being inspected. In the course of carrying out their inspections, the investigators have access to secret commercial information. Arms companies which thought that some of their confidential information might be misused by members of the Arms control Agency were unable to sue the Agency on the grounds that it was an international organ and therefore immune from legal process. In December, 1957, the member Governments of the Western European Union signed a convention establishing a Tribunal to which private individuals or companies could appeal in the event of damage to their interests as a result of the Agency abusing its powers. Until the Tribunal has been set up—which requires the ratification of the Convention—the Agency, as at present, is obliged to inspect arms companies only with their agreement, and individuals and companies have no means of redress against the Agency. In short, ratification of the Convention is vital if the Agency is to exercise complete control over arms stocks on the mainland of Europe.
This Order revokes the earlier Order of 1955 and re-enacts it to include the three judges and the Clerk of the Tribunal, while at the same time it confers no additional advantages to the existing officers of the organisation. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Western European Union (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on December 1 last.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he can tell us how many persons are likely to benefit from these immunities and privileges? I understand that only four additional cases are mentioned in the Order. Can the noble Marquess tell us how many, in all, will have these benefits?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the number is 74 officers.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

DRAFT COUNCIL OF EUROPE (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1960
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to move the second humble Address standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Draft Order simply consolidates and replaces three previous Orders in Council. These were the original Order of 1950 and two amending Orders of 1954 and 1958. This Order confers no new privileges or immunities whatsoever. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Council of Europe (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 2nd instant.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE PRIME MINISTER'S AFRICAN TOUR
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said earlier, the statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister to another place is of a very personal kind, and I think it is better that I should make it here in his words. It is as follows:
"Soon after I became Prime Minister I determined, if it were at all possible, to make visits during my period of office to all the independent countries of the Commonwealth. In the early weeks of 1958 I visited five of the individual Commonwealth countries—Asia and Australasia—India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand. I also went to Singapore; but, unfortunately, I was not able to include Malaya in that tour.
"I had hoped to complete my Commonwealth travels in 1959 but, in the circumstances which arose, and after careful thought, I decided to postpone the rest of my Commonwealth tour and to undertake instead a visit to Moscow. I am happy to say that this decision was supported by the Governments of all the Commonwealth countries.

25
"In the concluding months of last year arrangements were made by which I could fulfil my ambition of completing my Commonwealth journeys by a tour of Africa. As a result I recently visited four countries of Africa which have attained, or are well advanced towards, independent membership of the Commonwealth—Ghana, Nigeria, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Union of South Africa. I am most grateful to the Governments of all those countries, who invited me to visit them and made such admirable arrangements for my tour.
"My purpose in these visits has never been to negotiate or to settle any particular problems which there might be between the United Kingdom Government and the other Government concerned. Matters of that kind are better left to the normal channels of communication and to the Ministers who have special responsibility for them. My idea was that the visits of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to London—which we welcome so much when they take place, which is at intervals of some eighteen months or two years—excellent as they are from our point of view, ought not to remain what I have called a one-way traffic'. I felt that the presence, even for a few weeks, of a British Prime Minister in office, would be both a symbol of the links which bind the Commonwealth and a practical method of holding informal discussions on broad general issues such as are appropriate on a visit of this kind. I need hardly add that it makes my work in London much easier, and I think more fruitful, if I have some personal impression of the character of these countries, their problems and their ambitions. In addition, one is able to have personal discussions in their own homes with the Prime Ministers and other Ministers concerned.
"I have now visited all the independent countries of the Commonwealth with the exception of Malaya. I have nearly completed the task I set myself on assuming office. I would certainly not overestimate the value of these visits. Still less would I claim that in a few days or weeks I have gained any expert knowledge of the
26
problems of each country. Nevertheless, I hope that these journeys will have at least demonstrated the faith of Her Majesty's Government and people in the United Kingdom in the value of the Commonwealth as one of the greatest forces for peace and progress in the world to-day."
My Lords, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister then went on to say that there were a number of Questions on the Order Paper in another place and that he would therefore confine himself to some general comments. He continued:
"The countries in Africa which I visited represented almost every different facet of the African problem. In Ghana, where I was most hospitably entertained by the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, I had the opportunity of seeing the great economic, social and political progress which is the culmination of many centuries of contact with the West. Europeans are playing a great rôle in the economic development and progress of this independent African country. I believe they will continue to do so in the future. For I felt a real sense of friendship for the British people, and a full understanding of the debt which Ghana owes to them.
"In Nigeria I was fortunate enough to be able to address the Assembly on an historic date. This was the first meeting of the Parliament elected under the agreement reached at a series of conferences presided over by my right honourable friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, to whom many tributes were paid. This historic meeting which I had the privilege to address represented the last stage in the country's progress to independence, which will be finally achieved in October this year. Nigeria is an immense country. In area it is four times the size of the United Kingdom. In population it is the largest single country in Africa and the fourth largest in the Commonwealth. It has a great future before it. The recent discovery of oil and the development of agriculture should give it a sound economic basis. I hope and believe that the federal structure which has been devised will enable the three Regions to work together in the development of a truly national spirit.

27
"In the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland I was able to have talks with the Prime Minister of the Federation and his Cabinet, with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and his Ministers, with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and his Council, and also with the Governor of Nyasaland and his advisers. I was also able to see representatives of a large number of political and other groups and to form at least some picture of the difficult problems, as well as the impressive prospects, of this immense territory. At the moment when my noble friend Lord Monckton and his colleagues are just about to start work I do not think the House would wish me to comment upon the constitutional problems except to say this. We all know that, in the course of the next year, important decisions must be taken. The final responsibility lies, of course, with the Governments. But they will, I am sure, be well served by the preparatory work which is to be undertaken by the Commission. We shall come to the final conference well prepared. Meanwhile I must say that everything I saw confirmed my confidence in the future. Much progress has been made in recent years and great possibilities for future development lie ahead. The formal opening of the Kariba Dam by the Queen Mother this May will be an impressive symbol of what has been done and what may be achieved in the future.
"In the Union of South Africa I had only a few days to make a tour covering a very large area but I was able to see a little both of the mining and of the various industrial developments, and to have long and intimate discussions with the Prime Minister—who kindly entertained me in his own house at Cape Town. The Union of South Africa is about to celebrate the fiftieth year since its foundation. It should not be forgotten that it came into being as a result of a decision of the British Parliament in 1910 in an attempt to build a single nation after the long struggles between the Afrikaaners and the British.
"While I was in South Africa I was able to pay visits to each of the three High Commission territories—
28
Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland. The visits, however short, were a demonstration of the interest shown by the people of the United Kingdom in the progress and welfare of these Territories.
"Here then was contrast; I began with Ghana, which became independent some two years ago, and I ended with the Union, which became independent fifty years ago—both by decisions of the British Parliament. I began with a purely African country where there has never been and never can be a European resident population. I ended with a country where, as well as the large African population, there are three million Europeans, many of them descended from ancestors who entered the country more than 300 years ago. In between these two we have the Federation—containing in Southern Rhodesia a large European population and smaller European communities in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They are citizens of these countries and cannot be citizens of any other country, for their homes are there. All these varying situations, as well as the immense distances and size of these territories, convince me more than ever that it would be wrong to try to apply a single and simple solution to a multiform and complex problem.
"In a speech of some length in Salisbury I tried to state the point of view of the United Kingdom Government on certain aspects of policy for which the British Government and Parliament have varying degrees of responsibility. In Cape Town, where the Prime Minister kindly invited me to address the Assembly and the Senate, I tried to set out courteously, but I hope clearly, the broad British point of view on the handling of these problems. Of course I made it clear that in the Union we had no direct responsibility beyond that which every man of good will has towards his neighbours in trying to understand their problems. I made it clear also how deeply we treasure and value the Commonwealth connection and how great I believe the contribution of the Union can and will be towards the strength of the Commonwealth.
"Perhaps, Sir, I might make two final observations. In the first place

29
I am more and more impressed by the need and duty of the people of the United Kingdom so to manage their economic affairs as to be able to make increasing contributions, from genuine savings and a favourable balance of trade, to the economic welfare of the less developed countries of the Commonwealth. The more we are able to improve our position at home the more we shall be able to follow the policy of the good neighbour overseas.
"The second is this. We have to face, in this coming year, the next stage in attempting to reach some settlement, whether permanent or temporary, of the differences between Soviet Russia and the Western Powers. I feel more than ever convinced as a result of this journey, as well as my previous Commonwealth journeys, that the contribution which the United Kingdom Government may be able to make towards this—the supreme question which faces the world to-day—can be enhanced by the sense of comradeship and fellowship which we have in the Commonwealth. I am very glad to think that we shall have an opportunity of consulting with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London in the week preceding the Summit Conference."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are very much obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for giving us this statement by the Prime Minister.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister could extend his statement by giving us some particulars as to any contact he had with those in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland who are in captivity and those in the Union of South Africa who have no franchise?
THE EARL OF HOME: No, my Lords, I think not, in connection with this statement. I have no doubt that in both Houses of Parliament during the coming year there will be many debates on different aspects of the African problem, and I think that would be the time for the Prime Minister to tell us of his experience.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I do not know whether the right honourable
30
gentleman and the noble Earl think it is sufficient to speak about "different aspects of the African problem" in view of the grave and fundamental issues which I have mentioned.
THE EARL OF HOME: There are different aspects, and for the present and for to-day the Prime Minister has described the African scene in that way. We can take the different aspects as they come and as they will arise, I have no doubt, on many occasions during the coming months, and debate them.
LORD REA: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl, may I add that we welcome the Prime Minister back to this country after his successful tour?

INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Indecent conduct towards young child
1.—(1) Any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen, or who incites a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "person" to insert, "being of the age of eighteen or upwards". The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment that stands in my name I should like to observe that this Bill provides for a sentence of two years' imprisonment for any act of gross indecency, and seven years for any attempt at intercourse. Provided that my Amendment is accepted by your Lordships, my only objection to the Bill would be that it carries no additional penalty for the use of violence. I think that all men, in all ages and in all stages of civilisation,

31
have always been infuriated, and rightly so, by the use of violence against women in this kind of connection. But it may be that such additional penalty is carried by other Acts. If not, I think that our Legislature is rather complacent in this matter and rather remiss.
But for those under the age of eighteen I think that the case covered by this Bill is quite altered. Anybody who has any knowledge of what goes on among secondary school children to-day will, I think, realise that a large proportion of the children may well become obnoxious to the law by the passage of this Bill. At least that is what I am told by my doctor friends of whom I have made inquiries and I hasten to add that they generally add that, however reprehensible the present situation is, no permanent harm seems to result from it. I do not remember that fifty years ago, when I was living in Hackney, these actions prevailed among children, although at that time people were living far more on top of one another than they are to-day. It may well be that I was either unobservant or ignorant—that is very probable. I think that the change, if there has been a change, is largely our own fault that we ourselves have brought it about.
Some years ago, just after the war, I was very much shocked and very indignant at the organised rapes of wretched girls carried out by young juveniles, and I did my best at that time to get Parliament to take some action in the matter. I tried to go into the causes of these frightful crimes, and I formed the opinion that there were several causes at work. My doctor friends told me at the time that they attributed this kind of trouble mainly to the sex instruction given in schools. I do not think that that kind of instruction is suitable for classes, and evidently doctors seem to have the same opinion. In respect of the matter we are discussing to-day, I am quite convinced that a lot of this misbehaviour among juveniles is due to this cause. If that is so, I should like to point out to your Lordships that we are in the position of having ourselves caused the trouble and are trying to cure it by bringing criminal proceedings. My own opinion is that trying to remedy this matter among juveniles in a court of law is a rather clumsy expedient which
32
is unlikely to be successful and may, indeed, have very ill consequences. I think myself that we had very much better leave it to social workers.
In moving this Amendment, which I now do, I do not want to pose before your Lordships as being widely conversant with social conditions, though I do my best to find out what they are. I shall be interested to see whether I am supported by any noble Lord whose experience is greater than mine, and I shall be very much guided in what I do by the action that they wish to take in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, after ("person") insert ("being of the age of eighteen or upwards").—(Lord Saltoun.)
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Whilst I should not wish to be committed to the age of eighteen, which would take these cases beyond the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, I should like to say a word in support of what I understand to be the intention of this Amendment. As I see it, this Bill as it now stands creates a new sexual offence with which a child or young person can be charged. Indeed, the Committee which sponsored this Bill, or which may be said to have been responsible for its paternity, stated explicitly that this charge could be brought against anybody over the age of criminal responsibility—and I should like to remind your Lordships that that age is now fixed at eight years. This means that a charge of a criminal nature for an act of gross indecency can be brought against a child of eight years old for an act in which another child, perhaps of the same age, or not very much older, has participated.
In common with quite a number of those who, unhappily, sometimes have to deal with these situations in practice, I very much regret the creation of any new sexual offence which can be charged against children or young persons. Indeed, I think many of us deprecate the use of criminal proceedings to deal with these situations at present, and we do so the more because, after all, cases of this kind can already be dealt with under the "care and protection" proceedings, which are of a civil nature and which enable us to make provision for the welfare of children and young persons who

33
are involved in actions of this kind without any finding of guilt being recorded against the child or young person. I should therefore very much like to see this Bill confined to persons of much more mature years. I notice that the Committee who, as I say, were responsible for the paternity of this Bill gave no reasons for their view that it should apply to all persons over the age of criminal responsibility. They said merely that they saw no reason to confine it to adults. Indeed, if your Lordships will not misunderstand me, I think that the Committee took a somewhat lordly view of this point, not feeling it necessary to argue the case.
I should also like to raise one other point in connection with this Amendment, and that is: what is the position if, so to put it, the incitement should be the other way round? That, regrettably, is not an imaginary situation: it is a possible fact of experience. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I quote a case within my own experience which occurred a little while ago; a case which many of your Lordships may feel to be exceptionally shocking, but which, I am afraid, is not without its parallels.
Not so long ago, two girls of school age, both under fourteen, which is the age which in this Bill is chosen as the maximum age for what we may call the supposed victim of these acts, took up a position in a London square in their lunch hour, and subsequently did the same after school, where they offered to commit acts of gross indecency with passing males for a small sum of money. This was an extremely systematic business, worked out on what might, in another connection, be thought to be good socialistic principles, since these young ladies offered their services at differential charges according to how they estimated the economic position of their potential customers. Fortunately for their welfare, they eventually attracted the attention of, and indeed offered their services to, a police officer in civilian dress who was passing; and that brought those proceedings to an end.
Now in a case of that kind it is clear that the incitement was entirely on the side of the juvenile. As the law now stands, no proceedings are taken against the adults involved, but the juveniles were in fact the subject of "care and protection" proceedings. I should be
34
very grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would tell us what would be the position if this Amendment is not carried. In such a case, will the adults be the subject of criminal proceedings and the juveniles still be dealt with under "care and protection" proceedings, or will the juveniles, where they are responsible for inciting an adult to commit an act of gross indecency with them, as in a case of this kind, also be the subject of criminal charges? In any event, I would repeat that I think it is very unfortunate, in this day and age, that we should extend the scope of criminal proceedings against children of eight years and upwards for matters of a sexual nature.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. It has always semed to me a very wrong and improper thing to take criminal proceedings against young persons for sexual offences, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has put down a very sensible age below which this particular Bill, when it becomes law, should not apply. The one thing I do not entirely agree with is the noble Lord's reason for the occurrence of these offences. I think that sex education for young people is a thing to be encouraged, and not a thing to be deprecated. However, I should like to support his Amendment on a purely factual basis.
4.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that it would be to your Lordships' convenience and assistance if I pointed out what would be the effect of the Amendment set down by my noble friend Lord Saltoun. It would be to relieve persons under eighteen of liability to be convicted of the new offence created by Clause 1 (1), of committing an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under fourteen or inciting a child under that age to such an act with the offender or another. As I explained to your Lordships on Second Reading, the object of the creation of this offence is to fill what I think is a serious gap in our law—that is, to deal with someone who gets hold of a child who has little understanding of these matters and without the use of force and without any of the elements of assault makes that child a party to disgusting conduct for the

35
sexual gratification of the person who does so. Though I naturally pay the greatest attention to what the noble Baroness has said, I still think that this is a gap which it is essential to fill.
I should like to deal with the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Saltoun first and then come to the points of the noble Baroness. As regards the question of violence, which worried my noble friend, I think that he can take it from me, without going into all the details of offences, that that is well covered. The gap consists of the absence of violence, and I think that your Lordships generally felt it to be a gap that should be filled. I am not going into the questions raised by my noble friend about the habits of secondary school children or about the effect of sex instruction. I am not in a position to comment on what he said from anything except my own very general experience. I have not looked it up and, with great respect to my noble friend, I think that he somewhat overstated the position, speaking from my own knowledge as a Member of another place for a largely industrial constituency for over twenty years. But I am not going to argue this, because it is a matter of experience.
I want to put the position under the existing law. As the noble Baroness said, as the law stands at present, a child of eight cannot be guilty of any offence. The noble Baroness will remember that a child under fourteen is presumed to be incapable of criminal intent, unless the presumption is rebutted by the court's being satisfied that the child knew that he was doing wrong. She will also remember that the law assumes that a boy under fourteen does not possess sexual capacity and therefore that he is incapable of committing rape and offences akin to rape. But, subject to this, youth does not exempt an offender from responsibility for existing sexual offences, including indecent assault, which constitutes a high proportion of them. In spite of what I have heard, I think that that is right.
I see no reason for treating young offenders differently in regard to this offence from the way they are treated in regard to the existing offences under the law. As I said, this clause is aimed principally at the man who, without any
36
show or threat of force, successfully invites a child to handle him indecently but cannot be prosecuted for indecent assault because what he does cannot be called an "assault". There seems no reason why a youth of seventeen, for example, who, if he induced a child to do an indecent act of this kind by threat or force could be prosecuted for indecent assault, should not be liable to prosecution under the new clause if he induces a child to do such an act without threat or force. The clause is designed to protect younger children who do not understand the significance of what they are asked to do, and, in my view, these children need protection against adolescents as well as against adults.
I think it would be useful if I gave some information which I really obtained for a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, because it is important that your Lordships should have the picture accurately before you now. Between 1954 and 1957, the police brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions 70 cases of indecency, which, in the light of the decision of the court in Fairclough v. Whipp, it was impossible to make the subject of proceedings. Out of the 70 victims, 19 were under seven, 46 were between seven and eleven—that is, 65 out of 70 were under eleven; three were eleven, one was thirteen, one was fourteen and there was none older than fourteen. I think that these figures will be useful on both the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wished to make and on my noble friend's point.
Unfortunately, the gap which this provision fills is largely concerned with very young children. I cannot find much sympathy for the young man of seventeen who does this with a girl under seven. As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will appreciate, I feel great sympathy from the penological point of view, but I do not feel sympathy in the sense that this young man should not be answerable. I feel that the psychological damage that may be done to the small child is so immense that anyone of seventeen ought to be answerable for it.
I would say at once that if my noble friend Lord Saltoun has a fear that the Bill will result in young boys being sent to prison for relatively trivial or childish acts of indecency, and if that lies behind the Amendment, I believe that fear to

37
be unfounded. An offence under Clause 1 (1) by a person under seventeen would come before a juvenile court and would normally be, dealt with summarily. A juvenile court has no power to sentence to imprisonment. It is required to have regard to the welfare of the offender and has available a variety of methods to deal with him, according to what it considers to be in his own best interest. Even if the case were serious enough for the accused to be tried on indictment—and that would have to be a very serious case—a youth of seventeen could be sent to prison only after the court considered that no other method of dealing with him was available.
I come to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. In the first part the noble Baroness expressed a reluctance that the offence should be created, and I have tried to deal with that point. I think it is essential that this gap should be closed, and I think the figures I have given of those cases reported to the Director bear this out. With regard to the question of age, I have given the list, and I have shown the ages that are affected. The noble Baroness said that the Committee on Criminal Law had not considered this matter. I do not want to debate their Report line by line, but I think they did consider the social problems and the question of ages fairly carefully on the other point. I agree with them, and still do not see, after all that has been said to-day, why this offence should be confined to adults. I still cannot see why a boy of sixteen or seventeen who uses a little girl of four or five to gratify his sexual lust should not be answerable by being brought before a juvenile court and having the effect of what he has done pointed out to him. As I have said, the juvenile court cannot send him to prison, but there are various forms of treatment which are open to that court and which I think would be helpful to him.
The noble Baroness has raised the question of the incitement coming from the other side. If she will look at it once again, as I am sure she has looked at it often, she will see that there are two limbs to the offence. First, there is the committing of an act of gross indecency with a child; and secondly, the inciting of a child under the age of fourteen to such an act—and the second limb, incitement, has to be proved on the
38
part of the person who is charged with the offence. As to that second limb, I think there are really two answers. I should still say that if someone secures that the indecency is committed, even if there be an incitement, he is still answerable criminally, as well as morally, for succumbing to it. If the noble Baroness feels that that is too severe a view, I would remind her of the figures that I gave: 19 cases under seven; 46 cases between seven and eleven; and 65 cases under eleven. In these cases I cannot believe that the incitement is likely to come from a child under eleven. There may be remarkable phenomena in that age group, as in every other, but I should think it is extremely rare. And I should have said that with regard to those under seven it is something one need not contemplate.
One then comes to the age group of thirteen and fourteen, of which there are two cases out of 70. I am sorry to anticipate, but the question of the shift in maturity which has been raised was one of the matters which I proposed to put to the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, for his consideration. Broadly speaking, maturity does come earlier; and that is interesting because it fits in with one experience of my noble friend Lord Saltoun, when he was describing conditions 50 years ago. But I still think—and this is really on Lord Silkin's point—that fourteen is a reasonable age. As the noble Baroness will remember, the Committee preferred fourteen, and their runner-up was thirteen; and, of course, they mentioned the point of maturity, with which I am dealing. In that case there will be some hard cases, but on our experience, they will be few. But I think that to rule out the protection for small children because of the hard cases through over-mature girls of thirteen or fourteen would be a wrong balance and would be using the hard cases to make bad law.
I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment, and that he will believe that this is something we have considered. If he will not accuse me of being melodramatic, I should like to tell him this: that one of my joys when I was Home Secretary was that I was not only responsible for the Queen's peace but was responsible for the safety and promotion of the happiness of underprivileged children. I believe it is our

39
first duty to protect children, and for that reason I would ask the Committee not to agree to this Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Could the noble and learned Viscount give us any information (I imagine it is is hard to come by) as to the ages of the other parties in the cases he has quoted? He mentioned that there have been a number of cases in which the police were unable to bring prosecutions for offences of this character against very young children. No one is more concerned than I am to defend very young children, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will accept. He has argued his case entirely in terms of young men of sixteen or seventeen. What I have in mind are cases of boys of perhaps twelve, thirteen or fourteen. If no restriction is put upon the age at which charges can be brought, boys of that age can be charged under this Bill with this offence. They can, as I said just now, be dealt with under the "care and protection" proceedings as being in moral danger, and such proceedings, I should have thought, are of a character which would have a far less deleterious effect upon the young person concerned. Could the noble and learned Viscount give us any information as to the ages of the persons who are likely to be charged with this offence as against the ages of those against whom the offence is committed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not got the figures, and whether they are obtainable I do not know. I can only give my experience over the twenty years in which I practised in criminal cases. I should have thought they were fairly well spread over the age group. I have recollections of quite young defendants and of quite old defendants. I cannot from my own recollection attach it either way. On the other point, I pointed out to the noble Baroness—and I think we ought to have it in mind—that under the present law, which would apply to the case of indecent assault, a child under fourteen is presumed to be incapable of guilty intent, although the presumption may be rebutted by satisfying the court that the child knew that he was doing wrong. I should have thought that the effect of that would be that the number of cases where that would be applied would not be very great. We must face
40
the point of those who are older than that, and must take our balance between the two. After all, these children could be dealt with by a "care and protection" order, even if they were brought up to court for this offence: that would not be difficult if there were sufficient evidence. But the balance is how we are to take the ages for the best advantage of the children. I believe that the Bill does that.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House recognises that those who speak on both sides of this question have equally at heart the care and protection of children. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, I entirely agree that there must be sexual instruction. It is a question of how and when, and the way in which it is given. I think that is where the error perhaps exists. It is a thing which everbody who is a parent has had to think out very carefully and take his own line over. I think the noble and learned Viscount misrepresented me. I was not talking about conditions 50 years ago, except to say that I have no knowledge of them, either through ignorance or because they did not exist. I was talking about conditions which obtain to-day, and which I do not believe I have exaggerated. I am bound to say that I would far rather see children treated under "care and protection" proceedings than brought into any form of court of law. I am quite conscientious about this matter, and I am in the noble Baroness's hands. I do not myself wish to press the Amendment, but if the noble Baroness wishes to do so, even if she is alone in the Committee, I will divide with her, because I think it is an important matter, and this debate has been on an important point. I gather that the noble Baroness does not wish to have a Division, so with your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.24 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "sixteen". The noble Lord said: We have been spending some little time in dealing with persons who commit acts of indecency. I should now like to turn to the victims of these indecencies. My Amendment is designed to widen the

41
scope of those victims so as to increase the age of persons against whom an act of indecency becomes a criminal offence, to sixteen instead of fourteen.
The noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to put forward some figures about offences. I understand they have been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not think I should attach great importance to those figures, for two reasons. The first is that it has been notorious that it has not been an offence at all hitherto. This Bill is a Bill to fill a gap. The gap has been in the treatment of something which ought to have been a criminal offence, but has not. Therefore, there would be no particular reason why, in a large number of cases, these matters should have been reported to the police at all. The other reason is that a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions would probably deal with cases in the nature of a very serious offence, and what we are dealing with here are not necessarily the kinds of cases which would be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. While I do not challenge these figures, I say that they are by no means exhaustive They certainly do not represent the sum total of all cases of indecency which have been perpetrated against children, either under the age of fourteen or under the age of sixteen.
I have spent a good many anxious moments in trying to make up my own mind as to what was the right age. On the occasion of the Second Reading I indicated that I had some doubts, but I did not make up my mind about putting down this Amendment until a few days ago, after again considering the matter and seeing what was the case that had been made by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and what were the answers. I have said this before in this House, and I think it is worth saying again: you can always build up a formidable case for a particular course of action, as the Committee have done, if you close your eyes to the other side. I should rather think that that is just what the Committee have done. They have built up in paragraph 9 of their Report a very strong case for limiting the age to fourteen.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Second Reading gave us some of their reasons, and I will not weary the House by reading paragraph 9 of the
42
Report, but it does make a number of assumptions, one of them being that children mature much earlier in life to-day than they did, and so on. I think that that is perfectly true in a large number of cases. But children are not all alike. I should like to think that there are still innocent children, even of fifteen or sixteen, who are not so fully aware of the facts of life as some of the young ladies my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger spoke about a few moments ago. We all know that there are such children—many of them—and they are essentially the kind of children one wants to protect. It may be that the other type of child does not need any protection, and is well able to look after itself, but there are large numbers of young children under the age of sixteen who can be led astray, often by someone whom they highly respect and who has considerable influence over them. I do not want to illustrate the kind of person I have in mind, but we can all visualise the sort of male who might have a considerable influence on these young children. I feel that if there were half a dozen girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who, as a result of this Bill, could be protected, it would be worth while raising the age.
After all, what is the objection? How are we trying to protect them? We are dealing with people who commit acts of indecency with girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, some of whom, let us admit, may have a knowledge of the facts of life, but others of whom, I would submit, may not. I think the damage that can be done to a girl between the ages of fourteen and sixteen can be very much greater in many cases than the damage done to a much younger and, perhaps, less impressionable child. The age of sixteen is not fanciful; it is the age which is referred to in the Sexual Offences Act. Under Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act it is an offence for a person to make an indecent assault on a woman under sixteen. A girl under sixteen cannot give any consent which would prevent an act from being an assault for the purpose of that section. There is Section 15 which makes it similarly an offence for a person to make an indecent assault on a man, with the same proviso: that a boy under sixteen cannot in law give any consent which

43
would prevent an act from being an assault for the purpose of that section. There is Section 28, in which it is an offence to have carnal knowledge, unlawful sexual intercourse or commit an indecent assault on
"a girl under the age of sixteen for whom he is responsible."
Sixteen has been accepted under the Sexual Offences Act as a crucial age and I cannot see why a lower age should be taken in this Bill.
Finally, the school-leaving age to-day is fifteen. We hope that if the Crowther Report is accepted within a short time it will be sixteen. Indeed it is sixteen to-day for a large number of girls; a high proportion of the girls who could leave at fifteen stay on till sixteen. If not to-day, certainly within a very short time sixteen will be the school-leaving age, and these girls will be school children. I suggest that from that point of view again sixteen is the appropriate age at which girls should be protected. When they are at school, in point of fact they may be vulnerable to this kind of offence to a much greater extent as a result of having to be in contact with people who could have a considerable influence over them. So for all those reasons, though I recognise that the Committee have gone into the matter fully and have come to the conclusion that fourteen is the right age, as against thirteen, I submit that neither of those ages is high enough and that the proper age for the protection of our young girls should be sixteen. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Lord Silkin.)
4.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has most impressively deployed a case which must arouse great sympathy, but I feel, having given all the consideration I can to it, that in regard to this offence we should maintain the age of fourteen which is suggested by the Committee. The noble Lord self-denyingly did not read paragraph 9, but there is just one point which I hope he will forgive me if I mention to your Lordships, and of course he can deal with it again. The Committee said:
"We are convinced that it would be wrong to choose an age as high as sixteen which is the age below which a person cannot in law
44
consent to what would otherwise be an indecent assault. The main purpose of the proposed provision is to protect children who are incited to do indecent things the nature of which they do not fully understand. We think that this applies with much less force to children of fourteen and fifteen and that they are already sufficiently protected by the existing provisions as regards sexual offences."
That is principally by the charge of indecent assault, to which the noble Lord has referred.
As I have pointed out, the evil with which the clause seeks to deal is the corruption of younger children who, because they do not understand the significance of what they are being asked to do, respond to an indecent invitation without being threatened or forced. I should like just to say one word about the ages. The ages of the girls concerned in the cases of Fairclough v. Whipp and the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Rogers which disclosed the gap in the law were nine and eleven. Although I cannot vouch for this, I understood (but I may have been wrong and therefore I do not want to make too much of it) that the figures that I mentioned, the seventy cases that were reported by the police to the Director between 1954 and 1957, were brought to his attention to show the importance of closing this gap in the law. Your Lordships will remember what they were: nineteen under seven, forty-six between seven and eleven, three were eleven, one thirteen and one fourteen. Of course the noble Lord is right; they are not a complete record, nor could they be. But from such general inquiries as the Home Office have been able to make they tell me that there is no reason to think that the age distribution which they show is other than typical. I make no false statistical point against the noble Lord; I only say that that was how the figures were got, and the Home Office have no reason to suppose that they are unrepresentative.
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble and learned Viscount know whether the police, who obviously went seeking information, sought information about girls over the age of fourteen at all?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not ask that specific point, but I will read to the noble Lord what was given to me from the Home Office as a result. After giving those ages the next line is:
"There was none older than fourteen."

45
I take that to mean that in this type of offence, where there is no force used, the police did not report any case of a girl of fifteen or sixteen in that position where there was an indecency without an indecent assault. But again, because I try never to make a false point, I have read to the noble Lord exactly what was given to me.
That leaves the other point, which I find extremely difficult and which I think the noble Baroness must find difficult, in view of the incident which she mentioned in her speech—that is, broadly, the question of maturity. The Committee relied on that, and I am told that it is accepted as a biological fact that children now mature substantially earlier than was the case even 25 years ago. It follows from what the noble Baroness was referring to—the Committee, too, pointed this out—that the Courts are already faced with a difficult problem in dealing with sexual offences against mature girls who are consenting parties, or even, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the instigators of the offence. I think that it would increase the difficulty if we increased the area in which this difficulty arises. When you get beyond fourteen you get into an area where the difficulty certainly does increase, and I believe that it is safer to limit the age to fourteen, which is high enough for the purpose for which the clause is primarily designed—that is, of the child who is induced into indecency without really appreciating what is happening.
The noble Lord is well aware that only 25 years ago people were wanting to raise the age of consent to seventeen. Serious social thinkers of that time were considering that. But I believe that in approaching this problem on the basis of maturity the Committee showed that they were not taking a legalistic view, but were trying to approach the social problem. In the very difficult balance—I admit that it is a most difficult balance, and there are great attractions in the noble Lord's argument, because naturally we all want to protect children to the greatest extent we can—in view of the careful consideration we have had, and in view of this change in maturity which I understand to be generally accepted, I believe that fourteen is the safe age, and I should advise the Committee to retain it.
4.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I must confess that I find it a little difficult to accept the noble and learned Viscount's views about this, persuasively as he has put them. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Silkin is undoubtedly right when he says that there are a substantial number of people between fourteen and sixteen who are not mature in this sort of way; and I should have thought that, on the whole, the balance of the argument was in favour of giving protection in those cases, and in the other type of case of leaving it to the discretion of the police not to prosecute. We all know that a considerable amount of discretion is used in connection with whether or not there should be a prosecution. Moreover, I doubt very much whether these statistics are really convincing, in the sense that it does not look to me as if the police have made any great efforts to cover the ages between fourteen and sixteen.
As I understood them, the statistics that were given were entirely concerned with girls. I may be wrong about that, but one obviously important side of this case is the homosexual side, which is, I think, covered by this clause. I remember, from a rather distant professional experience in this type of case, that when I was practising in the criminal courts I was concerned with some rather widespread homosexual cases in which schoolboys were concerned—they had, in fact, been paid sums of money to behave in the sort of way which is now criminal. I wonder whether that point is already covered and whether it is not a relevant matter in this particular connection. It may be that it is already covered, but I am not certain that it is not in the same sort of field as the expression
"who incites a child under that age to such an act with him".
Surely that would cover a male child. I doubt very much whether it is covered by the law as it now stands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It certainly would cover a male child. There was nothing in the list of statistics which was given to me to show that it was limited to little girls. If I gave that impression it was my fault, because I had little girls particularly in mind. But the figures may well have included little boys as well.
LORD CHORLEY: There was a great deal of reference to girls in the remarks in the argument, but this side of it is most important. Undoubtedly, over the last few years there have been numbers of this type of case, certainly at assizes and quarter sessions courts with which I am familiar. I have been very disturbed within only the last few months at a serious outbreak in a part of the country with which I am well acquainted, and I am pretty sure, from what I have heard, that there are concerned a number of children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. It therefore seems to me that this protection should be extended in the way my noble friend Lord Silkin has suggested.
LORD SILKIN: The remarks of my noble friend Lord Chorley add weight to the case which I have made. I am bound to say that I am most disappointed at the reply of the noble and learned Viscount, who is always most sympathetic in these matters. Does it really mean that because girls mature at an earlier age generally, and because there are some girls who might even go so far as to incite males, therefore the ordinary girl between fourteen and sixteen is not to be protected: that this gap that we have been talking about is to remain so far as these girls are concerned? I cannot think that that would be the wish of the noble and learned Viscount or of the Government. Having introduced a measure of this kind, they would, I should have thought, have gone the whole way and tried to fill the gap, even erring on the side of extra precaution.
I will deliberately not deal with the case of homosexuality, although everything I say is of equal applicability there. But if a young man is charged with an offence and it turns out that there was incitement, that is a matter which the magistrates will always take into account. But the fact is (I am not in a position to give figures) that the majority of girls between fourteen and sixteen are not so mature or experienced in life that an act of this kind cannot deprave them and cause them considerable sufferine in after-life.
The noble and learned Viscount made one statement which rather surprised me—namely, that the reason for this Bill is that children are being incited to
48
commit acts of indecency. I thought the point was that there was commission of acts of indecency as well as incitement, and that equal weight is attached to both sides of it, though it is the mere commission of an act of indecency which becomes an offence. Although, as the Committee stated, this may have much less force between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, they do not say that it has no validity at all. I should have thought that even if it protected only a limited number of young persons it would be worth while to extend the age. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government have not said the last word on this point and are prepared to think again, because it is a serious matter. The Committee themselves took the view that the question of age is one on which there can be different views. I do not think they meant the difference between the ages of thirteen and fourteen in that context, although later it transpired that they themselves were wavering between the two ages. I believe they genuinely meant that there could be different views as to whether the age should be fourteen or sonic other age, and I hope Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to think about this again before the next stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly think about it again. I must do so because the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Chorley, have advanced their arguments. I still think that the Committee were right, and it is interesting to note that, with all their consideration, they were wavering, as the noble Lord frankly said, between the ages of fourteen and thirteen, although they meant that there were arguments the other way. I will look into this question, for it is a very serious matter, though I should not like the noble Lord to think I have been shaken in my view.
LORD SILKIN: For the moment neither of us has been shaken. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, might I ask the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin? In the normal

49
course I should move, "That the Report be now received"—which would mean that there would be no separate Report stage. I should not like to do that, however, if the noble Lord would like the opportunity of having this matter considered again on Report stage.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should very much like to have the matter considered again. The noble and learned Viscount will remember that at one time we deliberately decided that the mere fact that there was no Amendment on the Committee stage should not deprive us of a Report stage; and I think this is a case where that might apply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is exactly what I wanted to know, and so I shall not move, "That the Report be now received."

PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
4.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of 9 & 10 Geo. 6, c. 81, s. 17
". Section seventeen of the National Health Service Act, 1946, shall be amended by leaving out the word 'bacteriological', and by inserting the words 'or other' after the word 'infectious'."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Amulree, and myself. I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 are considered together, so far as discussion is concerned, because they are all making precisely the same points.
The description of the Public Health Laboratory Service and its functions stems from the National Health Service Act, 1946, Section 17, which says:
50
"The Minister may provide a bacteriological service, which may include the provision of laboratories, for the control of the spread of infectious diseases, and the Minister may allow persons to make use of services provided at such laboratories on such terms, including terms as to the payment of charges, as the Minister thinks fit."
Now the effect of these Amendments is to strike out the word "bacteriological" in the parent clause and to add the words "or other" after "infectious diseases". This would result in the Public Health Laboratory Service being free to tackle any kind of public health problem. One thinks that "public health" means the health of the public, of groups of people as contrasted with the health of the individual. I tried to show (and I hope that I did show) on Second Reading that in fact the Service does a great deal more than bacteriology. There is some dispute as to how the word "bacteriology" should be defined. The common definition is that it is the study of bacteria, but its use is sometimes extended to cover also the viruses. But the public health bacteriological service is concerned with more than this. It is concerned with the study of protozoa, with the helminthes, which are larger creatures still, and the study of fungi, none of which is, strictly speaking, bacteriology. The service is concerned also with the study of physical agents, such as dust, and on occasion has been concerned with chemical agents.
The effect of the second alteration to the section is to remove the limitation under which the Service works. At present it is limited to infectious diseases. In the early days, public health was primarily concerned with infectious diseases. In the 1860s, there was a great cholera epidemic, and since then notification and isolation of infectious people, the study of carriers and so on, has played a great part in public health. But public health has gone on extending, and is now concerned with general disease prevention, especially in expectant mothers and infants, and in school children. When we turn to the work of the Public Health Laboratory Service, we find it is concerned, for example, with the study of congenital defects. Now admittedly it has been discovered in recent years that congenital defects are often due to infections in the mother; but it is spreading the sense of infectious

51
disease very wide if it is to include infectious diseases in one generation producing what are certainly congenital changes in the next generation.
The Public Health Laboratory Service is concerned with the study of food poisoning, and while food may be poisoned by bacteria it may also be poisoned by chemicals; and the Public Health Laboratory Service has studied, for example, poisoning due to zinc. It is concerned with the study of soap and detergents, and some of its publications have appeared in the Journal of Applied Chemistry. It has also been concerned in the study of the causes of sudden death in infancy and with the study of development of equipment for measuring ventilation. The basis of this study is, of course, spread of infection by droplet spray, but this leads on, very properly and rightly, to the study of the speed of air flow through rooms and so on.
The Service is also concerned with the effect of organisms on fertility. It cannot, in fact, do its work without overstepping this limitation of the word "infectious", and it is only by broadening the use of the word "infectious" so as to render it meaningless that in fact the Service is able to operate. The same thing has happened with the word "epidemic": epidemiology has now come to mean the study of the statistics of disease, rather than the study of epidemics of disease in the conventional old-fashioned sense. So one would suggest that the word, or, rather, the provision—the limitation to epidemic disease—is much better left out in the originating section of the Act.
One urges these Amendments on three grounds, any one of which, I think, is sufficient to justify their adoption. The first is that the law ought to be precise and exact. When your Lordships are dealing with the law in relation to marriage or divorce or sexual offences, such as we have just been hearing about, every word is carefully, and rightly, weighed. In future, the law will be more and more concerned with scientific matters, and I should like to make a plea for equal precision here. I do not think it is good enough to say "bacteriology" and then leave it, so that it can mean anything somebody wants it to mean later on. I think the Bill gains nothing by including the word "bacteriology".
I have tried to devise a list of words to cover the actual work which these laboratories do; and however one works out this list, inevitably one finds faults and weaknesses in it. For that reason the approach which I have adopted is to try to leave out the word "bacteriology" with the limitation that it implies rather than to lay down a series of categories in which these laboratories have to work. In the future it may well be that these laboratories will be concerned with molecular chemistry and molecular physics, as they get down to studying the details of bacteria in ways which cannot be done now. So my first proposition is that words used in law should be precise; they should mean what they appear to mean, and should not require elastic stretching by Ministers and civil servants who have to operate the law.
The second ground for this group of Amendments is that the law is the primary method by which Parliament controls administration. In modern times we accept the necessity for statutory instruments. We just cannot avoid them, because of the complexities of the situations with which the law has to deal. But we quite rightly define in our Acts the fields in which statutory instruments may be made. If we accept the power of the administrators to make words mean what they want them to mean, Parliament is in fact handing over its right and duty to control administration. It is as though we said, "We do not mind if the word 'railway' in an Act of Parliament is expanded to include tramway-cars because they too run on rails, and trolley buses because their course is circumscribed by the existence of fixed wires." I think it is wrong that the Government and the Civil Service should be given a duty of this kind, of elastic stretching of phraseology, if Acts of Parliament are to be made to work; and I think it is particularly important that we should have precision of definition and wording when setting up a public board to carry out an essential public service. Boards must have the right terms of reference if they are to do their job properly.
This is no hypothetical or theoretical objection. In every large organisation—and in many small ones, too—there is an unpleasant group of people who always want to say, "No"—abominable

53
"No-men"; fellows who delight in thinking up reasons why things which are desirable and good should not be done. As it stands, the Bill is a standing invitation to one such official to stop useful and, indeed, vital work, when all he has to say is, "The Board must stop doing mycology because it is not part of bacteriology. They must stop examining 'beat disease' of miners because that is not a part of bacteriology, or it is not an epidemic." And there is nothing that the Public Health Laboratory Service Board can do. In fact, one man in the wrong place can frustrate the entire intention of Parliament. That then is the second ground.
The third ground is one which I mentioned on Second Reading: that we want to leave the door open for the development of the Public Health Laboratory Service to cover other aspects of risk to the public health, including risks in industry. Note that we are not trying to force the door open; we are merely saying that if at some future date the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour should decide to extend the field of operation of the Public Health Laboratory Service they should be able to experiment a little to start with, without having to come back to Parliament. It may be argued that it is wrong to leave a door open. To that I would reply that in fact the door is already ajar, and it was opened when the Public Health Laboratory Service started to study anthrax, and "beat disease" of miners, and respiratory infections in office workers, and zinc poisoning, and dust, and so on. These are all matters of public health—and public health does not end in the home, the canteen or the sewage works; it embraces the whole environment of man, including his working environment.
If we believe that the law should be precise and accurate in its wording, that administrators should obey the law and not interpret it as they think fit, and that this Public Health Laboratory Service should serve the public health of the country outside the narrow confines of bacteriology, as it is already doing, then these Amendments should fall on open ears and a willing heart on the part of the Lord Privy Seal; and I am sure that in accepting them he will have the support of the whole Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Taylor.)
LORD AMULREE: I should like very briefly to support what my noble friend Lord Taylor has just said. Two reasons of his were, I think, most important. One was that the law should be precise. On one occasion in this House a Bill which I myself was introducing was turned down because it was not precise enough and would be impossible to enforce properly, and so I feel rather strongly about that point. The other point that is extremely important is the fact that it is possible for someone to say, "No, it cannot be done". Here I can talk from experience. It is so simple to say that there is nothing in the Act to say that something can be done. Therefore, I should like to see the word "bacteriological" go and some better phrase used. I think that the other phrase which is suggested is better. Apart from the present, one can never be sure that in the future some narrow-minded person, with a rigid, inflexible mind, may not come along and stop a large amount of good work and prevent the Laboratory from doing what it is now doing so very well. Therefore, I should like to support the Amendment which has been put down in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor.
5.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: When the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, first put forward this point on Second Reading, he put it forward on a relatively narrow ground, and, as I understood it, he made two broad propositions about it. The first was that, in the course of time, a service which bad started with the study of bacteria had gone on to the study of viruses and other small bodies, and the term "bacteriological" was really no longer apposite to deal with the actual scope of the service. Secondly, he said that he hoped we should not be too narrow in our definition, should we accept a new definition for the Service, because it would need to cover quite a large range of activities. At the time, although I was advised very strongly that the point was not a good one technically, I was at any rate very favourably impressed by it. But, to be honest, I am less impressed with these Amendments. I do not think that they do the

55
things which the noble Lord said on Second Reading he wanted done, and I think they do a number of things which he definitely says now he does not want. I would therefore say that, although I do not want to close the door, it seems to me at the moment that the difficulties in the way of accepting these Amendments are really insuperable.
In the first place, I was originally of the opinion that there was something in this argument that "bacteriology" was no longer a suitable term because the scope of the Service now includes virology and the study of other small bodies. But I am advised that this is not so. Legally speaking, the term "bacteriology" is, I am advised, wide enough to cover all these disciplines, and would be interpreted by reference to the use of the term in 1946, when the substantive Act was passed. I am advised by those who know these things better than I that, although of course a virus is not a bacterium, and it is still less a small fungus or a protozoa, the word "bacteriological" is used generically to cover all these things, and is used both popularly, if such a word can be said to have a popular use, and in the medical profession. For instance, I am advised that if there was a room full of doctors and you said, "Hands up all those here who are bacteriologists," the virologists would all put up their hands, too, because this term is still in common use as a generic term. It therefore is not wanting in precision, and it is not narrow in its application.
Now in his quest for precision, the first move by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is to take out the word "bacteriological" altogether, with the result that any kind of precision in Section 17 of the Act of 1946 disappears altogether. Therefore, although he comes wearing the garb of the legal purist demanding precision, the only effect of his Amendment is to take it away. He then goes on to remove the other words in Section 17 which give some precision to the definition of the Service. Perhaps I had better read the section:
"The Minister may provide a bacteriological service, which may include the provision of laboratories, for the control of the spread of infectious diseases …".
I do not read the rest of the section, because it is immaterial. The noble
56
Lord then proceeds to take out the only other words which give precision—that is to say, "for the control … of infectious diseases", and says that they are not to be in the clause, either. The result is that in this magnificent quest for precision he has taken out any kind of precision in the clause which he is seeking to amend.
He would then further parade his legislative virtue, and proceeds to say, "We believe in the Government obeying the law and not interpreting it themselves". Then, in his third proposition, he proceeds to announce, "The whole object of what I am about to do is to enable the Minister and the Secretary of State to experiment to see whether there are some things which they want to do which Parliament has not actually thought of yet". How this philosophy is reduced to one of precision and Parliamentary control, I do not understand. There may be much to be said for fluidity and a broad view, and in not hampering the Executive in highly scientific matters, but how that can be brought forward under the banner of precision and of making the Ministers obey the law is something which I confess, as I listened to the noble Lord, I utterly failed to understand.
However, there is to my mind another objection to doing this. I will tell the noble Lord straight away that I should be very much attracted to this series of Amendments if I could think of a generic term which did better than "bacteriological" and covered the whole range of disciplines without confining itself to any and without limiting the future growth of the Service but I should not be prepared to advise my right honourable friend to accept Amendments which simply enabled him to provide laboratories for some kind of a service not more precisely defined, because they would be "South Sea Bubble" laboratories, and it is not the purpose of this Bill to provide laboratories for some sort of a service hereafter to be defined by the Minister when he wants to experiment. I submit that it is I who am the apostle of legislative precision in this respect, and the noble Lord who is the heretic.
There is another point which I would draw to your Lordships' attention. We really must have some regard to the scope and limitations of this Bill. This

57
is a Bill for the transference of an existing Service which has never yet found itself hampered either by Parliament or by the Courts, or by that mysterious body of "abominable 'No'-men" who seem to me to be as mythical in this particular connection as the creature in the Himalayas after which the noble Lord evidently named them. The purpose of this Bill is to transfer this existing Service, which is quite happy in its work and unfettered in its discretion within the realm laid down for it by Parliament in the Act of 1946, from one body—namely, the Medical Research Council—to another, a new Board to be appointed by the Minister of Health. If you look at the Long Title of the Bill—we are not always bound by the Long Title, but we are bound by the general scope of the Bill—we see it described as:
"An Act to establish a Public Health Laboratory Service Board for the exercise of functions with respect to the administration of the bacteriological service provided by the Minister of Health under section seventeen of the National Health Service Act, 1946."
I must say that I have the greatest possible doubt as to whether it really is within the function of rather a modest little measure of this kind, which is designed to transfer an existing Service from body A to body B, to redefine the scope and purpose of the Service so as to include a large number of functions which, at any rate on the face of it, are not already included within it. I myself would say that the House would not be wise to accept an Amendment in this sense.
I am sorry to have deluged the noble Lord, whose views on this subject I treat with very great respect, with such a bucketful of cold water, and perhaps I may be allowed, in conclusion, to offer him some solace. I am bound to say that I resist these Amendments in this form, but I still think that if I could think of a better name for the Service, and if I could be persuaded that it would be within the bounds of propriety to put it in this Bill, it would be quite a convenient thing to do. I will ask my right honourable friend to think of that between now and the Report stage, and to see whether he cannot, with the aid of the Parliamentary draftsmen, put something into the Bill in that sense. With that limited assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, who I trust has taken my
58
remarks in the spirit of friendly badinage in which they are meant, will be content and, in those circumstances, will not press his Amendment.
LORD TAYLOR: If the Amendments which I am moving were adopted, there still would be a real measure of precision, because the words "Public Health", which I think are the best possible definition of the functions of this particular laboratory service, would remain. The Service is concerned with public health, whatever the cause of the mishap to public health. But if the noble Viscount wants a portmanteau word, and I must say that I share his feeling on this subject, there is one which is coming rapidly into use—"microbiology", which covers bacteriology, virology, mycology and all the rest. I recommend "microbiology" in all sincerity, not in levity, because it is a seriously used word, which I think would meet the object and allow the Service to perform its proper functions, as it is performing them now. In view of the noble Viscount's assurance that he has not closed the door—and I hope that he will look most sympathetically on this suggestion—I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule:

CONSTITUTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BOARD
3. The Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and nine other members so appointed, and—
(a) the chairman and one other member shall be fully registered medical practitioners;
(d) two members shall be appointed from among persons holding office as medical officer of health of a local authority;
(e) two members shall be appointed from among persons having administrative experience.
5.22 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR LORD TAYLOR moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) one member shall be an officer of the Ministry of Health;"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Amulree and myself. I hope that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will feel that these Amendments are not moved in any frivolous

59
spirit, as indeed was not the last one, but in a serious attempt to give legal precision to something with which I do not know quite how to deal. Again, I think it would be convenient if I might take the general principle underlying all these Amendments before we consider them in detail.
On Second Reading, I said that there were two types of public board: the first non-categorised, where the Ministry were left free to appoint whom they would, without having to fit them into different categories, and the second, of which this was an example, where they had to fit them into a sort of jigsaw which was laid down in the Act. I should prefer the first type, but one is satisfied that in this case the Government are probably right to categorise. That categorisation is virtually complete. There is a chairman and nine other members and the peculiarities are laid down for every one of these members, except probably one.
The chairman and one other member shall be fully registered practitioners (that is two), two members shall be appointed after consultation with the Medical Research Council (that is four), two shall be people of experience in bacteriology (that is six), two are to be medical officers of health (that is eight), and two are to be appointed from among persons having administrative experience (that is ten—in other words, nine plus a chairman). There is only one member about whom the Minister could exercise much freedom and that is the one other member mentioned in paragraph (a). The Minister is free to select any kind of fully registered medical practitioner, and possibly not a fully registered medical practitioner, because that person may well be covered in one of the subsequent categories.
I think this is a basic decision, and we should like to know what the Government are thinking about it. It would be possible for this Board to be heavily weighted with Ministry of Health officials or to be a balanced board of experts and users, but not excluding officials. Under the Bill as it stands, heavy Ministry of Health weighting is possible, and it is certainly believed in the Public Health Laboratory Service that that is the intention. I must say that I was greatly encouraged by the
60
remarks of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal on Second Reading, when he drew a simile between this Board and a Regional Hospital Board. Those are indeed the agents of the Minister of Health, but they are balanced boards of experts and users and are not composed of Ministry of Health officials. And very good indeed they have been. Therefore, we should hope that the noble Viscount will give your Lordships a clear statement of the Government's intention about the members of the Board who may or may not be civil servants.
First of all, the Government intend to have a medical chairman. I pointed out on Second Reading that throughout the entire life of this Board—and it has been in existence for about six years as part of the Medical Research Council—it has never had a medical chairman. I cannot see why on earth they want to specify that there should always be a medical chairman for this Board. I see no objection to there being a medical chairman sometimes. Why should this not vary from time to time? I should like to know what is behind this. Again rumour has it that the intention is that the chairman should be the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. I must say that one thinks that that is a very bad idea, not because one has anything against the Chief Medical Officer—he is an excellent person—but because his time is so fully occupied already. He is a very busy Governmental official, and it would be far better to have someone who can devote a great deal of his time to the work of this Board, particularly as in all probability the Chief Executive will be retiring in the course of the next few years.
The first effect of our Amendments is to get rid of this restriction and leave the Minister free to vary the chairman. We have sought not to increase the size of the Board, but if one more member could be appointed, one would willingly accept one more official of the Ministry of Health. In Amendment No. 4, we suggest that one of the members should be an officer of the Ministry of Health, to replace the provision about the chairman. I can see no objection to there being two members who are officers of the Ministry of Health, providing that the total number can be increased by one. It is only fair to say that on the present Board there are two representatives of

61
the Ministry—Sir John Charles and Dr. W. H. Bradley, who is an observer. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Schedule are perfectly satisfactory. Paragraph (d) brings us to users of the Board. The only users recognised on the Board are medical officers of health, but, as was pointed out by a number of noble Lords and myself, the Service is widely used by the hospitals and very often works as a hospital bacteriological laboratory. Yet there is no representation on the Board of the hospital administration and of general practitioners, although general practitioners also make use, and should make use, of this Service. One cannot see why either hospitals or general practitioners should not be substantial users, because it is in everybody's interest that they should be.
Therefore, we have reluctantly suggested that the number of medical officers of health should be reduced from two to one, and one representative of the hospitals, perhaps a senior administrative medical officer of one of the Regional Hospital Boards, should be appointed. We suggest that a practising general practitioner should be introduced, and finally, in place of these two persons having administrative experience, we suggest having one person having experience in industry, which is a little more realistic. Again it would mean that we brought in someone from outside rather than putting on two more civil servants. So the first point is to clarify whether the Board is primarily to be composed of civil servants, plus experts, or to be truly based on the principle of having experts and users with some Ministry of Health representation. If the latter, then it must, I feel, include the hospitals and the general practitioners. If the Government do not like the precise proposals in the Schedule that we have made, we shall be only too happy to vary them or to try to work out something that is reasonable but does not impose the limitations imposed at present.
There is one further provision which we suggest, and that is that there should be two assessors to represent the staff, and that this should be written into the Bill. In fact, there are two assessors who do represent the staff on the Public Health Laboratories Board. These people have been there, so far as I know, ever since the Board has existed. In the Annual Reports of the Medical Research
62
Council one finds staff assessors at the bottom of the Board, and there they are. These two gentlemen, we understand, have no voting rights, and we merely suggest that this provision should be written into the Bill, so that the Board, after consultation with any appropriate bodies, shall appoint two assessors from among the staff of the Public Health Laboratories Service, with the right to attend meetings, but not to vote. Again, if the phraseology of this new paragraph is not right, we should not wish to stick rigidly to it, but merely ask that the principle be written into the Bill rather than that it should be left to the administration.
I do not want to enter into a long argument about public Boards, but I do feel that if we are going to have portions of our public services administered by public Boards it is much better if those Boards are not composed of civil servants, or at least not primarily composed of civil servants. One has in mind that the best of all public Boards was probably created by a Conservative Government when the B.B.C. was brought into operation. When we had a Labour Government a number of public Boards, including Regional Hospital Boards and new town development corporations were created, and they worked very well just because they were not civil servants. It is no criticism of the Civil Service—that is the last thing I have in mind—to say that it is a good thing to introduce other elements into the running of the public service, because the Civil Service can so easily get too big. I must say that I very much hope that this will be one of the kinds of Boards which is not primarily civil servant but which will be composed primarily of people who want to do a good job of public service, who are highly skilled, well equipped and representative of the users, and also that there will be real delegation and not just pseudo-delegation. If we have a large number of civil servants on such a Board, then the delegation becomes a false delegation, an apparent delegation without reality. I very much hope that, even if much of the detail may not be acceptable, the principles underlying the Amendment will be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Lord Taylor.)
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Again my right honourable friend and the noble Lord appear to some extent to have changed places. The Bill as drafted contains fairly precise provisions for the constitution of the Board, and the Amendment as drafted by the noble Lord contains fairly precise provisions, differing to some extent, for the constitution of the Board. On Second Reading the noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 220 (No. 34), col. 1011], and I was very much impressed with his remarks:
"In my experience, I must say that it is usually best to leave the selection of some new board to the individual Minister, while at the same time saying that he must consult with various people before he does it. That is, in fact, what happened under the National Health Service Act in respect of Regional Boards. The Minister consults, but then he appoints whom he thinks fit, regardless of whether they fit into a series of neat little categories."
That was the noble Lord's view then, and I gathered from his first remarks in moving this Amendment that that is his real view now, but that he presented his precise Amendments out of deference to the view of the Government that they wanted a fairly precise Board. In the interval of time between the Second Reading and the present time my right honourable friend has studied with respect and admiration the noble Lord's remarks, and he hopes to have for the Report stage an Amendment of the Bill which will conform to the noble Lord's first specification but not to his second. In view of that, I am not sure that the noble Lord would wish me to enter into the merits of his particular Amendment, because he may feel so gratified that his advice on Second Reading is being taken that he will not wish to press the Amendment which he devised out of deference to the Government.
There is only one other thing that I would say. As regards the assessors, it has, as the noble Lord said, been the practice to have staff assessors sitting with the Board to which the Medical Research Council have delegated the administration of the existing service. This has been a most useful arrangement, and it is not intended that it shall cease. There are naturally many matters coming before the Board on which it is most important that staff members
64
should have the opportunity of expressing their views to the Board. This has been done and is being done, and it is intended to continue it. The attendance of staff assessors can be, has been and will be, arranged administratively, but the view of the Government is that it is neither necessary nor desirable to write them into the constitution of the Board, which is, after all, the creation of a legal entity to which the function of administering the Service is actually given by the Act of Parliament. So that on that part of it my right honourable friend agrees with the policy which the noble Lord has enunciated, though he would rather not have it in the Bill. In view of what I have said about the proposal to provide that the Board should consist of certain persons appointed by the Minister after consultation with different categories of bodies, I hope that the noble Lord will not at this stage press his Amendment, and then he can come back on the discussion on the Report stage and avoid what I fear would now become a somewhat academic discussion.
LORD TAYLOR: I am amazed and delighted at the result of my Second Reading speech. I quite thought that as there was no Amendment at this stage I had better have a shot at what was left. The only reason that made me a little hesitant about rejecting the Government's original proposal out of hand was to make sure that the Medical Research Council were fully brought into consultation and that the bacteriologists were brought in, so that the research function could continue. I am sure it is best that the Minister should have the widest discretion in composing his Board, though I hope that (a) the consultations will be sufficiently wide-flung to include the hospital services and the general practitioners; and (b) that in practice, when he comes to appoint, he will not forget those two sides, and, even more important, the Medical Research Council and the bacteriologists. In view of what the Lord Privy Seal has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

FOREIGN SERVICE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before six o'clock.