Sitting of 4 July 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BUDE-STRATTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  DERBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES
Address for Return,
"showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of the proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during 1959 ".—[Mr. Renton.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Fuel Oil
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Power if he will state the amount of fuel oil consumed in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1959 and the first quarter of 1960, respectively, and the amount of fuel oil produced in the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1959, and the first quarter of 1960, respectively.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): In these two periods consumption was 3·8 and 5·0 million tons, and production 3·9 and 4·4 million tons.
    Mr. Fitch: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it seems apparent from the figures he has given that the difference between consumption and production over this period was made up by imported fuel oil? What is the policy of the Government towards this? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that fuel oil should continue to be imported in greater amounts and unrestricted? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the German and French Governments are contemplating restricting the use of fuel oil? Will not that react unfavourably here?
    Mr. Wood: As I told the hon. Gentleman on another occasion, I intend to watch the position very carefully. I have given the hon. Gentleman the

    3
    figures for the first quarters of these years. In April of this year production equalled consumption, and I am given to believe that over the year as a whole production and consumption will roughly balance.
    Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the whole position in relation to the balance of payments? We have had our arguments about this. I do not think that as yet any clear statistical analysis of it has been made. One's impression is that it is now becoming quite a drain on our balance of payments position.
    Mr. Wood: The effects on our balance of payments position of importing fuel oil and importing crude oil to make fuel oil are not very different.

    Pipeline Development
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Power what is the form and scope of the examination which is being undertaken by the Government into the problem of pipeline development.
    Mr. Wood: I am consulting those concerned both inside Government Departments and outside. In the light of the consultations, I will consider what further examination, if any, would be useful.
    Mr. Warbey: Will the examination that the right hon. Gentleman is planning have as one of its purposes to ensure that future pipeline development takes place in accordance with a rational plan based on clearly established national need?
    Mr. Wood: That will be the whole purpose of the inquiry.

  COAL

    By-products (Report)
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power when he now expects to publish the Report of the Wilson Committee inquiring into the potentialities of the by-products of coal.
    Mr. Wood: The Chairman has told me that he hopes the Committee's Report will be completed in the very near future. I shall then arrange for its presentation to Parliament as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great volume of opinion in the country which believes that the future of coal lies in its by-products rather than in its burning? In view of the urgency of the problem, will he do whatever he can to speed up the Report, which has been subject to considerable delay?
    Mr. Wood: I am looking forward very much to receiving the Report. I think I shall receive it very quickly, and I shall then publish it as soon as I possibly can so that Parliament can have the benefit of it.

    National Coal Board (Finance)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the financial results of the National Coal Board during six months ended 30th June, 1960, and of the cumulative loss forward at 1st July, 1960, including the loss of £51 million at 1st January, 1960
    Mr. Wood: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication by the Board of its financial results in its usual half-yearly statistical statement.
    Mr. Nabarro: That is not much good to me. Is it not the fact that the rate of loss of the National Coal Board for the first six months of this year is approximately the same as the rate of loss for last year, which in the whole of 1959 was £22 million? As this is becoming a direct charge on taxpayers, will not my right hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming as to how a possible deficit at the end of 1960 of £75 million, which is what it will undoubtedly be, can be dealt with?
    Mr. Wood: It is very reassuring to me that my hon. Friend's estimates of losses are going down. He suggested £100 million last time. I do not think that I can go further in anticipating these figures. The financing of the deficit seems to go beyond the Question my hon. Friend has asked me.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT at an early date a statement of the burdens which have now to be borne by the National Coal Board—
    Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman is one.
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is another. One example is that the Board bears the cost of subsidence, which was never met by the old coal owners. There are other burdens of that nature. If the right hon. Gentleman follows my suggestion, the nation can clearly see the elements which go to make up these losses.
    Mr. Wood: The best way to deal with this matter is for the right hon. Gentleman to put down a Question. The Answer would then find its way into the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, as he suggested.

    Stocks
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power whether he will state the position with regard to undistributed coal and coke stocks at 1st July, 1960; to what extent the investment by the National Coal Board of approximately £125 million winter in respect of approximately 35 million tons has now increased or decreased; and what plans are now in hand for reducing this liability upon the Board's financial resources.
    Mr. Wood: On 18th June, the Board's undistributed stocks were just over 34 million tons of coal and about 5 million tons of coke, valued at approximately £135 million. The corresponding figure at the beginning of the year was slightly more than £140 million. The Board is reducing production and aiming at a steady reduction in the level of undistributed stocks in the next few years.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that the levels of stocks to which my right hon. Friend has referred are no less than 7 million tons higher than they were on this date last year? And whether the loss of the Coal Board is suggested to be £75 million at the end of this calendar year or £100 million, is it not the fact that a drug on the market of £135 million worth of coal ought to engage my right hon. Friend's much more urgent attention?
    Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend will not be unaware that the present level of stocks is below the level at which we began the winter, and that instead of having an increase in stocks of the order of £16 million, as we had last year, it looks as though my estimate, made about
    6
    seven or eight months ago, of a reduction of about 1 million tons will not be very far out.
    Mr. Nabarro: It is still very unsatisfactory, though.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Will the Minister tell us whether, apart from the industrial recession, part of the problem has been caused by remarkably mild winters, as a result of which we have not used coal that we otherwise would have used, and that these are reserve stocks? And will he explain why this is a tragedy?
    Mr. Wood: The weather has certainly played a part, but we have discussed these matters in debates and the reason for the growth in stocks over the last two or three years has been examined in considerable detail. The position now is that the Board, as the House knows, is reducing production, and in fact the balance of stocks will, I think, show a small reduction at the end of this year.

    Coal Industry (Organisation)
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Power with regard to his forthcoming discussions concerning the coal industry whether he will give an additional assurance that he is not contemplating decentralisation of statutory power to the divisional boards.
    Mr. Kelleyasked the Minister of Power before entering into discussions regarding the future of the coal industry, if he will give an assurance that it is not his intention to transfer to divisional boards any of the statutory powers now controlled by the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Wood: I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave on 20th and 27th June.
    Mr. Mason: That is all very well, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the miners still suspect that he intends to weaken nationalisation by decentralisation, by carving up the industry into these small regional trusts? Is he not asking for a great deal of trouble because he is not willing to clear the air, and is he not placing the Chairman of the Board in a very invidious position, indeed? Will not he state to the House that he has no plan at all for interfering with the financial arrangements of the Coal Board?
    Mr. Wood: I stated very clearly last week that we had no plans to denationalise the industry or to return to district wage agreements. I repeat that pledge. I also repeat what I then said; that I must be allowed time to discuss the matter with the new Chairman before making any statement on any plans for the future.
    Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Mineworkers is very apprehensive about the position, and about his lack of frankness in replying to Questions in this House? Is he aware that that is causing a certain amount of alarm, and does he not think that a straightforward answer to a question of this kind would help the industry and those employed in it?
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I think that I have been entirely frank in my answers, and frank in the answers I have given this afternoon.
    Mr. Lee: We are grateful to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said about decentralisation, but is he aware that we would very much deplore any alteration by the Government of the financial structure of the Board that would take from the Board itself the financial control of its own industry?

    Manpower
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power what estimate has been formed of future manpower requirements for the coal industry; what is the present rate of recruitment; and if he is satisfied that this accords with the long-term needs of the industry.
    Mr. Wood: The National Coal Board's Revised Plan for Coal estimates that between 587,000 and 626,000 men will be needed in 1965, according to the demand for coal. The Board recruited 17,400 men during the first 24 weeks of this year. I have every hope that the Board's long-term manpower requirements will be met.
    Mr. Shinwell: The Minister has referred to a recruitment of 17,000 men but has said nothing about the wastage, which, I understand, is running at between 60,000 and 70,000 a year. Is it not a fact that the chairmen of the area boards are becoming very anxious about the manpower position?
    Mr. Wood: The present wastage is, indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a most serious factor to take into account, but against that is the fact that a number of those who have left the industry have been men over 65 years of age. That, therefore, will not recur. Against it, also, is the fact that the figure of recruiting I mentioned is a great deal higher than it was last year. The Board always intended that the rundown in manpower should not be spread evenly over the years 1960–65 but that a large part of it should take place in the first year or so.

    Abandoned Workings (Survey)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power when the last survey of old underground pit workings was undertaken; and whether he is satisfied that there is no longer danger of proximity of old workings where gas exists.
    Mr. Wood: Before any underground workings are abandoned there is a final survey. The plans of this must be preserved and shown in the plans of any other mine in the vicinity. Abandoned workings are normally inaccessible to further physical survey, but the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, requires that full precautions against hazard should be taken when any new working approaches them.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of all that, but the recent accident at the Six Bells Colliery surely indicates that the barriers between one colliery and another have not been adequately surveyed, and as the matter was raised 36 years ago, when I was Secretary of Mines, and has been considered several times since, is it not obvious that there has been inadequacy in the surveys that have been conducted?
    Mr. Wood: As the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware of the position, I need not go into it in general, but I am informed that there is no reason at all to suspect that the old workings were in any way responsible for the explosion last week. As I undertook to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall draw the attention of the Chief Inspector very much to this point, and he will have it

    9
    very much in mind, so as to investigate exactly the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman draws my attention.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that he is responsible for safety arrangements? The Coal Board is not necessarily responsible. Although the Board has a certain measure of responsibility, the Minister is primarily responsible for safety matters, and perhaps he might go into the question of the need for another survey.
    Mr. Wood: I think the regulations are perfectly clear on this, but I shall certainly look into the whole matter, particularly in the light of the tragic events of last week.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Private and Club Flying
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Mnister of Aviation what progress has been made with the formation of a National Flying Trust for the promotion of gliding and light aeroplane flying; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am pursuing this idea, but am not yet ready to make a statement.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now that the Kemsley Flying Trust, which did so much for gliding and light aeroplane flying, has been wound up, there is a great need for the formation of a trust of this sort? Will he do his utmost to expedite the formation and development of this flying trust as an urgent necessity as soon as possible?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I have every sympathy with this idea. The disappearance of the Kemsley Flying Trust has created a gap, and I am seeing what can be done to fill it.
    Mr. Collardasked the Minister of Aviation if he will set aside a small section of his Department to deal specially with private and club flying.
    Mr. Sandys: There is already in my Department a branch which deals with most of the main aspects of private and club flying.
    Mr. Collard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that branch includes operational as well as technical aspects? Is he aware that it would be a great encouragement to private and civil flying, which is regarded as rather a poor relation, if there were a clearly defined section to which they could take their troubles?
    Mr. Sandys: This branch deals with as many matters concerned with private flying as can efficiently be brought together in one branch. There is a number of things which affect not only private flying but other aspects of flying, which must be dealt with together.
    Mr. Rankin: While I thoroughly agree with the idea of private flying and want to see it encouraged, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind that the air today is becoming very crowded indeed with civil aircraft? Will he see that these clubs are kept in places where they do not endanger the safety of civil aircraft?
    Mr. Sandys: That, of course, will be very much in my mind.

    Service Families, Cyprus (Concessional Fare)
    Mr. Collardasked the Minister of Aviation what applications have been received from British airlines other than British European Airways to carry Service families to and from Cyprus on leave at concessional rates.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): None, Sir.
    Mr. Collard: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the B.E.A. concessional return fare of £60 is rather high, and would he agree also that some competition here might have the effect of reducing it, to the benefit of the Service families in Cyprus?
    Mr. Rippon: The B.E.A. concessional fare is offered on all scheduled services. I do not think there is any reason to believe that a better proposition could be put forward. Of course, it is always open to any airline to make an appropriate application.
    Mr. Collard: May I assure my hon. Friend that there is some dissatisfaction

    11
    among Service men in Cyprus on this point and that they regard the existing rate as rather high?
    Mr. Rippon: It may be that the Service men were attracted by the suggestion which was put forward at one stage in the newspapers. It was not the subject of an application made to my right hon. Friend, and I think it was probably a little optimistic.

    Airports, Scotland
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the number and names of the airports operating in Scotland, indicating the extent of passenger and other traffic dealt with at each, and the Customs facilities at each, during the last 12 months, and also indicating how these details compare with the corresponding details during each of the last 10 years.
    Mr. Rippon: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the airports operating in Scotland. The table of figures for the last ten years is too long to circulate, but I will send it to the hon. and learned Member.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland's great tourist industry is being greatly penalised by inadequate air services, particularly on Sundays, and by the confusion which exists between his Department and the airlines? Will he hold a full-scale public inquiry into that confusion with a view to seeing that justice is done to Scotland?
    Mr. Rippon: We are not aware of any such thing, and we do not envisage holding any such public inquiry.
    Following is the answer:
    There are fifteen airports operating in Scotland at the present time:—

    Aberdeen (Dyce).

    Barra.

    Benbecula.

    Edinburgh (Turnhouse).

    Inverness (Dalcross).

    Islay (Port Ellen).

    Kirkwall.

    Machrihanish.

    Perth (Scone).

    Prestwick.

    Renfrew.

    Stornoway.

    Sumburgh.

    Tiree.

    Wick.Y

    12
    In addition, the R. A.F. airfields at Kinloss and Leuchars are available for diversions authorised by Air Traffic Control. These two airfields may also be used on prior permission for charter and private aircraft.
    All the aerodromes listed above have been continuously in operation during the past ten years. In addition the following aerodromes were in operation for limited periods during the last ten years:—

    Leith (water aerodrome)—May, 1950 to May. 1959.

    Macmerry—March, 1935 to May, 1953.

    In addition, the R.N. Air Station at Lossiemouth was made available for 9 months in 1959 in place of R.A.F. Kinloss.
    Customs facilities are available at the following airports:—

    Prestwick—24-hour service.

    Renfrew—Attendance on prior notice.

    Edinburgh (Turnhouse)—Attendance on prior notice.

    These facilities have been available throughout the past ten years. In addition, Customs facilities for specific flights have been made available on request from time to time during the past ten years at various other Scottish aerodromes.

    Air Services (Aberdeen)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Aviation if he is aware of the inconvenience and loss to trade, business and social life caused by the inadequate air services between Aberdeen, Orkney, Shetland and the Channel Islands, particularly during the summer holiday season; and if he will investigate the cause and take steps to rectify it.
    Mr. Rippon: The provision of any additional services is a matter for the operators.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister is getting away with murder when he says that. Does he not remember the complaints that have been made to him about the differences between him and the operators with regard to Sunday services? Will he once again look into these matters and examine the complaints?
    Mr. Rippon: I remember those differences very well and have nothing to add to the answers which have already been given about them.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Have there been any applications from independent operators to put on these services?
    Mr. Rippon: I am not aware of any such applications.

    London Airport (Glide Path)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Aviation what steps he will take to ensure that pilots of aircraft approaching London Airport do not come below the specified glide path.
    Mr. Sandys: Various radio, radar and visual aids are provided at the airport to help pilots to follow the prescribed glide path.
    Mr. Stewart: Could the Minister explain how it happens that sometimes an aircraft flies over my constituency at an altitude at which it is inaudible and that soon afterwards an aircraft of the same type flies over at such an altitude that it makes an appalling noise because it is flying too low? Is he aware that it is the experience of people living several miles away from the airport that a high proportion of aircraft desert the glide path some eight or nine miles before getting to the airport?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, because sound is a very misleading measurement of height. Two aeroplanes flew over my house yesterday evening and they seemed to be rather low. I am making inquiries about them.
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Aviation what are the grounds for his decision that there is no possibility of increasing the angle of the glide path at London Airport; and if he will initiate international negotiations to raise the angle of glide-paths above all airfields in the United Kingdom from three degrees to four or five degrees.
    Mr. Sandys: I am advised that with the high speed of approach of modern aircraft the angle of the glide path could not be appreciably increased without prejudice to safety.
    Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several leading executives in the aircraft industry consider that this suggestion is technically possible? Is he aware that, if it took place, it would considerably ease the nuisance caused to residents living underneath the glide path to London Airport, and other airports, caused by aircraft approaching the aerodrome?
    Mr. Sandys: Of course, by increasing the angle of descent you increase the speed of approach and thereby make
    14
    landing more difficult. I am surprised to hear what my hon. Friend says, because, in the main, certainly on the operators' side, the pressure is to reduce the angle of approach and not to increase it.

    Passenger facilities, London Airport
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Minister of Aviation what progress he has made in his investigation of the delays in clearing passengers from inward flights at London Airport; and what consideration he has given to proposed remedies and, in particular, to those suggested in a letter to him by the hon. Member for Attercliffe.
    Mr. Sandys: Last week I informed the House of the measures which were being taken to relieve congestion. I have not yet received the hon. Member's letter, but I am eagerly awaiting it.
    Mr. Hynd: I am sorry that the Minister has not yet received my letter. The Question asks what is being done about clearing passengers. This case has no particular relation to congestion on the ground. Is the Minister aware that on Sunday of last week an aeroplane arrived from Frankfurt and the passengers had to wait an hour-and-a-half for the single bus before they were cleared? They had flown from Frankfurt in an hour and it was two-and-a-half hours before they reached Victoria from London Airport. Is it not possible for regular buses passing the airport to pick up the passengers or to use a minibus to take passengers to the buses at the Central Airport instead of all the passengers having to wait for an hour-and-a-half until Customs have cleared the last passenger from the aircraft?
    Mr. Sandys: I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman. He said that his Question did not relate to the clearing of passengers at the airport but referred to the question of transport away from the airport. Yet he referred to the question of clearing passengers from the Customs. I will await the hon. Gentleman's letter.

    Aircraft Noise, Westminster
    Dr. Bennettasked the Minister for Aviation what was the identity of the aircraft that flew noisily and very low, contrary to regulations, over Westminster

    15
    between 0255 and 0300 hours on 28th June; what were the reasons for this flight and the manner in which it was carried out; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: The aircraft was probably a York which took off from London Airport for Brussels at 0251. We have no evidence that the flight was carried out in a manner which contravened regulations.
    Dr. Bennett: With great respect, may I supply the evidence? It was a shattering noise which awoke at least one Member of Parliament, with nothing particular on his conscience, from a deep sleep. May I suggest that as the noise of aircraft engines appears to be increasing, the regulations may perhaps be at fault in allowing machines to fly too low?
    Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend has just heard, sound is not a very good measurement of height. Regular height checks are made and the regulations prohibit aircraft from flying below 1,500 ft. over built-up areas.
    Mr. A. Royle: Would my hon. Friend consider setting up a permanent radar height check system so that evidence is always available to him if this sort of thing should occur again?
    Mr. Rippon: Regular height checks are made by radar; and full-time special height checks are also carried out in districts around London. Our evidence is that there is about 95 per cent. compliance with the regulations. If there is any breach of them, the matter is always taken up with the airline concerned.

    Navigational Aids
    Dr. Bennettasked the Minister of Aviation what support other countries of the Commonwealth have given him in favouring the Decca Navigator System, as against VOR-DMET.
    Mr. Rippon: Australia, Canada, Ghana, India, New Zealand and South Africa opposed the adoption of DMET as an international standard. I understand that Australia will be carrying out evaluation tests shortly with the Decca Navigation System. Other Commonwealth countries already have or have ordered Decca chains for marine purposes or survey work.
    Dr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend keep in touch with these Commonwealth countries in order that there may be a certain solidarity among countries which believe that this rather superior form of navigation should be made available?
    Mr. Rippon: We are in continuous touch with the Commonwealth countries about progress and development of the Decca system of air navigation.
    Mr. Chetwynd: When is the issue likely to be raised again, or is it now completed?
    Mr. Rippon: The question of DMET as an international standard has been dealt with. It is still open to us at any time to advocate the Decca system as an international standard. I cannot say at what date that will be done. As the House appreciates, we believe that the Decca system in areas of high density of traffic is cheaper and more efficient.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does what my hon. Friend says mean that we have given up the fight with Washington? Is it not about time that the Government really exerted themselves in this matter, which is well known to be very tawdry treatment by a friendly nation? Will he look into it again?
    Mr. Rippon: The vote has been taken by an international organisation to which we all belong, but that does not mean that we have given up our advocacy of the Decca system, as I think recent answers to Questions in this House have shown.

    Prestwick Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that there was a three-hour road traffic jam at Prestwick Airport on 17th June while a British Overseas Airways Corporation 707 aircraft practised take-offs and landings on the main runway; and what he proposes doing to prevent traffic being held up at the airport's level crossing in the future.
    Mr. Rippon: These training flights with the Boeing 707 were necessary to familiarise air crews with the handling of these new aircraft at Prestwick. The road was closed on seven occasions in the morning and seven occasions in the afternoon. The average duration of each closure was about 3½ minutes.
    Mr. Rankin: That is not an answer to the Question on the Order Paper. The Minister cannot get away with this conduct of making a statement instead of replying to the Question. These training flights will go on with other aircraft. What is he going to do about the tremendous congestion that will take place when these flights, along with the arrivals and departures of very large aircraft, take place? Has he nothing to do with that? Does he not remember that I said long ago that a tunnel, costing the miserable sum of £800,000, would solve his problem? Is he not going to think about building that tunnel?
    Mr. Rippon: I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern with this difficulty. I do not think that his proposal for a tunnel is worth reviving. As he fully appreciates, consultations with the local authorities had to take place and are still taking place about the question of a by-pass road now being constructed, which we hope will relieve about 50 per cent. of the congestion. We are ready to raise with the local authorities at any time the question of the loop road, about which he is also well aware.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister not realise that a by-pass road will not solve the problem of the closure of the runway? Is it not his purpose to try to bring more and more people to Prestwick Airport to see the airport and to see what goes on, as is being done at London Airport? If he stops them every time he asks people to come, what success does he expect will attend that operation if he has not got the tunnel?
    Mr. Rippon: Our difficulty is not people who want to come to the airport but people who want to get away from it or go past it, and that situation we think could be helped by the by-pass road. I agree also that at some stage we must again consider the question of a loop road.

    Air Terminals, Glasgow
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation what consultations he has had about the provision of further air terminals in Glasgow; and if he will make a statement on the position.
    Mr. Rippon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many reports about Glasgow Corporation and a company called Grampian Holdings proposing to build two air terminals in the City of Glasgow? Has the hon. Gentleman heard nothing about that, and, if not, will he say what purpose there can be in having three terminals—two new terminals to be built—in a city which needs new houses more than it needs new terminals?
    Mr. Rippon: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have read the reports in the Scottish Press. The position is that this is not a matter for any Ministry initiative. In answer to his question, no approaches have been made to us about these projects.

    B.O.A.C. Employees (Dismissals)
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that a number of employees of the British Overseas Airways Corporation have been dismissed following their having been declared persona non grata by the Indian Government; and what general direction he is proposing to issue to the Corporation that employees should not be dismissed as the consequence of such action by another government.
    Mr. Sandys: I am aware of the position, but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to intervene.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's dilemma and difficulty in this matter, may I ask him if he is aware that many people will consider that the treatment of these men, against whom no evidence is offered by the Corporation, will not produce a very satisfactory labour relationship in the future?
    Mr. Sandys: I realise the difficulty, but I must repeat that in my view the management of its staff is the responsibility of the Corporation. In any case, I have no power to issue directions on a matter of this kind.

    Renfrew Airport
    Mr. W. Rossasked the Minister of Aviation if he has any further statement to make about the future of Renfrew Airport.
    Mr. Sandys: The surrounding buildings and docks will make it difficult to provide at Renfrew satisfactory facilities to meet the anticipated future requirements of air traffic. I am therefore considering whether a suitable airport for Glasgow could be provided elsewhere, possibly at the Naval Airfield at Abbotsinch, in the event of the Admiralty deciding to give it up. In any case, Renfrew Airport will continue in operation for the next three years.
    Mr. Ross: I do not think that there is anything very new in what the Minister has said. Can he tell us with whom he is having discussions in regard to the consideration which he is giving to the question of using Abbotsinch? Will he consider the whole of Glasgow and the relationship which Prestwick might bear to the solution of this problem as well as Abbotsinch?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes. There are quite a lot of consultations which will have to take place, particularly with the local authorities and other Scottish interests concerned. Of course, the possibility of using Prestwick will be considered, but nothing that we can do will alter the fact that Prestwick is rather a long way from Glasgow.

    Blue Streak
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation if he can now state what decision has been made about the future of Blue Streak in connection with a space research programme.
    Mr. Sandys: I cannot at present add to what I said on 2nd May.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As time is pressing, may I ask the Minister when he thinks he will be able to make a final announcement on this very important matter? Is there not a real danger that highly skilled design and constructional teams will begin to disintegrate unless an early decision is made?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes; an early decision will be made. I hope, although I cannot promise, that it will be possible to make an announcement before the House rises. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I have no evidence to show that these important design teams are in fact splitting up or disintegrating. They are awaiting a
    20
    decision, which I am sure will not be very long delayed.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said the other day that the Government ought to enter this space race? Could he tell us what is meant by a Cabinet Minister saying that the Government ought to do that when the Government have not made a decision, which was a very strange kind of statement to make? Will he take the House a little more into his confidence after that revelation?
    Mr. Sandys: It would have been a very strange statement if I had made it.

    Skybolt
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Aviation what proportion of the work of British industry in adapting V-bombers to carry Skybolts will be undertaken in this country.
    Mr. Sandys: All of it.
    Mr. de Freitas: Does that mean that all the modifications of aircraft of any sort will be done in this country?
    Mr. Sandys: All the modifications to the V-bombers required for adapting them for the use of Skybolt. It does not mean necessarily the electronic equipment associated with the weapon, which is of American manufacture, and will be purchased in America. That is really part of the weapon system, but modifications of the aircraft will be carried out here.
    Mr. de Freitas: Since the electronic equipment, which is so important, and Skybolt will be made in the United States, will the Minister, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, get the Government to stop talking about this as an independent British deterrent when so much of it is entirely American made and produced?
    Mr. Sandys: First, I do not say that all the electronic equipment will be made in America. But, on the broad issue, the fact that a weapon is manufactured in a foreign country does not alter our independence of action when we have that weapon installed on our aircraft under our own unrestricted control in this country. The hon. Gentleman is merely using this device to try to justify the tortuous workings of the Labour Party's defence policy.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister not made a clear admission that the V-bombers will have to be adapted in order to use Skybolt? Is this not the first time that such an admission has been made by a member of the Government? As the admission clearly has been made, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what this will cost and how long it will take?
    Mr. Sandys: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has not been a very regular attender in the House just lately. I cannot say exactly what it will cost. It will cost a very great deal less than Blue Streak would have cost.
    Mr. Paget: Even if it be somewhat less, it will be a very expensive process to adapt these bombers. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this will not be gene in for until we at least know whether Skybolt is to exist? It does not exist now, and there is no certainty that it ever will.
    Mr. Sandys: A period of gestation must be allowed, and I have every reason to suppose and confidence to believe that this weapon will be effective. It embodies a very large number of proven components, and that is why we have such confidence in it.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Poliomyelitis (Vaccination)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Health what response there has been to his announcement that poliomyelitis vaccine is now available to all persons between the ages of 26 and 40 years.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The answer is that 242,905 people in this category in Great Britain had applied for vaccination by 31st March, but this figure relates only to the first two months of the extended scheme. A better indication should be given in the figures for 30th June which will be available before the end of this month.
    Mr. Holland: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, from which it would appear that a small percentage of the total is in that age group, may I ask him whether he will take the opportunity when the next figures are available to emphasise the fact that expectant mothers particularly
    22
    are vulnerable to poliomyelitis and that they should take the earliest opportunity of obtaining the protection which the vaccination will afford them?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly be glad to do that. On a number of occasions we have exhorted expectant mothers to take advantage of the offer of vaccination. I will do this again in response to my hon. Friend's invitation and so reiterate it now.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's very disappointing reply, will he recall my suggestion when he made his first announcement that facilities in the clinics should be made available to workers during lunch hours. Having regard to the fact that each person wants three injections, unless these facilities are made available it is difficult for people to go to their doctors at night. Some of them are reluctant to do so for all kinds of reasons. I hope that the Minister will be more positive in his attitude towards this most important matter.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not lost sight of the right hon. Lady's suggestion, but it is too early to say that these figures are disappointing. These figures were only up to 31st March. Some local health authorities had not got their arrangements going by then. We shall have better figures presently, although I do not think that the right hon. Lady should expect in this age group figures of the sort which we have achieved with regard to younger people.
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Health what percentage of young people in Wales under the age of 26 years has been vaccinated against poliomyelitis; and how many have received three injections.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: At 31st March. 68·4 per cent. of those in Wales who were over six months of age and had been born in or after 1933 had been vaccinated. Of the total of 516,183 who at that date had received three injections all but a few would have been of that age group.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether my impression that there is a slowing down in this vaccination is right? Can he do something to stir up more propaganda so that immunity is complete?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There is not a slowing down except in so far as we have this fairly high percentage of people already vaccinated. In fact, the percentage for Wales is rather higher than the percentage for Great Britain as a whole.

    Doctors' Assistants (Pay)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health (1) what was the rate of increase in the average salaries paid to assistants in general practice following the two interim awards to their principals;
    (2) if, when he makes any retrospective payment to general practitioners in accordance with the recommendations in the Pilkington Report, he will take steps to ensure that assistants will receive retrospective increases proportionate to the sums received by their principals.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As I explained in a Written Answer to the hon. Member on 20th June, 1960, the conditions of employment of assistants are a matter for private contract between each principal and assistant and no information is available centrally from which recent average salaries could be calculated. I understand that the representatives of the medical profession have the interests of assistants well in mind.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman absolving himself from responsibility by throwing this matter back to the medical profession? Is he aware that local executive councils have an account of the net salaries paid to assistants for superannuation purposes? Cannot he keep himself informed by taking a cross-section or sample of this? Will he use the machinery at his disposal to give justice to these people in view of the fact that back-pay is given to general practitioners at the time when cheques are authorised by the local executive council?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am prepared to look into the statistics which the executive councils have to see whether they aid us in this matter, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what I said on 20th June, namely, that these arrangements are the subject of private contract. Therefore, it is not for me to lay down precisely what should be done. I am pleased with the assurances given
    24
    by the Chairman of the General Medical Services Committee that the doctors will do the right thing by their assistants.
    Mr. Pavitt: I thank the Minister for promising to look into this matter. There is a private contract between the principal and assistant, but, at the same time the recommendations of the Pilkington Report, if carried out, will mean a great increase in salary for the principal during the time of the contract, Will not the Minister seek to ensure that a proportion of it is passed on to the assistant through the machinery which he has at his disposal?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The distribution will be agreed with the medical profession, and the medical profession has said that it will do the right thing by its assistants. Part of the Pilkington Committee's recommendations is that this system should continue on the basis of settlement by private agreement between the doctor and the assistant.

    Disabled Persons (Aids and Appliances)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he has received the list of aids for the disabled published by the British Red Cross Society, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle; and if he will take steps to draw the attention of general practitioners to the wide range of these aids and appliances now available for the use of disabled, invalided and elderly people in the home.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir, and I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a memorandum sent to general practitioners last September drew their attention to the variety of aids now available.

    National Health Service
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Health what recent proposals he has received from the British Medical Association affecting the structure and administration of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Health what recent representations he has had from the British Medical Association concerning the future structure of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have received no recent proposals from the Association about the structure and administration of the National Health Service, but I am aware that committees of the Association are studying this matter. I have also seen Press reports of what was said at the Association's recent Annual Meeting.
    Mr. Griffiths: No doubt the Minister will be getting it from the British Medical Association. Meanwhile, is he aware that at the B.M.A. Annual Meeting, Sir Arthur Porritt, the President, described the National Health Service as a dismal failure and suggested that we should end the present system and set up a British medical corporation and, in particular, end Ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the day-to-day conduct of the National Health Service? Is the Minister aware that at a time when most hon. Members, on both sides, want a greater degree of Parliamentary accountability for industries and services, most hon. Members would regard that as a retrograde move? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not contemplate a move of any such kind?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not been asked to, as I said in answer to the original Question. I think I am right in saying that the presidential orations at the Annual Conference of the British Medical Association do not necessarily reflect the official policy of that Association The whole House is fully aware of tie importance of our constitutional doctrine of the control by Parliament of public money and the consequential responsibility of Ministers therefor.

  HOSPITALS

    Leslie Parr
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Health at what time on 1st January, 1960, the Chief Medical Superintendent of Broadmoor first knew that Leslie Parr had attacked Mrs. Bowditch; and at what time he so informed the Chief Constable of Berkshire.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: At approximately 3.30 p.m.: he so informed the officer in
    26
    charge of the police on his arrival at 4 p.m. and the Chief Constable on his arrival at 5 p.m.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know why the general public was not informed until very late in the same evening?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend's Question relates specifically to the information passed to the police. I do not think that his supplementary question arises out of the Question on the Order Paper.

    John Straffen
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Health what proposals have been made to him for the return of John Straffen to Broadmoor Institution.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: None, Sir.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise with what pleasure my constituents will hear that reply? If such a proposal is made to him, will he remember that the security arrangements at Broadmoor are not such that the return of Straffen, who has already murdered one child in my constituency, will be in any way welcome?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that consideration of the security arrangements would be in the nature of a hypothetical assessment upon which it would not be proper for me to embark. Questions relating to Straffen's continued custody in prison are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    West Midlands Area
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to improve hospital facilites in the West Midlands area, in view of the long wait necessary before patients needing treatment can be admitted.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has under active consideration the waiting lists at hospitals in its regon with a view to reducing to a minmum both numbers and waiting times. Urgent cases are admitted without delay.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the staff of the existing hospitals do a magnificent job despite poor facilities in some cases? Is the hon. Lady aware that there is concern in the area that there is discrimination in favour of fee-paying patients and that in regard to some operations there is a long delay? Can the hon. Lady say when it is proposed to build a new hospital?
    Miss Pitt: First, I thank the hon. Member for his tribute to the staffs, which is well deserved. I know of no general complaint that fee-paying patients receive priority. That is an entirely different question and one which the hon. Member might like to put down. The regional board is very concerned about waiting lists in its area, as I hope my answer indicates. It is taking action and selected waiting lists are being scrutinised to assess the extent to which they are reliable for estimating the need for additional beds, operating sessions, out-patient sessions, medical staff, and so on, and variation in the provision of hospital facilities in various parts of the region.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady tell us more about these long waiting lists? This has been going on for years. Is it due to the shortage of specialists in certain fields? What are these fields? If that is so, is it proposed to increase the establishment?
    Miss Pitt: I am not sure whether the right hon. Lady refers only to the Midland region, which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) refers to as the West Midlands area. The pattern there is much the same as elsewhere throughout the country. There is a variety of reasons why we are short of beds and this, in turn, means waiting lists. Generally, however, urgent cases are dealt with.

    Rampton and Moss Side Hospitals
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the recommendations made to him by the British Medical Association in respect of Rampton and Moss Side Hospitals which would result in moving many of the patients elsewhere so that they could be more accessible to relatives; and what reply he has made.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the memorandum of evidence which the Association has prepared for the Working Party on the Special Hospitals. I understand that the working party recently met representatives of the Association when their views were amplified orally.
    Mr. Dodds: Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether action is likely to be taken? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that many men and women in Rampton live so far from their homes that they rarely receive visits from either parents or friends? Is the Minister aware that from the Bristol area, for example, a mother spends 14 hours in making the journey there and back for less than two hours with her boy? Is it not time that these mentally ill people were given an opportunity to be visited by their relatives, which is so essential to betterment?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The question of visiting and travel arrangements at Rampton is, as the hon. Member knows having regard to previous Questions he has asked, a matter in which we are doing our best. In regard to the wider issue raised by his supplementary question, I should await the report of the working party before taking action.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Minister not agree that concerning at least some of these patients reasonably regular visiting by relatives is of therapeutic value? As the Minister directly in charge of these hospitals, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that something is done to improve visiting arrangements and, if possible, to transfer some of the patients to hospitals nearer their homes?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: In regard to the first part of that supplementary question, we are already engaged in that, as I have told the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). We do, of course, transfer patients from Rampton to hospitals nearer their homes whenever we can do so, but we can do this only when patients no longer need the special facilities and training which Rampton provides.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware, in reference to

    29
    what he has just said, that there is delay in obtaining vacancies for people even when they are fit to leave Rampton or Moss Side? The superintendents of these hospitals find difficulty in placing then on account of the delay in obtaining vacancies. I have one such case at Moss Side at the moment.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There are, of course, cases in which we are not able to find an alternative place in a non-special hospital for a patient as soon as he or she is ready for discharge from Rampton. Those arrangements, however, are just one of the things which we hope to improve when we receive the report of the Working Party.

    Maternity Cases, Middlesex
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health how many mothers in the North Middlesex area, living in bad housing conditions, have recently been refused admission to hospital for their confinements; and whether he will make a statement.
    Miss Pitt: I regret that figures are not available. Steps are, however, being taken by the North East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to improve the quality and increase the quantity of hospital maternity accommodation available locally for this area.
    Mrs. Butler: Is it not important, when the Central Health Services Council Committee is asking for a drive to re-duo; the number of deaths of very small babies, that bad housing conditions should be regarded as qualifying for hospital confinement? Is it not disgraceful, whatever the reasons, that mothers living with their husbands and one or more children in one room, as they are doing in Tottenham and adjoining boroughs, are refused admission to hospital for their confinements?
    Miss Pitt: Mothers in the area in question could have had their babies in hospital had they been prepared to go a little further afield. The accommodation was available. I agree, however, that it needs improvement. It is hoped both to do that and to extend the number of beds.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have never asked the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to visit an institution before, but I
    30
    ask one of them to visit the maternity department of the North Middlesex Hospital, which consists of two prefabricated huts that were placed there during the First World War. I ask the Minister to go there. Despite the fact that there is a lavish out-patient department, which was opened by Princess Margaret a few weeks ago, the maternity accommodation, which is quite inadequate, is an absolute disgrace to the National Health Service.
    Miss Pitt: My right hon. and learned Friend has, in fact, visited the hospital and laid the foundation stone of the accommodation to which the right hon. Lady has referred. To take the place of the maternity unit, my right hon. and learned Friend has authorised the board to proceed with the planning of a new hospital maternity unit of 142 beds at an estimated cost of £540,000. This is included in the Government's programme of major projects and will provide for an overall addition of 19 beds.

    Penventon Maternity Unit, Redruth
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Health what provision is being made to accommodate the patients who would normally go to the Penventon Maternity Unit, Redruth, when that building must be vacated on 31st December, 1960.
    Miss Pitt: I understand that as a short-term measure, the regional hospital board proposes to provide additional beds by adapting accommodation at Barncoose Hospital.
    Mr. Hayman: Can the hon. Lady say when the building alterations at Barcoose Hospital will begin? There is less than six months now before the hospital management committee or regional board must give up the existing prefabricated unit which is requisitioned. Will the hon. Lady try to stimulate those responsible for getting on with the work at Barncoose so that the accommodation there is available on 31st December?
    Miss Pitt: I understand the position. It is because the requisitioning order ends that the alternative accommodation is needed. I am advised that work is expected to begin soon and that it is hoped to complete this temporary accommodation by the end of the year.

TRAWLER "GRIMSBY TOWN" (INCIDENT)
Mr. Crosland (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protest he has made to the Icelandic Government about the recent action of an Icelandic Catalina aircraft in "dive-bombing" the British trawler "Grimsby Town" and firing incendiary flares at the crew as they were fishing.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Robert Allan): This incident was not reported to any of Her Majesty's ships in the area, but on the basis of the information available our Ambassador is being instructed to raise the matter immediately with the Icelandic authorities.
Mr. Crosland: While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that this is only one of three recent incidents affecting distant water trawlers, and that it comes at a particularly unfortunate time, when the tension has been slightly relaxed? Will he urgently represent to the Icelandic Government that the cessation of incidents of this kind is an absolutely necessary condition for any long-term settlement between ourselves and Iceland?
Mr. Allan: Yes, Sir. I think that the Government very much support those views.
Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the uncertainty which exists in that situation off the Icelandic coast also encourages this form of incident, that our trawlers have been withdrawn for three months voluntarily, that that period is nearly ended, and that a decision is required for the future very urgently?
Mr. Allan: As has been repeatedly said, we are only too anxious to try to negotiate a settlement with the Icelandic authorities.

CYPRUS (AGREEMENT)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. fain Macleod): The House will, I am sure, welcome the fact that, as announced in a joint communiqué on Friday, agreement has been reached between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish
32
Cypriot leaders and the United Kingdom delegation on all outstanding questions.
It is expected that the documents comprising the settlement will be initialled in Nicosia during the next few days on behalf of all the five parties to the settlement, namely, the Governments of the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, and the representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
The text of the Cyprus Bill and an explanatory White Paper will be published as soon as possible after initialling. It is hoped that the White Paper will be presented before the end of this week.
The Government hope that the Bill, which will empower Her Majesty to name by Order in Council the day on which the independent Republic of Cyprus will come into being, may be passed before the Summer Recess.
The date of independence will be fixed in agreement with the Cypriot leaders. On that day, which will be after the holding of elections in Cyprus, the Treaties and related documents will be signed and become operative.
The sovereign base areas will comprise two separate areas totalling some 99 square miles. The villages of Ormidhia and Xylotymbou and the Dhekelia power station will be enclaves of Cypriot territory within the sovereign base areas and there will be special arrangements for access to them. Akrotiri, which is too closely adjacent to the main airfield to permit of an enclave solution, will be the only village under British sovereignty.
Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, with the arrangements for training and other facilities in the Republic itself which have been agreed in full detail, the sovereign base areas are adequate for our requirements.
A point which was not susceptible of easy and rapid solution, and which involved lengthy and involved consultations between all the parties, was the future of the base areas. Her Majesty's Government's view on this is that since we have no intention of relinquishing sovereignty the question of cession does not arise.
Nevertheless, in view of the importance attached by the Greek Cypriots

33
to this issue, an understanding has been reached that should Her Majesty's Government in future decide, in view of changes in their military requirements, that sovereignty should be relinquished, it shall be transferred to the Republic of Cyprus.
As regards the administration of the base areas, a declaration will be made by the United Kingdom Government describing their intentions, subject to military requirements and security needs, in respect of various aspects of administration.
It has been agreed that Her Majesty's Government will provide over the next five years a sum of £12 million. Provision is made for the amount of aid in future five-year periods to be determined, after full consultation with the Republic. In addition, there will be payments and commitments made by Her Majesty's Government for particular purposes, including a special grant to the Turkish Cypriot community.
The negotiations have been long and complicated. It has, however, proved possible on all points at issue to reach an accommodation between the essential requirements of the United Kingdom and the requests put forward by the Cypriot leaders and to achieve a settlement in full accord with the Zurich and London Agreements. I trust that these matters will now move forward swiftly to a final conclusion.
Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that we shall all agree with the Colonial Secretary that the negotiations have been long and complicated. Some of us wonder why all this effort was really necessary, but the agreement having been reached—and the very fact that an agreement has been reached is welcome to us—it would not be our desire to stand in the way of the necessary legislation.
May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether it is not still quite clear that in so far as this base is to be useful its full usefulness will still depend upon there being complete harmony and close co-operation and friendship between the people of Cyprus and ourselves, occupying the base?
Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at first. I have acknowledged, and I acknowledge again, the forbearance of the House in
34
not pressing us over a considerable period of time on this matter.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's observations, naturally the operation of a base in the territory of another country depends to an enormous degree for its success upon the good will of that country.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: First, may I ask my right hon. Friend what assurances have been given or safeguards inserted in the agreement against a recrudescence of communal strife between the two communities in the island resulting in a breakdown of the administration? Secondly, may I ask whether it is the case, as reported in the newspapers, that Her Majesty's Government have risen to as great a sum as £1,000 per individual resident in Akrotiri if required to move?
Mr. Macleod: I think that the first point is covered by the Treaty, which, with many other documents, will be published in what will be a very voluminous White Paper indeed, and which, we hope, will be available towards the end of the week.
The details of what has been proposed will be included in the White Paper, but the agreement which has been come to about the movement of the villagers of Akrotiri depends on whether they wish to or not; in other words, the amount of finance is not paid in advance: it is paid as and when people move.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that many people have been puzzled about the difficulty over the ultimate future of these bases? If we relinquish them there is no one to relinquish them to except the Republic of Cyprus. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of aid which it is envisaged may be payable over the five-year period or the subsequent five-year periods which he mentioned? Also, can he give us any information about the outstanding questions between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots which remain to be settled?
Mr. Macleod: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, there were, obviously, other possible solutions, but, as my statement makes clear, we have largely regarded this as a hypothetical matter, and regard the solution now reached as quite satisfactory.

35
The sum of £12 million over these five years is an average of £2·4 million a year. It does not follow that the precise amount will be paid each year. The question of finance is a matter for discussion. The question of any future five-year period is not something I can prophesy on now, because it will be decided when the time comes.
As for matters between the Turkish and Greek communities, the only question on which I know there are talks going on today, on which there is still some anxiety, is the rate of implementation of the 70–30 ratio in the Civil Service.
Mr. Wall: While welcoming the fact that complete British sovereignty over the base is retained, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say something about the possible future relationship of the Republic with the Commonwealth?
Mr. Macleod: The Bill, which will be a very short Bill of six or seven Clauses, will provide that the Republic of Cyprus will be treated, till a final decision on this matter is taken, as an independent Commonwealth country. It will be for consideration by the Republic of Cyprus itself. after independence day, whether it will make an application to become a member of the Commonwealth, and then in the ordinary way it will be, either in a meeting or by correspondence between the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, to decide whether that application should be met.
Mr. Paget: It would appear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that after Cyprus has ceased to be part of our Colonial Empire we are to make a grant of about £5 per head of the population. How does that compare with the grants we are making to areas which are still part of our Empire, where poverty is even greater and where development is perhaps more essential?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, I cannot answer that question without going into details of the aid to all the territories concerned, but there is a very convenient chart in one of the newspapers this morning, which I am sure the hon. and learned Member has studied. I agree that this is a large amount, but when a country becomes independent it is not unusual that we try to help it specially to launch itself on its way.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the White Paper cover the future of British schools in Cyprus and also the future of citizens of the United Kingdom resident there?
Mr. Macleod: I think that the White Paper, which will be of about 250 pages, will cover almost everything. In particular, there will be in it the exchange of Notes over British residents in Cyprus which embody the safeguards, which have been accepted by the Cypriots, and which I think my hon. Friend will find satisfactory.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us think that £12 million spent in Cyprus on roads and similar reconstruction is a very big sum when we are cutting down similar expenditure in Britain? What is the total expenditure on this base? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people in this country do not believe that the continuation of this base is in the interest of Cyprus or in the interest of the people of this country?
Mr. Macleod: Quite apart from the cost of the base, as we have seen in negotiations with other countries that have recently become independent, it is quite normal to negotiate a financial settlement. Quite apart from the expenditure on the base, an amount of £12 million, plus the special commitments which I have mentioned, does not seem unreasonable in that context.
Mr. Channon: Will there be maps in the White Paper showing the exact positions of the base areas in complete detail? This was not done at the time of the London and Zurich Agreements and as a result it was difficult to appreciate the nature of the Agreements. Will it be done this time?
Mr. Macleod: There will be maps. They cannot go into the precise details ultimately necessary for the exact demarcation of the area, but they will be fully adequate to show the position of the two sovereign base areas.
Mr. K. Robinson: While warmly welcoming the agreement, may I ask, since the right hon. Gentleman says that the sovereign base areas totalling 99 square miles fully meet our requirements, and since training facilities have never been in dispute with Archbishop Makarios, what all the delay and fuss has been about?
Mr. Macleod: On the contrary. The training areas were very much in dispute. The two main reasons for the difference between the figures are that it his been possible to obtain training rights in areas not included in the sovereign base areas, and that from the base areas themselves we have been able to chisel away at the perimeters, leaving them in a very odd shape indeed, thereby saving small amounts on the perimeters.
Mr. Shinwell Mr. Shinwell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now. There is no Question before the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Annual Report of the Crofters Commission for the year 1959, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their cons ideration.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1960–61
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £50 be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the following Services connected with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1960–61

£

Class I, Vote 4 (Treasury and Subordinate Departments)

10

Class II, Vote 4 (Commonwealth Relations Office)

10

Class II, Vote 5 (Commonwealth Services)

10

Class II, Vote 7 (Colonial Office)

10

Class II, Vote 2 (Foreign Office Grants and Services)

10

Total

£50

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
3.44 p.m.
Mr. H. A. Marquand: The welcome announcement just made by the Colonial Secretary no doubt brings into our mind, although the right hon. Gentleman did not explicitly mention it, the possibility of the Republic of Cyprus joining the Commonwealth. This, of course, is for her to decide, and I need say no more about it except that if she does it will add another member to a very rapidly expanding Commonwealth. This rapidity of expansion, some have suggested, brings with it problems which are rather difficult to solve.
It has been pointed out, for example, that the Prime Ministers' Conference, which is what we wish chiefly to discuss today, is already large and that, with the addition of many more members, might perhaps become unwieldy. Someone has also asked whether it would be entirely appropriate to give to representatives of small independent countries,

39
such as Sierra Leone, British Guiana, British Honduras, or Cyprus herself, should she join, a parity of representation, or a frequency of representation, equal to that already given to the very large nations and the very rich and more powerful nations within the Commonwealth.
In considering the set-up of the Prime Ministers' Conference we have at least to take note of that possibility today. I do not propose to say any more about it, because my own view is that these are minor difficulties which can be solved without much trouble. Certainly, we welcome the continued expansion of the Commonwealth. We welcome the increasing numbers of independent nations which are freely deciding of their own will to join that society.
The biggest and mostsignificant expansion in the Commonwealth took place when the Labour Government were in power. The decision then taken freely to hand over power to the former Indian Empire and Ceylon was historic, and so, of course, was the decision of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, despite all that had gone before, to join the Commonwealth. These decisions not only trebled and possibly quadrupled the population of the Commonwealth, but rapidly transformed its character. It ceased to be mainly European in make-up and Christian in religion. It associated together peoples of many races and religions as equal partners and before long associated republics with the monarchies.
Since then there has been further, recent expansion. The accession of Malaya, whose Prime Minister came to the Conference last year for the first time, is a highly important addition to the Asian group, because of that new nation's successful association of Malays with persons of Chinese descent; and the contribution to the last Prime Ministers' Conference made by the Prime Minister of Malay was certainly a notable one. Personally, I think that his presence there was very much to be welcomed and I was glad that he said what he did and spoke out as freely as he did.
The accession of Ghana was a portent. It is to be followed this year by the 30 million people of Nigeria and very soon after by 1½ million from Sierra
40
Leone. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies well knows, there are many others in the queue and they are becoming impatient. It is in Africa that the major decisions about the Commonwealth will be taken, and taken very soon.
If the Commonwealth is to continue to expand, those decisions will be even more important than the historic decision of 1947. What sort of Commonwealth will it be? What do we want it to be? On 4th May last, about 60 right hon. and hon. Members joined me in putting on the Order Paper a Motion which declared, or asked the House to declare, that
"… the Commonwealth cannot endure unless all its members recognise and guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of race, colour, or creed.…"
That is my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed that Motion.
A few weeks later, in their final statement after their Conference, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers said:
" the Commonwealth … is a multi-racial association,"
and they referred to
" … the need to ensure good relations between all member States and peoples of the Commonwealth."
One may truly claim that though, of course, the Prime Ministers did not endorse that Motion in detail, they were thinking along the same lines.
They also agreed to make a further study of the proposition made by Senator Cooray, of Ceylon, that there should be a Commonwealth court not only for the settlement of disputes between member States, but also for the protection of individuals within the Commonwealth from their own Governments. Senator Cooray told me—and I think that he must have also said it at the Conference although, of course, he betrayed no confidences—that he regards the principle of the rule of law as the United Kingdom's most valuable legacy to the States which we have encouraged to become independent.
The Government did a good thing when they adhered to the European Convention of Human Rights. I was present on the occasion when this was celebrated

41
with some very important and distinguished speeches, one from Viscount Kilmuir, the Lord Chancellor. I remember very well how pleased everybody was that Great Britain had acceded and had brought into this association, into the coverage of this declaration of human rights, all her associated dependent territories. It is true that the Government did not go all the way with the Convention, but they approved the idea of the Convention and agreed to use the Commission, if not the court, set up by the Convention.
If the Government can do that for our dependent, associated territories, and as they realise that those territories are rapidly becoming sovereign and independent members of the Commonwealth and that, therefore, the Convention can no longer apply to them, and if they also agree that it is a good thing to have a declaration of human rights and a method of investigation of breaches of that declaration and for its enforcement, then, if all this is good when these territores are dependent, is it not also good when they become independent?
Many Commonwealth States have Bills of Rights in their constitutions. I think that all of them would recognise, in association with Senator Cooray, the value of the rule of law and, also, that it is perhaps the most valuable of all the traditions which they have assimilated as a result of their connection with this country. Would they not welcome the establishment not only of a court, as Senator Cooray has suggested, but the association of that court with a declaration or a convention of human rights?
The idea in Senator Cooray's plan is that the court should discharge some of the functions hitherto discharged by the Privy Council which, for various reasons into which I need not enter, no longer apply to some of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. The Privy Council, though, does still handle some cases where individuals have a grievance against their Government and are able to plead the principles of British law in supporting their case.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when I asked him about this suggestion some time ago, when it was first put on the Order Paper, was somewhat cool. He thought that it would not suit the loose and informal association which exists between Commonwealth
42
countries. I was glad that, later, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, was much more warmly inclined towards it in Answers in this House. I hope that we can conclude that this idea of a declaration, possibly a convention, of human rights, associated with the establishment of a Commonwealth court will be seriously studied. One can ask no more than that. There may be difficulties with the proposal, and the Commonwealth nations may not want to have it, but I hope that it may be made clear today that a serious study is intended and, indeed, has already started.
Some hon. Members, when asked to sign my Motion, supposed that it was motivated only by events in South Africa. That was a mistake. It was not, although it obviously must have been in everyone's mind when we put it on the Order Paper, the declaration of the Prime Ministers, at their Conference, about the Commonwealth being a multiracial association followed hard upon the paragraph in their statement which recounted the conversations they had had with Mr. Louw, the South African Minister for External Affairs. Those discussions were among the most important of the whole Conference.
A short time before the Conference took place this House declared unanimously that the repression in South Africa
"is threatening the security and welfare of all races living in the Union of South Africa and good relations between members of the Commonwealth."
Unfortunately, that is still true today. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, in answer to a Written Question of mine, told me last Thursday that one United Kingdom citizen and one British-protected person are still detained.
In a second Answer, specifically directed to the case of that one United Kingdom citizen, he said:
" Dr. Letele is still detained under the Emergency Regulations. The High Commissioner and members of his staff have visited him. The High Commissioner has repeatedly pressed the South African authorities to release Dr. Letele or to inform him what offences are charged against him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 144.]
Our High Commissioner repeatedly asks what charges have been preferred and repeatedly presses for Dr. Letele's release. He gets no reply whatever. It

43
is clear that the South African Government, in regard to the continued detention of these British-protected and United Kingdom subjects, are flouting the opinion of the House of Commons and treating our own Government with contempt. We want to protest today at that attitude.
The South African authorities have announced that within the next two weeks they will release at least 1,200 detainees, but they will still be holding 400 without charge and without trial. They will still be dividing them into three groups. Some of us were present a few days ago at a talk by Miss Stanton, who was released and came back home. She said that the detainees were divided into three groups—the Europeans with blankets and sheets, the Asians with blankets only, and the Africans with no sheets or blankets and lying on very uncomfortable straw mattresses. That has been South Africa's practice throughout its life—to divide its citizens into three classes: first, second and third.
In addition to the 400 treated in that way, whom they call "detainees", they will still have in their gaols, or concentration camps, or whatever they call them, 8,600 others whom they describe as "idlers", large numbers of whom must be persons who have found it impossible to work on the land in the so-called Bantustan, which the South African Government tell us they are creating, because of the scarcity of land which is provided for them there and their inability, under the laws of South Africa, to obtain land elsewhere. Therefore, they are described as "idlers", and it is little wonder that some of them have no doubt behaved badly.
The events in Pondoland have proved that the South African policy on Bantustan cannot even secure the adherence and loyalty of those living in the Bantustan areas who have land on which to live, and severe riots have taken place there.
It is not only the Liberals and the Radicals who protest. It is not only courageous bishops like Mr. Joost de Blank, the Bishop of Capetown, or of outstanding Liberals like Dr. Centlivres, the head of Capetown University, who protest against these things. Nearly all the major industrialists in South Africa have done the same. I have armed
44
myself with a list of persons which was published in The Times on 29th June. I did so in case I was challenged. I will not bother to read all the names. I am sure that hon. Members have read them already.
In spite of these protests, some moderate but some more determined and outspoken, the pass laws have been restored and arbitrary police action continues, as has been reported by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) to the International Commission of Jurists in a document which will no doubt be published shortly.
The police State continues in South Africa and the Government, which The Times describes as "a group of diehards with their backs to the wall", are preparing a Publications Act—it is at the moment only a Bill—which will make it much more difficult for newspapers to tell their readers in South Africa, and still more difficult to tell the outside world, what is actually happening.
I am informed on very good authority that the Government of South Africa have not told their citizens that the Prime Ministers' Conference decided that, if the voters there should decide for a republic in the coming referendum and South Africa still wished to remain in the Commonwealth,
"the South African Government should then ask for the consent of the other Commonwealth Governments"
In other words, she is holding a referendum now, being still associated with the monarchy in this country, to decide whether she may become a republic. If she becomes a republic, she has to go back to the Prime Ministers' Conference and ask once again for its approval to her return to the Commonwealth.
Will not the unanimity rule apply in this case? There have been times when one has been inclined to criticise the unanimity rule when perhaps it was working against what one wanted to see happen. However, the unanimity rule remains. In addressing the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations as "the right hon. Gentleman" for the first time, I congratulate him on his elevation to the Privy Council. I should like him to tell us whether it is correct to assume that the unanimity rule will apply in this case. It is most important that the voters in South Africa should know this. I

45
believe on very good authority that they are being denied this information.
This means that every member at that time— not before—will have to indicate whether the situation and Constitution in South Africa are such that he can approve its entry into the Commonwealth. At least one member has already indicated what his opinion is at the moment. That is the President of Ghana. I am sorry to make a rather long quotation. but it is important that it should be made publicly and put on the record here so that efforts can be made to make it better known outside. This statement was made by the President of Ghana at the United Nations Organisation in Dublin—it must surely be the "United Nations Association"—on 18th May. 1960. He said:
"Whether a country decides to be a monarchy or a republic is in my view an internal matter …"
After some words which I will omit because they are not germane to the immediate point he continued:
"The case of the Union of South Africa, however, appears to us to be in a class by itself. It is planned that those who form the vast majority of the people in the country should be denied for all time any say whatever in the system by which they should be governed. It would be impossible for us to agree to any change of status which is avowedly based upon such a principle.
If in addition to this, the new regime which we are asked to recognise is based upon principles declared by the Security Council not to be in conformity with the obligations and responsibilities of the Charter of the United Nations, then we would he failing in our obligation to the United Nations if we did anything which might suggest that we approve or condoned the regime in question.
Coupled with this, the recognition of a Republic of South Africa would involve the recognition by Ghana of the present regime in the mandated territory of South West Africa which is in itself an affront to every principle for which the United Nations stand."
That is the opinion of the President of a full Commonwealth country whose change of status to become a republic was approved and accepted by the Prime Ministers' Conference last May.
The South African Government cannot be ignorant of this statement. If they are, their intelligence service must be very much poorer that I think it is. Certainly, they must know what the Prime Minister of Malaya said, because he said it very loudly indeed. They must also know, though we do not know precisely, what
46
Mr. Nehru, President Ayub Khan, and Mr. Walter Nash said.
Yet in The Guardian today it is reported that Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister of South Africa, said on Saturday:
"I am convinced that if South Africa decides to become a republic within the Commonwealth and puts that request to other members of the Commonwealth, the influence of Britain, Australia and Canada would see to it that South Africa is retained within the Commonwealth."
Mr. James Callaghan: And India.
Mr. Marquand: This is a quotation. An additional country may have been mentioned. If there were no change meanwhile in the philosophy and administration and in the laws of apartheid within South Africa, would those countries use their influence to see that South Africa was retained? Could they if they wanted to? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say about that? We must have an answer. Has any pledge been given? What convinced Dr. Verwoerd? That is the word he used—
"I am convinced that … the influence of Britain, Australia and Canada …"
We are asking only about the attitude of our own Government. We have no right or authority to ask for the opinion of Australia or any other nation mentioned.
I should not like it to be thought that I am asking for a decision in advance that South Africa's request be refused. Up to now we on this side of the Committee have said that we did not want to see the 10 million Africans, 1½ million coloured persons and 500,000 Asians living in South Africa deprived of such protection as citizenship in the Commonwealth can give them. We did not want to expel South Africa and I am not suggesting that this afternoon, but the South African Government are on trial at the bar of humanity.
The whole Commonwealth is waiting to see whether, in view of the representations which were made to her representative at the Prime Ministers' Conference—and, we understand, made very strongly—in view of the forthcoming discussion which will take place in the United Nations, South Africa intends to announce a change of policy. It is only when we have heard that that we

47
might possibly—and I do not say that we will—change our minds about the matter of South Africa's renewed membership of the Commonwealth.
It is quite clear from what I have said that if there is no change whatever, the restoration would be quite repugnant to the other African members of the Commonwealth and we can be perfectly sure that it would be equally repugnant to the African States which are shortly to join the Commonwealth.
The matter has been taken to the Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter. As we know, the Security Council sent its General Secretary to investigate. His report has not yet been received, but Ghana has given notice that in the Security Council it will again raise the question of South Africa's conduct in South-West Africa. That conduct in South-West Africa, as the whole Committee knows, has already been denounced by the United Nations committee which deals with these things as
"a flagrant violation of the sacred trust which permeates the mandate and the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
I therefore ask whether Her Majesty's Government do not agree with the statement of the President of Ghana that
"If the nations of the world can offer to the oppressed peoples of Africa some positive hope of action, then it is, of course, possible to counsel moderation and restraint. One can only counsel moderation and restraint or ask for that tolerance and forgiveness which will be necessary in an Africa of the future, if one is, at the same time, advocating a positive policy which will bring to an end the oppression and injustice which is at present occurring."
I do not think that our position could be better stated than that. We need a positive policy to try to bring to an end —or to make a great beginning in bringing to an end—the oppression and the police State system which exists in that country, the discrimination between citizens, the whole set-up of apartheid.
In view of all that has happened and in view of the possible request of South Africa to return to the Commonwealth, we are entitled to say that those things must be changed before we can consider these matters. I hope that we can have an assurance that when the report of Mr. Hammarskjöld and the reference by Ghana of the South-West African case come before the United Nations Her
48
Majesty's United Kingdom representative there will vote, on this occasion, not according to protocol, but according to principle. Will he be instructed to represent the feelings which the House indicated in the Resolution which we passed on 8th April? There can be no doubt that peace throughout Africa is threatened by the existence of a police State in South Africa. There can be no doubt that the administration of the mandate in South-West Africa is not an internal matter.
The Prime Ministers declared that the achievement of world peace and security was their primary objective. No doubt, their views on how to ensure that are closer today than they have been in the past. Events in Tibet and on the Himalayan frontier of India have contributed to that. At the same time, the Prime Ministers must have agreed that their chosen instrument for bringing their opinions to bear must be the United Nations. To maintain the authority of the United Nations is surely a major Commonwealth agreed policy and a major means of maintaining peace, the peace of the world which is their primary objective.
They must, therefore, uphold that authority in Africa as well as elsewhere, for the good will of the whole of emergent Africa, is at stake. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has done much at Lancaster House to win that good will for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Let the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs do the same in New York.
I had it in mind to say something about the findings of the Prime Ministers about the economic problems of the Commonwealth. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will be able to do that; so to avoid accusations of speaking for far too long I will now sit down.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I should like to say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) for his courtesy to me personally. The appointment to the Privy Council is of particular significance for an hon. Member and I am honoured and grateful that it should have fallen on me.

49
The right hon. Gentleman concentrated most of his speech on the problems raised by current South African policy. I shall try later in my remarks to answer some of the questions which he put to me.
I think that I should emphasise to the Committee that quite apart from the close attention which was given informally to the question by the Prime Ministers, they discussed a wide variety of subjects—political, economic and social—of major significance not only to the Commonwealth, but to the world. Indeed, any attempt to assess the value of the Conference which did so merely in terms of the South African issue would get the whole Conference completely out of perspective.
This was the tenth Conference to be held since the war and in some respects the most important. In world affairs, for instance, as the communiqué demonstrates, there was a greater identity of views among the Prime Ministers than, perhaps, on any previous occasion. I know that his colleagues in the Commonwealth fully share the disappointment which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister feels, and which we all feel, at the outcome of the Summit Conference, as well as at the blow to the hopes of people everywhere for peaceful progress which has resulted from the withdrawal of the Soviet countries from the Disarmament Conference at Geneva.
But those setbacks in no way alter the significance of the collective views of the Prime Ministers about the urgent need for action to reduce world tension and promote peace. Indeed, the close understanding and support which my right hon. Friend received from his colleagues was of immense encouragement to him and will continue to be available, I am sure, in respect of any new initiative which may be taken to produce concrete progress in international affairs.
I know that hon. Members will have had full time to study the communiqué which was issued at the end of the Prime Ministers' meeting and about which I propose to say something. Hon. Members are aware that the details of the confidential discussions which take place at these meetings are not divulged. The reasons are perfectly clear. The Commonwealth is not a legal entity. It
50
is not rigidly bound by pacts and treaties. No votes are cast at this or any other Commonwealth meetings.
Thus, when the Prime Ministers come together they do not pass resolutions, nor attempt to arrive at formal majority decisions. It is not, therefore, proper for one Prime Minister alone to seek to interpret the detailed views of his colleagues. For the same reason, the communiqué itself represents a summary of the general sense of the deliberations which took place. As a result, the headline hunters, a phrase coined by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), are inevitably cast down and disappointed.
Having made these reservations, I must at once emphasise the true and enduring value of these meetings. It is, I think, briefly this, that the Prime Ministers' Conference provides a forum in which the acknowledged leaders of the continually growing group of sovereign independent States can meet together to discuss, freely and frankly, in confidence and with confidence, both the world's and their own collective problems. There is no such other forum in the world, or one which has such widespread influence, untrammelled by the usual paraphernalia of agenda, resolution and vote.
Among the matters that were discussed, the Committee will have noted from the communiqué that economic subjects, with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal at any length, provided a major field of interest. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will say something about the possibilities which lie ahead of us of providing, in relation to our resources, some of the requirements of the newly independent or emergent countries in Africa. I am sure, however, that the Committee will welcome the reference contained in the communiqué to the possibility of co-operative action among members of the Commonwealth for assisting in the economic development of those countries.
We, as well as the other older Commonwealth members, who have progressed a long way towards the creation of highly - developed industrialised systems, clearly have a special obligation to help those who are only at the beginning of the road. Quite apart from any other Commonwealth considerations, we have a direct interest in the increase

51
of the standard of living in the less developed Commonwealth and in the consequent increase in demand for goods and services which will eventually expand the total volume of Commonwealth trade. There is sometimes in these modern days a tendency to forget that our trade with Commonwealth countries accounts for 42 per cent. of our imports and 45 per cent. of our exports, and it is the expansion of this trade which in the developing Commonwealth offers splendid opportunities for the future.
It is natural that at present our thoughts and sympathies should, as I said, be directed primarily towards the newer members in Africa. but we should not, I think, forget in this Committee the needs of our great Commonwealth partners in Asia, and I am thinking particularly of India and Pakistan. I was, therefore, glad to be able to announce on Thursday last that Her Majesty's Government had made an offer to the Government of India of a further loan of £10 million towards the current needs of India in connection with the second and third five-year plans and that we would consider, together with our colleagues in the international financial consortium, what further assistance could be made available to India during the initial stages of the third five-year plan when that begins.
Within the next few days I hope that discussion with the Government of Pakistan will be completed with regard to the offer of assistance related to its plan for the modernisation and expansion of its industries. I am sure that the Committee will agree that we would have a continuing interest and concern today, so far as our resources permit, to play a fair part in helping those two great countries in their economic problems.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of India, would he say whether there is any truth in the report which has been made public in India that the Indian Government are now considering reducing the amount of preference India gives to British goods in order to enable a bigger market to be provided in India for European goods from the E.F.T.A.?
Mr. Alport: I have no information on that, but I shall willingly look into any
52
report which my hon. and gallant Friend cares to draw to my attention.
I want, if I may, to turn from these general remarks, although they emphasise important features of the Conference, to the narrower question of the position in South Africa and the situation created as a result of recent events there. This situation, which arose some weeks before the Prime Ministers assembled, undoubtedly imposed a severe strain upon Commonwealth unity. The views of the Government and of this House have been clearly established on a number of occasions, and other Commonwealth Governments have, in one way or another, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, made it plain where they stand in regard to the policies of the South African Government.
The machinery of the Prime Ministers' meetings is by design flexible enough to meet the needs of these new and changing circumstances. Dr. Verwoerd had, prior to the Conference, as the Committee may remember, agreed to meet his colleagues informally to hear their views in exchange for his exposition of his own policies. Let me say that the attempt on his life which prevented his attendance was something which was deplored by everyone and particularly, I think, because it prevented him from personally having an opportunity of assessing the climate of opinion in the Commonwealth at first band. It would be tragic if, as a result, the Union's policies during this critical time were to be based on a false assumption with regard to the attitude of fellow members to developments in the future.
At their meeting the Prime Ministers were conscious of the grave implications which would be created by any departure from the established principle that the Prime Ministers discuss only at their meetings matters which all are ready to discuss. As Mr. Diefenbaker said in a statement that he made to the Canadian Parliament shortly after his return to Ottawa:
"I took the view that notwithstanding the depth of feeling on this racial issue it would be wrong and damaging to the spirit and fabric of the Commonwealth partnership if a majority of the Commonwealth Governments, finding themselves allied in condemnation of one or more of their number, were to constitute themselves as a court of judgment."
This is the view which was taken by all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and

53
fully accords with the principle which Mr. Diefenbaker referred to again on the same occasion:
"the principle of non-interference, which is one of the elements of the Commonwealth association."
As the Committee recognises, the Commonwealth, having no formal constitution, depends for its continuing existence, together with the advantages which it brings to its members, upon their willingness to consider ways in which their own policies can, where necessary, be reconciled with the wider interests and susceptibilities of the Commonwealth as a whole.
In the communiqué, the Prime Ministers emphasised that the Commonwealth is a multi-racial association and expressed the need to ensure good relations, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, between all member States and peoples of the Commonwealth. The paths along which the various Governments may approach such an objective must, in accordance with the spirit of the Commonwealth, be decided by them individually, but from the communiqué it is surely self-evident that the objective is held by all the member countries in common?
The right hon. Gentleman, in his earlier remarks, made special reference to the possibility of establishing a code of human rights enforceable by a court based upon some Commonwealth foundation. I should like to agree with him strongly about the idea of the rule of law. Indeed, the legal connection which exists throughout the Commonwealth is one of the most important of the strands that bind us together at present, and anything clone to strengthen that would, I am sure, be of value. But the specific idea that he put forward is something which, I would have thought, offers a good many difficulties to Commonwealth countries generally. It would involve a substantial loss of sovereignty. Central institutions are not easily accepted by Commonwealth Governments and they never have been.
It was characteristic of the established tradition of these meetings that the Prime Ministers were able to reach agreement upon their communiqué without breaching the principle of noninterference. Neither did they have any reason to disguise the deep sense of disquiet which the problems created by the
54
existing situation in South Africa caused them. Therefore, the continuing traditions of the Commonwealth were maintained.
No one who has a knowledge of the historic background of the Union underestimates the formidable character of the social and political problems which have to be solved there. It would be right if, through this debate and in accordance with what was clearly the spirit of the Commonwealth Conference itself, we were to voice not only our anxieties with regard to the situation in South Africa—as the right hon. Gentleman has done—but also our consciousness that the best service we can render to all the peoples making up this fellow-member of the Commonwealth is to make it clear to them that our differences, however strong they may be, arise not from ignorance or dislike but from sincerely held views on the proper moral approach to one of the most difficult problems of our time.
I now turn to a very important point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, namely, the future referendum in South Africa. So far, I have referred only to the informal exchanges which took place on the South African issue, but the Committee will be aware from the communiqué that formal discussions took place with regard to the procedure for South Africa's application for continued membership of the Commonwealth if she should become a republic. It is perhaps not fully appreciated in this country and elsewhere that there is a necessary distinction to be drawn between the position of South Africa, as at the time of the Conference, and that of Ghana. Following precedents previously established, the people of Ghana had already pronounced by referendum in favour of the adoption of a republican constitution, while at the same time expressing their desire to remain in the Commonwealth. The referendum in South Africa, on the other hand, has not yet been taken. It follows, therefore, that the collective view of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers on this matter could not be given without a danger that it would have a direct influence upon a decision which can properly be made only in South Africa itself.
When the time comes for the proposed referendum to be completed, if it is in

55
favour of a republic the future relationship of South Africa with the Commonwealth will then be a matter for the Commonwealth Governments to decide, in accordance with a request that the Government of a republican South Africa may make. This is in line with established practice with regard to questions relating to the constitutional evolution of the Commonwealth.
It would not be proper for me to speculate now on what decision the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will take when the question is formally put to them—if it is—because this is a purely hypothetical case. Looking back at the history, development and flexibility of the Commonwealth, I do not think that anyone, in a hypothetical case, can give any decision or any indication of what decision might be arrived at.
Mr. Marquand: The right hon. Gentleman referred to "the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' collective view." I take it that he is now saying that in the hypothetical circumstances of there being a vote on the referendum for a republic, when the matter comes before the next Prime Ministers' Conference it is the collective view which will have to be obtained.
Mr. Alport: It is always the collective view of the Prime Ministers on any matter which comes before them which has to be obtained, and the collective view is the one which has always prevailed on similar issues in the past.
The republican issue in South Africa is essentially a constitutional one and will no doubt be dealt with by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers as such, but it is conceivable that a situation might arise in which the political and economic relations between one or more of its members with the rest of the Commonwealth reached a climax of friction and dispute. If that were the case there is no precedent to guide us, and the solution, once again, could be found only in the combined statesmanship and wisdom of the Prime Ministers of the day.
I can go no further at this time than to say that the Commonwealth is not dependent upon treaty, or based upon the relations between Governments; it is an association of peoples linked by common interests and by historic affini
56
ties of uncalculated strength. Such things, which have taken long years to create, cannot easily be destroyed in a day.
Mr. Peter Emery (Reading): Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great deal of difference between a referendum which is taken and voted on by all the people living in a country—as was the case with Ghana—and a referendum taken in connection with a very limited electorate, as will be the case in South Africa? Does not my right hon. Friend further agree that this point ought to be driven home to the people of South Africa before the referendum is taken?
Mr. Alport: I cannot say—nor would it be right for me to attempt to say—what view would or should be taken in regard to that constitutional problem. But there is one aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman made reference to which I will turn briefly, and that is the position in South-West Africa.
Mr. Callaghan: But everything that the Minister of State says on the South African position itself is of supreme importance. At the moment, those who will vote in the referendum in South Africa are under the impression that the British Government will use their best influence —whether there be any change of policy or no—to keep South Africa inside the Commonwealth if she becomes a republic. Can we have a clear indication from the Minister of State whether such an assurance has been given to the South African Prime Minister?
Mr. Alport: I am being asked a question on a matter upon which it was the view of the Prime Ministers' Conference —including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—that no decision could possibly be made prior to the decision resulting from the referendum; otherwise, it would be an interference in the internal conditions in South Africa. To the extent that that applies generally it would presumably also apply specifically to an individual member of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Callaghan: I do not understand that.
Mr. Alport: These are very difficult points, and it would not be right for me at present to commit myself on a hypothetical issue, nor would it be right for the Government to do so.
Mr. Callaghan: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, and I do not want to press him on this matter, but it is important. We have a situation in which Dr. Verwoerd is telling his electors that he is in possession of information which the Minister of State has certainly not given us this afternoon. I think that I am putting it correctly when I sad that.
Mr. Alport: I have had nothing except Press reports of Dr. Verwoerd's statement, but as I understand it he was speculating upon what he conceived to be the situation. I am not entitled to speculate tin this matter at this juncture.
Because it is a rather important matter, which will no doubt he discussed on a number of occasions in the future, I want to say something about the South-West African issue. The Committee will, I think, agree that it is one of the most difficult issues with more than its fair share of legal obscurities.
The view that the original South-West African mandate, with the obligations involved, still exists and should be supervised by the United Nations in the place of the old League of Nations has been supported—as I think the right hon. Gentleman and others will know—by the International Court in an Advisory Opinion given when the Party opposite were in power in 1950. That Opinion the United Kingdom Government accepted as a whole. The Opinion did not, however, sustain the widely held view that the Union Government has a legal obligation to place the Territory under the United Nations trusteeship.
We have always thought that the only possible way of securing a practical and satisfactory solution for the longstanding dispute—that is, a solution in the interests of all the inhabitants of the Territory—would be to secure co-operation both of the Government administering the Territory and of the United Nations. That has been the guide which we have followed throughout the long discussions which have taken place at the regular sessions of the General Assembly. It is for this reason that we and preceding Governments have done our best promote negotiations and to oppose measures which would make them less likely.
I need hardly remind the Committee of the support we gave at the General Assembly of 1957 to the proposal to set
58
up a Good Offices Committee or, for that matter, of the distinguished contribution made to the work of that Committee by Sir Charles Arden-Clarke who was its Chairman during the two years of its existence. As I have explained, we have throughout this issue done our best to secure the co-operation of the Union as the administering Power, on the one hand, and the United Nations, on the other, in order to get a practical solution. Therefore, we deeply regretted, as I think did many others, that the Resolution at the 1959 General Assembly was couched in such terms as to make serious negotiation difficult and indeed that it tended to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations which it proposed.
As to the future, we can only decide what course is likely to offer the best chance of promoting the practical solution which we seek in the light of the circumstances at the time the question is again considered by the General Assembly. Suggestions have been made that the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth have some special responsibility for the South-West African Mandate. It is true that the mandate was expressed as being given to
"His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa".
But this was simply the formally correct way of saying that it was given to the Union Government, which was at the time a fully independent Government within the Commonwealth. Our position does not differ in any way from that of the other ex-members of the League of Nations or the present members of the United Nations.
There is one further point that may well be under consideration during this debate; indeed, it was touched on by the right. hon. Gentleman. What is the position if South Africa becomes a republic as the result of a referendum which includes South-West Africa, and would this prejudice the status of the Territory? Here I think there are two questions and I will give the answers to the best of my ability, because it seems important that we should try to get this clear. The first is, assuming that the mandate is recognised as still being fully effective, the status would not be affected by any change of the Constitution of South Africa. My understanding is that the international obligation

59
entered into by a country when its monarchy is head of the State is not abrogated or in any way diminished by reason of the adoption by that country of any other form of constitution.
The second question is whether a referendum determining the future constitution of South Africa taken among the voters of South-West Africa as well as in South Africa itself ipso facto changes the international status of the Territory. So far as I understand it, again that would not be the case. I hope that will help in their consideration of the subject right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who apply themselves to this issue.
The Committee will be glad to know that I am coming towards the end of what has been, I am afraid, a rather long intervention. Another part of the communiqué which we ought not to allow to pass without reference is that on 1st October this year Nigeria, a great African country, will achieve independence. As we know, Nigeria has expressed a wish to remain within the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary will be introducing the necessary legislation in due course.
The Prime Ministers' Conference agreed on Nigeria's membership, and, when the time comes, we shall have a chance of expressing our good wishes to this new and important addition to our members. But I do not think that anybody underestimates the difficulties which an independent Nigeria will face. Although, to use the words of Saint Paul, we are all "members one of another" in the Commonwealth, political independence within the Commonwealth is absolute, or as absolute as is possible in a modern world. It will be no less complete with Nigeria when the time comes than it is or has been for Canada or India. If there is any assistance or help we can give to this new country that is a matter for future decision.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In this matter of granting a new Constitution to Nigeria, it has never been clear to me what is the position of the Queen. Is the Queen in fact head of the Nigerian Republic, or is she acknowledged as head of the Commonwealth, or is she Queen of Nigeria?
Mr. Alport: I think that in the Constitution that will operate in Nigeria from 1st October onwards she will be Queen of Nigeria.
When I said at the beginning of my remarks that the recent Prime Ministers' Conference was one of the most important of the whole series, I was not using the familiar formula of our election campaigns. All of us—anyway, I have been guilty—have at one time or another assured our audience that the particular election campaign in which we were engaged was the most important of the generation or perhaps of the century. Indeed, I remember on one occasion, years ago, hearing a speaker claim that a particular election was the most important since Moses. I thought at the time that his claim was a bit farfetched, but I may have misheard it.
The reason for the importance of the 1960 Conference—here I come back to the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman—is that it marks the emergence of a Commonwealth in which the distribution of influence is fairly balanced between the old Commonwealth and the new and in which the powerful forces generated by the latter must be reconciled and accommodated in the established framework of Commonwealth relations. The attention which the Prime Ministers gave to the economic and political problems of Asia and Africa is a measure of this new orientation. If the Commonwealth is to survive intact during the next generation it is essential that this should be clearly realised. In this fact lie many of the problems ahead of us, as well as our hope and belief that the Commonwealth will in the future continue to play a major role in world affairs.
The communiqué refers to the decision to set up a working party to help in the evaluation of ideas in this field. However, the decisions which eventually will have to be made can be made only by the Prime Ministers themselves. But some of the questions we have to consider and which have eventually to be settled are those which, for instance, are created by the attaining of independence particularly by those countries who have not yet achieved the administrative apparatus, political stability or economic resources which enable them to enjoy the full advantages of development in this complex technological world. How far,

61
for instance, can we find an imaginative solution for the future relationship within the Commonwealth of the small isolated dependencies whose desire for self-government is just as real as in the larger ones but which, for geographical or other reasons, might find it difficult to stand alone? How far can the Commonwealth help to avoid the break up of established political units under the impact of tribal or provincial patriotism? How far do we need to adapt our existing methods of consultation and co-operation to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth during the next ten years?
I have no doubt that in the process of finding answers to these questions we in this country can and will be expected by our friends to play a major part. I am sure that the value of this debate and of subsequent ones, which no doubt will follow in our Parliament, will depend upon the frankness and imagination with which these questions are discussed. At no time has there been a greater need for realistic and adventurous thought on Commonwealth affairs or a more powerful challenge to the creative abilities in the political field of the Parliament and people of Great Britain. One thing alone is essential. We must allow neither our own internal problems nor the dangers and urgencies of the international scene to cloud our judgment or to sap our determination to continue as a major power in world affairs.
4.52 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) in offering congratulations to the Minister of State. It is a timely tribute to his long public service and to the great responsibilities which he discharges towards the House of Commons that he should now be a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
In 1933 I was privileged to be present at a conference in Toronto at which one of the great Prime Ministers of Canada, Sir Robert Borden, took a leading part. He had been one of the architects of the nationhood of the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. At Paris in 1919 he had secured their admission to the League of Nations as independent members with full and equal rights and it was from this that international recog-
62
nition of their nationhood swiftly followed. At that conference in 1933, Sir Robert quoted Mr. Gladstone. I remember it very well:
"May it be our endeavour to corroborate the Empire's essential unity, the inspiring unity of its infinite diversity."
It was no doubt with the same hope in mind that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said a few weeks before the Summit meeting that:
"Americans and Russians have far greater strength and wealth, but Britain will be able to speak—and I hope lead—not merely from her own position as a single island, but as the centre of this great community"—
the modern Commonwealth. I was at the Peace Conference in Paris as a member of the Foreign Office when Sir Robert Borden achieved his epoch-making success. I was at the Commonwealth Relations Office when India, Pakistan and Ceylon were building up their independent Governments and taking their place for the first time in the meetings of Commonwealth statesmen. As a result, I have always believed —as the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have said—that the Commonwealth could retain a unity; a unity which would make it a leader—the greatest leader—in world affairs.
But on one condition, and one condition alone. That is that the foreign policies of the members of the Commonwealth should be based on common principles, common principles of law and morality, which they all accept and faithfully apply. In fact, they are all bound in law by such principles, the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. If Britain wants to lead, she must lead in the faithful application of those principles: in observing the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force in all our international relations, and to secure the peaceful settlement of all our disputes; in seeking the general and drastic disarmament without which the United Nations institutions can never work as they ought to; and in promoting general international co-operation in every way.
Among the many aspects of United Nations work, disarmament is now what Mr. Khrushchev called it in Berlin, "the problem of all problems". I hope the leader of the Government delegation at the next United Nations Assembly, whoever he may be—we are told it may be

63
the present Colonial Secretary—will make it his business to put forward a bold and comprehensive plan by which the present disarmament deadlock can be broken. If he does, he can be very certain that he will have the unanimous support of the Commonwealth, and he can restore to the Commonwealth, not only a real unity in itself, but also a power and influence in international affairs which many people thought four years ago might have been irreparably lost. Conversely—and it still needs saying, for it is fundamental—the Commonwealth will not easily survive another violation of the Charter by any of its leading members of the kind we have seen in recent years.
There is another danger to the Commonwealth on which the right hon. Gentleman touched and on which I want to give a rather different view. It is a danger of which I had personal experience at the C.R.O. That is the danger that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, when they meet, as they met in May, may shirk all controversial issues, even if those issues should affect the basic principles upon which their whole partnership is built. This, in my view, came very near to happening over apartheid in May. I was disturbed when the Sunday newspapers said on 1st May, before the Conference had begun, that, as a result of the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), it was "almost certain that South Africa's racial policies would not form part" of the formal agenda of the conference. I thought this very dangerous. I thought, with the Leader of the Opposition, that if the racial issues in South Africa were not discussed, it would make a farce of the proceedings and a mockery of the word "Commonwealth". I was still more disturbed by the first communiqué, issued on 3rd May. It said:
"The representative of the South African Government emphasised that sole responsibility for domestic policies within South Africa rested with the Union Government.
The meeting reaffirmed the traditional practice that Commonwealth Conferences do not discuss the internal affairs of Member countries.
Mr. Louw expressed his readiness to meet other heads of delegations informally for discussions of this problem.
Arrangements are being made accordingly"
64
Everyone remembers that this attempt to do what the Guardian called "muffling up" the question of apartheid was a dangerous failure. Mr. Louw's informal discussions and his disastrous Press conference on 8th May so inflamed the Prime Ministers of other Commonwealth countries that they insisted on discussing the whole matter in full conference, and for the last few days they discussed very little else. The final communiqué still said that these discussions were "informal", which I venture to think was a perilous pretence.
It went on to say that
"the Ministers emphasised that the Commonwealth itself is a multi-racial association"
—words which have been quoted before —and expressed the need to ensure good relations betwen all Member States and peoples of the Commonwealth. The Times assured us that Mr. Louw was "bitterly opposed" even to these anaemic phrases. But we should deceive ourselves if we thought they gave satisfaction to the Prime Ministers who had condemned apartheid.
My right hon. Friend quoted something of what they said, and I will repeat it. Some of them explained that the communiqué had been agreed only because unanimity, including Mr. Louw, was needed. Prince Abdul Rahman of Malaya did not hesitate to say that
"unanimity was out-of-date".
He said that
"this had been the last time "
—note the words—
"that a full gathering of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers could avoid coming realistically to grips with race discrimination in South Africa"
The Prime Minister of Pakistan said that he would have liked to see
"a much stronger form of words".
He went on,
"We feel very strongly that this apartheid, enforced with all the modern weapons of war against defenceless and unarmed citizens, will do an immense amount of harm. Unless some human solution is found, it will set alight the best part of Africa."
President Nkrumah said,
"The warning has been written in blood for all to read—if the Commonwealth has any meaning it cannot and must not let this situation drift until a revolution of desperation creates another Algeria on our Continent."

65
Mr. Diefenbaker, at an earlier stage I admit, said that
"the equality of all races and peoples is a basic principle that must be accepted by all the Commonwealth."
The Guardian declared, in its final review of the Conference, that Mr. Louw had
"created the determination in a number of Commonwealth leaders that they will not come back to the conference again without ensuring that their hands will not be tied in this way at any future gathering."
In other words, they would insist on being free to discuss apartheid, openly to condemn it, and to consider what effective action they could take about it. I think it is more than clear that what happened in the May meeting imposed a very dangerous strain upon the Commonwealth; that the attempt to "muffle up" the issue of apartheid was a total failure; and that the final communiqué was very far from being a basis upon which the future unity of the Commonwealth can be built.
I raise this matter with a full sense of responsibility, because I believe that the Government have been making wrong decisions about apartheid for many years, and that they have been casting votes in the United Nations Assembly, and making speeches, which were wrong in law, and perhaps even in morality—speeches which have done all too much to encourage the Government of South Africa in a wrong course and which have been deeply resented by other members of the Commonwealth.
In the lamentable Press Conference to which I have referred, Mr. Louw said that in the Assembly of the United Nations he had backed Britain over Cyprus, because our delegate had claimed that under Article 2 (7) of the Charter events in that island were a matter which was
"essentially within the domestic jurisdiction"
of the United Kingdom. Of course our delegates in the early stages of the Cyprus question had made what I can only call that fatuous claim; and, in return for South Africa's vote about Cyprus, they had voted all too often with South Africa about apartheid.
Only a month before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were due to meet, the Foreign Secretary made a speech in which he condemned the Security Council for adopting a resolution about
66
apartheid and about Sharpeville. He was reported on 3rd April as saying that the resolution
"went beyond the scope of the proper functions of the Council, and amounted to an obvious interference in matters within the internal jurisdiction of South Africa."
He added the gratuitous comment that
"dictation from outside, the condemnations of international organisations, boycotts and the like, do produce very often precisely the opposite result to that intended."
He thus repeated the false and hackneyed argument by which the defenders of apartheid have tried so often to persuade those who are against it not to raise their voices against this grievous wrong.
I think that it was singularly unfortunate that the Foreign Secretary should have made this speech in April and should have instructed our delegate to abstain from voting in the Security Council. I think it lamentable that last November our delegate voted with France and Portugal against an Assembly Resolution which condemned apartheid and which called on South Africa to reconsider its policy—a resolution carried by 62 votes to 3, with seven abstentions.
In the light of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' debates in May, I think that it will be quite disastrous if such speeches are made and such votes cast in the next Session of the Assembly, which is to meet in two months' time. And I want to urge on the Government that their whole stand has been based on a pseudo-legal argument which helped them not at all on Cyprus, which they had to abandon over that unhappy question, and which is manifestly false in its application to apartheid. The argument rests on the assumption that the way a Government treats its citizens is "essentially within its domestic jurisdiction" and that therefore the United Nations cannot intervene, even by expressing an opinion on the subject.
Historically, I believe that assumption to be without foundation. From the Congress of Vienna in 1814 onwards, throughout the 19th century, guarantees for the equal rights of their citizens were imposed on various Governments in Europe which had mixed populations—mixed in race, language or religion. In 1919, the Treaties of Peace made

67
elaborate provision for the equal treatment and equal rights of all citizens in nine countries which had mixed populations. The Governments' fulfilment of their obligations was to be supervised and guaranteed by the Council of the League of Nations.
M. Clemenceau, writing to Mr. Paderewski, defended the treaty which Poland was asked to sign in the following way:
"This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure.… The Principal Allied and Associated Powers are of opinion that they would be false to the responsibility which rests upon them if on this occasion they departed from what has become an established tradition, … There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation which they cannot evade to secure In the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State."
The League of Nations later required seven other countries which had mixed populations to accept similar guarantees.
The purpose was not humanitarian. The point is very important. Mr. Azcarate, the distinguished Spaniard, who administered the system for many years, said that it
"was not humanitarian. It was purely political … to avoid the many inter-State frictions and conflicts which had occurred in the past, as a result of the frequent ill-treatment or oppression of national minorities."
President Wilson defended the system in Paris by saying that,
"Nothing is more likely to disturb the peace of the world than the treatment which might in certain circumstances be handed out to minorities."
This League system produced remarkable results as long as the League retained any real vitality. But it was constantly said in the League that the system ought to be applied to all Member States; and that is the origin of the provisions in the Charter of the United Nations for the protection of human rights. Look at what is said in the Charter, and in particular in Article 2 (7); and look at what is not said. Hon. Members will see that the Foreign Secretary simply begs the question when he goes on repeating that Article 2 (7) gives South Africa the right to impose apartheid and that the United Nations cannot intervene. Neither Article 2 (7)
68
nor any other Clause of the Charter says that a Government's treatment of its citizens is essentially "a matter of domestic jurisdiction." I cannot find a line in the Charter which says that. But I can find a great many which say the exact opposite. Article 1 (3) says that one of the principal purposes of the United Nations is,
"To achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, language, or religion."
Article 55 says that the United Nations shall promote
"universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without respect to race, sex or religion."
By Article 56 all members
"pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the organisation for the achievement of this purpose."
"joint and separate action" in co-operation with the U.N. Organisation. Could a legal pledge be clearer?
But there is another fact that tells against the Government's interpretation of Article 2 (7). It has been the subject of sustained debate in the Assembly over many years, and, as I have said, last year 63 Governments upheld the interpretation which I have given, seven abstained and only France and Portugal voted with us. That is the considered and decisive verdict of the overwhelming majority of the United Nations.
But leaving aside all these historical arguments and the modern debates which I have recounted, is it not simply common sense to say that apartheid must be a matter of international concern?
"Apart from its immorality",
said Mr. Nehru while the May Conference was going on—
"apartheid is a danger to world peace."
How can a policy be
"essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Union "
if it may send Africa up in flames, and disastrously affect the many new African nations, some on the border of the Union, which have just won their independence, and some of which will be admitted to membership of the U.N. by the Assembly in two months' time?
I hope that the Government will reconsider their policy and will abandon their past arguments and votes before the next

69
Assembly meets, and that they will join with the other members of the Commonwealth in supporting the resolution that will quite certainly be put forward and carried on this subject. Such a vote by Britain might have a real, and perhaps a great, importance in promoting the movement of opinion by which the policy of apartheid may some day be changed.
Another matter will come before the Assembly in September, a matter on which both my right hon. Friend and the Minster have touched—the Union Government's mandate for South-West Africa. I view the resolution adopted by the Assembly last year in a different light from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it was necessary for the Assembly to condemn apartheid
"as a flagrant violation of the sacred trust imposed by the League of Nations mandate, the U.N. Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights."
I think that it was right for the Resolution to urge various practical measures by which the interests of the non-Europeans in the Territory could be promoted. I think that it was right for the resolution to criticise the conditions under which the African workers are compelled to work. Only last week two witnesses in whom I have full confidence gave me a shocking account of how the unhappy Africans, men and women, in South-West Africa are sent to work on white men's farms.
Last year the Assemby adopted the report of their South-West Africa Committee, a nine-nations body, by 56 votes to.5. Our British delegate abstained. Again, I think it is important that this year our policy should be changed, especially in the light of the legal considerations which, with great candour, the hon. Gentleman has laid before us.
Finally, I want to say one word only about the question of the South African referendum on a republic. I ask again the question so courageously and admirably asked by an hon. Member opposite. Has such a pledge to Dr. Verwoerd been given as he alleges? Have we consulted other Commonwealth countries about it? Are we sure that we ought to give it unless all the non-Europeans in the Union—the Africans, the Indians, the coloureds—are allowed to vote? They are all sub-
70
jects of Her Majesty the Queen. If they are to cease to be subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, are they to have no voice in that decision? Is it to be taken by a bare majority of a small minority of the total population? I cannot believe that that would be right. I hope that the Government will answer these questions, for, again, these are issues which will profoundly affect the future influence of the Commonwealth and its unity and power in world affairs.
I have dealt with legal points about apartheid. May I end by showing in human terms what it really means? In this week's Spectator Mr. Kenneth MacKenzie, writing from Capetown, tells the story of Mrs. Beatrice Manjati. He writes:
"On 1st April she was leaving Nyanga township in a friend's car to take her sick baby to hospital when they were stopped by a naval detachment guarding the gate. After a minor misunderstanding a shot was fired—' an uncalled for shot', according to the inquest magistrate last week—and the baby was killed. It was Mrs. Manjati's third child. The first two died in infancy. This one was called Mosuli, which means in Xhosa 'He who wipes away the tears'. This sort of thing can happen anywhere,"
says Mr. Mackenzie. I wonder if it can? But he goes on:
"What disturbs me is that since 1st April Mrs. Manjati has had no apology, no offer of compensation, no communication of any sort from the Navy, from the Defence Department or from anyone in authority."
Surely the Government will set aside their legal doubts and, with the other members of the Commonwealth, will do their utmost in the United Nations Assembly to bring an end to a policy which can cause such inhuman tragedies as this.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. Charles Longbottom: As I rise to address the Committee for the first time, may I crave the indulgence of hon. Members and express the hope that they will extend to me the courtesies which by tradition are normally given to hon. Members speaking for the first time. I hope that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), whose sincerity in all matters I have always respected, will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in his argument as, otherwise, I might delve into the forbidden territory of controversy.

71
I have the honour to represent the City of York, a city which is rich in the traditions of the history of this country and a city which has given its name to England's greatest county and to its greatest cricketers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A statistical study of the present cricket league table will prove my point. It is also a great privilege to have followed such a distinguished predecessor as Mr. Speaker.
The merchants of York were trading abroad as early as the fourteenth century, and since then York has had close commercial ties with many countries, none more so than with West Africa upon which York depends mainly for cocoa for its manufacture of chocolate. In this context, I think it would be right to mention the increasing urgency for far wider commodity price stabilisation agreements not only to safeguard the primary producer but also the manufacturer.
The calling of a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference is a matter of congratulation in itself, for it provides an opportunity for frank and forthright discussions without recourse to rigid rules and fixed agendas and in an atmosphere of independence and yet of understanding which is perhaps unique in the council chambers of the world.
Of course, we have our differences and our disagreements—no civilised country at this time could fail to be horrified by the racial policies of the South African Government—and we are right and correct in our duty to express them as frankly and as fully as we can. But the very backgrounds and beliefs and the very continents from which so diversely come the peoples of the Commonwealth ensure that we do not see everything in the same light. However, we can at least discuss our differences in a spirit of basic loyalty and in the knowledge that far more unites us than divides us, which is the fascination of the Commonwealth and the fascination of its Conferences.
When the Prime Ministers' Conference meets here in London hon. Members have a chance to meet Commonwealth leaders. But why does the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference meet only in London? Would it not be possible for it to meet some time in New
72
Delhi, in Canberra or in Ottawa to give the politicians and the peoples of those territories a chance to see what the fascination of Commonwealth Conferences really is and how much basic understanding lies and exists in a Commonwealth atmosphere?
Not having an agenda is a great advantage to the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, but perhaps some slight disadvantage in that we do not know entirely what they discuss. There is one subject upon which I hope the Commonwealth Prime Ministers touched. If they did not touch upon it at the last Conference, I certainly hope that they may do so next time they meet. It is a coincidence, I am sure, but a significant one, that we should be meeting on 4th July, when the independence of the United States is celebrated, and that we are meeting a week after Ghana and Somaliland became Republics and the Congo Republic became independent. The inevitable pattern of the 1960's, and rightly so, will see the independence of most Colonial Territories, at least this side of the Iron Curtain. However, independence is not the end of the struggle but the beginning of a new one. All too often the sole preoccupation of politicians in territories seeking independence is what they would all refer to as "the struggle for freedom", and, indeed, the basic slogan of most of their political parties is "Freedom".
But this freedom brings responsibilities. If hon. Members would put themselves for a moment in the position of their opposite numbers in newly independent territories, they would have to ask themselves and examine the following questions. What is the basis of our political ideology now that freedom has been won? What is the kind of political and social society that we desire? What form of co-operation are we to have with our immediate neighbours? What form of political and economic asociation are we to have in our continent? What are to be our relations with the West and with the Communist world? Are we to build a society based upon the European pattern, a society based upon the Communist pattern or a society for ourselves? Above all, on what foundations can we find for ourselves a place in a rather power-drunk world? All these are immediate and vital decisions

73
Surely, above all, it is a time for leadership and leaders to guide a society in which citizenship and a community spirit are at hand.
The Albemarle Report stresses the vital need for youth work in this country. But if it be true of this country, how, much more is it true abroad? Young people of my generation are achieving positions of authority out of all proportion to their age and experience. It is my privilege to have been for many years involved in international youth work and to have represented British youth organisations at many international conferences. I have seen the incredible lack of effective youth organisations teaching citizenship and community spirit in the Commonwealth. Yet I have also seen the great work which such international organisations as the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides are doing on limited resources. There are many examples which one could give of the work being done. Perhaps one is the newly formed Voluntary Service Overseas, in which there are sixty-five young people just after leaving school who have gone out into the Commonwealth countries to help to build up effective youth organisations in those Territories.
This country leads the world in its structure of voluntary youth organisations, and we have a tremendous practical contribution to make to help other countries in the Commonwealth, a contribution which would be of far greater value than the money which would be spent upon it. I realise that the Government are aware of these problems. Two years ago they set up a Committee under Field-Marshal Sir Gerald Templer to study this problem, before which I gave evidence. The Committee produced a comprehensive Report, but nothing has since been heard, and I know that the situation is causing anxiety to many voluntary bodies.
A Commonwealth Youth Trust sponsored by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers could provide the finance, coordinate resources and call on the experience of so many organisations that a really effective drive to establish youth work in the Commonwealth could be made. I urge that this should be given consideration before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meet again.
74
I am not suggesting that this would be a panacea for all our ills, but I do suggest that with the training of leaders, with the development of the responsibilities to the community and with the teaching of citizenship to the young people in the Commonwealth, we should be providing many Territories with a far better chance to stand on their own feet and find a solution to their problems.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: It is always an ordeal for an hon. Member to address the House of Commons for the first time, but I think that very few hon. Members can have come through that ordeal with quite as much success as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom). It is no mere form of words when I offer him the congratulations of, I am sure, all hon. Members in every part of the House upon the very clear and forthright maiden speech he has delivered. It will, I think, have been evident to us all that he brings to our debates most valuable first-hand knowledge of Commonwealth problems. He represents a famous constituency. There have been many eminent men associated with York, from Dick Turpin to Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Member will be a worthy successor to them all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State—perhaps I might join in the congratulations offered to him—said, when speaking about South-West Africa, that the attitude that would be adopted by Her Majesty's Government would depend upon the circumstances which would prevail when the matter came to he considered by the United Nations. I hope that we shall have some elaboration of that before the debate ends. This matter will certainly be raised, and raised in a very acute form at the next meeting of the United Nations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to the speech made in Dublin by Dr. Nkrumah after the Prime Ministers' Conference—a speech which, quite inexplicably, was scarcely reported at all in the British Press. I believe that it was a speech of very considerable significance. My right hon. Friend quoted one passage from it, and I should like to quote two other passages. First, Dr. Nkrumah said:
"So far as Ghana is concerned, the most important single issue before the United

75
Nations at this moment is that concerning the mandated territory of South-West Africa."
A little later, he went on:
"It is clear to the Government of Ghana that since thirteen Resolutions of the United Nations have had no effect on the Union of South Africa, the passage of a fourteenth Resolution in similar terms would not be likely to have any greater effect than the previous thirteen. It appears to me, therefore, that it is the duty of Ghana to propose to the United Nations a new policy in regard to South-West Africa."
When the matter is raised by Ghana before the United Nations, we, on this side, would like to know what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this country.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) reminded the House a few minutes ago, whenever the general question of apartheid has come before the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government in this country have always taken their stand on—or, rather, have taken refuge behind —Article 2 (7) of the Charter, which prohibits the United Nations from intervening in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. Indeed, when we debated this matter on 7th December last, we were referred once more by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to Article 2 (7) of the Charter.
That argument might conceivably be held valid—I do not for a moment say that it is, because in entirely associate myself with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South—in relation to the internal affairs of the Union. It cannot possibly have any validity whatever in relation to the mandated territory of South West Africa.
I say that in case there is any dispute, and I say it on three grounds. First of all, it is quite clear from the terms of the Mandate itself that the administration of the territory was never intended to be left to the unfettered discretion of the Union Government. Article 7 of the Mandate says:
"The mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations."
76
Quite clearly, therefore, the administration of the Mandate was, from the first, intended to be a matter of concern to all the founder members of the League of Nations. They were entitled to negotiate with the Union Government about it. They were entitled, if negotiation got them nowhere, to take the matter to the International Court.
Secondly, of course, we have the ruling, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of the International Court in 1950. It is perfectly true, as he said, that the International Court held that the Union was not bound to place the mandated territory under the trusteeship of the United Nations, but, of course, that Court reached another conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. It said that if the Union did not elect to place the territory under trusteeship, then they must continue to fulfil all the obligations arising under the Mandate, including the obligation to accept the supervision, formerly of the League, and now of the United Nations.
Thirdly, it follows from Article 73 of the United Nations Charter. I do not think that it is always realised that the obligations of countries which have dependent peoples over whom they rule or for whom they have any responsibility are clearly and categorically defined in the Charter, and have been accepted by every member State of the United Nations, including South Africa.
What are the obligations on the mandatory? Firstly, there is the obligation under Article 2 of the Mandate to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being of the inhabitants of the territory. Secondly, there is the obligations under Section 73 of the Charter, which is
"…to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement."
There might, I suppose, be some possible dispute as to what constitutes the material and moral well-being of the people in a particular territory, but I submit that there cannot be any dispute whatever about the application of Section 73 of the Charter. No one could conceivably suggest that those obligations are being carried out today. We

77
have, therefore, the proposition, which will certainly be raised at the United Nations—and a proposition which, I submit, is quite clearly established—that the Union Government are in breach, probably, of their obligations under the Mandate, and, certainly, of their obligations under the Charter.
I want now to refer to a matter that has already been referred to once or twice today. That is the speech made by Dr. Verwoerd last Saturday, when he said:
"Should South Africa decide to remain a member of the Commonwealth after becoming a Republic, I am convinced that the influence of Britain, Australia and Canada and even India, which is now politcally adult, will ensure that we retain our membership."
I want again to ask the question—and I hope that we shall have a more specific answer either today or, at any rate, before the end of the Session—on what was that based? Has any sort of assurance been given to Dr. Verwoerd that would entitle him to make that speech in the Union last Saturday? Secondly, has there been any consultation on this matter with the Governments of the Asian and African members of the Commonwealth, either during or since the Prime Minister's Conference? Thirdly, have Her Majesty's Government in this country considered what the position will be if South Africa becomes a republic, either inside or outside the Commonweatlh?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the terms of the Mandate, and said that he was advised that it would make no difference if the form of Government in the Union were changed—I hope that I do not misrepresent him—and that the position of the mandatory would remain as it was before. There may he two views on that. After all, the Mandate is not a Mandate simply to the Government of the Union. It is expressed to be to
"His Britannic Majesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of South Africa."
The Mandate is not to South Africa but to the Crown, to be exercised on behalf of the Crown. If South Africa were to become a republic within the Commonwealth, it is at least open to question whether the Mandate would still be valid, but if South Africa were to become a republic outside the Commonwealth, I submit that the matter is really beyond argument. What was
78
clearly intended was that a Government of the Commonwealth should exercise the Mandate on behalf of the Crown. It could never have been envisaged when the Mandate was drawn up that it should be exercised on behalf of the Crown by an alien Government.
I have raised these questions because I believe they demand an answer, if not today at any rate in the near future. These are all matters which almost certainly will arise when the United Nations meet next September. They will be raised by one or more Commonwealth Governments. We ought to know before the House goes away at the end of July what is going to be the attitude on these matters of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: One of the least satisfactory aspects of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference seems to me to be the communiqué. If it brings out much detail of the discussions that go on, then it probably inhibits people from expressing their opinions too much, and if it does not, it produces a lot of platitudes like the current communiqué contains which read as if they contain no real substance.
The interesting thing about the communiqué and the Conference as such has been the concentration on the problems that are facing South Africa. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) concentrated on the subject of apartheid and on the problems that are facing South Africa generally, and discussed whether South Africa should be re-elected, as it were, to the Commonwealth if she becomes a Republic.
It seems that the other vital points which have arisen in or have been ignored by the recent Conference have been ignored by this Committee. Like so many other people—in fact, I imagine like every hon. Member—I have no brief for apartheid as such. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, about the tragedy not only of the attempted assassination of Dr. Verwoerd—personally I am against political assassination—but also of the disappointment that Dr. Verwoerd was not able himself to be

79
present at the Prime Ministers' Conference and understand how strong is the point of view of other leaders throughout the Commonwealth and how strong is the feeling about the policies that South Africa is pursuing at the moment.
This concentration on South Africa tends to ignore the other very important aspects of the Conference. One of the most useful features was the view that Mr. Nehru was able to bring of his conversations with the leaders of Red China. The worries that he obviously had when he was over here subsequent to his meetings were able to be transmitted to the other Prime Ministers, and, as such, I feel that they did a lot of good in alerting people in other parts of the world to the problem which will become the major problem of the Commonwealth and, in fact, of the free world during the next decade; that is the position of China in the Pacific, in Africa and in the Middle East.
The other aspect that has not been mentioned yet and which I think is of extreme importance is the prospect of what will happen to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference when the numbers of the emergent territories reach the enormous proportion that they will in the next five years. In five years' time, according to Mr. Menzies' estimate, there may be twenty emergent, self-governing territories in the Commonwealth. It is all very well to have discussions, and to have talks among a few people. A lot can be achieved; there is no need to vote. Points of view can be stated and conversations can take place behind the scenes and in the conference room. Everybody gets a chance of expressing a view.
If the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference becomes even larger than it is at the present time, we must look at the organisation and decide what we should do to keep it from getting completely unwieldy and becoming a sort of little United Nations on its own. The trouble about all that is that the moment one tries to plan something one has to set up a constitution or some sort of organisation, and that immediately causes one to run into all sorts of difficulties. One may get procedural difficulties which would kill stone dead the informality which makes the Prime Ministers' Conference at present so very successful.
80
However, I think there is something to be said for considering the idea of regional Prime Ministers' Conferences—for instance, attended by people concentrated around the American continent, in Africa, and then possibly in areas in the Far East where we get Australia, New Zealand, Malaya, Singapore, and various other slightly different areas, so that there could possibly be some arrangement whereby the Prime Minister of the Metropolitan Dominion, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, could attend these different regional conferences and act as the key and link between the different areas.
Mention has also been made, but only briefly, of funds for development throughout the Commonwealth. I seem to remember that this is not a new topic in a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Hon. Members will remember that following one of the Commonwealth Conferences, the Commonwealth Development Finance Company was set up. I am not sure that a look at the members who have contributed to the C.D.F.C. does not give a warning about any grandiose schemes which may emerge from a conference like this.
I think the C.D.F.C. has an opportunity of doing a very good job and that it can be of considerable benefit to all the members of the Commonwealth. It is rather interesting, though, to see who has subscribed to it: South Africa, New Zealand, the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, India, Malaya and Pakistan. I am particularly interested to see that Australia has not contributed. Possibly Australia interprets this suggestion that it should subscribe to the C.D.F.C. rather in the same way as we have interpreted the best endeavour clause in a recent wheat agreement. I think that it would be far better than all the communiqués if the countries that have not contributed to the C.D.F.C. were to make some effort.
I come now to my last point, and I wish to say how much I regret that there does not seem to have been at this Conference a discussion on the rôle of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the liaison between the different countries in the Commonwealth. My own solution, of course, is that the Commonwealth Relations Office should be abolished. I

81
have never been able to understand what it does. All the High Commissioners have access to Government Departments, and, as far as I can see, the Commonwealth Relations Office at the present time is so taken up with the philosophy and psychology of independence that it is frightened to take any positive action to help and to lead these new emergent territories.
I am aware that there was a feeling on the part of one Prime Minister from one of the newly emergent countries, a feeling which I think was regrettable, that he would not allow any skilled trained person to remain in his country if ht had been a member of the Colonial Service. The fact that he took that attitude is some measure of the failure of the Commonwealth Relations Office at the present time. I think that the Colonial Office—and I am not trying to pit one against the other—with the emergence of Somalia, recently, set up an interesting experiment. Here, despite the fact that the country is actually becoming independent—completely independent, and not just self-governing—there is a small cadre of the British Colonial Service remaining there which is going to help to get over the amalgamation between Somalia and Somaliland. Some of them are to remain on contract after the six-month period for the amalgamation. They are to do so owing to a number of circumstances, and I think it is quite an idea that the workings of that Commission should be studied with a view to seeing if something on a small scale cannot be done on those lines with the emergent territories.
Finally, I want to sound a warning about the next Conference, where the older Dominions are likely to find themselves in a minority. At the same time, I want to sound a warning about keeping the Commonwealth together. It seems to me that it will mean a positive effort on the part of the Commonwealth Relations Office and of the Government in this country to keep the Commonwealth going. Sentiment is no longer enough. Those of us who heard an English crowd cheering a Pole against an Australian at Henley on Saturday will realise that sentiment is not now enough. It is not sentiment that matters in holding the Commonwealth together, particularly when there are second and third
82
generation people who migrated to Commonwealth countries.
It will then be self-interest, and what we have to do is to look at that self-interest to see how we can make ourselves mutually dependent and consequently work together, so that we can keep this chain of countries, which I think is a stabilising factor for world peace, together and in consultation in some way for the next couple of decades, because that will be a fairly awkward time for change for the Commonwealth as a whole.
5.55 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: My two right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) have dealt so competently and comprehensively with the matter which is closest to the hearts of most of us, namely, the situation in South Africa, that I would not wish to take up too much of the time of the Committee in dealing with that very difficult problem. I think that there is very little difference on this matter between the two sides of the Committee. On both sides, we feel a complete abhorrence for the doctrine of apartheid, and we are deeply disturbed by the situation in South Africa, not only because it affects people of all races in South Africa itself but because of its repercussions on the unity of the Commonwealth, which we all want to cherish.
I would add that recently I had the privilege of meeting Miss Hannah Stanton, a former member of my own college at Oxford. I was particularly interested in her, and, frankly, somewhat surprised to discover that in her work in South Africa she had been as unpolitical as any person could be. From a distance, one might suppose—and that is what one might have done oneself in similar circumstances—that she had been engaged in quasi-political activities in the course of her missionary work. That has not been unknown in missionary work in some parts of the world, but, as far as she is concerned, there was no such element in her activities. One might call her a political innocent.
The fact that she was arrested, and subsequently released because she was a British subject—and if she had not

83
been, I believe that she would still be in detention—is some measure of the state of affairs in the Union of South Africa, where such a person could be detained without trial on what must have been the flimsiest possible excuse.
Having mentioned that, I should like to turn to some of the other matters about which we in the Commonwealth shall be thinking. I was very much interested in what the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) said about the possibility of some different kind of organisation as the number of members of the Commonwealth becomes larger and larger. Again, I think there is a consensus of opinion on both sides of the Committee on this matter, because we on our side have been thinking in terms of some possible regional organisation of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The difficulty of having a larger number means that unanimity will be more and more difficult to achieve, except on the broadest issues. When one admits anything in the way of voting, that leads to lobbying and the lining up of one group against another and so on, which is something we all wish to avoid. Therefore, it is possible that some sort of regional organisation for some purposes at least would be very fruitful.
Frankly, I thought that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the United Kingdom Prime Minister should act as liaison officer was not very good. I should have thought that each conference might at least elect its own chairman, and we should then have to make some other arrangements about the coordination of the work. It seems to me a somewhat unfortunate suggestion. Clearly, much thought must be given to this matter, which is now becoming a matter not of political theorising but of urgency.
I have recently been reading some of my late father's papers. Some hon. Members will know that he was in the Cabinet Office for many years. I came across correspondence between him and the present Lord Casey, at that time a young man at the beginning of his political career, in 1923 or 1924. They were considering in rather more theoretical terms whether something in the nature of a Commonwealth secretariat might be advisable. That suggestion has been discussed now and again rather academic-
84
ally, but within the next five or ten years it will become something of real importance. The suggestion is that there should be some machinery, probably a little more elaborate than at present, but, one hopes, not too bureaucratic, for keeping the members of the Commonwealth in touch with one another.
That brings me to a point which was touched on very slightly by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), whose maiden speech we all very much enjoyed. He reminded us that we are speaking on 4th July. That is not without significance. One of the things which concerns me very much in considering the countries in the Commonwealth which are emerging to independence is their political structure and the political legacy which we leave when we retire from them.
Are we not somewhat complacent with regard to these countries before they reach independence? When they become responsible legislatures, we send a delegation from this House—I have been a member of one myself—and we present a Mace. We send a copy of Erskine May, most beautifully bound, I was about to say, in Morocco, but I am told that it should be called Kano leather. We send one of our most learned Assistant Clerks at the Table on a peripatetic tour of these legislatures to assist with points of order and procedure and the interpretation of Erskine May.
We seem to think that that is about all that is required. But is it? When we consider the countries which have already achieved independence, can we be entirely happy that the pattern of Westminster and Whitehall is exportable? For instance, we look to the Sudan, Pakistan, Ceylon and, perhaps with a sideways glance, Ghana. India, perhaps, has inherited the legacy more completely than any other country. But when we begin to look into the future and to ask oneself about some of the countries which within the next decade, or probably very much sooner, will achieve independence, surely one must ask: is our political pattern here adequate for the conditions which will prevail in some of these countries?
This brings me back to 4th July. I am not at all certain that, tiresome as we may find the American Constitution in many respects, the founding fathers were not altogether foolish in thinking out some system of checks and balances

85
within their own political system. I was very much interested to hear the other day someone who many of us know is actively engaged in Tanganyika refer quite spontaneously to the possibility of looking at some of the provisions of the American Constitution. These might provide these emerging countries with something which is so badly needed, namely, a strong and well established executive, which will feel itself sufficiently secure to be able to assure the fundamental freedom of the individuals in the country without feeling that its own political life is menaced.
I doubt very much whether our political pattern in this country, if it were transplanted without alteration, would give that kind of security which I think the Governments of these emerging countries find themselves in need of, both for political and economic planning reasons. The whole idea of an opposition, which naturally we on this side of the Committee feel very keenly about, is foreign to many of these societies. I think that considerations of this sort should be very much more openly and freely discussed before the countries reach final independence. We have perhaps been either a little complacent or a little hesitant about frank discussion of some of these problems. I think that it would be very much healthier if, instead of merely sending out Erskine May and a Mace, we had much fuller and more profound discussion, not only of the basic democratic principles which we wish to have preserved, but of the possible different methods of political organisation by which they may be sustained.
I have here the White Paper concerning Sierra Leone. It is interesting to note that in this White Paper there is an annexe on fundamental rights. It is very encouraging to find that this sort of provision is to be embodied in the Constitution of Sierra Leone. This may well happen in other countries. I had a long conversation some time ago with Mr. Tom Mboya of Kenya, who acts partly under the influence of American thought. He said, "We ought to have something of that kind in our Kenya Constitution."
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): That is to happen. It is part of the Lancaster House agreement on Kenya.
Mrs. White: I beg the Committee's pardon. I should have said that a more formal point has been reached. This discussion was before those more formal decisions had been taken. I have no doubt that some such provision will be made in other constitutions in future.
That raises the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East to which a not very satisfactory reply was made by the Minister of State. The point was that one may have a Bill of Rights, but where is the supreme court to uphold it? Can one in a fairly young state rely upon there being complete assurance that the rights which are safeguarded on paper will be safeguarded in practice?
Is there nothing to be said for an attempt to set up a Commonwealth supreme court to which, obviously, countries would have to adhere voluntarily? It would not be a condition of membership of the Commonwealth. I should have thought that some countries possibly would welcome this. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not exactly a suitable body unless it were very much enlarged by judges from other Commonwealth countries. That might be an evolutionary way of reaching a British compromise of tradition with novelty. I think that something of that kind should be frankly discussed and not merely put on one side because it seems a little difficult and might not appeal to all countries of the Commonwealth. Such a body would bring great comfort to some of the minority populations—I am thinking, for instance, of the Asians in Uganda—if they felt that when independence came it would be possible to take an appeal to a supreme court, not necessarily within their own territory. We ought not lightly to dismiss this idea as impossible or impracticable.
There is one other point of very great importance for the political development and stability of emerging territories and for the protection of democracy in their societies, and that is the public service by which they are sustained. Anyone who has read the book written by a former Member of this House, Mr. Kenneth Younger, entitled "The Public Service in New States ", will share my anxieties in this matter. He points out the deficiencies in our past record in

87
trying to maintain for these newer countries the services of experienced administrators. The record of complacency and misjudgment and the dire influence of the Treasury upon the Colonial Office are such that one cannot be other than uneasy about it even in the future.
How important it is for a new country when it reaches independence to have a first-class administration is expressed vividly by Mr. Younger when he states, at page 72 of his book:
"In Ghana"—
it applies equally to other countries—
"where the exodus of overseas officials was greater than the Government would have wished… the major difficulty arose from the new burdens imposed on the service by the dynamism of the new government."
That is only to be expected. As Mr. Younger says,
"This pattern is likely to be repeated elsewhere. A new state will naturally wish to signalize its independence by accelerating development to the limit of its resources and often beyond. Ministerial decisions can be taken rapidly and each one sets a fresh task for the administration."
This is the important point for the political salvation of these countries and for the safeguarding of democratic standards:
"If this period of creative endeavour ends in frustration for want of a governmental machine to carry the burden, the new state's political stability and its capacity for democratic development may well be endangered."
That puts the problem extremely clearly to all of us. It is because I am so much concerned about it that I cannot help reminding the Committee that our efforts in the past to safeguard the individual colonial civil servants, on the one hand, and to provide their services for the Government, on the other hand, have been fumbling to a degree to which we should be ashamed. We pride ourselves on being experienced in the art of government, but anybody who looks at the matter knows the sort of steps taken in Ghana, Nigeria and Malaya to encourage the best people to leave rather than to stay, because the financial provisions meant that any man who had any concern whatever either for himself or for his family could hardly fail to leave the service.
In Malaya, there was a point when a man could get£11,000 tax-free if he left and very much less if he stayed. In
88
Nigeria, similar provisions were made when the Eastern and Western Regions attained independence several years ago. It was not until about two years ago that Her Majesty's Government began to catch up with this problem. They started a Special List B and various other devices, none of which worked very well. We failed lamentably to preserve the best of the services for those countries.
I should like to carry the point a little further. It was touched upon by the hon. Member for Maldon when he referred to the Commonwealth Relations Office. Many of us are uneasy as to the kind of relationship between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. The Commonwealth Relations Office now seems to be recruiting some of its key people from the Foreign Office. One does not mind that, but one cannot help having a horrible feeling that we are again, as we did with the services in the territories, simply muddling through.
It would be interesting, when the Colonial Secretary replies to the debate, if he would let the Committee know exactly what his conception is. We hear a great deal about the psychology of independence. One fully appreciates that a country which has attained political independence does not necessarily wish to be reminded all the while that it was once dependent by having in its service people who were formerly in positions of high authority but who have been superseded on the attainment of political maturity.
Is there, however, any reason why we should not make the greatest possible efforts to use the experience of these people, possibly in other territories or places? Are we fully satisfied that that is being done? From what one knows of the past of the Commonwealth Relations Office, it has few people who have experience of the kind of work which still goes on in countries which have attained independence. One does not solve all one's social and economic problems overnight. The problem that was there at 31st December is still there on 1st January. The people who have been working on that kind of problem can still offer useful service and expertise.
If they do not get that service from us, these territories will get it from else-

89
where, and, very likely, much less satisfactorily. They may get it from Iron Curtain countries. We have just had a sharp reminder that that help can be offered, perhaps not very effectively, but it might become more effective in the future in certain parts of the world. We also get it much less disadvantageously, but, nevertheless, not fully satisfactorily, from for example, the United States.
Far be it from me to decry the valuable help which the United States gives in many parts of the world. I had an interesting experience in the House of Commons only ten days ago, when I addressed nearly 100 young American students who were going out for a year's work in various territories in West Africa, not just the British territories, but the French territories as well. They decided at the last moment that the Congo would not be the wisest place to visit.
Those students are spreading themselves throughout the African and Asian world. Good luck to them. One needs as much intelligent and selfless help as one can get, but it would be a great pity if we in any way abdicated in the sense that we did not make certain that we were offering the best possible assistance to countries with whom we are linked by history and by common service in the past.
I feel that we might have had a real Commonwealth overseas service, not just from this country, but from other countries of the Commonwealth. Possibly, that will be discussed later this evening; it has been discussed many times in the House of Commons and many of us are still not satisfied that something more imaginative could not have been done on those lines. Similarly, we are not satisfied, on this side at least, with the economic arrangements for countries which emerge into independence. The only reason why I do not propose to discuss that tonight is that I hope to be able to do so on Thursday evening.
We have a tremendous challenge, as, I am sure, all of us feel strongly, in this growing Commonwealth of ours. Time has not been long for some of the territories, but it is likely to be shorter still for some of the others. That is why I repeat my hope that we will be frank and thorough in our discussion of these problems concerning the economic, the
90
administrative and, above all, the political pattern which should emerge in these countries.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: I should like to confine the burden of my remarks to a point touched upon by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who pointed out the number of dependent territories which were now rapidly assuming sovereign status in the Commonwealth and might rightly attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and the complications that this could create in the future. At present, we have 10 Prime Ministers attending the Conference. By the time of the next Conference there will be at least 13. The figure of 20 has already been quoted for five years' time.
It seems that there are two problems. One is that the Conference is getting unwieldy, and the second is that the still dependent territories of the Commonwealth want and should have a say in the formation of Commonwealth policies. Only the sovereign States have this at the moment. It seems to me, therefore, that we have two alternatives. One is that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference becomes much larger and turns into a sort of United Nations, with a large number of countries putting forward their points of view and with, perhaps, only a small number having responsibility for carrying out the decisions made. Inevitably, we should thus create a first eleven and a second eleven, which, I think, would be most unfortunate and would create the sort of drawbacks which we already see in the Security Council and in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Some form of similar division may well occur in further Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences if they continue to increase in size.
The other alternative is some form of regionalisation, a matter already touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison). It seems to me that if the Commonwealth were divided into, say, three regions, which I would suggest, for the sake of discussion, would be the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific, we could then hold regional Prime Ministers' conferences between the Conferences of the Prime Ministers of the sovereign, independent States, which might be referred to as the

91
"Summit Conference" of the Commonwealth. These regional conferences would be attended not only by the sovereign, independent members in the region, but also by the Chief Ministers of the still dependent territories within the region. This would have the advantage that such regional Commonwealth conferences would form a preliminary to the "Summit Conference" of the Commonwealth.
They would help in the creation and evolution of real Commonwealth opinion, and would provide an outlet for the still dependent territories to have their say in the formation of Commonwealth policy. They would mean very much more to the man in the street in Fiji, or Hong Kong, or Mauritius, because at present the Prime Ministers' Conference tends to talk about very important subjects, such as East-West relations, the hydrogen bomb, and so on, which, perhaps, do not mean very much to the man in the street in those particular territories.
If, however, there were regional conferences interspersed between the "Summit Conference" these conferences could often be held on a functional basis, for example, meetings of transport Ministers, or Ministers for agriculture, and they would, therefore, discuss matters of primary importance to the people of the area. They would be understood as such, and, therefore, the whole idea of the Commonwealth would be enhanced among the peoples of the component members of the Commonwealth throughout the world. They would also help, I believe, to create a real form of Commonwealth opinion.
There has always been resistance to permanent Commonwealth machinery at the top level, and I think that if we had regional conferences there might well be on acceptance of regional machinery which could also be used to channel aid not only from the Commonwealth, but other sources. I have in mind something similar to the Colombo Plan. I believe that this system of regionalisation would enable this country to draw help from other sovereign nations of the Commonwealth when dealing with problems of the still dependent Commonwealth, and it would, therefore, do much to draw the sting of colonialism which
92
exists today in dealing with the problems of, for example, Kenya and Basutoland.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give attention to these problems which, I think, are of very great importance. Either the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference becomes a first and a second eleven, or some form of regional machinery should be interposed between the present two-yearly or three-yearly Prime Ministers' Conferences.
There is another aspect of this problem to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, and that is the problem faced by certain nations on becoming independent States, such as Somaliland, the Somali Republic as it now is, which may wish to have close links with the Commonwealth but which perhaps, anyhow at the start, may not wish to be a full member of the Commonwealth, but wish to enjoy independence first and then perhaps to return to the Commonwealth club.
It seems to me that there should be some form of external association for countries like Somalia, possibly the Sudan or Norway and other foreign countries outside the Commonwealth, which, on some occasions, may wish to have some closer association with the Commonwealth but not membership. I would suggest that such an external association would not include Commonwealth citizenship or consultation over Commonwealth policy, and obviously, not membership of the Prime Ministers' Conference, but would include such other matters as membership of the sterling area, trade preferences, access to Commonwealth technical organisations, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Here, I think, we have an example in the Sudan, which, while it had a Parliamentary system, was still a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association even though a foreign Power.
They would also have better facilities for technical aid, for administrative personnel, labour permits, and so on. I believe that there is a requirement for some form of external association for these countries between full Commonwealth membership and that of a completely foreign country with no relations with the Commonwealth. I believe that

93
this will do much to cement the Commonwealth together, particularly when we are faced with the problem, which we shall soon have to face, in West Africa. Ghana has already a link with Guinea, a foreign country—and we may face other similar associations, for example, between the Gambia—and the Mali Federation. It seems to me that we should be thinking on some such lines as these, which would allow countries joining other countries and, therefore, quitting the Commonwealth to remain in association with it, or to allow countries now foreign to have some external association with the Commonwealth, an association which does not now exist.
I would also warmly support those hon. Members of the Committee, on both sides, who have suggested, some indirectly, that we need a different organisation at Westminster to cope with our expanding Commonwealth. I suggest that very careful study should be given to the amalgamation of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, and that some form of integrated Civil Service, which would be available to countries, both independent and sovereign, within the Commonwealth, should be set up as soon as possible.
It seems to me that we have got to set our own house in order in this respect, because for a country to make a change from one Department to another at the very critical time when it is moving from a dependent to a sovereign status is bad for that country and may weaken its wish to remain part of the Commonwealth. I believe that the amalgamation of these two Departments would do much to help, and the evolution of the Commonwealth there should be some form of integrated administrative service which could be used by all the members of the Commonwealth.
There are just two other issues which I should like to mention very briefly. The first is the problem of the multiracial States in the Commonwealth. Looking at the Continent of Africa one sees that Britain now is by far the largest colon al Power in that Continent and that the still dependent territories are grouped in Central Africa or in East Africa. The main difficulty lies in the problem of the multiracial State, that is, the territories which are regarded as "home" by two or even three races.
94
Speed of advance is, I think, the main difficulty, and I believe that it is this issue of speed which probably divides the two sides of this Committee. We all want to see all the dependent territories, including the multiracial ones, independent, sovereign members of the Commonwealth and represented at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference as soon as possible. If we go too slow along the path to independence we stir up African emotionalism, which is today an extremely potent force not only in these territories but in other African nations throughout that great Continent. If we go too fast we may find a drastic lowering of standards.
In fact, standards could drop to such an extent that the British civil servants might refuse to serve a rapidly emerging, predominantly African Government. That would be a disaster, because those administrators and technicians could not be replaced from other parts of the Commonwealth, or, indeed, from other parts of the Western world. We could find standards falling so much that the European minorities and even the Asian minorities may refuse to continue in that country, and this would certainly, in a country like Kenya, lead to the collapse of the economy and, therefore, to a reduction in the standard of living of all the peoples in the country.
It seems to me, therefore, that Britain must hold on to the reins of Government in those multiracial countries until nonracial Governments and nonracial administrations and, therefore, nonracial political parties have become effective. I think that we must make it clear to these countries that we all wish them to become independent, sovereign members of the Commonwealth as rapidly as possible, and make them realise that their progress to sovereignty is purely in their own hands. They have got to convince their minorities that they need have no fear and that when they proceed on a nonracial basis their independence will be granted.
I hope, also, that the Commonwealth nations can help. Why is it that we in this country have to take upon ourselves the burdens and difficulties and sometimes the odium of tutelage? Could not India, Pakistan and, indeed, Nigeria, which now appreciate that speed is not the thing that really matters in independence but rather a solid basis of stability,

95
help us in this problem and so help to reduce the rather old-fashioned sting of colonialism?
As I read it, the communiqué of the Prime Ministers' Conference made it clear that should South Africa become a republic it would then apply for permission to remain within the Commonwealth. On the other hand, as has been quoted in the debate today, the interpretation of the Prime Minister of South Africa was entirely different. He virtually said that South Africa, as a republic, would remain within the Commonwealth. Why did he say that? It was clear from what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier today that my interpretation of the communiqué was the correct one and not that given by the Prime Minister of South Africa. Why, therefore, did the Prime Minister of South Africa go to these lengths?
I visited South Africa recently and I was told that just before the emergency regulations were brought into force the National Government estimated that they were about 100,000 votes short on the referendum. They were going to conduct a campaign for a republic and to convent the extra voters that they required to win the referendum they must win over a number of English-speaking South Africans. These could be won over if they were clear that South Africa as a republic would remain in the Commonwealth. Therefore, there were political reasons behind this version of the communiqué given by Dr. Verwoerd. It would be most unfortunate if his interpretation were not refuted in this Committee and a clear picture were not put before the people of South Africa—not only the Afrikaners, but the English-speaking South Africans and the majority of Africans themselves, none of whom would wish to see their country cut off from the Commonwealth and dominated by the present Nationalist Government.
The majority race have very little opportunity of putting their point of view. It is particularly important, therefore, that the fact that there is no guarantee for the republic remaining in the Commonwealth should be put clearly before English-speaking South Africans who may hold the balance in this matter. Recently, South African Ministers have
96
talked about a chorus of hate from this country. I am sure that no one in the Committee, and very few in this country, hates that beautiful country, South Africa. I certainly do not, nor do I hate any race in that country. But I do almost hate the present system of government there, which is a dictatorship by a small minority. I say that without intending any disparagement of the Afrikaner nation. After all, Sir De Villiers Graaff and Dr. Janie Stietler, who lead the two Opposition parties, are both of Afrikaner stock.
We disapprove of the system of apartheid because we feel that it is immoral. It has no place in our expanding Commonwealth. It is, therefore, of great importance that this Committee should declare to the mass of people in South Africa the right interpretation of the outcome of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' thoughts on this matter and show how this contrasts with Dr. Verwoerd's assumptions.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations has successively received the congratulations of hon. Members on being sworn to the Privy Council, with which I associate myself, but he has also had questioned the whole basis of his job and whether it should be continued at all, with which also I should like to be associated, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that this is perhaps one of the most important Commonwealth Conferences ever held. One aspect of particular importance is the friction which undoubtedly existed and still exists as a result of the multiracial basis of the Commonwealth today.
We have moved a long way since Lord Durham was sent out to Canada in 1838, but we have not moved entirely from the position taken up then. I understand that one of the first things he did was to pack off eight leading members of the rebellion to Bermuda, without trial, which I gather created a precedent. Five months later he resigned, but now we are a little more delicate and send people to the House of Lords.
We have tried every constitutional experiment. It is not generally known that in 1936 we had two territories in

97
the Commonwealth which were recognising different monarchs. The Union of South Africa recognised the accession of King George VI, while this country still recognised Edward VIII as King. The reverse applied in the Irish Free State.
The most important matter arising from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference is the questions which we now have to try to answer—for example, whether the rapid growth of the Commonwealth will change its character. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) touched upon this subject. In future years there may well be twenty to twenty-five members of the Commonwealth. President Nkrumah has suggested a minimum population of 2 million. I do not believe that population is necessarily the right criterion. I agree that there must be far more regional conferences and it would be very wrong to have a two-tiered Commonwealth in which certain people were allowed to come in as permanent members and some as nonpermanent members. I am not very attracted by the idea of an observer status being given to certain territories which may have internal but incomplete self-government, but there may well be something in having a colonial consultative assembly so that some problems may be discussed by people who have reached approximately the same degree of political evolution. I also think that we should consider holding an Imperial Conference similar to that held in 1897.
Mr. B. Harrison: I find that point about a consultative council very interesting. Does the hon. Member envisage that it would deal with economic development and not with anything that had to do with international political affairs, or does he think that it should deal with political affairs as well?
Mr. Thorpe: I would say that there would be two matters. First, I suggest a colonial consultative assembly as a sounding board for the imperial British Government, who would still be responsible for the destinies of the Colonies. It might be a very useful way of trying to formulate policy. Obviously there would be resolutions on various affairs and on the views which the territories held about other emerging territories. It would be a useful opportunity for those
98
Colonial Territories which have not reached self-government to express their point of view and to work out a common policy.
As for an Imperial Conference, the last one of that nature was held in the last century and there were present not merely representatives of Governments but also of Oppositions in proportion to their strength in their Assemblies and Houses of Parliament. That, I think, would widen the political interest taken in the Commonwealth, not merely by the heads of Government in the Commonwealth territories, but by other leading people who are possibly at the moment in the Opposition.
This leads to the next point—that the functions of the Colonial Office and of the Commonwealth Relations Office more and more are seen to overlap. The Commonwealth Relations Office, strangely enough, administers, in the case of the High Commission Territories in South Africa, territories in the same way as the Colonial Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, for his part, is engaged in negotiations of a very important constitutional nature—with great skill, if I may say so with great respect—and, in that regard, is partly laying the foundations for the future members of the Commonwealth. I suggest that there are now three functions common to both Departments—economic, diplomatic and constitutional.
I believe that the first thing to do is to combine the Commonwealth Relations and the Colonial Offices. I hasten to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, however, that this automation would not put either him or the Colonial Secretary out of a job, because I have another suggestion which would keep them both fully occupied. This is that the division should not be, as it is at the moment, based on status—that is to say, a Colony or a self-governing Dominion—but instead should be based upon geographical areas, rather as the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) suggested.
I am not a great lover of the Stuarts. But Charles II, when he arrived back in this country in 1660, brought many appendages with him. One was the French idea of having Secretaries of State who had particular geographical

99
spheres of interest; for instance, a Secretary of State for the north and another for the south. The sort of division I visualise would have a Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and, under him, a Secretary of State dealing chiefly with Africa and another dealing chiefly with Asia, Australasia and North America.
Such an arrangement would also have the advantage that we would be able to create a Commonwealth service, combining with it the existing Colonial Service. In that way, we would give a very much greater feeling of security to people who are at present in the Colonial Service. Many of these people have given a lifetime of service in various territories, and many in places like Tanganyika, Nigeria and Uganda, are very worried about what the future is to hold for them. If they felt that there was a Commonwealth service which was interchangeable they would have a greater feeling of security. I hope that this service would be recruited not merely on a British but on a Commonwealth basis. If it also blended with the foreign service in this country, that would be very beneficial to both services and make some of our Foreign Office officials slightly more in touch with reality than they are at the moment.
It would also be possible to create some sort of Commonwealth development fund. I shall not elaborate on this because it will be mentioned on Thursday. The hon. Member for Maldon mentioned the Commonwealth Development Finance Company, but I believe that this is purely a commercial organisation. I would like to see the Colonial Development Corporation expanded so that it could also serve areas in the Commonwealth.
Mention has been made of the possibility of a Commonwealth court, and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) re referred to the remarks made by Senator Cooray. I would warmly support the idea of a Commonwealth convention, a sort of charter, setting up basic rights. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might well be a suitable basis upon which to work. Two criticisms are always made of the Judicial Committee. The first is that it is principally composed of English and Scottish
100
Law Lords, although occasionally there is a representative from Ceylon, and sometimes from Canada and Australia, but it is by and large exclusively British. The second point of criticism is that it always sits in London.
We might well examine the idea of the Judicial Committee going on circuit around the Commonwealth in the same way as Her Majesty's judges go on circuit in this country on assize. Obviously, if the Committee went on circuit, at least two-thirds of its members would have to be drawn from the country it happened to be visiting at the time.
I turn now to economic policies. It is ironic that, despite the tremendous independence which is always mentioned as existing between members of the Commonwealth, the economic policy which this country will follow in the next five or six months will probably have a greater effect on the Commonwealth than at any other time. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers mentioned that they were concerned at the economic division in Europe, and so they might be, because we read today that Australia has waived her preference in regard to various products—such as cheese and meat—in order that Britain can more easily meet her commitments in the European Free Trade Area.
Whatever me may say about Commonwealth trade, the trade which the Commonwealth countries have with the Common Market countries is growing and is of considerable importance to them. Canada now exports 30 per cent. of her wheat to Common Market countries; Ghana sells them 30 per cent. of her exports; 87 per cent. of Australia's exports to the Common Market is in wool, but £16 million worth of foodstuffs were sold in 1955–57. So it goes on in country after country in the Commonwealth. The effect of Britain's exclusion from the Common Market and of the agricultural policies which the Common Market will follow—which will mean a 40 per cent. increase in agricultural production in five years and an attempt to become self sufficient—will mean that that market will be shut to Commonwealth countries.
I believe that it is vitally important for the Commonwealth that this country should go into the Common Market in order to try to get the best possible terms it can for the Commonwealth countries.

101
The way in which Australia wanted to lower the margin of Imperial Preference in 1956, the way in which New Zealand wished to lower it in 1958, and the present Australian move, show that the benefits of Imperial Preference are on the way out and declining. It is much more important for the Commonwealth that we should have a wealthy and expanding economy in Europe able to get the best possible terms for them.
Mr. Wall: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to go the whole hog and do what France has done in taking the French Union into the Common Market? Would he propose taking the Commonwealth into the Common Market if that were possible?
Mr. Thorpe: It is not for us to decide, but I would unhesitatingly say "yes". I believe it would be the finest thing possible for the Commonwealth to go into the Common Market. It would probably be the most powerful economic bloc in the world in six to seven years' time. Certainly the exclusion of the Commonwealth and ourselves would have a very damaging effect on Commonwealth trade.
There are certain questions which we must ask ourselves. Do we say that there are certain Commonwealth values? Do we recognise that there are circumstances in which Members of the Commonwealth are so out of tune with the spirit and principles of the Commonwealth that it is no longer right and proper for them to remain inside? I believe that there are. Mention has been made that this is a multiracial Commonwealth. I would interpret that by saying that each member country should have a multiracial policy. I reecho what the hon. Member for Haltemprice said. I hope that it will go out from this Committee to the Nationalist Government in South Africa that in the event of South Africa becoming a Republic as a result of a non-representative referendum being taken, there is no guarantee whatsoever that we should be prepared to keep her within the Commonwealth—none whatsoever. Not only that; if I interpret the right hon. Gentleman correctly, it is wrong to say that there was even a declaration of intention with regard to Britain's voting at the next Conference.
102
No doubt the Colonial Secretary will be able to confirm that.
There has been a lot of thinking about the Commonwealth in recent months. I read a recent publication, of which the hon. Member for Haltemprice was one of the authors, and I agreed with much of it. The one remark which I found somewhat interesting was "that the Commonwealth has another merit which Conservatism teaches us to appreciate— it actually exists." I thought at the time that possibly this was an advantage. It reminded me of the philosophy of, I think, Berkeley, who said that unless he was able to see something or unless it existed in his mind it did not exist at all and was a figment of the imagination or something that was supernatural.
Mr. William Shepherd: It sounds very much like an inscription to Liberal policy.
Mr. Thorpe: I can assure the hon. Member that that was not the view of the electors of North Devon. It is of benefit to members of the Commonwealth that they are at least visible, having as we do a Conservative Government in this country.
Let us realise that there will be friction. There will be a move to exclude South Africa, possibly by the Asian and African member States. Do not let us try to pretend that the problem does not exist. There will be the great problem of the dependencies which will want to join the Commonwealth. I hope that we shall move further from the rhetorical questions which the Minister of State gave us and have from the Colonial Secretary the answers to them.
6.52 p.m.
Mr. C. M. Woodhouse: It was foreseeable and natural that a good deal of the time of this debate would be devoted to the tragedy and dilemma of South Africa. However, as has already been pointed out, South Africa was not the only subject which was discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
I should like to return for a moment to a passage in the Prime Ministers' communiqué which has already been mentioned and which is, by a curious chance, sandwiched between the two paragraphs referring to South Africa's desire to

103
become a republic and South Africa's racial policies. The paragraph says:
"The Ministers reviewed the constitutional development of the Commonwealth, with particular reference to the future of the smaller dependent territories. They agreed that a detailed study of this subject should be made for consideration by Commonwealth Governments."
These are the very same territories which are collectively covered by the Colonial Office Report published last March—The Colonial Territories, 1959–60. Not all the territories dealt with in that Report are small, of course, and several of them are in the process of ceasing to be dependent. At any rate, all the territories referred to in that paragraph of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, whichever they may be, are covered somewhere or other in the Colonial Office Report.
The Report lists forty-three of them this year, and they differ greatly in size, population and viability. Last year the corresponding list in the Colonial Office Report totalled forty-five. Two years ago it was forty-seven. It is certain that a year from now the number will be fewer again. In fact, with the numbers going down every year it is ceasing to be realistic to talk of the Colonial Territories collectively at all— to talk, as the Report does, of the territories' collective exports and imports, their collective balance of payments, their collective sterling balances, and so on, as though they formed a single economic unit, when if they are so treated there is no longer any basis for comparing one year with another. Anyway, there in that list are to be found all the territories with which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were dealing in that context.
What is to be the long-term future of those territories? Until a few years ago it could be taken for granted in the House of Commons that a negative answer of a sort could be given quite firmly to that question. For the majority of them, at any rate, total independence was simply out of the question. I do not think that a few years ago there was any very great difference between the two sides of the House with regard to what I might call the irreducible remainder of these Colonial Territories. I do not want to revive old controversies, least of all on the day when the House has been told of the successful conclusion of the Cyprus
104
negotiations, and if I refer to the dispute begun six years ago, which is now so happily closed, I do so only to illustrate the basic agreement of principle on that irreducible remainder of the smaller dependent territories.
Even when a former Minister of State for the Colonies declared the principle that the House of Commons had always agreed that there were certain territories which by the nature of their particular circumstances could not look forward to independence, that statement was, of course, hotly disputed in regard to Cyprus, and the Cyprus case has now been terminated, but as a general statement of principle it was not then disputed.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) commented on that occasion that there were small territories in the Colonies to which at any given stage, so far as it was possible to foresee, the grant of Dominion status would be meaningless because of their circumstances. "So far as it is possible to foresee" the right hon. Gentleman said six years ago. How far is it now possible to foresee? Certainly, the prospect has greatly changed, and these are precisely the territories to which the Prime Ministers' communiqué was referring. Do we still believe that in some cases ultimate full independence is impracticable, and do they still believe it?
Every year or two a few more of the Colonial Territories are struck off the list and change their status. So far, this has happened mainly to the larger and more prosperous ones. Nigeria achieves what used to be called Dominion status this year. The Federation of the West Indies will do so before long. Somaliland has just achieved independence. Cyprus will next month. Sierra Leone will next year. Singapore has had full internal self-government since last year. British Guiana will have it next year; and so on. More than half the other territories on the list are at different stages in the process of constitutional advance. How far can it go, and what is the ultimate goal when we get right down the list?
Naturally, those which have already stepped off the escalator which moves from the Colonial Office to the Common-wealth Relations Office are generally those which have the best chance of

105
standing on their own legs and, in particular, of doing so economically, but, even so, there are exceptions to it, such as Somaliland, which will be a very poor country indeed. The further we look down the list the more unlikely it becomes that the territories can be self-supporting in a true sense, at least without a sharp drop in their standard of living.
Of the forty-three territories on the list today, if we look at Appendix II of the Commonwealth Office Report for this year we find that fewer than half had a favourable balance of income over expenditure or broke even in the last year. In parenthesis, we might single out for special commendation the extra-ordinary case of the Turks and Caicos Islands, which for the last five years have succeeded without exception in exactly balancing their income and expenditure. But that is very exceptional, and we cannot overlook the fact that very few even of those achieved a constant surplus in the last few years without some kind of subvention.
Among the few are those with especially fortunate circumstances, like Brunei with its oil, Hong Kong with its transit trade and its extraordinary development in manufacturing industry since the war, and Bermuda, presumably thanks to the tourist trade. Even some of those have fallen back from time to time and barely one quarter of the whole number of territories are self-supporting in the sense of consistently balancing their income with their expenditure.
Even when they have achieved a balance, they are often able to do so only with the help of subventions in one form or another from the United Kingdom taxpayer. United Kingdom contributions, through the Vote for Colonial Services, last year amounted to £23·6 million, even leaving out of account the movement of capital which brought the figure to more than £100 million. Of the relatively few Colonial Territories which had a surplus, several received a United Kingdom subvention in one form or another which exceeded their surplus, and they and almost all the others received grants in one form or another, for instance through Colonial Development and Welfare funds.
What will become of those contributions when those territories are launched
106
on full independence? Theoretically, they will cease to qualify for C.D. and W. funds. Perhaps more important in the long run, what will become of their entitlement to be considered for investment projects of the Colonial Development Corporation, whose Annual Report has just been published? This contains a reminder that the C.D.C. is debarred from making new investments in territories which have emerged from colonial status, but it can remain with its existing investments and even, with the necessary Ministerial sanction, invest further money in them.
Those stipulations are likely to have one obvious effect. It is that the C.D.C. will refrain from undertaking new projects at the last minute in territories very near to independence and with an uncertain future. That is exactly what we find in practice. For instance, the C.D.C as only one current project in Singapore, one in Sierre Leone, none in Cyprus and none in Somaliland. To put it very lightly, those are not favourable omens.
It has been comforting to be told that other independent countries of the Commonwealth can be expected in future to rally round and help in this process of finding investment funds for the small territories, but we must not forget that the majority of the independent members of the Commonwealth are themselves, in an absolute sense, under-developed countries.
I want briefly to turn to one other uncertainty about the smaller territories, and that concerns the problems of defence, both their defence and the more general problem of defence. Obviously, not one of them can defend itself on its own—that goes without saying—but nor can any of the rest of us. On the other hand, some of them are still vital links in our own and our allies' defence system. If they were independent, would they agree to enter into agreements for defence with ourselves or our allies? If they did, they could simultaneously assure their own protection and a measure of economic support as well, but precedent suggests that they may be reluctant to enter into such arrangements and precedent also suggests that such arrangements, if made, may well not last.
Several independent members of the Commonwealth in the past have removed

107
British bases which were held under treaty. The Republic of Ireland did so when it was in the Commonwealth before the war. Ceylon and South Africa have both done so since the war, while others, like India, Ghana and now Nigeria, have never agreed to have British defence bases or installations.
It may be argued that the base on Cyprus provides an example of the way in which base agreements can be entrenched in the basic agreement on independence, but entrenched clauses have been known to be disentrenched in other Commonwealth countries before now. If our agreement on the bases in Cyprus is to be maintained—and I hope and believe that it will be—then I also believe that it will not be so much because of agreement on bases being entrenched in the constitution of Cyprus as because it is virtually impossible to conceive a situation in which both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots would simultaneously want to get rid of us. It is very unlikely that these exceptional circumstances will be achieved anywhere else.
Those are some of the uncertainties which overhang the smaller territories in the future and, now that their future is to be studied in detail, there are many questions to be answered. Some of them have already been aired before the Committee this evening. First, what is their ultimate constitutional status to be? Is full internal self-government a final status, or an interim stage on the way to something else? What sort of governments are they to have under their constitutions? How many more Common-wealth Prime Ministers will join the Conference?
It is not only that question which arises from the enlargement of the Commonwealth. There is also the question of whether all countries will be put on the full distribution list for information from the Commonwealth Relations Office. There is also the question of whether their representatives at the United Nations are to be included in the confidential briefings of Commonwealth delegations in New York.
If that is not to be done, then we shall have something like a two-tier or three-tier system in the Commonwealth, and that is something which has always been
108
repugnant to us in the past. Finally, there is the question of how they will survive economically and how, if at all, they will fit into the allied defence system.
I am very glad that these questions, in the words of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, are to be the subject of a detailed study for consideration by Common-wealth Governments. I add just one comment. It would be most valuable if that study were not confined to officials and experts from the United Kingdom alone. After all, our own experts never stop studying these problems. We need fresh minds and fresh eyes and we need the participation of Commonwealth representatives in the study of problems which are bound to become, more and more, problems of their own as well as problems of ours. It would be healthy for us and good for the Commonwealth as a whole if the Government servants and experts of the Commonwealth countries themselves were to take part not only in the consideration of the results of the study, but in the process of making that study itself.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: In spite of the peace which always pervades the Chamber at this time of the evening, throughout the debate there has been an awareness and almost a flicker of excitement about the problems of the newly emerging countries, the newly independent and developing countries in various part of the world. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) has just given us an extremely thoughtful and stimulating speech on the important questions which are outstanding. Many of us are still asking those questions and cannot give the answers.
I was particularly interested in his last comments and in his approach to the way in which we should tackle this problem. He said that we should look not only to experts from this conutry who have experience of the Colonial Office and perhaps other administration of an academic kind, but that we should spread the study to seminars which would include people from the developing countries themselves and from other parts of the Common-wealth. Such a suggestion could yield only good.

109
Because of our insular state and our own knowledge and background we are rather inclined to be somewhat divorced from the conditions which obtain in most developing countries. Throughout the debate, there has been an address to the problems contained in the administrative and organisational arrangements of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. I could not go all the way with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr B. Harrison), who spoke of the failure of the Commonwealth Relations Office. We have many things of which to be proud especially of the way in which High Commissioners and Deputy High Commissioners and other servants attached to the C.R.O. have been able to fulfil their functions.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the changing situation has created an area of no-man's land between the Colonial Office and the C.R.O. I would follow the hon. Member for Oxford in his concern about the economic arrangements that are being made as these countries develop to self-government, and as the Colonial Development Corporation becomes no longer applicable to help in those territories. I would hesitate to go very far into the constitutional arrangements between Government Departments, but we are concerned that the essential thing is that there should not be a slip down between two Departments and that economic aid should be left merely became neither Department can accept full responsibility for it.
This is particularly important in the early stages of development as a country newly attains its independence, and during its teething problems it is vitally important that there should be no lack of understanding and support coming from this country and no hiatus between those engaged in helping either through the Colonial Office or the C.R.O.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) discussed future Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences and a number of hon. Members have pursued the line of the need to break down this huge problem on to a regional basis. I share with the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. J. Thorpe) distaste for establishing first and second-class States within the Commonwealth or one, two, or three-tier organisations, but, nevertheless, I feel that there is a great deal of room for the
110
establishment and development of organisation on a regional basis to deal with problems in South-East Asia and Africa, for instance, where there can he a participation of the people in the countries in these regions in dealing with common problems and trying to resolve difficulties not necessarily peculiar to their regions but of particular importance to the area concerned. The establishment of further assistance on the Colombo Plan basis has already gone some part of the way by the setting up of the Economic Commission in Africa.
I should like to say one or two things on the highlighted question of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference which achieved the headlines, as the sensational invariably does. That is the terrible problem of apartheid in South Africa with which the Commonwealth is faced. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed their abhorrence of apartheid. I think that there is no division of opinion on it. We have, however, to be extremely careful that in trying to maintain even the smallest member within the family or the most awkward child as part of the family we do not estrange those representative of the 400 million Indians, 80 million Pakhistanis and those from Ceylon and elsewhere who have very strong feelings on racial discrimination and the colour bar. This should be one of the primary things in our minds in the months ahead in our discussions and as, perhaps, the problem emerges in times to come.
I regret that at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference it is always the differences and conflicts which catch the imagination and make the headlines, whereas the constructive work going on in other parts of the world does not. The constructive day-to-day work does not catch the imagination of the public.
I am also concerned with the question of apartheid from a constituency point of view. The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) shares this problem with me. We both serve on a committee for racial integration in the Borough of Willesden. We have, roughly, one in nine immigrants coming from the West Indies into my constituency. In building up understanding in this country with immigrants coming from Africa and the Caribbean we are hindered when events

111
occur such as those that took place at Sharpeville, and by the kind of reactions that occurred in Notting Hill and and adjacent areas over South Africa, and apartheid.
While welcoming the progress made in this direction—if one can say that progress was made—in the Prime Ministers' Conference, we are looking for much more tolerance and understanding throughout the world in regard to racial problems, and I hope that the force of public opinion which we on this side of the Committee have tried to make known not only in words, but by economic sanctions, will make itself felt in South Africa, so that we can avoid the division of a country into first-class and second-class citizens on the basis of the colour bar.
I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) the wish to see some form of a Bill of Rights. We should have a clear statement. I accept that merely by establishing a Bill of Rights we have not solved the problem, but at least we could have a public declaration and attestation of faith in certain principles. We should then be in a position to see whether we were able to follow through with other provisions, and whether we would be able to build within the Commonwealth some kind of Commonwealth Court of Justice, such as The Hague Court has in international affairs. That could be a subject for further debate and discussion.
I should like to see this Committee and those responsible within the Ministries grapple seriously with this question. First, could we have a Bill of Rights for individuals within the territories within the Commonwealth and, secondly, could there not be by mutual agreement, either through the machinery which we have by joining together in Prime Ministers' Conferences, or by other machinery that might be established, action to make those principles operative within the territories of the Commonwealth? It is not an easy problem, but most problems that are worth while solving are never easy.
I regret that I was not in the Chamber to hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom). I can assure him that I shall read it with
112
great interest tomorrow, as one does read most maiden speeches. I am sure that he will feel much happier now that he has "got it off his chest", although I would remind him that second and third speeches are far more difficult than the first. The hon. Member raised a problem in which, I think, the Committee should be interested, namely, the need for development in the Commonwealth of youth education, youth services and youth training.
I was very interested, a number of years ago, when the World Assembly of Youth which previously, like most international organisations, had settled for its international conferences in Europe, decided to take its conferences to Singapore. One result of that was to establish a youth leaders' training school in Asia. I had the privilege, a few years ago, of inspecting this school, which is outside Colombo, in Ceylon, and seeing the work done in that centre to give some measure of training to those working for young people, both in the villages and towns of Asia, in the same way as we do with our youth services through local authorities and voluntary organisations. I was also interested in the amount of support coming from America and this country for the establishment of that centre.
But the essential thing to remember in watching experiments of that kind is that we cannot transplant our experience in youth services, which is built up against the background of an industrial economy and conditions with which we are familiar, to places like Delhi, Lahore, Karachi, or Colombo, because in their circumstances the needs are different. Therefore, the development of youth work and training, and the understanding of youth problems in these countries must spring from their own culture rather than ours. In this country, youth services have tended to be dominated by work in the East End of London and in the slums. We seem to think that the average youth is a delinquent. We look first to the Teddy boys and only afterwards to what kind of services we should provide for the average youngsters, coming from normal homes.
Asia does not have this background of social service work upon which to base its youth work. I hope that some

113
interest will be taken by voluntary organisations and other sections in this country in the desirability of establishing ties between youth organisations in Asia and Africa and those here.
The last point to which I wish to refer is the most important one which was raised by my right hon. Friend in connection with technical assistance. With him, I welcome the information that £10 million is going to India. But it is part of the job of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to see that the right kind of attitude goes with that assistance. We must see that aid goes to the right places, at the right time, in the right kind of way.
The outstanding problem facing the under-developed countries remains the demographic problem. There is a tremendous rise in population. For every minute that I speak another 80 mouths are coming into the world to be fed. One of the neatest illustrations of this fact was given by the late Professor Boeke, of Leiden University. He drew a graph, and pointed out that if we had a hosepipe 19 yards long, one end of which was on the ground, and we raised it by two and a half inches at the other end, that represented the rise in population since the beginning of recorded history. But if we looked back over the last generation represented by the last inch of that 19 yards, we would see that it suddenly spurted up by six feet. The graph has a gradual rise for thousands of years and then there is a sudden spurt to a tremendous height. That is a measure of the population problem which the underdeveloped countries face today.
Just after the war the impact of D.D.T. in Ceylon was enormous. It was not a question of the birth rate rising, but the death rate falling very rapidly. India, by her two five-year plans, has managed to keep pace with this tremendous rise, but she can continue to do so only if she receives help from other countries which are more fortunately situated economically. In this matter of technical assistance, as in youth work, we must be aware of the different circumstances that exist in various countries. We are so used to thinking in terms of industry and an industrialised urban community that we find it almost impossible to think in terms of an Asian or African village,
114
where 80 per cent. of the population is engaged in agriculture, and the great majority live on a subsistence basis. It is not a market economy; the peasant eats the food he grows. Even remembering that background, hon. Members on this side sometimes fall into the error of thinking in terms of trade unions when we should be thinking in terms of cooperative societies, agricultural, credit and thrift, marketing, etc.
Many hon. Members in this debate have considered what kind of assistance we should give to the emerging Governments. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) made a very reasoned plea that assistance should not stop at a bound copy of Erskine May and our good wishes; we must recognise that if we replant a Westminster Statute in a hot climate the flowers we get may be a little more prolific; certainly, they will be more colourful, and not half so respectable, in some cases, as they are in this august Chamber, with all its traditions. Nevertheless, when we consider the way in which these countries will develop their own flavour of Parliamentary institutions—their own approach to the way in which their executives will govern their people—we shall find that we have a lot to give them if we approach the matter from their point of view rather than our own.
One of my most difficult experiences when engaged in technical assistance work in Asia was a feeling of frustration with my colleagues from the Point Four or I.C.A. administration of America, who sometimes came into the work with the idea that all they had to do in underdeveloped countries was to copy the pattern that existed in the Middle West of America, or in Texas. They seemed to think that agricultural problems could be solved merely with more tractors and more mechanisation. Many such solutions had no relation to the pattern of life or the culture existing in the places which the Americans were trying to serve.
We must approach these problems from the point of view of the countries concerned, and especially with some understanding of the terrific problem which faces them when, as is very often the case, a large section of the community is illiterate and is still living on a bowl of rice a day, at subsistence level

115
but where, at the same time, the leadership within the community has experienced the best that Western civilisation can offer and has attained high academic degrees at the best universities in both America and England. The conflict that arises is that between the desire to move very quickly from a feudal society into one which has all the benefits of civilisation and the need to move surely. They are in a hurry, naturally, when they see the standards which exist in their own kacha huts and compare them with what is available in the Western world. They are, naturally, anxious to develop quickly.
At the same time, this conflict arises from the fact that if a country is to build soundly, on good foundations, it is often necessary to take a considerable time, to make sure that what it is building is the right thing to build. It should not hasten if, in the end, it builds constitutions or governmental structures which are not able to stand up to the test of time, and to the generations which follow.
Therefore, when we are seeking to give technical assistance we must understand that those whom we are trying to assist are faced, on the one hand, with the necessity for quick development—the people want to see a literate community within their lifetime, to see people having three meals a day; to see the extension of hospitals, health services and education—and, on the other, with the knowledge that if they proceed too quickly it is only too likely that the structure will not stand, and that the good beginning made will not continue.
India has been a model pattern, in attempting by her successful five-year plans to build a democratic State. She has been engaged in one of the greatest experiment in history—trying to jump from a feudal system to a welfare State without going through the intervening misery of an industrial revolution. This is a great adventure in India, which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are watching with interest and to which they should give their maximum support.
In spite of the highlight of the dissension that arose in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference concerning South Africa and apartheid,
116
we have watched the adventure of the 43 territories mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford and the emergence of many countries from a dependent state to that of independence. I envy the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He is in office during a period of history which must be a constant challenge to him, but must be very rewarding as he takes, one after the other, the decisions which lead to emerging independence in Africa and the Caribbean.
It is similar to the exciting period experienced by many hon. Members on this side of the Committee—unfortunately, not including myself—in 1947, when the Labour Government at that time took the gigantic stride forward of giving independence to India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon. For hon. Members on this side that period must have been just as exciting as is this period for the Colonial Secretary. We share with him some of that excitement and feeling of anticipation, and that has been obvious throughout this debate. We also share with him the feeling of terrific responsibility which rests on our shoulders, a responsibility which we shall bear in the two or three years lying ahead. Hon. Members on this side will do their best to see that the results conform with the high ideals which have been advanced during the debate today.
7.31 p.m.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I hope that I do not stand between hon. Gentlemen who have given a great deal of thought to these matters, and have produced prepared speeches for this debate, and the timed rising of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I did not come to the Committee prepared to rise to my feet and catch your eye, Sir Herbert, but I have been emboldened to do so by the high quality and great interest of the speeches made in this debate and not least by that of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt).
This great concourse of nations, the British Commonwealth, has no future at all in a turbulent world unless it is based upon compassion, tolerance and compromise. In the last few months I have been very shocked to listen to speeches from hon. Members opposite and to read articles in the Press pleading the merits and cause of black Africa, come what may, and showing a great passion

117
for extremism and for a fierce pace of change. I have wondered whether the results of all these things would not be directed in the end towards tearing the British Commonwealth apart.
This conviction I have that the future of the Commonwealth must rest on compassion and tolerance has prevented me once or twice when I should have liked —perhaps with a few of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee—to have stuck a stake in the ground and made things more difficult for the Government than in fact they have been made. But I observed in the debate today a greater degree of understanding, much more of a spirit of inquiry and questioning, and I hope that this will shortly be reflected in some of the journals to which I have referred of the radical Left; notably, those two which always seem to me to be edited somewhere on the lost continent of Atlantis—the Observer and the Economist. It may be that in the next few weeks we shall see their articles reflecting the new tone which is apparent from the other side of the Committee.
If I can start with a word about South Africa, I will invite the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to be a little more forthcoming than was his colleague the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). I think that the Labour Party—I was disappointed that the Liberal Party did not seem to be prepared to do so—ought to say what it felt should be the line of the United Kingdom when the difficult moment arrives and we are presented with the request of South Africa, following her referendum, or whatever the procedural process will be, to remain in the Commonwealth while becoming a republic.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East was extremely tentative. He said that the Labour Party had been very careful not to say more than that it would be a pity if South Africa left the Commonwealth, because of those millions of Africans and hundreds of thousands of Europeans who would be denied the benefits that Commonwealth membership confers. But I think the Government are entitled to ask for something a little broader than that. There is no party point in this. The whole atmosphere of the debate has shown that on this great issue of the future of the Commonwealth we are something of a
118
Council of State. It is the United Kingdom purpose which has to be defined, and I think that the Labour Party should endeavour to assist the Government in reaching a just and equitable conclusion.
Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend assuming that the decision, if a decision be required to be taken, will in fact be the decision of the United Kingdom? I should not have thought that to be the case.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was at that moment coming on to the point.
Some of my hon. Friends and myself put a Motion on the Order Paper the other day which, in effect, asked the Government to admit South Africa to membership of the Commonwealth as a republic on a simple application. We were careful not to ascribe this procedure to any new outsider republic or kingdom that might ask to join the Commonwealth, but simply to deal with those who are already members of it and who wish to make a change in their status up or down—if one can define a republic as "down" and a kingdom as "up".
Our thinking was really based upon the realisation that these are transitory matters. In one period of five years, or in a decade, one part of the Commonwealth may be—and has been in the past —in a state of violent uncertainty and change, and possibly in a state of civil strife and unrest. Who are we to say, in this particular period of five years, when South Africa is undergoing great internal stresses, that the idea of compassion which alone keeps the Commonwealth together should not apply to them; and that, because they are in this situation, and making an application for a change of membership, we are to listen to those other and much newer members of the Commonwealth who say, "Nay" to that?
Malaya and Ghana look as if they would like to say, "Nay". Has not Malaya been in a state of civil strife and unrest—while it was a Colony certainly —and is everything so pacific and certain about its future as a single and resplendent new member of the Commonwealth that we can be certain that no internal alarms and excursions will return to it? It may not be on the question of racial strife between black

119
and white, as in South Africa, but it may be on a tribal basis. It may be on a religious basis. If Malaya is allowed to say no to South Africa remaining in the Commonwealth as a republic, may not some other member of the Commonwealth say no to a change in the status of Malaya if she goes through some internal difficulties?
I must be careful what I say about Dr. Nkrumah. He is now, since two days ago, a head of state. Let us not use tendentious terms; let us just say that he keeps part of his opposition in prison. May there not be repercussions in Ghana from these serious and anti-democratic events? How do we know that the situation is so stable in Ghana that it may not be riven with internal strife and tribal rioting within a matter of five or ten years? Why should Dr. Nkrumah dictate whether South Africa should remain in the Commonwealth as a republic?
I hope I carry the Committee with me to the extent of realising, as some of my hon. Friends and I who put down the Motion to which I have referred realise, that we should have tolerance and compassion about the affairs of these countries in their difficulties and be brought to the conclusion that membership of the Commonwealth should be not by veto, not by a majority decision, but by good feeling, understanding and internal private discussion in Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences, through the Commonwealth Relations Office, by visits and inquiries and so on. By these methods the best solution will at last be found. Let us therefore have no mechanics for excluding members of the Commonwealth, or for changing their status by a majority vote or refusing a desired change of status by a majority vote.
I do not think there is really any relevance at all in the question of the referendum. They will no doubt try to make their referendum as wide as it can be. The wider it is, the more representative it is, the more we shall be pleased: but they will make it what they will make it and the House may well have to put up with a narrow referendum, if it comes to that. Even that would be better than a plain resolution within the South African
120
Houses of Parliament, dominated as they are by the Boer mentality.
I pass from that to say a word about the very interesting speech, as it seemed to me, by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). Her message was: the Mace is not enough, the Clerk of the Parliaments is not enough, HANSARD is not enough, the whole apparatus of democracy as we work it in this House is helpful and good but it may not suffice. In other words, the question arises in one's mind—and no doubt arose in the mind of the hon. Lady as she was speaking—is democracy only skin deep in great parts of the British Commonwealth? I think we must conclude that it is. I think we must conclude that we have to some extent neglected our duty in the United Kingdom to make sure that we had good government before we gave self-government—a phrase which my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), a former Colonial Secretary and a great Colonial Secretary, used frequently before the war.
I am unhappy about Cyprus. This is not the day to voice one's anxiety about that, but there is no local government in Cyprus and, so far as I am aware, no local government in any part of the Commonwealth save in the great Dominions. Is it not by developing local government that the seeds of democracy are best sown and nurtured in a colonial system? How do we think that democracy can survive if we spend 20, 30 or 50 years in reproducing a Parliamentary form of proceeding at the top and then, under panic perhaps, or compulsion, or advice from overseas, or a shamefaced feeling that our power and opportunities are morally wrong, we withdrawn from the scene and leave this simple aparatus behind, not firmly based on anything underneath?
Mr. Pavitt: Does the noble Lord not agree that we have a responsibility on the question of desiring local government as the basis for national government in regard to India? Before we went there, 150 years ago, in every village there was a panchayat, a local government system. That was universal in the villages. It was destroyed during the time when India became part of the Empire and only in 1947 was it restarted. Is it not our responsibility not only to talk

121
about local government now but in the past also?
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. My knowledge of India is nothing like as good as his. I have not been there for thirty-five years. In those parts of the Colonial Empire I have visited I have noticed a kind of hierarchical assemblage of persons, which may suit the conditions of the people in their early and primitive stages, but that is not democracy as practised in this country and in the rest of the Commonwealth. To a very large extent, we are leaving these countries with that sort of apparatus still in being. Those who aspire to Parliamentary government receive it in their hands and use it, may be in a glorified tribal sense and to some extent in a totalitarian sense.
In Kenya, for example, and in Central Africa, I think we could probably count on the fingers of two hands well-known African independents, men of means and substance and with businesses and opportunities. Democracy must rest upon a great mass of independent persons leading normal, peaceful, trading lives within a capitalist, or semi-capitalist society. I do not see how it can rest on a few officials who give all the orders, tot up all the exports and all the imports, put on embargoes, take tariffs out of them and run the country under a semi-totalitarian system. Great parts of the Colonial Empire today under Her Majesty's Government, Conservative or Labour, have been far more collectivised, far more wedded to direct controls than anything we would tolerate in this country.
In other words, democracy has not gone very far in the Commonwealth. When the Prime Minister reveals to us—as I think I must say he has indirectly—his fundamental belief as expressed in his "Wind of Change" speech, that it is only by giving liberty to the Commonwealth that we can put on guard a whole mass and range of countries against totalitarian Communism, I sometimes wonder whether some of these Colonies that are now being shot off at great speed have not already inherently within their totalitarian seeds and that under their black leaders they may become the seeding bed for Communism. These are some of the questions to which I feel, in mid-career, liberating, as I am sure it is
122
right to do, a great many of these territories, the Committee should give urgent thought.
May I refer briefly to what I may call the mechanical improvements which have been suggested by hon. Members during the debate. Perhaps the right phrase for the Commonwealth is the time-honoured phrase, that like Topsy, it just "grow'd". I have been a member of many clubs and circles and groups of earnest politicians doing work on this and that form of the Commonwealth, but in my twenty-five years' experience of politics I would say that all our ideas have come to nothing. Why is this? It is because we cannot graft on to this amazing, amorphous society a piece of mechanical structure and say at any time that it will work.
Suggestions have been made for regionalisation. Where do we start making the regions? What machinery do we devise for separating them from other regions? There have been suggestions that a new hierarchic structure should be invented for the Commonwealth, with the old Dominions, acknowledging the Queen as Sovereign, at the top; those who are about to do so, underneath; and the Republics, who do not look as though they will ever do so, below that. It has been suggested that that could be associated with a form of supervisory mechanism. But none of these things works.
I do not think that twenty-five Prime Ministers, which is what we may have in five or ten years' time, is too many to come to a periodical meeting in London or in any other centre. I am told that the Governors of the forty-nine States of the United States repair annually to Washington to meet the President. He fits them all into a room. No doubt Mr. Khrushchev does the same with the 25 or 30 component members of the Soviet Union. These are great land masses. Ours is a maritime Commonwealth strung across the world, but it is quite as easy to deal with the one as with the other.
I feel, however, that we ought to look not so much at a mechanical rearrangement of controlling the Commonwealth as at what is happening at this time. It is clear that the Colonial Office will graduate down to a comparatively small status in which it will look after a few fortress Colonies and some remote

123
islands and groups of islands for which no other form of government can be devised. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary will be in higher spheres by then, but the status of his office will have sunk.
What of the Commonwealth Relations Office? At present it is rather like a Foreign Office for sending messages around the Commonwealth, and it may be that it has a long-term future in doing that. But what worries me most of all is the position of the Crown in all this. We rejoiced at the information given today that Nigeria is to acknowledge Her Majesty not only as Head of the Commonwealth but also as Queen. In other words, Nigeria will be a full Kingdom within the Commonwealth. That is the best news for a very long time.
But it puts a strain upon the Palace and the Palace officials. It should be our earnest hope that those members of the Commonwealth who mistakenly, for a period or perhaps five or ten years, have asked to be Republics, will in due time and season revert to the status which we should have liked them to have from the start. That will put an additional strain upon the Palace. Each one of these fully sovereign Royal Kingdoms has absolute access to the Monarch for all advice. The Prime Ministers are her Prime Ministers; they are nothing to do with the Commonwealth Relations Office. Is there the machinery? Should we think in terms of personalities? Should we think in terms of additional assistance—specialised, technical, highly-skilled assistance to Her Majesty in drawing up this concept of the Royal Commonwealth? I should like to leave it at that.
The British Commonwealth of Nations—these are my concluding words —is the greatest force for peace and stability the world has ever seen. It is larger than Russia in territory, it is larger than China in population, but, unlike China, Russia and the United States of America, it is no compact land mass. It is a great maritime group of nations. If the world is looking for an entity with a sense of purpose, which enshrines tolerance and humanity and compassion, and which is a force for peace, will it not rather in the end look to the British maritime Commonwealth, flung right across the world, containing every kind
124
and form of Government from totalitarianism to an absolute workaday democracy like our own?
Wherever there is strife, wherever there is uncertaintly, there is a member of the Commonwealth in touch with that situation. That does not apply to the United States, it does not apply to the Soviet Union, it does not apply to China. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) talked at length today about the United Nations. As far as efforts and common purpose and basic understanding are concerned, the British Commonwealth is already an assembly of united nations. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to elevate any concept to the stature of the United Nations, let him look at the British Commonwealth of Nations. Si monumentum requiris circumspice.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: To follow the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is always an unenviable task, particularly for a new Member. One is very conscious of his unique ability to evoke for the Committee the aura and atmosphere of a bygone age. He is the typical exponent of classical Conservatism. No one other than the noble Lord could possibly have described the Observer and the Economist as radical Left-wing journals.
What worried me most was that at the beginning of his speech he expressed surprise at what he considered to be the moderate tone of the speeches from this side of the Committee. He went on to say that he found himself in agreement with a considerable part of at least the manner in which they had been delivered, if not their content. My hon. Friends will generally agree that this calls for rethinking or re-examination of some of the speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee. Why should the noble Lord be surprised? Why should any hon. Member be surprised? Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are as passionately devoted to the cause of Commonwealth as are hon. Members in other parts of the Committee.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including persons within the Labour Party who are not Members of Parliament, have the same deep affection

125
For the Commonwealth. They have this same peculiar sense off identity, this sense of relationship with people of different colours, different languages and different nationalities, because they are all part of the same great corporate organisation, as are members of any political party. The fact that anyone should find this surprising is to miss the very things which have caused the furore and concern which have typified the arguments about Commonwealth in recent months.
People on this side of the Committee are not apposed to the idea of Commonwealth. We believe, as the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South believes, very sincerely that in a world which is torn by strife, the existence of a large body of people of different nationalities with some sort of common heritage based on something other than imperialist ambitions, having some common interests other than exploitation, can only be a force for world peace, and that, as such, anything of that type is to be supported and extended.
The noble Lord went on to say that compromise was essential. Of course, compromise is essential if we are to maintain the Commonwealth. One can never have a Commonwealth unless one recognises that a grouping together of nations of different economic backgrounds and different social identities is bound to be a difficult thing and something over which we shall have to compromise. It worries me when I hear hon. Members talking about Africans as if the African was one type of person with one type of social background. I have heard it suggested many times that the African on one side of Africa in comparison with an African from a different tribe has far less in common socially and economically than a Londoner has with a Bulgarian. It is a fact that the capital of South Africa is further away from some parts of the Union than are the capitals of some foreign countries from London.
There is no commonness in terms of social attitude. There is a great deal of compromise. No one would deny that Pakistan is hardly a model of Western democracy at present. No one would suggest that Ghana under the present set-up is something which we would hand out to children in schools as a blue-
126
print for modern democracy. One accepts this.
There are differences within the Commonwealth. But where we cannot compromise within the Commonwealth is in mass murder. We cannot compromise in the Commonwealth on the complete denunciation of human rights. Once we accept that sort of thing, we have destroyed the very purpose of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth will cease to exist. If we compromise on things as fundamental as some of the things which have taken place in South Africa within the last twelve months, we shall find ourselves in no position to argue about things which happen in Hungary and in other parts of the world.
Surprise is frequently expressed that many of these newly-emergent territories adopt a form of government which does not come up to our standards. The noble Lord said with surprise that some of these countries have a form of government which would not be acceptable in this country. Why should it be? There is no similarity between many of the countries in the Commonwealth and this country.
One thing which I find extremely disturbing is that there should exist in 1960 among responsible, well-informed and admired politicians a doubt as to whether or not these countries should be given national independence at this stage. There is a motto in the Fabian Society; the noble Lord mentioned some of his clubs, but I do not know if he is a member of the Fabian Society. If he is, he will be acquainted with the motto about the inevitability of gradualness. One can hold views as to whether it is desirable that these countries should have independence at this stage of their development, but all this is irrelevant compared with the fact that they are going to a chieve it. To try to bottle up the great force of emergent nationalism which is showing itself throughout the world is the easiest way of ensuring the rapid advance of Communism in those countries.
Those countries, with their new Governments and with the difficulties with which they are faced, will make mistakes, but they will make their own mistakes. Many of those mistakes wilt be of considerable embarrassment to people in this country, but if we try to

127
stand in the way of this great tide of nationalism it will sweep us away and it will give those who believe in a form of totalitarian colonialism much greater opportunities than they would have had in any other way.
I want to draw attention to a very real problem. In this country as a whole we make such small effort towards an understanding of what Commonwealth is all about. It is necessary to gain a greater degree of understanding about the real meaning of the Commonwealth in this country as well as overseas. We tend in this form of debate to talk so much about uplifting our poor untutored brethren overseas. I cannot help feeling that one of the biggest problems within the Commonwealth is now, and will be for many years to come, the great problem of colour prejudice, of racial superiority, and I believe passionately and sincerely that the feelings which have endangered many of the actions of the South African Government in recent years, and the feelings in other Colonial Territories, exist in this country.
I am not adopting a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and I am firmly convinced that if the situation which exists in South Africa with regard to the proportions of the different races were to exist in this country, if ever the influx of coloured persons were to reach sufficiently large numbers so as to create a major and immediate problem, the prejudice which exists elsewhere would exist within this country among a large proportion of the population. I think it is essential to attempt to eradicate all these false prejudices, and that this is as necessary within our own people in this country as it is in any other part of the Commonwealth. We do far too little to spread the real meaning of the intentions of the Commonwealth as such among the citizens of this country.
I recently went on a tour of the United States of America and at one stage I visited our Canadian brethren. Canada was a country which I found fascinating. One of the things which disturbed me most was that their knowledge of British politics and of the detailed affairs of the United Kingdom was infinitely less than their knowledge of affairs in the United States of America. They all subscribe to the principles of Commonwealth. We all do. In this country
128
the majority of people who are politically interested—not so much Members of Parliament but probably persons who are just interested in politics—know far more about the politics of France than they do about the politics of Canada, in spite of all the varieties which exist in French politics. The same is very true in Canada.
This great Commonwealth must become a reality, and more than a series of clichés. I am sorry that the noble Lord has left the Chamber, but frankly anybody who in 1960 pins such great hopes on the fact that a country in the Commonwealth acknowledges the Queen as Queen of his country in addition to being Head of the Commonwealth is becoming dreadfully divorced from the bitter mundane realities of these affairs. These are not the things which hold the Commonwealth together today. The things which hold the Commonwealth together are the joint community of interest and the feeling of unity among the mass of the peoples. Unless we achieve that, any titular appointment will achieve very little indeed.
It is a sad thing, but it is much easier for younger political people in this country to go to Russia than it is to go to Canada. It is much easier to visit Prague or Moscow or even—until Mr. Khrushchev started complicating matters —Peking. It is much easier to go to these places than to the capitals of Commonwealth countries. Why? Because the Communist bloc has realised for many years past that it is not enough to send somebody a carefully written pamphlet to try to obtain their support. One has to get them together, indoctrinate them, and show them that unity means something more than something in a pamphlet. It means that somebody slaps one on the back and offers one a drink, and is something practical.
That is why, in 1960, it is so much easier for any person interested in politics, particularly any younger person, to find his way behind the Iron Curtain, which now is almost no longer existent in terms of exchanges, and to go to World Youth Festivals in almost any part of the Communist world, than it is to travel within the British Commonwealth. In the British Commonwealth, travel is something which he would find very difficult, unless he pays for it out

129
of his own pocket, which very few of us in these days can do, or unless he is one of the very fortunate few who manages to get away with something peculiar and frequently unknown among the bulk of the people—a small bursary, which pays for him.
The point I am trying to make is that this Government, or any Government which wants to make the Commonwealth a reality, has to ensure that the ordinary people in England will feel that they have some identity with the people in Australia; that ordinary people in Birmingham or Greenwich or any other part of the country have to feel a closer identity of interest with the hopes and aspirations of people who live in Canada or in parts of Africa than they have with people in any other part of the world. Unless we can achieve that, nothing else in the idea of Commonwealth has any real practical application to present-day needs.
I think we also have to accept the fact that these newly-emergent territories have not that automatic and blind loyalty to any association which perhaps used to be the case in a bygone age. The Union Jack is something which means nothing to them today, unless it represents or expresses practical advantages to them. There are in the world today other forces which are prepared to fight this battle for the minds of men in the newly-emergent territories without any regard to cost or to effort. It is essential for us to ensure that these territories are drawn to our side rather than anywhere else.
It is interesting to note in some African territories the great attention paid by the Soviet Union to these territories in terms of this battle for the political interests of the people in those areas. There is a great deal of argument which goes on about the Soviet Union's economic contribution in some countries, which I agree is comparatively small and frequently over-stressed. What is important is not the size of the contribution, but the type of the contribution—a contribution expressed in terms of textbooks, in terms of providing scholarships for university types or would-be graduates, to ensure the possibility of education for the high school type of graduate.
130
We need to bring to this country, not only the boy from Africa, or any other of the newly-emergent territories, who is possible university material. He is important and essential, and these are the people who will be the future rulers and future Governments. What we also have to do is to have more effect on the people who will just be—I find myself at a political disadvantage here, but I cannot think of a better term—the sort of political middle class—the high school graduate and the type of boy who would never qualify for admission to a British university, but whose education and whose future is as vital to this country as to any other.
I think we also have to face this big problem of apartheid and the problem of South Africa. It is impossible to follow the advice of the noble Lord and dismiss this by saying that if we are to hang together, we have to have compromise on all sides. If we have a Commonwealth which accepts within its ranks without question a Government which can incarcerate other members of the Commonwealth without trial, which can shoot unarmed people in numbers in the course of holding down a civil riot, which in many other parts of the world would have been done by less brutal means, even allowing for the differences of the people participating in the riots, if we accept a Government which can do all these things and it can still be a member of the Commonwealth, and we must compromise with it, then we have compromised with every fundamental principle which makes it worth while joining the Commonwealth.
One of the biggest problems at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference was this problem. This was the big issue, the important issue, and we have still not dealt with that issue. It has been said that if we persist in our complete abhorrence of these policies, if we are prepared to link ourselves with that degree of condemnation which has come from a large portion of the British Commonwealth,.we will, sooner or later, be faced with the decision whether or not we should accept the Union of South Africa into the British Commonwealth. I believe that that is a real problem, and it is one which we have to face, but I believe that if we come to that stage where we say that the Commonwealth must mean something, then to

131
a Government which does not even fulfil the elementary standards of civilised conduct in modern society we must say "You cannot join this particular association."
If we are faced with that problem, we must meet it. It is essential at this stage that we should have a Declaration of Rights within the Commonwealth, a detailed declaration, because we have now passed away from the old phase of a Commonwealth built on blind patriotism —although that may have been commendable, and I am not arguing about it—into a stage in which people band together because of their mutual interests. Unless we can show that membership of the British Commonwealth in 1960 carries with it the defence of minimum standards and a right and contribution towards the affairs of others throughout the world, unless we can show that, we shall find that the Commonwealth will be broken up, not by outside activities, not by any argument within our ranks, but eventually broken up, in the course of time because it would cease to have any meaning.
I cannot help believing that if the world finds itself in the future without the stabilising influence which can be exercised by this growing body of nations, as distinct from the Colonial Empire territories, the world will have lost a very great weapon in the cause of peace, and the British people, of all the Commonwealth peoples, will have lost something that took many hundreds of years to build up, which almost reached fruition and was lost because they had not the courage to determine the things which are so important to ordinary men and women.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) made an excellent speech. One thing which has convinced me as a result of my experience is that democracy and democratic institutions cannot possibly be acquired. They have to be learnt. I was glad that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) mentioned the case of the sub-continent of India. I think that it has been proved that India acquired her independence by stages, through the India Act, 1919, to the India Act, 1935,
132
and by progressive advances in central and provincial self-government which paved the way for the final grant of independent status which, I think, came in 1948.
What we have to bear in mind in this extremely important matter is this. These countries have to be prepared for the occasion when they receive their freedom. On the one hand, there is the movement which says, "We must govern ourselves quickly", and on the other the restraining and moderating hand of the trustee territory of the United Kingdom which says, "Let us phase the advance". It is a matter of congratulation for many of these countries, such as Malaya, Nigeria, Ghana and others which have achieved independent status. Coming from a separate sovereign State, I fail to see any real distinction between a republic and the monarchic system. They have exactly the same powers. New Zealand has no greater power than India, and India has no less power than the separate sovereign State of New Zealand.
I regret that so much time during this debate has been spent in talking about South Africa, because, after all, the population there is 12½ million while that in India is about 365 million and in Pakistan 75 million. Other matters were discussed at the Prime Ministers' Conference and I should have thought they merit even greater attention. If we are to be persuaded that eventually South Africa may have to be expelled from the Commonwealth, I ask hon. Members to consider what will be the alternative. Is South Africa to be pushed into splendid isolation? If so, what good will that do? In New Zealand we have succeeded in reconciling both Europeans and Maoris and there is no colour bar whatsoever. I should have thought that the most effective form of persuasion, persuasion by example, was much more telling than persuasion by legislation. Exclusion would do nothing but put South Africa outside the Commonwealth. If South Africa can be kept inside the Commonwealth I hope that with the turn of the years it will find that the policy which other members of the Commonwealth have adopted is possibly the right one.
Mr. Marsh: Assuming that the policies of the South African Government do not change, to what extent would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to continue to

133
compromise? Would he be prepared to go on indefinitely accepting the present attitudes and policies of the South African Government within the Commonwealth?
Mr. Skeet: I am glad to have that interruption. The only thing which is permanent is change. We find a semblance of democracy in South Africa in that it will have a referendum and some opportunity from time to time of a general election. Over the course of time new ideas come to the surface and, as I said, there is nothing so permanent as change. Change will ultimately succeed.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West referred to India. I should like to make one or two comments on India because it is of great importance. There the average expectation of life is about thirty-four years. I am glad to find that the United Kingdom has, under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, made loans totalling £75 million. Recently a grant of £10 million was made. A large part of the grants which have been made under Section 3, which total over £141 million, has gone to India and a very considerable sum has gone to Pakistan.
This is the problem in India as I see it. It is a country with a vast population and vast potentiality. Following the third and fourth year plans, India hopes to have a self-sustaining economy by the early 'seventies. It is for this country to assist it in its course. If we do not, it will turn to the United States, which is doing a great deal of work at present. If the West falters, India obviously will have to turn to the Soviet Union.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). Of the contributions from the Western and Eastern worlds, the greatest obviously have come from the United States, the second greatest from the United Kingdom. The actual disbursements of the Soviet Union come well down the list. In 1959–60, if the Government are prepared to advance overseas only £138 million, consider that a very paltry sum compared with the moneys which are necesary to sustain our Welfare State, namely, £3·3 billion per annum. People outside and hon. Members inside the Committee may may argue that we must maintain our
134
Welfare State. I quite agree with that contention. But if further moneys can be raised, I am not satisfied with the sum of £138 million, nor am I satisfied with the recruitment of an additional £300 million from industry each year, of which about £100 million goes to the under-developed territories.
Having looked at the Commonwealth myself, I can see the magnitude of the problem involved. It is a responsibility which we hold ourselves and which must be discharged. But, again, I think that we must see it realistically. Last year we had a balance of payments surplus of £145 million and it looks, on the half-year results, as though the surplus will be less than that, probably between £120 million and £140 million. That is not enough if we are to send very substantial sums overseas.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary one or two questions. Does he intend to utilise to the full grants under Section 3 of the 1949 Act? Will he consider it a continuing commitment to both Pakistan and India? Is he prepared also to consider that it would be far better to use Section 3 grants "untied" rather than in the form of "tied" lending as at present? It has been traditional in this country that C.D. and W. funds can be spent in any part of the world. That is of great advantage to the recipient country which may be short of foreign exchange. It is a retrograde step that grants under Section 3 should be so "tied".
The other point which should be considered when we talk of the underdeveloped territories is whether these moneys should or should not be allocated to specific undertakings such as the building of a steelworks in India or allocated for the purpose of imports from outside. One thereby has a certain check over the expenditure of these funds. I regard it as advisable to consider the matter along these lines.
The only other question which I should like to raise concerns the Colonial Development Finance Corporation, which has also been raised by another hon. Member. May we have a list of the total subscriptions which have been made by Commonwealth Governments from overseas? How much money has been forthcoming? Could it not be considerably

135
extended, as indicated by the Montreal Commonwealth Conference in 1958? It would seem to me that the whole idea of bringing into being a Commonwealth bank is now somewhat redundant and that greater use could be made of the existing machinery.
I do not wish to anticipate the debate on Thursday, but will my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary say something about the Colonial Development Corporation and whether it is possible to amplify its powers, namely, by giving it an opportunity of extending from Colonial Territories into the larger parts of the Commonwealth?
8.29 p.m.
Mr. G. M. Thomson 02_Jul04_1960: I share the discontent of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) about the inadequacy of our aid to the newer countries of the Commonwealth. The hon. Member was, perhaps, a little complacent about our position in competition with the Soviet Union. It is true that our aid to the countries of Asia has been on a more generous scale than that of the Soviet Union, but we must not forget the kind of advantages that a totalitarian country like the Soviet Union has in its possession. It is, for example, able to make its money available at much lower rates of interest than we do with the kind of Bank Rate that a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer is operating. Under Section 3 of the Export Guarantees Act, to which the hon. Member for Willesden, East referred, the rate of interest is 6 per cent. The Communists lend money at about 2½ per cent.
Mr. Skeet: Does the hon. Member appreciate that although the Soviet Union certainly charges 2½ per cent. for its long-term loans, the condition is attached that the purchases must be made in Soviet territory, and a charge for servicing is added to the price of the goods in question? Therefore, the consumer or recipient, in fact, pays more.
Mr. Thomson: We are well aware of the political advantages that the Soviet Union has from its totalitarian system. This means that we on our side must do a great deal more.
The Soviet Union also has the advantage that in its arrangements it is able to operate bulk purchase contracts,
136
whereas we, because of the policies of Her Majesty's Government, have been increasingly departing from bulk contracts until the under-developed countries are more and more at the mercy of fluctuating prices. Over the last few years, for example, reductions in the level of commodity prices have more than cancelled out all the aid which has been given. This kind of thing causes great frustration in the countries of Africa and of Asia, a fact which should be very much borne in mind.
Mr. Callaghan: And to the New Zealand Dairy Board, too.
Mr. Thomson: The level of aid to the new independent countries of the Commonwealth seems to vary a great deal. The hon. Member for Willesden, East mentioned the sums of money which have been given to India. We all agree that India is one of the key areas to which to give help in present world circumstances, but did the hon. Member see the Answer which I was given the other day by the Colonial Secretary about the amount of capital which had been given to Ghana since it became independent? Ghana has received a little under £½ million from Her Majesty's Government since she became independent. As hon. Members know, Ghana has been sending delegations to the Soviet Union to explore the possibility of Soviet aid for the Volta River scheme. I hope that when that project gets to a slightly more advanced stage, Her Majesty's Government will give generous and imaginative help to ensure that Britain plays her proper rôle in that scheme.
Sitting throughout the debate, I have been fascinated by the fact that a debate which was born out of the heat and agonising dilemmas of the Prime Ministers' Conference concerning the African issue has ranged a great deal more widely than the issue of South Africa or of the South African mandate in South-West Africa. As is usual in these debates, we have had a great many attempts, particularly from the benches opposite, to give us definitions of the Commonwealth in the modern world.
The more one has heard those definitions, the more bewildered one has become. There is something about the Commonwealth which arouses all that is

137
most woolly and platitudinous in members of the Conservative Party. I am ratter reminded of the Victorian lady why enjoyed a great mystical experience about which subsequently she wrote a best seller. It was then reviewed by a critic, who commented, "Since Miss X says that she has experienced the indescribable, she might be well advised not to try to describe it." I sometimes feet that the Commonwealth, as an international institution, comes into that category.
What we roust do is to look at what the Commonwealth means, not to people in this country trying to adapt their ideas about it to a changing world but to the newer members of the Commonwealth. Unless it has meaning for them, it will not survive in the modern world. It means, above all, three things to the newer countries of the Commonwealth as far as I have been able to meet some of their political leaders.
First, it means membership of a worldwide association of countries in the front rank of the nations of the world. There is no doubt that to the political leaders of the newer countries of the Commonwealth, this is of considerable importance.
Secondly, it can only survive for the newer members if it is an association of nations that is imbued with the spirit of racial equality, particularly where any question of colour discrimination is concerned. We must face the fact this is the answer to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who made his usual stimulating but rather backward-looking speech —that the kind of internal happenings which do cause concern in the new Commonwealth are not related to issues of political liberty or Parliamentary democracy. It would, perhaps, be better if it were so, and in due course it may be so, but the kind of issues which stir the conscience of the Commonwealth, without which it cannot survive, are issues of racial equality and particularly of colour discrimination.
Thirdly, I think that the Commonwealth has to be a real system of mutual aid if it is to have practical meaning for the members of the newer countries.
I sometimes think that what is happening now in Africa is not that independence is coming too soon, but that history
138
has got ahead of us and that our neglect in past years is being shown up. It is no longer a question of whether there is to be independence and freedom for the countries of Africa or other members of the former Colonial Territories. The question now is the much more difficult question of making independence work, and that is one of the aspects about which I wanted to say a word or two.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) made some very interesting suggestions about trying to establish a Commonwealth public service. I am sure that that is an idea which ought to be very thoroughly explored. She pointed out, as, I thought, so correctly, that there are very real difficulties simply about making arrangements to carry over in any particular area the colonial civil servants who have served there during the period of colonial dependence. This may be unfortunate, but it is one of the facts which we have to face and one of the things which I think is of concern to the public servants who can come to serve in territories when they become newly independent. If we could have this sort of aid it would naturally induce those who are at present in the Colonial Overseas Service to remain and would do a very great deal to help the newer, emergent countries as they reach independence.
On the question of economic help, I do not wish to anticipate the debate on Thursday, for personal reasons as well as reasons of propriety, because I do not wish to make tonight the speech I should like to make in Thursday's debate. However, I think that what is required in economic development, again, is the initiation of this spirit of mutual co-operation in the Commonwealth rather than relationship directly between the United Kingdom and other countries.
I have just come back from a visit to the West Indies. What struck me in that part of the world, which is very soon now to have independence, I hope, was the fact that the colonial relationship for many years has produced a feeling of much too much dependence between each individual territory of the West Indies and the United Kingdom. In the West Indian Federation there are territories like Jamaica and Trinidad which have standards today which make them relatively

139
highly developed countries—not developed as much as this country, but compared with Africa or India, they are highly developed territories; whereas there are smaller islands in the West Indies, Dominica, Montserrat and St. Lucia which are relatively underdeveloped.
From a number of talks I had with political leaders in the West Indies I gathered that although one of the major advantages of federation would be, quite apart from any economic help which could come from this country, that it would allow the stronger units of the Federation to help those which were weaker, the immediate reaction to this was that it was an effort by the United Kingdom to pass the burden from the shoulders of the people of Britain on to the shoulders of the people of Jamaica or Trinidad.
This was the natural, instinctive reaction, perhaps inevitable in the light of history, but it is one that we have to get past if we are to make a success of independence in areas like the West Indies, and it seems to me that we could get past it best if we set up some kind of Commonwealth co-operative arrangement, which would provide genuinely useful co-operative arrangements not simply between London and other countries, but in which all the countries of the Commonwealth would contribute according to their ability, through which some of the poorer territories would pay their share, too, but from which they could draw according to their needs.
It is tremendously important to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) mentioned earlier, and that is to increase the number of exchanges between different countries in the Commonwealth. I am thinking, as he was, particularly of exchanges of ordinary people rather than politicians or particularly talented scholars and university people. While I was in the West Indies I was able to see the work of the Voluntary Service Overseas organisation which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) mentioned earlier in the debate. I met, for instance, a sixth-form schoolboy who was living, otherwise alone, with an Afro-Indian village community in British Guiana and, by all accounts, doing very fine work there.
140
That kind of young man can get on intimate personal terms with local people in a way that is very difficult for an administrator. This organisation works on a limited scale in various parts of the Commonwealth and no doubt it has had varying success in different places, but it is a good example of what could be done. The Government might explore means of doing this on a bigger scale, either through this organisation or in other ways.
I think of young craftsmen who went out from Metro-Vickers in this country in the final year of their apprenticeship to a trades school in Kenya as teachers. They also were able to get on intimate terms with the people and build a spirit of confidence among African youngsters in a way which it would be very difficult for older people to do. If this can be done, not only by sending people from this country to the Commonwealth but also by bringing people here to help with voluntary activities, it would be a very useful method of increasing understanding among the peoples of the Commonwealth.
I emphasise the need to expand Commonwealth educational activities. One of the most useful things that have happened since the Montreal Conference has been the growth of Commonwealth education schemes. I hope that this will go ahead as quickly as possible and that the Government will do what they can to expand the schemes. This is a matter in which the Commonwealth can wield the most direct influence in raising standards of living. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked the other day about educational provisions in Tanganyika and he was told that there were 77 university students from Tanganyika in this country. Tanganyika has no university. It is a country of 8 million people, on the verge of independence. The fact that there are only 77 university students from Tanganyika in this country is—
Mr. Iain Macleod: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but speaking from memory, I think that the figure of 77 which he quotes is confined to those who are reading honours degrees and is not the number of students, which is considerably larger.
Mr. Thomson: The Colonial Secretary, for the first time in my questioning

141
of him, is wrong. The figures for those reading honours degrees was 37, and there were 77 students at universities. There were 450 students altogether but that figure covered nurses, technical college students, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a supplementary question, said that the figure of 77 was one which we ought to try to increase.
The educational poverty of some of the countries which are now on the edge of full independence is certainly very great and does not cast any great credit on our record over many years in the past. The more that can be done in educational exchange and the building-up of Commonwealth educational services the better it would be in terms of creating the economic foundations and democratic foundations of independence in these underdeveloped territories.
It has always been said that it is difficult to give institutional form to Commonwealth relationship. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South indicated his complete scepticism about any effort of this sort. Educational arrangements should be joint Commonwealth arrangements. A very small liaison unit has already been set up in London to help implement this. I hope that those educational arrangements will finally blossom forth into a full Commonwealth educational service. They are merely an example of the kind of relationships that must be developed between the countries of the Commonwealth if it is to have reality in the modern world. Not only must there be a Commonwealth educational service, but also a Commonwealth public service. There must also be a Commonwealth development scheme on the basis of mutual aid and co-operation.
It is on those lines that the Commonwealth has the best opportunity of playing what I believe is its tremendously vital r—le in the future.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. A. R. Wise (Rugby): I shall have to forgo the pleasure of commenting on some of the arguments put by hon. Members during the debate, for I have no time both to deal with them and put forward my own thesis. I have heard nearly every word that has been said and I think that the debate is, without exception so far, the most unpractical contribution ever made to any debate on the
142
Commonwealth at any time and in any place.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) began with the right question. He asked: what sort of Commonwealth do we want? He then went on to talk about South Africa! We must find out what sort of Commonwealth we want and, therefore, what sort of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference we want. We are faced now with this very large collection of nations not thinking alike politically, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said. Some of them are arbitrary in outlook and he fell back, of course, on condemnation of South Africa for imprisoning people without trial. I believe that that is done in Ghana, also. He abused South Africa for shooting people in civil disobedience. But that has also been done in Pakistan and other countries. It is not only when skins are white that these things are obnoxious.
We must try and find some connecting link which will enable this collection of countries with totally different outlooks to govern themselves and to govern their relationships with each other. The only possible link is the link of Commonwealth trade. We shall not solve the problems of the Commonwealth by pouring out money by dole or loan. To start with, as has been pointed out, the interest on loans is burdensome and, in the end, it is more than these countries can face. Handing out doles is of no use whatever, and in any case we cannot afford it.
We can only afford to invest roughly what we make on our balance of trade. That is not nearly enough for all the calls on us in the Commonwealth. Inside the sterling area we can expand to a slightly greater extent because we do not run into the same danger over our balance of payments. But by no means all the Commonwealth is in the sterling area, and much of it that is may leave it before long.
We must, therefore, try to find some basis of mutual trade. For some reason known only to themselves, hon. Members opposite, when in office, abandoned the right to control our own trading destinies. It cost the United States £1,000 million to wreck a carefully built-up trading system, and it was the cheapest £1,000 million that any country

143
has yet spent. Not only that, we are even repaying it to the United States.
Having lost the right to control our own destinies, we have now lost the right to produce those inducements for building up trade between one part of the Commonwealth and another. What hon. Members opposite forgot at the time was that we were not only undertaking the obligations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, but proposing to continue to honour the obligations we already had under the Ottowa Agreements, which had been in force for quite a long time. In fact, it left the United Kingdom, alone of all the countries of the world, in a position in which there was no room for manœuvre of any kind whatsoever.
This had been recognised by the Conservative Party when it was in Opposition and it spoke very firmly about it. From a member of our own Front Bench, about 1950, the words came:
"The Conservative Party regard all this as highly objectionable."
Is it any less objectionable now, and can we not get back to the perfectly sound idea that we had at the time and start to restore our own liberty of action? Even in an election manifesto, not long afterwards, we said:
"We shall retain Imperial Preference and uphold the right to grant and receive such preferences so that the Empire producer will have a place in the home market…"
What are we doing now? All we are doing is asking the Australians to whittle away the preferences that we gave them so that we may deal with another body of persons. I have nothing against a deal with the Outer Seven. They are meritorious nations and will undoubtedly add to our trading area. But it is not right that one of our own Dominions should have to part with some of the few advantages that we give our Dominions to make that possible.
The Imperial Preference system was a useful and good one. It rescued this country from one of the major financial disasters through which it was staggering at the time. I will not say that that situation was the fault of a previous Labour Government, because that would be controversial, but whether it was the fault of the Labour Government, whether it was, as hon. Members opposite say, a
144
bankers' ramp, or whatever it was, it was a major crisis. Within two years of our adopting an intelligent imperial trading system the value of the £ sterling has risen from 3·20 dollars to 5·5 dollars and we were not having a balance of payments crisis or a dollar reserve crisis every two years as we have them now.
There must have been something in the system which enabled us to use it to control our trade. We are faced now with a hotch-potch of trading agreements. Our own internal trade is bolstered by subsidies, quotas, anti-dumping duties and a vast number of other things of that kind, when all that is wanted is a plain and simple tariff, which we used for so long and so effectively.
I ask the Government to try to get back to the conception of the Imperial or Commonwealth link between one of our countries and another. We can help the Commonwealth countries a great deal. We have a huge market here and we have a capacity for production, which is exactly what under-developed countries want. If we must have commercial arrangements—as, indeed, we must—with whom is it better to have them—with the Six countries with which we are negotiating so painfully now, which already enjoy a very high standard of living and whose rate of population expands certainly as slowly as our own, or with countries which at the moment have a very low standard of living and are, therefore, capable of almost infinite expansion?
We have already seen one or two warnings from the six countries with which we are trying to negotiate at the expense of our own Empire. M. Mollet said:
"Great Britain can no longer carve out her destiny or choose her own future. Which course shall she choose—the Commonwealth? No responsible British statesman will consider this a satisfactory answer."
Is it true that no responsible British statesman considers that a satisfactory answer? If so, then in my view such people are not responsible British statesmen.
Some time ago, in the Financial Times, we had another warning:
"Certainly, there has been no change in France's attitude that the purpose of the Common Market is to rebuild the ancient glories of France on a new European foundation."

145
That is a laudable ambition, but are we to take the part of the slaves who were buried under the foundations to bring good luck when buildings were put up in ancient times? We are better out of rebuilding the glories of other countries in teat sort of way.
We have before us a wonderful opportunity even now. We need to regain our freedom of action. To regain our freedom of action we have to denounce the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We are still entitled to do that, mercifully, because the United States, which, in many ways, dislikes the Agreement as much as we do, although having invented it, has withheld effective ratification. I sincerely trust that it will continue to be our friend in this way and continue to withhold it to give us time to make up our minis that we shall take our last chance of rebuilding the Commonwealth, which is in grave danger of disintegration.
Hon. Members opposite have pointed to the political differences, and, of course, they exist. In many cases there are colour differences. There are nations which are barely on speaking terms with others, but they are still inside the Commonwealth. There is this one link and this one link only which can be provided to hold them together while their various policies and their various prejudices have time to settle down into one great single, single-thinking unit.
We must have some cement to hold it together in the interval while this new Commonwealth is getting its roots and bringing itself together. I agree with those hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have said that this new Commonwealth may be the decisive factor in preserving the peace of the world. But it is certainly not so now. At the moment, it has not the coherence to speak with one voice, and it has not the power to make its voice properly heard.
Those things can be given, but they can be given only by starting at the very bottom, with a financial basis to start with, with mutual trust engendered by mutual trade, and then slowly building from then on. As the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said, the Union Jack is not a symbol of anything very much to a very large portion of the Commonwealth, but if the country whose national flag it is takes the initiative in
146
building this new Commonwealth, then the emblem which we fly over the Commonwealth may be regarded at least with respect, if not with passionate loyalty. Passionate loyalties are probably out of date, but respect and mutual advantage are not. This is our last chance of securing both.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: The speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) was rather different from the speeches on Commonwealth and colonial affairs which we have been accustomed to hearing from the burghers from Rugby. If I may say so, I did not regard it as an improvement Mr. James Johnson had a much more realistic appraisal of the situation than the hon. Member has shown tonight.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member quite clearly showed the diversity of thinking inside the Conservative Party about the future of the Commonwealth. Those who speculate about the differences in the Labour Party might analyse that speech to see how much there is in common between the views of the hon. Member for Rugby and the views and policies being carried out by the Minister of State and the Colonial Secretary, ably supported and abetted by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Emery). There is a clear division of views and of philosophy between them. I see that there appears to be some agreement with that sentiment. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing. I think that these differences should be argued out and that it is quite right that they should be.
This is in some way symptomatic of British politics at present. There is a great state of flux going on in the thinking of all parties about many issues—the Commonwealth, the Common Market and other issues, including the place of the public corporation and the large private monopolistic empires being built up in this country. We shall have to return to that later. However, we have had a clear indication of the divisions that exist.
We thought that it would be useful today to give the House of Commons a chance of expressing its opinion about the Prime Ministers' Conference and reviewing what has taken place. Although the attendance at the debate

147
has been sparse, I think that the questions raised have been worth while and interesting More questions have been asked than the Minister of State answered in his introductory and quite unexceptionable speech—too unexceptionable for my liking. I hoped that he would deal with more of the questions that have been asked in a continuous stream by those who followed him.
The right hon. Gentleman has been in a difficulty. The Times has been attacking the Commonwealth Relations Office for timidity, and other distinguished organs of opinion have been saying that it lacks adventure and did not give a lead. So the right hon. Gentleman found himself delivering a speech on 26th May, following the Prime Ministers' Conference, in which he tried to set out what he thought was the rôle of the Commonwealth Relations Office. He was right to do so. I think that he made a most powerful defence of the position of the Commonwealth Relations Office in present circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman has been attacked from behind him today by his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) and, I think, by the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) and by other of his hon. Friends who believe that there is a very strong case for merging the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. That is not a mere matter of machinery. There is a philosophy behind this which affects our thinking about the Commonwealth. Superficially, I am very attracted to the idea myself and I put it forward from this Box three or four years ago.
I have been very influenced by the remarks that the Minister of State used when he addressed the Royal Commonwealth Society a few weeks ago about this problem. We want to look at it quite carefully before we rush into an amalgamation of this sort. What was the substance of his argument? I hope to put it fairly. The task of the Commonwealth Relations Office was to make independence a reality. The psychology of independence was such that ex-Colonial Territories tended to be very touchy in their relationship with us if they detected the slightest hint of patronage or the feeling that the old colonial system was hanging over.
148
We in this country, said the right hon. Gentleman, tended to regard the Commonwealth and the Colonies as much the same sort of thing or variants of the same sort of thing, whereas, clearly, this was not so regarded by India, New Zealand, Australia and other members of the Commonwealth. Finally, he said that the C.R.O. is a collecting house for the ideas of the Commonwealth. His actual words were:
"It is a Department of State entrusted with the job of representing in Whitehall the attitude of the independent Commonwealth."
Mr. Alport: The hon. Member has done me the courtesy of referring to a speech that I made. I think that he will recognise that on that occasion I was trying to explain, as I saw it as a result of three and a half years' experience at the C.R.O., not so much the United Kingdom point of view but what seemed most important that the House and the country should realise, namely, the point of view of our Commonwealth friends on this issue. Although some of my colleagues have not realised it, decisions with regard to machinery in connection with this matter are not entirely for us alone.
Mr. Callaghan: I had hoped that the Minister of State would develop his argument, because it is an interesting one, and quite defensible. He went on to say that in some respects the Commonwealth Relations Office has been acting for thirty-five years as the secretariat for the Commonwealth. His hon. Friends who have attacked him should realise that this is the real core of the Government's resistance to the idea of absorbing the Colonial Office and also the excolonial civil servants, and unless we realise that that is the core of the objection we shall not be able to remove it or deal with it.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy about the C.R.O. has been expressed so clearly before, but it is to resist efforts to combine it with the existing Colonial Territories and make one Department of it. If the right hon. Gentleman is right —and he may well be—in saying that a number of independent Commonwealth Territories would object to Colonial Territories being put into the C.R.O. for purposes of administrative convenience inside the British Cabinet and House of Commons—there is substance

149
in that argument, which I have heard expressed on more than one occasion—we should not do it. It is quite clear that the C.R.O. regards itself as more than an organ of the British Government. It is, in fact, the gathering ground for Commonwealth ideas and the organ for the projection into the Government of those ideas.
I should like to make some proposals in this matter. Why not put some Commonwealth civil servants into the C.R.O.? I do not mean ex-colonial civil servants; I mean Commonwealth civil servants. Those of us who have had the good fortune to travel in the Commonwealth know what a wealth of talent exists in some of the Commonwealth countries. If this is the rôle of the Commonwealth Relations Office in the British Government, it could be strengthened by bringing in, on loan for a few years, some of the very high-level civil servants of great distinction and authority who are at present serving in New Zealand, India, and Australia. In return, we could send them some of ours on loan. A very great gain could be made on both sides if we did something like that.
Secondly, why should the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations always be regarded as a perquisite of the party in power? I am not putting forward a personal suggestion that he should come from the party in Opposition, but I suggest that there may be statesmen in the Commonwealth who could take over such a post. I realise that a politician in the full flight of his career might find it difficult to give up his position and enter the British Cabinet. It would not be impossible, but it would be difficult. But there might be other people who could well afford to take on such a responsibility. In any case it would strengthen the conception that the Minister of State holds about the Commonwealth Relations Office if it were not regarded as a purely party job in the British Cabinet. There are more difficulties about this suggestion than about the one I made regarding civil servants, but I ask the Government not to dismiss it. I hope that they will think about it and see whether it is possible to do something on those lines.
I do not think that the Minister of State has discharged his responsibility fully, although I have agreed with him
150
so far and said that he has advanced a case which I want to hear argued further. I do not think that he has discharged his duty fully to the British people when he depicts this as the rôle of the Commonwealth Relations Office. We cannot leave it there. If this be the rôle of the Commonwealth Relations Office, if equality of status between members of the Commonwealth has reached a position where it is the job of the Minister to project the Commonwealth into the Cabinet; if this leads to a position where he must be extremely cautious in putting forward his ideas to the Commonwealth countries—because he does not want them to feel that he is tainted by virtue of past relations, about which they are extremely touchy, as the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon—then this is a time for adventurous and realistic thinking about this great challenge.
Who is to put forward to the Commonwealth the British point of view? I think that this is the real substance of the criticisms of the Commonwealth Relations Office made by the hon. Friends of the right hon. Gentleman as well as by my hon. Friends. If his rôle is to project the Commonwealth into the Cabinet and to be especially sensitive about putting forward ideas to the Commonwealth, because they are very touchy about their relations with us, who is to take on the jab of launching these new, adventurous, challenging ideas which may not always be acceptable in the Commonwealth discussions which go on?
Mr. Alport: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the process is one in which discussion of these ideas takes place in legislatures such as our own and that, gradually, they find their way into the general thinking of the people and are then reflected in the policies and points of view not only of the people of this country, but also of the Governments and those interested in Commonwealth countries as well.
I have always thought that one of the dangers at present is that this thinking tends to be confined to a small number of people. The wider it can be, the better. The more popular is the support for these ideas, the better. But the formulation starts here and it is the job of the C.R.O. as I see it, to represent the United Kingdom point of view—when that point

151
of view is fully formulated—in the other Commonwealth countries.
Mr. Callaghan: Now we are beginning to hear the speech which I had hoped that the Minister would make when he made his speech earlier today.
Mr. Alport: That does not relate to the Commonwealth Conference.
Mr. Callaghan: Of course it is related to the Commonwealth Conference. The whole future of the Commonwealth is bound up in the machinery used in this connection.
I do not accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman. I have not noticed that other members of the Commonwealth are particularly sensitive about putting forward their views to us regarding the things about which they feel strongly. Quite the reverse. They are forthright in what they say. I well remember that when I was in New Zealand, at the invitation of the Chatham House Conference, strictures were passed on the present Administration about the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in his negotiations with Denmark on the question of butter. They had no particular reservations about the way they talked to us.
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations has these reservations. He does not feel able to go into the battle. But this country of ours is the forcing ground for ideas, the centre in which events themselves are generated. Here we have a high level of development. I agree with the critics of the right hon. Gentleman to some extent, people like the hon. Member for Maldon, that because the C.R.O. takes this view of its functions—we have to understand its case—it is not able to project the views which ought to be projected if we are to galvanise the Commonwealth into a forward movement. I have put this criticism in a moderate way. It is a criticism to which I should like to hear an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, but not by way of an interruption of my speech.
I was about to say that, in the absence of any machinery changes, we have to rely on closer liaison directly between the Ministers of the various Departments and their opposite numbers in the
152
Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Finance Ministers meet and I should like to see meetings between Commonwealth Ministers of National Insurance and Pensions, Commonwealth Ministers of Education—I know that we have had an education conference—and I should like to see meetings between Commonwealth Ministers of Labour. I think that there are many useful exchanges and points which might be made in this direction in the absence of a bold, adventurous and challenging lead from the Commonwealth Relations Office itself.
On that matter I agree with so many of the points made in the debate today. We ought to get to know each other better. In the older Commonwealth it is fairly easy. One goes everywhere and finds sons, daughters and families and cousins all over the place, but chat is true only of the older Commonwealth, and not nearly so true there as it used to be. The link is getting weaker and, although it is constantly replenished, the second, third and fourth generations of Australians think of themselves as Australian and only very remotely descended from anyone in Britain. We must maintain this link.
There is a constant trickle of experts and technicians going to the Commonwealth. In one field which I know I think that a useful job has been done and I want to draw a moral from that. That is the trade union field. Mr. Ramanujam, of the Indian T.U.C. came to our Trades Union Congress last year and there was great interest and excitement aroused by his presence and by what he had to say. He received an ovation for what he was able to tell us and the light he was able to throw on his corner of the Commonwealth. Nothing like it has happened before. Partly as a result of that, several of our trade union leaders have been visiting India and Pakistan. Mr. Willis of the printers' union, went to both India and Pakistan and Mr. Frank Cousins went to India. Mr. Collison went to study agricultural workers' problems. Mr. Harry Douglas went to have a look at steel workers' problems.
As a result of these visits, the T.U.C. is considering what organisational links for the purpose of exchanges can be made between members of the Commonwealth. I use the case of the T.U.C.

153
as in illustration because there is a clear identity of interest, but I think that the Government might try to encourage every organisation, every association, in this country to try to find its opposite number in the Commonwealth, to make contacts with it, and exchange ideas and views.
I put this proposal forward in addition to proposals which have been developed by a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite for the exchange of young people. That is something which we want to see extended. I flew out to Australia, when I visited that country some time ago, with two young people who were on their way to settle there. Their excitement on arrival was beyond bounds and it was a real joy to see. We want to extend these interchanges, not merely for the purpose of emigration, but also with the newer countries and they should not be confined to the field of scholarship.
We ought to be looking, especially in connection with Africa, at ways of building up inter-State links. The shortage of capital, of manpower, of skills, of knowledge about agricultural research and farming methods, of doctors and in every field we can think of means that there is no time or opportunity for individual institutions to be built in every one of these newly-independent countries. I should like to know whether it is not possible, either through the newly-emerged countries themselves, or by taking the initiative here, perhaps, to prompt them, to see if we could get an inter-State organisation set up, some machinery focused to enable agricultural research farming methods and the rest to be dealt wine on an inter-State basis.
So far as I can see, some of the existing organisations and institutions in the colonial days provided some links which are now breaking down in the first onrush of nationalism. That is extremely unfortunate. Our emphasis must be placed in the other direction.
Another question which has been raised is that of attendance at the Prime Ministers' Conference. Various ideas have been put forward, such as expanding the size of it, regional meetings, and permanent members, with the addition of alternating State representatives, like the Security Council. I do not pretend to propose a solution. It seems to me that this is essentially a question which must
154
be solved by the Prime Ministers' meetings themselves. I have sat in at only one of them—on the very corner of my chair at the very bottom of the room—and I dare not say what I think would be the right solution. But I ask the Colonial Secretary, was this discussed at the last Prime Ministers' Conference? If so, what are the views of the Prime Ministers? The Government ought not to let it drift on. This is a real problem, and although any hon. Member is entitled to put forward his own view, I would not put forward a solution, speaking for the Opposition; but I ask the Colonial Secretary: what is the Government's view and, more important, what are the views of other Commonwealth Governments about this, in order that we may see in which way their thinking is moving?
I come to the question of South Africa and South-West Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) asked some specific questions and was given some rather cloudy answers. We ought to be quite clear where we are going on this issue. Dr. Verwoerd has said:
"I am convinced that the influence of Britain, Australia, Canada and even India, which is now politically adult"—
rather patronising words—
"will ensure that we retain our membership. Membership of the Commonwealth is not a matter of sentiment, but a question of serving South Africa's interests, and on that principle the matter will be decided."
It ought to be said to him that it is not merely a question of serving South Africa's interests, but a question of serving the interests of the Commonwealth upon which such an issue should be decided. This is not a question—I think that the phrase was used loosely by an hon. Member earlier—of expelling South Africa. The issue was put clearly by my right hon. Friend and confirmed by the Minister of State. If South Africa decides to become a republic, she must then make formal application for admission to the Commonwealth in her new status as a republic. Dr. Verwoerd has said that he is convinced that
"Britain will ensure that we retain our membership."
I think that the Minister of State's replies were cloudy, but I want to tell the Colonial Secretary what I understood him to mean. I say this because it is

155
important that the South African Nationalist Party Congress should not meet under any misapprehension next month. South Africa is a police State, but there is still freedom of the Press; the newspapers are still free to report, and I hope that what has been said in the Committee today will be reported.
I understand from what has been said today that it is wrong for Dr. Verwoerd to convey the impression that he has received an assurance from the British Government that they will use their influence to retain South Africa in membership of the Commonwealth if she decides to apply. That is my understanding of what has been said, and I hope that that impression will be conveyed to those who have to make up their minds on this very important issue in South Africa.
I was not present to hear the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), but I understand that he said that the Labour Party ought to say clearly where we stand on this matter. At the moment I think that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain, if asked to reply to this question, would say that they prefer South Africa not to be in the Commonwealth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I do not think that it is rubbish. There have been a number of expressions of opinion. The House unanimously passed a Motion on this, which was opposed by nobody at the time.
Another point is that the United Nations has asked South Africa to reform her policies and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is at this moment, I understand, entering into discussions with the South African Government on this matter. The motion was quite clear. It was a United Nations motion, and it called
"…upon the Government of the Union of South Africa to initiate measures aimed at bringing in racial harmony based on equality in order to ensure that the present situation does not continue or recur and to abandon its policies or apartheid and racial discrimination."
Do the South African Government propose to bring themselves into line with this United Nations motion and with the earlier declaration of the Security Council? I say to the noble Lord that we ought to wait and see what response
156
there is to this request. That is the right and responsible thing to do.
Goodness knows, nobody on this side of the Committee believes that the solution to these problems is easy. When the situation in South Africa has been built up on force, when the Government exist on repression, when there is no alternative Government in sight, to destroy that Government without replacement is to go over completely to anarchy.
There are three things which the British Government could do, and I ask the Colonial Secretary and the Minister of State to pursue this course as they have never pursued any other objective. Otherwise, the future of Africa is black indeed. First, they should press for the release of the detainees. Secondly, they should press for the abolition of the pass laws which, by all accounts, are a source of great exacerbation. Thirdly, they should press the South African Government to enter at once into consultation with responsible African leaders.
Is this a solution that I am proposing? Not at all. But the alternative that I fear in my blackest moments is just revolution and anarchy. I do not know whether the situation can be saved, but I tell the noble Lord that it will not be saved by "smart Alec" questions or smooth replies. It will be saved only by all of us trying to face the facts, black as they are. If these three measures were taken by the South African Government—and the responsibility of the British Government is to press these upon the South African Government—they would at least do something to save the situation.
In the meantime, I think that our attitude has been made clear to South Africa. She is flouting the decision of the United Nations not only in relation to her own position but also, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) pointed out, in relation to South-West Africa. If we have to make a choice, there can be no doubt where the answer must lie if the Commonwealth is to have any significance and meaning at all. I do not propose, with the permission of the noble Lord, to go any further than that tonight, but it ought to be clear to anybody what I am trying to say.
Now I come to another matter. I beg pardon; I find that I have only two

157
minutes left, and in that case I will leave it over. It is a pity, for it was a very good section. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) said that the discussions on the Commonwealth gave rise to more woolly debates than he had heard anywhere else. This is true. It is intangible. It is difficult to define, yet it is real. I know this because I have experienced it my self.
When I heard Mr. Walter Nash open the Chatham House Conference at Palmerston, New Zealand, he said:
"The Commonwealth…forms a bridge—the only one which exists at the moment—by which the ideas and influence of Asia can be brought to bear on Western Governments and vice versa."
I had a letter last week from the Australian Labour Party in New South Wales. It said:
"The first part of the Motion on international affairs is that the policy of the Australian Labour Party shall be based on continued membership of the Commonwealth and upon the United Nations Organisation."
I had a letter from a very distinguished Canadian who, in relation to his own country, said to me:
"Without the idea as well as the fact of Commonwealth relationships, Canada could quite easily become solely North American, solely continental rather than international, and lose both some of her identity and some of her world-wide outlook."
I know this view to be shared by some of the newer members of the Commonwealth to whom membership gives a view of the world, an opening on the world through which they can see. It is a connection which. I know, is very highly valued.
What purpose has it? First, the multiracial aspect of the Commonwealth seems to me to be absolutely vital, and must be preserved at all costs. Secondly, there is the need to build up the standard of life of the people in the Commonwealth if we are a community of peoples, as we are in our perorations. I wonder how it sounds to the people of India to hear used here the phrase "You have never had it so good"? If that phrase is used as a springboard for the action for additional assistance to those within the Commonwealth, well and good, but I fear that it was not used in that sense on that occasion.
158
That is the way, in my view, to achieve co-operative action, which the communique of the Prime Ministers' Conference speaks about. We cannot permit wide gaps between ourselves and the other members of the Commonwealth in standards of life or education, if we are a community of peoples, any more than we now permit them in our own country. This seems to me to be the test to apply. Only 50 per cent. of India's children go to school, and only 30 per cent. of the children of East, West and Central Africa go to school. The number of teachers required at the moment is 200,000 if we are to have 40 children per class.
Here is our great problem for the Commonwealth, and that Commonwealth will cease to exist when it fails to serve any of these vital purposes. That is why I am so opposed to what is happening—I shall come back to this on Thursday—in terms of some of the Government's economic policies. I do not want to touch on that now. So long as the nations making up the Commonwealth feel that this useful purpose is served, so long will it exist and be useful. It is in that spirit and with that approach that we on this side want to see the Commonwealth continue to flourish, to provide that bridge between the East and West, between Asia and the nations to which the Prime Minister of New Zealand referred in his opening remarks at the Conference.
9.32 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. fain Macleod): The only way of trying to make a coherent reply to this debate is to try to take the main themes which have emerged and to comment on them. Of course, in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, there is scope for fifty different debates, but there are three matters which I should like to mention briefly and almost in passing, although I think each of them is worthy of a full debate.
I take the first from the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). She asked the question which I should deeply like to debate at great length. In effect, she asked whether our Parliamentary democracy—the Westminster model, as it is sometimes called—is exportable, and whether we are too complacent in thinking it can

159
be. I think that what she said was wise. It is inevitable that new countries need and will find strong executives, and I do not think we should be perturbed about that. I think also that the pattern and detail they take will differ a good deal from the pattern which, after all, has taken us here something like 800 years to build, and again I do not think that we should be perturbed about that.
The hon. Lady also asked the question, and in some ways this is the most fundamental question of all—will there be true opposition? I can remember in a speech two or three years ago saying, and I believe this to be true, that the real discovery of British Parliamentary democracy was not the theory of government but the theory of opposition. After all, every country in the world has a Government, but not every country in the world has an Opposition, and that is perhaps the fundamental distinction that we can make between the countries that really are democracies and those that are not. That is why we in this country cherish particularly, and even in many ways above the rights of government, the rights of opposition, and we are right to do so, but it has taken us many centuries to learn to do so. I think that in time—though not as long a time as that—opposition in the real sense of the word will come too.
The second theme to which I hope we will be able to return is the question of the future of Her Majesty's overseas Civil Service. I would merely refer the Committee to the reply which I made to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish) a short time ago and say that, although the hon. Lady for Flint, East was quite right in saying that we made some mistakes, no doubt, in the first schemes we drew up, I think that we can claim that we are learning from experience. We are getting a good deal of experience in this matter now. The most recent scheme, that in relation to Sierra Leone, is the best one, which is, after all, as it should be because it is built on the experience of the past. All that I will say about the future of the overseas Civil Service is that there is no single matter which occupies more of my time at present, and I know very well the enormous importance of this subject for the future.
160
The third thing—and again I mention it in passing before coming to the themes more directly related to the Conference —concerned the question of the future administrative arrangements between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, in speaking to an audience a short time ago, put forward his view on this matter, and I was getting alarmed at one point to find that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seemed largely in agreement with it. However, by the time that the hon. Member had finished, I found enough to differ from in both speeches to find a different view of my own. But this is an immensely interesting subject and I should like to return to it, although in another connection, when I talk about the future of the smaller dependent territories later.
I should like to turn to the question of South Africa. In one sense, it was inevitable that this debate should be dominated by the question of South Africa, and yet in another sense that gives a wholly misleading impression of what happened at the Prime Ministers' Conference. Let me first try to answer directly the question which has been put to me by many hon. Members. I should like to quote these words from the Prime Minister's communiquéé:
"In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a member of the Commonwealth, the Meeting suggested that the South African Government should then ask for the consent of the other Commonwealth Governments either at a Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers or, if this were not practicable, by correspondence".
The key word there is "then". Let me make it quite clear in answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—there is nothing between us on this issue —that, as the communiquéé makes clear, this is a matter which is to be decided in time by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in the light of any application made to them. It follows that that decision has not been and could not be prejudged. It follows further that no undertakings have been given by Her Majesty's Government, nor, indeed, would it have been proper to do so.
Our attitude—and when I say "our attitude" I think that, for once, one can speak for the whole of this country and

161
not in any party way—was clearly expressed by the Prime Minister in his Cape Town speech. I should like to read three brief extracts from it. The first is that of the theme itself:
"The wind of change is blowing through this continent and, whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it."
The second quotation is itself a quotation, because it comes from something which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said 'to the General Assembly in September, 1959:
"We reject the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. Our policy therefore is non-racial."
The third quotation which I wish to make is this:
"As a fellow member of the Commonwealth it is our earnest desire to give South Africa our support and encouragement, but I hope you won't mind my saying frankly that there are some aspects of your policies which make it impossible for us to do this without being false to our own deep convictions about the political destinies of free men to which in our own territories we are trying to give effect."
Those three quotations are the heart of what has come to be called the "Wind of Change" speech. I think that force and much added strength was given to that speech by its timing, by the occasion on which it was made and by the place in which it was made.
There are some voices—I acknowledge that this was not put forward from the Opposition Front Bench—that are raised to say that South Africa should be, in certain circumstances, perhaps expelled from the Commonwealth. When we put this question, we want to be quite clear what we mean by South Africa. We do not simply mean that lovely, beautiful country now torn with all this trouble. We mean the people. That is what matters.
Which of the people do we mean? Do we mean the 3 million whites, many of them wholly opposed to the policies that the Government are putting forward, or the 1½ million coloured or the half million Asian or the 9½ million native people? Of course, we mean them all, and we have a responsibility to them all.
The only thing that one ought to say is this. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East passed over the point and,
162
I think, he was right to do so. I attended nearly all the meetings of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and I am certain that the thought was in all their minds all the time that we must think long and very deeply indeed before we try to force those peoples into what would then be truly a wilderness. I believe that this is true. Our responsibility is to those people, and to all those people. On the whole, we have spoken wise words in this debate.
I should like to turn from the question of South Africa to talk briefly, without encroaching on the debate that we are to have on Thursday, about some the economic matters that were raised. In paragraph 9 of the communiquéé, reference was made to what has been taken to mean a Colombo Plan for Africa. The Committee will recall the origin of the Colombo Plan for South and South-East Asia. Although it is now a thoroughly international affair, that plan initiated from a Commonwealth initiative at the meeting in Colombo in 1950 at which the United Kingdom was represented by that great and beloved figure, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin.
The question of a Colombo Plan for Africa is something in which we are very interested, but the heart of the matter is this. Is it just to be another organisation, or will it mean new money? Amongst the Commonwealth, only the United Kingdom is, on balance, an exporter of capital. We already send abroad in the form of Government assistance or private investment or in one way or another as much as our balance of payments permits.
As hon. Members will know, there is already considerable and elaborate machinery, the C.C.T.A. and the Foundation for Mutual Assistance in Africa, the F.A.M.A. which arose from an examination held in 1957 of an idea for a Colombo Plan for Africa. If I may sum up our attitude towards it, it would be that we are very interested in the suggestion but that we hope that it will not be just one more organisation, because there are, perhaps, enough organisations for the distribution of capital. What is wanted is more capital to distribute.
I will say one word only on the question that was raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and other hon. Members

163
about the suggestion put forward by Senator Cooray for a Commonwealth court. Actually the position was that Senator Cooray put forward this suggestion of a Commonwealth appeal court but that there was no discussion at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting of a Commonwealth Bill of Rights. On the question of a Commonwealth court of appeal, which has considerable attractions, this, I may say, was discussed as long ago, I am told, as the Imperial Conference of 1911, but in fact —and we must face the facts in these matters—in recent years the tendency has been almost exactly in the other direction, because appeal, for example, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been abolished by Canada, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and, most recently, as we know, by Ghana.
There are many countries indeed who value very much the Judicial Committee, and I am certain that the decision to dispense with it is in no sense a measure of dissatisfaction with it. I rather feel that it is a general feeling that it is inconsistent—some people feel this—with the independent status of some of the members of the Commonwealth that there should be any appeal from the judgments of their own courts to any other outside body. I can see only one way of getting round this. I am not sure it would wholly succeed. It was put forward by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), and that is that the court, or perhaps the Judicial Committee itself, might go on circuit. There are obvious difficulties in that, and obvious attractions in the idea, and if it were attractive enough to enough countries, it is certainly something on which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have got an entirely open mind.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Long-bottom) on an admirable maiden speech which we all enjoyed very much indeed. He asked the question, why the Prime Ministers' Conference always met in London. The short answer is, because that is where they want to meet. They have discussed this on a number of occasions, and I believe they invariably come to that solution.
He also, from his very considerable experience, discussed the question of a
164
Commonwealth youth trust. I know that, as Chairman of the Commonwealth Youth Council, he gave evidence before the Templer Committee to which he referred. This matter was not discussed at the Prime Ministers' Conference. Although I know it has taken rather a long time, the proposals made by the Templer Committee are still under consideration.
I wish to come to what in some ways is the most interesting of all the themes, which featured in half a dozen speeches, and which is summarised in paragraph 14 of the communiquéé:
"The Ministers reviewed the constitutional development of the Commonwealth, with particular reference to the future of the smaller dependent territories. They agreed that a detailed study of this subject should be made for consideration by Commonwealth Governments."
The answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East is, yes, indeed, this study is getting under way. They are in fact meeting this month. The Committee will consist of one Commonwealth representative from each of the continents. The countries concerned, I think, are Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, India, Ghana, with the addition, because they have some special problems in this field, of New Zealand. There is a real sense of urgency about this matter now.
There is one way in which perhaps one can show how it is that this is really the first time that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have come to discuss this matter. There are at the moment something like 74 million people who live in the dependent territories and the Colonies, and 37 million of those, no fewer than half, will go on one day this year, 1st October, 1960, when Nigeria becomes independent.
Therefore, at once, all these questions become urgent. Will there be qualifications for future membership? When we talk, as we do, in the accepted terms that Secretaries of State of both parties have used since the war, about advancing towards independence, although we obviously mean that about the 37 million of Nigeria, what relevance has it for the 5,000 of St. Helena or the 3,000 of the Falkland Islands? These are problems which we must try to solve now. Should we have anything more than is regarded as adequate by the United Nations?

165
Membership of the United Nations is open
"to all…peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter…"
This is a problem which will come to the United Nations itself. When I was in the United Nations Assembly Hall a week or so ago the carpenters were already in to alter the seating for the great number of new candidates who will be coming up for the new meeting.
There is also the question whether, as this membership grows, it will be possible to keep to the unanimity rule which is more properly a convention than a rule. There is another matter which seems to me essential to keep in mind. There are at the moment ten full members of the Commonwealth. When Nigeria joins them for the first time round the Prime Ministers' Conference table the pale faces will be in the minority, as they have long been a minority in the Commonwealth itself in which there are 650 million people and of them 90 million are white. Therefore the last sentence in the Commonwealth communiquéé is profoundly true:
"The Ministers emphasised that the Commonwealth itself is a multi-racial association and expresses the need to ensure good relations between all member states and peoples of the Commonwealth."
It is quite easy to give the size of the problem as one sees it now. There are 10 full member States, the two Federations of Central Africa and the West Indies, which makes 12, Nigeria and Sierra Leone are coming to independence, and that makes 14, and the three East African territories clearly one day will qualify for, shall we say, first division membership, or membership without any conceivable qualifications at all. That makes 17 but, there are many others that must be considered.
Indeed, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference would have had to consider the views of Cyprus at this Conference if the negotiations had gone as successfully as we had thought. The Bill which will be introduced very soon in the House of Commons will, as I said this afternoon, include a plan for Cyprus to be treated as an independent Commonwealth country until it has had the opportunity of considering the matter and it makes an application. Cyprus
166
has a population of a little over half a million. When we come to figures of this sort we are clearly a long way from the figures that Dr. Nkrumah and other people have suggested might be appropriate. Still, when all these are taken into account, there are 25 territories left, nine with populations of under 100,000 and three with populations of under 10,000.
The task of the Committee to which I have referred is not, of course, to advise on constitutional solutions. That remains my task and that of Her Majesty's Government, although it may well be that increasingly in the future, as we have done, for example, with the Monckton Commission, we shall turn to the wisdom of the Commonwealth and and I hope that we will do this—for help in solving some of the inevitable problems that will come.
I hope that we shall be able to solve these matters. We have a great advantage in that we have not any fixed mould into which we must try to pour these countries. We have shown a good deal of ingenuity in recent years. The conception of the status of Singapore may form for many territories an excellent model indeed. There is the strange conception —from the constitutional historian's point of view, anyway—of Cyprus itself, although that will probably remain a single example.
With help from both sides of the House of Commons we tried to devise a solution of integration for Malta, an immensely imaginative exercise which I am very sad did not succeed. We must try it again to find another solution for Malta. There are countries like Zanzibar and Tonga where we are in special relationship with the ruling families.
Mr. William Yates: I hope, when my right hon. Friend and his fellows in the Commonwealth are considering the question of those who are going to join the Commonwealth, that it will not matter what the size of the country is or the number of people who want to join. If they are Governments they make application in the normal way. I do not see the point of my right hon. Friend making special reference to Cyprus or to Malta. If any of these people wish to join the Commonwealth, surely

167
their applications will be submitted to the Commonwealth, and it will be for the Commonwealth to decide?
Mr. Macleod: That is so, but I was pointing out that, as one goes from the case of Cyprus—which, if it wishes, will be submitted to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—down to places where the population is 5,000 or 3,000, clearly entirely different considerations of what independence means, and what membership to that extent means, do arise, and it is the purpose of the Committee to try and examine them. I think that we have had an extremely helpful debate on that subject. I do not propose to try to analyse what the conclusions of this Committee will be, but I am sure that it will study what has been said here today as it meets later this month.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. Thomson) observed that the Tories, when they discussed matters relating to the Commonwealth, became rather woolly, though his own definition of the Commonwealth, if I may say so, was not wholly clear. But I think that that is not really surprising because, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said, the Commonwealth is almost impossible to define. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B.Harrison) who said that sentiment is not enough. He is quite right, but sentiment is not unimportant either. It is a priceless thing, this Commonwealth, that has somehow been created partly by design and partly by chance from what was once the British Empire.
It is true, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, that it has just grown. But it is there and it is evolving fast and is changing all the time. I can think of no job more worth while than that that falls to some of Her Majesty's Ministers, of helping to guide and to nourish that change in the Commonwealth.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Bryan]—put and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY REGULATIONS)
9.59 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture (Threshers and Balers) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
These Regulations, which deal with the guarding and safe operation of threshers and balers designed or permanently converted for stationary use only, follow the general principles adopted in the regulations for stationary machinery which were made last July. The House will remember that I said then that stationary threshers, hullers, balers and trussers needed special attention and would be the subject of a separate set of regulations.
As in the case of stationary machinery generally, components such as shafting, pulleys, belts and flywheels will have to have guards of adequate strength unless, in the case of threshers and balers permanently fixed in one position, these components are safely situated out of the way of workers. Means must be provided of quickly stopping threshers and balers, and there must be adequate light. Machines, guards and belts must be properly maintained.
There are specific provisions to protect workers against the particular risks arising out of the use of threshers and balers. Drum feeding mouths must be specially guarded to prevent serious accidents which have been caused by workers stepping or falling into the drum feeding mouth and badly injuring themselves on the high speed drum. No worker may stand on a platform which slopes down directly into the drum feeding mouth when the drum is rotating, and no worker under 18 may feed produce into the drum feeding mouth.
The decks of threshers from which workers run the risk of falling more than five feet must have guard rails. Pointed hooks and spikes must not be used for the attachment of sacks or bags to threshers. The use of sharply pointed hooks has caused many serious hand injuries. In administering this provision we shall regard hooks and spikes as being satisfactory if they are no sharper

169
than a match head. That will avoid injuries, while preserving the usefulness of the hooks. I would draw the attention of the House to that point; it is an important one.
Balers and trusses must be fitted with guards to protect workers from injuring themselves on the ram or discharge arms. To prevent a particularly dangerous practice, no worker may be on top of a baler when it is being Operated.
Employers are responsible for seeing chat these provisions are observed, and will be allowed twelve months to fit the necessary guards. As it is the custom for some farmers to borrow workers to help with the threshing, or to have it done by agricultural contractors, it is important that the industry should be quite clear on whom responsibility rests. Where the threshing or baling is earned out in a machine belonging to an agricultural contractor, the contractor will be deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the regulations and, therefore, responsible for seeing that they are observed. In all other cases the occupier of the farm on which the threshing is taking place will be responsible.
These are the principal features of the Regulations. They will apply to Great Britain. When they come into operation on 1st August, 1961, the Threshing Machines Act, 1878, will no longer be required. The repeal of this Act, which does not extend to Scotland, will take effect on the same day by virtue of an order to be made by my right hon. Friend under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956.
Interested organisations have been consulted on the draft Regulations, and a broad measure of agreement has been reached. We shall, as with earlier Regulations, use all available means to inform people concerned of their responsibilities; publicity will include leaflets explaining the detailed requirements and more general announcements as reminders.
As I said before, they will complete the Regulations for stationary machines. Consultations are in progress on proposals for regulations covering the other broad group of machines—those which operate while travelling over the ground.
170
I feel sure that as a sensible and necessary addition to the existing safety measures these Regulations will commend themselves to the House.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has explained in detail the purpose of the Regulations, and has indicated that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State to bring the Regulations to the House. Powers were conferred upon the Minister and the Secretary of State by subsections (1) to (5) of Section 1 of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. The Opposition accepted the purpose of that Act, and we do not oppose these Regulations. We know that there has been considerable consultation with all sections of the industry about how the Regulations should be applied and that there has been common agreement. There is no division between the two sides of the House tonight. We agree that these Regulations mark a step forward and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced that consultations are going on with a view to the introduction of further safety regulations covering other classes of agricultural machinery.
The purpose of the Act and the Regulations is to protect the worker in agriculture against risks of bodily injury, or injury to health, arising out of the use of machinery, plant, equipment or appliances. That was the principle of the 1956 Act and it dominates the Regulations.
Here we are dealing specifically with dangerous machinery, threshers and balers. We agree with the Regulations in principle, but I have some detailed criticisms, which I hope will be constructive and which are made only in a desire to improve administration. If I put some detailed points here and there, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that I am not criticising the main policy of the Government in this respect, or the underlying principles of the administration of the Regulations.
The Regulations should take the safety programme on farms a step forward and there is common agreement about that. We all agree that there must be safety on our farms. Without going into too much detail, The Land Worker

171
of April, 1960—and the source of the figures is the Ministry of Agriculture—in an article entitled "Death on the Farms" said:
"There were 151 fatal accidents on the farms of Great Britain in 1959, and of that total 23 of the victims were children under 15 years of age."
Analysing the Ministry's figures, the article went on:
"The breakdown in the figures for fatal accidents is interesting. By far the largest single group involves the use of machinery—91 of the total fell in this group and 14 of them were children."
It may well be that the Regulations will not cover all the accidents in that broad category, but the figures show that still more safety on farms is needed.
Inevitably, that need will grow with the growth of mechanisation. Britain has one of the most highly-mechanised agricultural industries in the world. We are all for that. It leads to increased efficiency and the agricultural engineering industry makes a valuable contribution to the nation's economy, affecting home agriculture and exports. We are all anxious to have more mechanisation, but we must recognise that with the growth of mechanisation there must be a growth of safety regulations.
I stress what Sir George Dowty said at the opening of the Power Farming Conference in February of this year when he forecast a future when machinery would be far more important than it is today and when the farmer and farm worker would be men with considerable engineering skill.
In discussing the Regulations, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that there are two important aspects of safety on the farm. One is training and the other is the use of machines. Training and the use of machines are important when we are dealing with safety regulations and those regulations will be administered effectively only on the farm, and the men who use the machinery must be trained to do so.
The Farmer and Stock-Breeder on 8th December said:
"Mr. E. M. Owens, chairman of the N.F.U. Technical and Education Committee, told the Truro F.U. he thought it probable that the British farmer knew less about his machinery than almost any other farmer in the world,
172
and to put it right with the rising generation was the job of the training and technical colleges."
I do not know that I agree with that, but it indicates that there is a section of farming opinion which is pleading for better training and use of machinery and stressing how important that is to safety.
The farmer must have more knowledge of his machines and it must be given through organisations like the N.F.U., through its Machinery Committee, and the Agricultural Workers' Union, which has already publicised regulations of this kind and the need for proper legislation. Farmers and farmworkers have campaigned for improved safety arrangements. Those concerned with machines directly, like the Institute of Agricultural Engineers, have had conferences and campaigns for more safety through the better use of machinery on the farm. Again I stress that.
We could tonight, had we wanted, have gone into a long debate about the importance of technical instruction in the use of machinery and of the implementation of the De La Warr Report covering technical education. I would only say that the maintenance and care of machinery is therefore important, and I am glad to see that in the Regulations there is, over and over again, a stress on maintenance.
In Part II, paragraph 7, of the Schedule to the Regulations there is a special section dealing with construction and maintenance. Throughout the Government's draft Statutory Instrument we see that maintenance comes up. The maintenance and care of machinery is a very vital factor, and we hope that the farming community will always bear in mind that machinery must be looked after. Too often we see on our farms machinery left out in the open. I am sure that is a bad practice. We therefore hope that the issue of Regulations of this kind will encourage farmers and farm workers to 100 per cent. maximum efficiency in the care and maintenance of machinery.
I come to one or two detailed points in the Regulations and perhaps a little criticism. In paragraph 8 (2) of Part II of the Schedule, as the Minister has said, it is a duty to provide guards for
"shafting, pulley, flywheel,… belt or chain."

173
These need not apply if situated a distaace of 6 ft. 6 in. from
"…every floor, platform, staircase, fixed ladder or other place to which a worker has access.…"
I know that this is the practice in factories and that regulations for safety in factories deal with a similar point. In law, there is a principle commonly known as "safe by position", and it is argued that guards are not necessary, and tint workers not normally in danger of coming into contact with unguarded parts of moving machinery above their heads need not be protected. In other words the Regulations need not cater for such machinery in factories, and, as is the case with these Regulations, for circumstances of that kind.
I know that this point has been raised by the National Union of Agricultural Workers and that it has made representations to the Minister, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. A. V. Hilton) will give the union's point of view tonight. We still have to cater for forgetful and inexperienced workers who sometimes climb up a ladder to make adjustments and to lubricate dangerous parts of a machine while it is still rotating. They may be oblivious to the dangers. However, their actions may have been to improve the working of the machinery and, they have at least been trying to remedy some defect. Their actions can have disastrous results.
That is why I hoped that the regulations would have catered for human failings. I know that the Minister has gone part of the way and that the Regulations allude to balers and threshers and that there is the wording
"…permanently fixed in one position…"
There is also an escape proviso which says that guards are not necessary if a worker is not within a distance of 6 ft. 6 ins. and that it does not apply if machines are moveable.
I agree that the Minister has gone a long way, but there is still a point to consider even with permanently fixed machines. We must envisage a worker lubricating the machinery, or making some adjustments or replacements, and, in consequence, coming nearer than 6 ft. 6 ins. to the moving parts. That means that he will be too close for safety. I would have liked to see a
174
provision that dangerous parts, wherever situated, of threshers and balers should be fitted with guards. It would not have cost the manufacturers or the farmers much money. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this point.
I turn now to the requirements for stopping machinery quickly—in other words, emergency stopping devices. The Regulations require that such a device shall be affixed to and operated from either the prime mover—for instance, the tractor—or the thresher or baler itself. In this connection, I wish to raise a point affecting the economy of labour. The tractor driver may be engaged in other operations, in which case if anything happens to one of the team on the thresher nobody is readily available to apply the safety stopper devices on the tractor. I do not think that there should be any unreasonable economy of labour at the expense of the workers' safety. I realise that this point may not be able to be covered by a Regulation, and may have to be dealt with by propaganda and the creation of a public opinion in connection with the use of machinery and implements on farms.
The Regulations are good, and we approve of them. We congratulate the Minister for introducing them. They represent a step forward towards bringing about better safety conditions on farms. The demand for safety measures will continue with the development of machinery in the farming industry. In matters of safety involved in dealing with complicated machinery which can cause bodily injury, we must err on the side of caution.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. J. M. L. Prior: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) mentioned the question of a worker being more than 6 ft. 6 ins. from moving parts of machinery. If he knows very much about stationary threshing machines or balers he will realise that it is impossible always to remain outside that distance. What we must try to ensure is that these safety Regulations, which I warmly welcome, are satisfactory without being too complicated.
Mr. Peart: I was quoting the distance of 6 ft. 6 ins. only because it is quoted in the Regulations. The hon. Member will see that it is there.
Mr. Prior: I have read the Regulations carefully and I cannot see any mention of the distance of 6 ft. 6 ins. In any case, it is impossible to keep 6 ft. 6 ins. away from all working parts of a threshing machine, and the hon. Member ought to know that.
If we make these Regulations too complicated they will be ignored and not put to their proper use. If we provide that shields must be placed round everything, a man maintaining these machines may take off one of the guards and put it in the dirt, and forget to put it back again. The result will be worse than not having the Regulations at all.
The best effect of the Regulations will be felt in the protection now afforded to the power tackle from the tractor to the implement. There is an example of a Regulation which has been of great benefit.
I am worried about some of these Regulations, including the one about a railing round the top of the drum. In any case, I think that we are making these Regulations too late, because I expect that the stationary drum will be out of use altogether in a few years; but better late than never. It will be difficult properly to implement the Regulation referring to a chain or a rope or guardrail not more than 4 ft. above the deck. I do not consider it a particularly valuable Regulation. We shall still have one side unguarded where the operator feeds into the drum and I think that the railing or raised platform already round the drum would be sufficient.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to the number of children last year and a figure of 14 has been quoted. This is a difficult matter for the farmers, who find it very hard to keep children away from these instruments. A farmer who does so is regarded as a spoilsport by the children and the farm workers encourage children to sit on the tractor and the balers and on the stationary drum.
I suggest that in the rural areas school teachers could profitably spend a little time trying to teach children why they are not allowed to go near the farm machinery. Most farmers are extremely fond of children and like to have them round the farm. There is widespread abuse of the present Regulations relating to children, because it has been so
176
difficult for farmers to comply with them. I hope that education authorities will take note of what has been said.
I welcome the Regulations, but in future we must always be guided by what is practicable as well as what would be 100 per cent, desirable. The manufacturers could do most to help the farmers in this difficulty. If manufacturers took note of the Regulations and tried to design machinery so that it was safe, and that the working parts were well away from the people who have to operate the machines as well as from dust and dirt, we should have safer and better agricultural implements.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. A. V. Hilton: I welcome the Regulations. This is a matter on which hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed and it is also something upon which there is agreement among farmers and farm workers. We welcome anything which will make conditions safer for those who work on the land and which will help to reduce the risk of accidents. In recent years the number of accidents has caused great concern, but it has been reduced as a result of previous Regulations.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is bothered about these Regulations. Personally, I welcome any Regulation which is likely to make conditions safer on the farm. The hon. Member mentioned in particular the difficulty of keeping children off tractors and farm implements. I quite agree that that is a problem, but the Regulations against children going on such machinery have, I think, been instrumental in greatly reducing the number of accidents. The timing of these Regulations is appropriate. They are to deal with threshers and balers. Already we have seen the balers out in the fields and in a few weeks' time the threshers will be busy.
I know that these Regulations will not apply to implements used in gathering the coming harvest, but they should be a reminder to farmers and workers that this will be the last time they will be able to take risks which have previously been taken in the use of balers and threshers. I hope that when it is known that the Regulations are to apply from 1st August, 1961, many farmers will not

177
wait until then but that they would put their provisions into operation.
There is no doubt that during the hay harvest and the corn harvest there are likely to be many terrible accidents. I have seen many accidents in the past. I have seen a man come out of a drum minus the whole of his leg. I have seen one with the whole of the flesh stripped off his arm when he had become entangled in a baler. These accidents have happened to workers when machines have not been adequately guarded. Therefore, I hope that many farmers will operate the provisions of these Regulations straight away.
I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about catering for the careless and forgetful worker who sometimes is so anxious to get on with the job that he takes undue risks with moving parts of machinery. Many accidents happen on the farm because workers are forgetful that parts of the machinery are moving and they take risks when oiling, greasing or adjusting them. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take note of what was said by my hon. Friend.
I welcome these Regulations and sincerely hope that they will have the desired result of reducing the rate of accidents on the farm. There is a responsibility on both the farmer and the worker and not only the farmer. I am sure that if they observe these Regulations when they become operative they will have the desired effect of reducing the alarming rate of farm accidents which has been so serious in the past.
10.30 p.m.
Sir John Barlow: I welcome these Regulations. I, too, have seen ugly accidents when working with balers or threshing machines. These accidents are bound to happen, especially in an industry which has been mechanised so rapidly and so recently. Until very recently agriculture has been largely manual, but since the war it has become rapidly mechanical. It is difficult for people who have not been used to mechanical work to change over and to realise the risks involved in quick-moving machinery.
178
At the same time, I hope that the Minister will not make the Regulations too difficult, because there is a certain risk in all types of machinery, and I believe that if he encourages the better maintenance of agricultural machinery, which is most important, especially among workers who are only recently becoming mechanically minded, that will solve many of the difficulties.
Reference has been made to the risk to children from agricultural machinery. We all know that in the old days it was the delight of all of us, as children, to drive an empty cart back to the hayfield. Today, it is the delight of many farm children to drive a tractor, with an empty cart, back to the hayfield, or to drive a tractor on while others are filling the cart with hay, possibly when there is threatening weather and everybody is trying to get the crop in quickly.
It seems to me that there is a great risk to small children, who cannot reach the pedals of a tractor, and I hope that agriculture will be very stern with children. Although we want to encourage children in agriculture, I hope that they will not be allowed to take an active part with moving machinery and tractors, although I know how difficult it is to refuse them.
It seems to me that what is wanted more is an encouragement of common sense and an appreciation of the mechanism of moving machinery. I hope that the Ministry will try to encourage that rather than to establish rigid Regulations which perhaps will call for more manpower and greater expense. If they demand rigid regulations and greater expense in manpower through the Regulations, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember this at the next spring Price Review.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Godber: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the very helpful and sympathetic remarks which they have made about these Regulations. As hon. Members have said, this is an all-party matter, and I am glad that it is. I will reply briefly to one or two points made.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) reminded us, rightly, of the number of deaths which still take place each year on our farms. Other hon. Members,

179
including the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton), from his personal experience, have spoken of some of the serious accidents which take place. It is as well that we should be reminded of this. At the same time, we can take some pride in the results which are beginning to show from Orders already introduced. I was glad to hear the kindly references, in particular, to the Regulations referring to power take-off, which I think are proving very valuable in avoiding a number of serious accidents.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to paragraph 8 (2) of the Schedule which states:
"…where a thresher or baler is permanently fixed in one position, a component, and any part of a component, shall be deemed to be so situated as aforesaid if it is more than 6 feet 6 inches from every floor, platform, staircase, fixed ladder or other place…"
The important point here is that this is restricted to threshers or balers which are permanently fixed in one position—in other words, which can be considered as comparable with the stationary machinery with which we have dealt in previous Regulations. On that occasion we decided upon 6 ft. 6 ins. as being the operative height which we thought was safe. As the hon. Member pointed out, that is above the heads of the average worker, and we thought it was reasonable. Of course, the vast majority of these machines which are covered by these Regulations would not be covered by this particular exception, because they are moveable and are taken from farm to farm, so that the bulk of them have to be guarded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) pointed out one or two matters with regard to the use of drums. He said that in a year or two they would be out of use. I suppose that in the majority of cases they will be, but there are still a large number in use at present and we thought it would be wrong to disregard these machines when we are trying to cover the generality of farm machinery. He referred to the usefulness of a guard rail 3 ft. to 4 ft. above the deck. We gave this matter
180
considerable thought. With machinery of this height, we felt that any guard rail to be effective must be at this level and we thought it wrong not to provide a guard rail at all. The sort of thing that we have in mind is not expensive or cumbersome or difficult to fix. The contractors and those owning these machines would not have undue difficulty. I was particularly concerned to satisfy myself on this point, having worked on a drum many times and knowing something of the difficulties. I would not have agreed to this provision if I had not been sure that it was practical.
The question relating to the use of machinery by children is a valid theme which was taken up on both sides of the House, and I am sure that it is right that we should remind farmers all the time of the dangers that children run if they are allowed to get on the machines. We have tried to set standards in our previous Regulations, and I must appeal to the whole farming community in the interests of the children themselves, to be a little harsh if necessary in order to safeguard the children, although I know how difficult this can be on occasions.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West expressed the hope that farmers would straightaway start to fit some of these guards and not wait till next year. I am sure we all agree entirely. We do not put next year as a target date. We put it as a final date. Our hope is that farmers and contractors will wish to start fitting these guards as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) gave a very sound warning about not making regulations too difficult. I assure him that it is our intention to keep them as simple and practicable as possible, and that is in some degree the reason for a certain amount of delay in bringing these Regulations forward. We have been determined not to put an unreasonable burden on the farming community but at the same time we have been determined to try to achieve safety, although, with the wide variety of machinery in existence, it is proving difficult and extremely complicated in

181
some cases. These Regulations are a case in point, and those relating to moving machinery in use in the fields will pose other problems for us.
We have to try to marry up the needs of safety with the practical needs of the farm, and I assure the House that we shall keep those practical needs of the farmer and his workers constantly in mind in trying to achieve a fair and just solution.
182
I am grateful to the House for the reception it has given to these Regulations, and I hope they will be accepted.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Threshers and Balers) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

RAILWAYS (SUPERANNUITANTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
10.40 p.m.
Mr. H. Hynd:
"Not once or twice in our rough-island story"
has it been necessary to bring the question of railway superannuitants before the House. I regret the necessity for troubling the House with it again, though this is a very appropriate day for me to bring it to the Minister's attention, because today I become a superannuitant.
In doing so I very vividly have in mind the condition of some of my older colleagues, with whom I used to work in the railway clerical service, who, through no fault of their own, after paying into superannuation funds a percentage of their salaries for many years, retired—on what they thought might be a reasonable pension, at any rate, one which would enable them to live—paringly—for the rest of their lives, but which, because of the increase in the cost of living, has been devalued to the extent that some of them, I understand, have actually less now than the scales of National Assistance—although they paid, I repeat, all during their working lives, usually far forty to forty-five years, into superannuation funds. Now they find themselves in this position. These are men many of whom were in responsible supervisory positions, as heads of departments, station masters, or supervisory staff of various kinds.
In putting Questions and raising this in various ways I have accumulated quite a dossier on the subject. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have not got it with me. The reason is that I think it is quite unnecessary. I want to be brief. For one reason I believe that if the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is fortunate enough to catch your eye there may be found support for me from the Government benches on this subject. It is not a party matter at all. Over and above that, the Minister knows perfectly well all the facts and figures of the subject: he has had them put before him so often.
184
I just say this, that people who are still working in the transport salaried service have not forgotten their old colleagues, and at the recent annual conference of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association they laid aside their own difficulties for some time in order to discuss the position of their old colleagues and passed a resolution which the Minister no doubt received in due course. In addition to the efforts of that Association, the superannuitants themselves have formed an association, and I am quite certain that their secretary's name is well known in the Ministry of Transport.
Parliament has recognised this difficulty over a long period. As the value of money has fallen the cost of living has risen; inflation has come upon us. So we have made provision for various sections of workers for whom the Government have direct or indirect responsibility—a very proper thing to do. The House has recognised the difficulty and has dealt with it accordingly, and so it has adjusted the pensions of civil servants, school teachers, municipal officers, and others. I say "Good luck" to all those people, but I must emphasise that some of them were members of non-contributory funds, whereas the people with whom I am concerned tonight have contributed a percentage of their salaries throughout their working lives.
Indeed, the Transport Commission recognised its moral responsibility some time ago, and a small increase was awarded. I will not say it was a derisory amount, because that might seem ungracious and ungrateful, and I do not want to appear ungrateful at all. In fact, I believe that both the Commission and the Ministry itself have recognised that they have a moral responsibility in this matter; I believe the Minister is sympathetic; I believe the Commission is sympathetic; and when the Prime Minister himself was approached he expressed sympathy on it; but always there is the addendum that because of the present financial state of the industry nothing can be done at present.
A new situation has been created recently in that the British Transport Commission, despite the financial state of the industry, has now given wage increases against which the same arguments might have been used as might have been used against the claims of the

185
superannuitants. To enable the Commission to do so the Government have given certain guarantees and have shouldered part of the financial burden. I do not see why they cannot do that in in this case also.
I go further. I believe that so sympathetic has the Minister become on this subject that certain proposals are actually under consideration. One reason why I raise the subject in this public way tonight is to give the Minister an opportunity, which I hope he will take, to give us the good news to send to these old colleagues of mine that in view of the situation in which they find themselves the Government will recognise their moral responsibility to the extent of helping the Commission in some way to meet that obligation. I repeat that I do not think it necessary to quote figures and percentages and go over the whole story that has been gone over so often, but I do hope that we shall have some good news tonight.
10.46 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has raised this very important matter. Many of us have argued it for a long period and I much appreciate the action and attitude of my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Transport who, in spite of the British Transport Commission's deficiency even at that time, discussed the application of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1955, with the Commission, and some action was taken. It was only when the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, was put on the Statute Book that the difficulty appeared to arise, because the then Minister of Transport, now Minister of Defence, felt that he could not press, even if it was necessary, the Chairman of the Transport Commission to apply the 1959 Act to the railway superannuitants.
It seemed to me, therefore, that in view of the fact that now the Treasury has taken on some of the Commission's deficiencies and will meet some of its financial difficulties as a direct charge on the Treasury, there can be no objection to the Treasury including in that deficiency fair and just treatment for the railway superannuitants. I want to put on record a letter which I received from the Chairman of the Transport Commission. The Minister of Transport is, naturally, in possession of a copy of the
186
letter because he had it sent to me by Sir Brian Robertson, but it is important that it should be on public record for everybody to see.
It is dated 30th May and, written to me, says:
"Thank you for letting me see the enclosed correspondence you have had with the Chancellor."
I had gone far beyond arguing the question with the Minister of Transport, because I know who is the nigger in the woodpile. "I assure you I entirely share your feelings about the old railway servants who are down at the bottom of the pensions scale. Towards the end of last year the Commission gave long and anxious thought to the question of further supplementation, following the three schemes of increased allowances which we have brought in over the last six years. The Commission came to the conclusion that there was indeed a strong case for some further assistance but that the cost could not possibly be met from the Commission's own resources having regard to our general financial position. I therefore wrote to the Minister of Transport putting the whole matter to him, and I am awaiting his reply.
Yours sincerely,
Brian H. Robertson."
Like the hon. Member for Accrington, I have raised this question time and time again with the Minister of Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House—with every possible Minister with whom I could get a word in when I was fortunate enough to be called by you, Mr. Speaker. I particularly want to emphasise that always the answer given to me is that it is a matter for the Chairman of the Transport Commission. Yet here is this letter, written by the Chairman of the Commission.
I take very great exception to the fact that, since he put up this suggestion at the end of last year, all those answers that have been given to me by the Government Front Bench have not been entirely accurate, because it was well known by the Ministers concerned that this difficulty had been put by Sir Brian Robertson to the appropriate Minister. We are now at the beginning of July—nearly seven months later. Like the hon. Member for Accrington, I hope that we shall have some good news tonight. I am not particularly hopeful, however—but perhaps I should not be hopeful, although I always believe that my Government will do the right thing, even

187
though they let me down quite often, which is rather humiliating to me.
I want to point out, however, that Sir Brian wrote this letter at the end of last year in relation to the men who have served the railways for a very long time, very loyally and very courageously during the war, and has been left without an answer. If this had been an official of the National Union of Railwaymen, or of any other big union, or of the T.U.C., or all sorts of grand people, we would have had everybody rushing in, from the Prime Minister downwards. But because these people have nobody to speak for them except some of us in this House, and we think that we are quite powerful, do we not? I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington—the Minister of Transport thinks that it is appropriate to leave a letter from Sir Brian Robertson unanswered, far as I can make out.
Time and time again we are told that it is very difficult to recruit staff for the railways. Time and time again we are told that the railways need first-class men to help to create an efficient system. What chance will the railways have to recruit first-class men if its old servants, the real salt of the earth, are treated so scurvily by the Government? In a couple of decades none of us may be here; we do not know. But a Minister will no doubt get up and say how pathetic it is that we do not seem to be able to attract the right type of men to British Railways.
The fathers and the grandfathers will not encourage their sons and grandsons to go into the railway service if we cannot treat properly the men who have already served. As I have said before, I am absolutely humiliated that time and time again we have to come here and plead this case. One can get money for all sorts of things, but one cannot get it for railway Superannuitants.
In the past, the difficulty was that it was the responsibility of the Chairman of the Commission. I am only too glad that Sir Brian Robertson—it is a magnificent gesture on his part, and I pay tribute to him for it—has the guts to say to the Minister of Transport, "Here is the situation. We want something to be done. We consider that it is right in the interests of the old railwaymen as a whole that
188
something should be done, but we have not got the money with which to do it." It is very clear to everybody that the money is not there, of course.
However, if the taxpayers can be asked —I would rather that my taxes went in the direction of some of the people about whom we are arguing tonight—to find a deficiency and to forgo tax relief for a year, it is absolutely disgraceful that we cannot find a little more to look after those who looked after us. I should not be in order even to mention the Finance Bill, but I would say again that wealthy widows and widowers have got the Chancellor's support, but we cannot get anything for these people who, as Sir Brian himself says—and it has been emphasised time and time again—are at the bottom.
If I could find a way to stage a demontration in the House I should be glad to do it, because at the last General Election we pledged our support to those who are living on small fixed incomes. We have pledged ourselves to let all the people share in the material prosperity enjoyed by many today. If we do not do something for these people soon many of them may not live to enjoy it. I want to know when the pledge will be redeemed.
I wish that all the members of the Cabinet were sitting on the Front Bench tonight. It would do them all a very great deal of good to listen to what has been said. They have all said how wonderful the railwaymen were during the war, and it is now up to the Government is see that their very difficult situation is met.
10.58 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): We are discussing tonight the situation of some 30,000 people, retired railway salaried staff. I am sure that the House would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) upon reaching the retirement age. We hope that he will have many years of useful service still before him, both in the House and outside.
The 30,000 people are ex-employees not of the British Transport Commission, but of the former mainline railway companies which were nationalised in 1948. Their special position—because it is a special situation—arises from two facts. First, they are not

189
former public servants like civil servants or teachers. They are, in fact, former employees of private organisations, and for that reason they have not since the war qualified as public servants have done for increases in pension made under the Pensions (Increase) Acts.
The second fact is that those of them who were in work between 1926 and July, 1948, when the National Insurance Act, 1946, came into operation, were excepted from the State pension schemes, though, of course, they are not excepted from the provisions of National Assistance in appropriate cases, for that is open to everyone. The reason why they were excepted by the House is that between the wars when the original State pension schemes were brought into operation it was considered that on the whole railway pensions schemes were more favourable than the State schemes. It was open to any railwayman to join the State schemes as a voluntary contributor if he wished, and, indeed, a number did, but the great majority of them did not. Of course, they had the compensating advantage of saving the additional contribution.
Immediately following the war, as the House well remembers, we entered into a period of substantial inflation. Between the years 1948 and 1958, the cost of living went up and the value of pensions and fixed incomes fell, a matter which has been discussed many times in the House over these years. But the position of State pensioners was improved to compensate for the fall in the value of their pensions. Between 1948 and 1951, the level of pensions for a number of pensioners was raised once. Between 1951 and 1959, it was raised three times for all, with the consequence that today the State pension is worth about 10s. 7d. more in real terms than it was in 1951. Since 1958, all pensioners have had the inestimable boon of stable prices. Unfortunately, the railway salaried staff pensioners did not come within the general protection which was given to the great majority of pensioners, for the reasons which I have just mentioned.
It is right to put on record what the British Transport Commission has done about it. Of course, it has a moral obligation to the former employees of the railway industry, an obligation which it has accepted on three separate occasions, not once as the hon. Member
190
for Accrington said. In 1953, 1955 and 1956 it introduced supplementation schemes to supplement the existing pensions of those people on a purely ex gratia basis. It benefited some 20,000 out of the 30,000 pensioners and the cost of those supplementation schemes at the moment is running at about £½ million a year.
The important qualification to note is that supplementation was not paid to any pensioner receiving more than £250 a year basic pension and that the voluntary contributors to the State schemes, as well as those who excepted in the way I have described, were also included for supplementation. In addition to this admittedly modest but welcome help, the Transport Commission pay about £9 million a year in matching contributions and deficiency payments to maintain the benefits under superannuation funds on existing scales for salaried staff whether retired or not.
Since 1956, when that last supplementation payment was made, the Commission has taken the stand that it can do no more out of its own resources. It says, and I certainly do not disagree with it, that it must have regard to its general financial situation, a situation with which we are all acquainted and which is very difficult indeed.
I read in the newspapers tonight that Mr. Charles Evans, President of the National Union of Railwaymen, addressing his Union's Conference today, described the Commission's finances as "frightening." That is an expression with which I do not quarrel. In 1956, the deficit of the railways was £571 million; in 1957, £68 million; in 1958, £90 million; and in 1959—we have just had the figures in the latest Report—£84 million. I cannot yet estimate the deficit for 1960, but it will be remembered that £90 million is being borne above the line on this year's Estimates, as the then estimated figure when the Chancellor introduced his Budget.
I come to the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred. The position is that at the end of 1959 the Chairman of the Commission, Sir Brian Robertson, wrote to my right hon. Friend and made his proposals. Having said, to start with, that the financial situation was such that the Commission

191
could do little on its own, he proposed, first, that the Exchequer should accept the liability of bringing up to the present level of National Insurance pensions the pensions paid to those super-annuitants. He estimated that that would cost about £400,000 in addition to the sum which I have already mentioned of approximately £½ million being paid by way of supplementation.
The second proposal was a little more unusual in that although he could not estimate the cost involved he suggested that the Government should agree to a general supplementation for all railway superannuitants to bring them into line with the position of former public servants. On the first proposal my right hon. Friend, in reply, said that this would have to be considered in connection with the current broad review that is going on of the Commission's finances. On the second proposal he replied that he would prefer to have some indication of the amount of expenditure which the Commission was envisaging, before he could take any decision upon it. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. My right hon. Friend has answered the Chairman of the Commission along those lines.
On the general issue, I need hardly say that everyone has sympathy with those who are living on small fixed incomes and, in particular, with groups of people like those of whom we are speaking tonight, who find themselves in special difficulties in the circumstances. Very strong feelings are held on this matter, and we will certainly take account of them, but even at the risk of appearing to be unsympathetic—which I am not—I must reiterate that these superannuitants are the responsibility of the Commission, for the Commission inherited responsibility for them from the old main line companies. As I have said, the Commission is firmly of the view that its financial position does not allow of any further increase in payments to these pensioners. And, in the light of the figures of losses that I have quoted I think that there can be little dissent from that view.
The alternative, which has been canvassed both in this debate and outside the House, on a number of occasions, is that the Government should simply
192
take over the responsibility from the Commission. But to accept this suggestion and to impose on the Exchequer a specific liability in respect of railway pensioners raises some very wide issues. The status of the nationalised industries, their relations with the Government and the relations between them and their employees or former employees, would all be involved. Such a move would be not only a dangerous precedent, but would be unacceptable in principle. It is a well-understood principle that the Exchequer's liability in pensions increases is confined to those who have earned their pensions in the public service, and for the payment of whose pensions public funds are responsible. The civil servant is the prime example.
This principle would be seriously breached if we were to accept this suggestion. Moreover, if we were to take this special step of accepting that these particular superannuitants are a direct responsibility of the Exchequer, that would inevitably have wide repercussions on the many pensioners of other nationalised industries and similar public bodies. These are considerations that the Government must have in mind.
But then it is said that we are already meeting the Commission's deficit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said, and, therefore, all that is required is for us to increase this Exchequer contribution. This is an ingenious argument—
Dame Irene Ward: It is more than ingenious.
Mr. Hay: —but one which I cannot accept. We regard the present financial situation of the Commission and the present system of deficit financing as an interim position only.
As the House knows, both the structure and the finances of the Commission are under special examination by the Special Advisory Group under the chairmanship of Sir Ivan Stedeford, and the purpose of this examination and the whole trend of our policy is to reach, by one means or another, a position of viability for the railways. It is against this background that decisions will have to be taken between the various competing claims on the resources available to the railways, including the claims of the superannuitants. The case of these men

193
should, if anything, be a spur to all of us, whether in the railway industry or outside to do everything possible to ensure that viability is reached at the earliest possible moment, as a means whereby the position of the super-annuitants can be improved. Beyond that, I cannot go tonight.
Dame Irene Ward: What is the point of the Minister of Transport having the powers of direction? Accepting all that has been said tonight, why does not the Minister use his powers of direction and increase the deficit on the Commission?
194
It can come back through the Treasury. That is the only action he need take.
Mr. Hay: That is a point I will consider, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I cannot see that it will salve the difficulty that we are up against—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations (Sites)
  Power Stations (Sites)
COAL
  Output per Man-shift
  Output per Man-shift
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Disabled Persons (Two-Seater Cars)
  Disabled Persons (Two-Seater Cars)
  Leucotomy
  Leucotomy
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Heliports (Sites)
  Heliports (Sites)
  Jet Aircraft, London Airport (Night Services)
  Jet Aircraft, London Airport (Night Services)
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Leeds-Bradford Airport
HOSPITALS
  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern Wells
  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern Wells
  Hospitals, Manchester (Out-patients' Departments)
  Hospitals, Manchester (Out-patients' Departments)
  Head Porters (Pay)
  Head Porters (Pay)
  Holywell Cottage Hospital
  Holywell Cottage Hospital
  Matrons, Wales
  Matrons, Wales
  Acquisition of Land (Expenditure)
  Acquisition of Land (Expenditure)
  Invalid Chairs (Repairs)
  Invalid Chairs (Repairs)
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPEAN MIGRATION
  UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES AIR FORCES
  UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES AIR FORCES
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Charollais Cattle
  Charollais Cattle
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
  Farm Buildings Research Committee
  Farm Buildings Research Committee
EMPLOYMENT
  Port Talbot and Glyncorrwg
  Port Talbot and Glyncorrwg
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pensions (Differential Rate)
  Pensions (Differential Rate)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Northern Concourse, London Airport
  Northern Concourse, London Airport
  Expansion and Mechanisation
  Expansion and Mechanisation
  Lincolnshire
  Lincolnshire
  FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (ENFORCEMENT)
  FOREIGN JUDGMENTS (ENFORCEMENT)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Trade Commission Service (Inter-Departmental Inquiry)
  Trade Commission Service (Inter-Departmental Inquiry)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Land (Use)
  Land (Use)
  Royal Commission on London Government
  Royal Commission on London Government
  Bletchley and Swindon
  Bletchley and Swindon
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Court Case, Doncaster (Sentence)
  Court Case, Doncaster (Sentence)
  Ingleby Committee (Report)
  Ingleby Committee (Report)

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

UGANDA
2.35 p.m.
LORD REA: 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 have any statement to make on the recent discussions in London between the Secretary of Slate for the Colonies and the representatives of the Uganda Legislative Council.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my right honourable friend held a series of informal discussions with a group of representative members of the Uganda Legislative Council between the 22nd and 29th June. The group comprised members who supported the Majority recommendations in the Report of the Constitutional Committee set up last year, and those who supported the Minority recommendations. The Majority Delegation's principal concern was to express their disappointment at the decision on the Wild Committee's recommendations which the Governor announced to the Legislature on 22nd February, and they sought clarification of a number of other constitutional matters.
My right honourable friend explained that, because so far no coherent pattern of political Parties had emerged in Uganda, and because the problem of the form of Government which would be suitable for an independent Uganda had yet to be solved, he was convinced that the next stride of advance in Uganda should be a cautious one. None the less, it would represent an important advance, with the introduction of a majority of members in the Council of Ministers who were not drawn from Civil Service, and an overwhelming elected majority in
914
the Legislature. Thereafter it was hoped that political circumstances in the Protectorate would be such that the country would make swift progress towards the next stage of internal self-government on its progress to independence.
When the Majority Delegation pressed him to agree that if the forthcoming elections should show a clear and coherent result, further advances should at once be conceded, my right honourable friend replied that he would naturally consider the situation after the elections very carefully. Meanwhile his final conclusions on the detailed constitutional matters still outstanding would be embodied in a despatch to be published. He also explained that he was proceeding with the appointment of a "Relationships Commission" whose task would be to recommend a form of Government to meet Uganda's particular needs. This Commission will go to work in Uganda before the election, though it will not report till afterwards. There were also useful discussions about public service matters and about future economic aid to Uganda. The Minority Delegation were generally in agreement with my right honourable friend, but impressed upon him the need for a clear plan of constitutional development for Uganda in the interests of stability and confidence, particularly in the economic sphere.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive and very helpful reply.

CYPRUS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Mills will be making a statement on Cyprus at about 3.30 p.m.

SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that three Amendments be made to this Bill on Third Reading. Perhaps I should explain to your Lordships that last Thursday this Bill received a Third Reading, and I then rose to move that three Amendments be made—a Motion which I subsequently withdrew because

915
of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I then undertook to communicate with the noble Lord and to send him a copy of the Amendments; and I should just like to say that, although I did this on Thursday evening last, by some unhappy chance the noble Lord has not received my letter. May I therefore say now to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, what I said to him in the letter: that I am satisfied that the procedure adopted last Thursday was in accordance with the usual custom and procedure of the House, and that these Amendments had then been available for some nine days in the Printed Paper Office or in my office, and were therefore available for inspection. I now beg to move these Amendments; and, as I said last Thursday, I am in a position to assure the House that they are all purely drafting; that they are not Amendments of substance, and that they do not contravene the Standing Orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the said Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House. These Amendments are exactly as the noble Lord has described them—purely drafting; and had we had an opportunity of seeing them before the noble Lord moved them last Thursday, no question would, of course, have arisen. I would suggest that, if it be correct that this is in accordance with normal practice—that the Amendments are in the Printed Paper Office but that the attention of noble Lords has not been drawn to the fact that they are there, and it is open to the noble Lord thereupon to move these Amendments, without, in practice, noble Lords' having an opportunity of seeing them—we ought to look at our practice again. I would respectfully suggest that we might have an item on the agenda of the Procedure Committee when we might consider whether we cannot in some way give more adequate notice to noble Lords of Amendments of this character.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I made a slip just now when I said that the text of the Amendments had been available in the Printed Paper Office for nine days. That was not so. They were available
916
in my office for nine days, and were there to be seen; but nobody asked to see them. In fact, they were available in the Printed Paper Office for only one day. I regret the slip I made. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that the attention of the House had not been drawn to them, but I should like to point out that for all that period of nine days there did appear on the Order Paper, after the item, "Somerset County Council Bill—Third Reading," the words "Amendments to be proposed". So the House was aware that some Amendments were to be moved. My Lords, I have only to add that I will take due note of what the noble Lord has said about discussing the procedure in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ADOPTION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
2.44 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Qualified privilege
". It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that any person prescribed for the purposes of this section may claim qualified privilege in any action for defamation arising out of the publication of matter relevant to the grant, suspension or refusal of a bookmaker's permit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment, which stands in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and myself. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is related to Amendment 9, and that the two together are an alternative also to the second Amendment on the Paper. I hope, therefore, that it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I refer to the three Amendments together in one discussion, as I believe that this will save time. I will then, if necessary, move the other Amendments only formally.
Your Lordships will recall that on the Committee stage the noble Duke moved an Amendment designed to ensure that the licensing authority could, during the currency of a bookmaker's permit, receive and consider representations to the effect that he had defaulted on his obligations, and, if they thought fit, cancel the permit. There is no provision whatever in the Bill for the cancellation of a bookmaker's permit before it is due for renewal unless, of course, he is found guilty of one of the criminal offences listed in Clause 8. There is thus a real danger that if a bookmaker decides to default soon after his permit is granted, he may, knowing full well that he will lose his permit at the end of the year, decide to make the most of the intervening period. He could, in fact, default on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of punters, and they would have no redress at law because this Bill does not amend the Gaming Act and, although it legalises cash betting off the course, it still does not allow recovery at law of betting debts—and I am not discussing that question at all; I am merely stating the position.
If it should be argued that any off-the-course bookmaker can, under the present law, default with impunity and that this new Bill does not worsen that position. I would say that I disagree, because the permits granted to bookmakers under this Bill would be a badge of respectability. They would advertise them on their notepaper, and unsuspecting backers would have no means of knowing that a bookmaker, perhaps because he has made an unlucky bet or had a very bad time and cannot pay, has decided to make hay while the sun still shines. In my view, therefore, that there is a case for providing for the suspension of permits by the licensing justices is established and undeniable. I believe also, my Lords, that we are all agreed that, so far as possible, backers must be protected against the welshing bookmaker and that it is up to the Government, having made cash betting legal, to provide a means of protection against the continuing operations of those who default. I trust that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will accept that responsibility, and if he cannot agree to either of the two alternatives which I am putting forward, he will find a better way of achieving the same objective.
In discussing this point at earlier stages of the Bill the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, suggested either that Tattersall's Committee should be converted into a statutory body or that a separate statutory body should be set up for the purpose of hearing betting disputes. His Amendment proposed that such bodies as were prescribed should be able to send a certificate for consideration by the licensing authority, but that the licensing authority should not be allowed to inquire into the circumstances in which the certificate was granted. This was clearly unacceptable. Tattersall's Committee, appointed by the Jockey Club, is an ad hoc body. There are no proper rules for the giving of evidence; there is no evidence given on oath; disputants are not allowed to be legally represented, and there is no appeal against the Committee's decisions. In the noble Duke's own words, it dispenses "rough and ready justice". It has done so greatly to the benefit of racing for a great many years, and in my view—and I attach the greatest importance to this—it is highly desirable that Tattersall's Committee should continue to do precisely the job it is doing now, and in the same way.
After all, many of the cases that come before it are honest disputes in which neither party have arty intention to default; they merely want the dispute settled. And when large sums, as we know, can depend on the flick of the ticktack man's white-gloved finger, it is obvious that misunderstandings can arise. There is, therefore, a continuing need for the Committee's work; and when this Bill becomes law its decisions will be even more seriously regarded and it will have an added importance, because it will save unnecessary reference of disputes to the licensing authority. However, it is, in my submission, unthinkable and quite contrary to our ordinary conceptions of justice and fair play for an unofficial body of this kind to expect its findings to form the basis of an official decision by the licensing authorities. The Amendment which I am now moving, with the support of the noble Duke, meets this criticism whilst still achieving the main objective. It would, in fact, place Tattersall's Committee in the same position as any other person who wished to give reasons to the licensing justices for the cancellation or non-renewal of a bookmaker's permit.
For example, if Tattersall's Committee, having investigated a dispute between a bookmaker and a backer, found against the bookmaker and ordered him to pay up, and if he then defaulted, they would inform the Jockey Club, and he would be warned off. The Committee would then inform the appropriate authority, the justices, who would invite the bookmaker to give his version, and if he responded they would inquire into the circumstances. It would be exactly the same if Mr. Smith "complained, except that the justices would then make preliminary inquiries in writing to make sure that the complaint was not frivolous or malicious—or, indeed, completely untrue. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that we should not, in his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224 (No. 88), col. 167]:
"put anyone under the danger of an inquiry without consideration for the ordinary principles of justice."
But that would hardly apply to a communication from Tattersall's Committee, although, of course, the licensing justices would act on it only after they had given the alleged defaulter the fullest opportunity to state his case.
In our earlier discussions on the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said that it would be impracticable, indeed, impossible, to make the licensing magistrates arbiters of racing debts. But, my Lords, they will have to be, whether my Amendment is accepted or not. The bookmaker is required to advertise his intention to apply for a renewal. It is then open to anyone to object, and if the objection is based on a betting dispute, the magistrates would have to inquire into it. This position cannot be avoided unless you set up a separate statutory committee to hear betting disputes. I am opposed to the setting up of a separate statutory committee, because it is quite unnecessary. Tattersall's Committee will still do the bulk of the work, and only a small minority of cases will be referred to the justices. After all, the majority of defaulters are backers, not bookmakers, and it will be no use referring the defaulting punter to the justices. We must face the fact, however, that the appropriate authority must be arbiters in a small number of betting disputes, and are quite competent to act. They
920
can hear counsel, can consider evidence, evidence can be given on oath, and they can come to a fair and proper decision.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has also said that, because the licensing authority will be a public body carrying out a public duty laid upon it by Statute, anything said for the purposes of its proceedings will be covered by the law of qualified privilege—meaning that the witness cannot be successfully sued for anything he says in the court which he has a public duty to say. But, despite this assurance, which is obviously based on the highest legal opinion, we nevertheless feel that, for the removal of all doubt, it should be written into the Statute. I hope, therefore, that Amendment No. 1 will be accepted, because it will encourage people to come forward who might otherwise still be deterred for fear of an action for libel.
I cannot honestly see any valid objection which either has been made or could be made to the principle that the justices should investigate a complaint of default as soon as possible. It was argued that interim investigations might involve bookmakers and witnesses in long journeys. I do not see why; but, in any case, the journey will not be any longer in January than in June, or whenever the permit comes up for annual renewal. Indeed, the noble and learned Viscount said that an annual inquiry, similar to that held by the Brewster Sessions, would be preferable. But if a publican does anything wrong, he can come up at any time, which is precisely what we are asking for in the case of bookmakers. I should like to know why a man in a back street, if he has a valid complaint, should not be allowed to bring it up at any time in the year.
Finally, there is the suggestion that our proposal has the effect of making betting debts recoverable because if a bookmaker does not pay up he will lose his licence and his livelihood. But that is implicit in the Bill without my Amendment—and why not? Surely we all want to get rid of the man who welshes and thereby deliberately defrauds his client. These Amendments are designed to do just that, and they will do it without injustice and without throwing a great deal of work on to the licensing authority; and, as such, I hope they merit your support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
2.56 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for grouping the three Amendments together, and I am sure your Lordships will appreciate it, in view of the business that we have to-day. However, I hope your Lordships will also be indulgent with me if I speak rather longer, because I have to deal with two separate points that are raised by the Amendments. The first Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said briefly, is declaratory: it wishes to declare that a communication from a body such as Tattersall's Committee to the licensing authority would clearly be covered by the law of qualified privilege. My Lords, I do not think that that is necessary, and I believe that it might even have an adverse effect. The difficulty that has arisen in the past, as I understand the matter, has been when the publication of the result has been of a wider character than was necessary. That could not apply here because, according to the law as it stands, provided that the communication was made to the licensing authority, which is under a duty to receive the communication and to consider its relevance to the holding of a licence, there could be no question of excess publicity.
So far as qualified privilege is concerned, that would apply, provided that the communication was not made maliciously. Again putting it quite broadly, so that your Lordships may appreciate the position, "maliciously" in that context means either knowing that the communication was false or recklessly careless whether the communication was false or true; and I am sure your Lordships will all agree that anyone who makes a communication either knowing it to be false or recklessly careless—whether it is false or true—is perfectly rightly made to stand by the results of that action. But the difficulty of Amend-men, No. 1, as your Lordships will see if you look at it, is that it applies to "a person prescribed for the purposes of this section"—that is, it is limited to persons prescribed. The noble Lord has not indicated who are the persons who should be prescribed, but if the intention is to
922
limit it to Tattersall's Committee or someone in a similar position, that would cause the difficulty of limiting a perfectly genuine and helpful doctrine in the law of defamation to a prescribed class.
But the Amendment also has the difficulty (I do not know whether this is intentional) that it would give the
"privilege in any action for defamation arising out of the publication of matter relevant to the grant, suspension or refusal of a bookmaker's permit."
That would extend the privilege beyond what I have just described. Any direct communication from a complainant to the justices, whether intentionally or not, would be a "relevant" publication—for example, a publication to the Press of matter which would be relevant to the consideration of the justices. Therefore, the Amendment is giving extended cover to a limited class. In other words, it is altering the law of qualified privilege, which in my view operates fairly in giving everyone the right to make such publication, provided that the publication is not excessive. The Amendment would give a limited class of people, namely complainants, the right of making the widest publication, which has already been frowned on. The result would be that instead of having the general law limited to action taken which is directly concerned with the proceedings of licensing authorities, it would extend to all persons interested in giving information for the purpose of those proceedings—as I say, to the publication in any way of any matter that is relevant. I do not think that this is right. I think that the law ought to be what it is—namely, the well-understood provisions as to qualified privilege.
I come to the other two Amendments. We had a most interesting debate on Committee stage, and I have given great consideration to the arguments that were advanced. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, with his usual frankness, stated the objections both to Tattersall's Committee being changed in its mode of acting to a new body and also to Tattersall's Committee being given rights over and above the general public. I need not reiterate his arguments because I think that everyone accepts them. What we have to consider here is, first, the scale of the evil; secondly, the machinery which is advocated to deal with it; and thirdly, whether the scale

923
of the evil is something that justifies the difficulties which the machinery produces.
If I may first of all deal with the scale of the evil, in my view, the problem is a very small one in terms of the possible number of dishonest bookmakers with whom it is designed to deal. During the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224 (No. 88), col. 152]:
"We do not want the small criminal element who have been mixed un with bookmaking. They are a very small element but we want them out altogether."
The proportion of defaulting bookmakers is very small, according to my information, and I think that your Lordships will agree that not all bookmakers who default are necessarily dishonest. Default may result not from dishonesty but from bad luck—for example, a run of wins by heavily backed favourites; or from an error of professional judgment—for example, failure to adjust odds adequately to the volume of bets upon a particular horse, or failure to hedge bets on a heavily backed horse.
If a bookmaker on the course defaults for reasons which are not dishonest, then there is no reason why he should wish to carry on a dishonest business off the course. I speak subject to correction, but those who know much more about it than I do tell me that an honest defaulting bookmaker can raise the money, pay off his clients and be admitted again to the course. I am told that does happen sometimes. Those with whom we are dealing are those who are deliberately dishonest. I think that it is fair to say this. Some dishonest persons who at present find in bookmaking a means of exercising their dishonesty, will, when faced by the need of getting a permit (because in order to get a permit they have to show that they are of good reputation), either abandon bookmaking or abandon their dishonesty. Of course, there is the obverse of the medal. A dishonest bookmaker knows that his time is limited until the next licensing sessions. The alternative, of course, is that the dishonest bookmaker does not apply for a permit but tries to carry on illegally. There again he will be subject to the heavy penalties laid down in the Bill, which make this course unattractive. I
924
would remind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that apart from the offences against the Bill, if any bookmaker is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, his permit can be cancelled under the provisions of the Bill.
On the general point, of the limited number of dishonest bookmakers, perhaps I may add this. For the first eight years of my professional life, when practising in Liverpool, I largely had a criminal practice, as many young barristers have, and I appeared in very many cases involving either street bookmakers or betting housekeepers. I cannot remember—and from Lord Stonham's speech on Second Reading I think he would be inclined to agree that my recollection is probably based on fact—it ever being suggested that these bookmakers, however illegally they acted, were defaulters and did not keep faith with their clients. In fact, their illegal position made it all the more necessary that there should not be any question of their defaulting.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree that the defaulting or dishonest bookmaker is rare; but that only confirms the need for proper machinery to deal with him; because otherwise he inflicts great damage on the unsuspecting public.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are agreed on the first premise, and, as I said in indicating the line of my remarks, one has now to consider the machinery and see whether one is not using a hammer to crack what is, ex concesso, a very small nut. The suggestion is that anyone who has a complaint—and the noble Lord and the noble Duke have seen that it is impossible to limit it to Tattersall's Committee—should have the power to make that complaint, and that there should then be an immediate inquiry by the licensing justices. On the now admitted basis on which we all approach this Amendment, that there is a very small number of dishonest bookmakers, it is surely a fair point that the other complaints are going to be complaints about the terms of the betting and so forth. There will be the complaints where the man defaults, either, as I have said, in the rare cases of dishonesty, or for the other reasons I have indicated and which I will not repeat. But the other cases will be where there is a dispute as to the terms of the bet—when it was received, or something of that kind.

925
To accept the Amendment would mean that any disgruntled punter would not only be able to make the complaint but could cause the licensing justices to have a sitting and to hear it at once. I do not want to put too much upon this aspect, but, as your Lordships are aware, I am responsible for the operation of 16,000 justices in England and Wales; for their work and, roughly, the machinery of the courts. I do say to your Lordships that to begin a new procedure by putting on the justices the burden that they must be available to hear the complaint of any disgruntled punter would inflict upon them an excessive amount of work. I was most impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, when we discussed this matter in Committee. I am by no means convinced that it is healthy. If people have a real complaint, then let them bring it to the licensing sessions, and let the matter be investigated when the permit comes up for renewal. But to provide them with the chance of starting an argument as to the terms of the bet and the results of the bet—when the bet was received and so on—any day of the year, seems to me, both from the point of view of machinery and, indeed, in the deeper sense, undesirable.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I would only say this to the noble and learned Viscount. As I understand the Bill, the licensing justices who give the permits have to meet quarterly, and Amendment No. 9, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham and myself, asks that they should consider objections "at their next meeting." So it is not asking for a meeting on any day of the year, but only that the complaint be considered at their next meeting. The object is that the bookmaker who defaulted would be called to task within three months, rather than within twelve months, of having defaulted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend. I was going to deal with that point, and I will now deal with it straight away. The machinery which we have in mind is an annual meeting, either in April or May—and rather earlier in Scotland—but roughly on the same basis as the brewster sessions; and we have in mind that there should be quarterly meetings, the
926
business of which would be limited to new entrants. Obviously, not everyone decides to become a bookmaker in May, and if the new entrants decided to make the application in July, then we think there ought to be the other sittings, but solely for that purpose. I am glad that my noble friend has directed my attention to that point.
I put to your Lordships in Committee the suggestion that we might deal with it say, six-monthly; and that would be at the October meeting. In thinking it over, I had a further idea: that at the six-monthly meeting it would be open to the justices either to decide the matter or to adjourn it to their other meeting. I thought that in that way, I should give the justices the minimum of extra work. I put this point to those advising me on the matter, and they said that, however it was put, even with my suggestion that the justices might adjourn the case if they did not thank it serious, there would have to be such an investigation at the October meeting, to see whether the case was one which ought to be dealt with or not: that it would really make the October meeting almost the equivalent of a second licensing meeting or, at any rate, that it would enormously add to the work. I do not think it would be fair to those whom we are trying to lead from an illegal to a legal method of operation that the period should, in effect, be as short as the six months. I ask your Lordships to believe that I have considered it. That is the only reason why I have bored your Lordships with an idea which occurred to me, but which was found by those advising me not to be practicable. As I have said, I have sympathy with the motives of the movers of the Amendment.
I should put this point to your Lordships in conclusion. As I say, we are, as is now conceded by everyone, dealing with a very small problem. Undoubtedly, it will be possible for the licensing committee to deal with complaints—and by "complaints" I mean the serious matters worthy of consideration. To do more means to try to invent and operate, and find the personnel to operate, a system which I venture to put to your Lordships, is unnecessarily cumbersome for the type of problem confronting us. It may be that in the future, when we have seen how the Bill works, we shall be able to create improvements. But our method is

927
simple, and I ask your Lordships not to complicate it, or the work of the justices, by trying to provide at this stage for the perfect method. I am sorry that I have not been able to meet the views of your Lordships. I always try, I think your Lordships will do me the credit to agree, on a Committee stage to give the fullest examination of any points that are raised; and if I can find a method of dealing with them I do so, as I hope to show your Lordships in the course of to-day. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is here. He threw out a suggestion, and it met with the approval of the House. I have put down an Amendment at any rate to try to meet his point. I never intentionally stonewall on a Bill. But I think that, in view of the scope of the problem and the difficulty of the machinery, the step suggested by these Amendments would not be a practical or desirable one. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will not press the Amendments to-day.
3.22 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and myself, I am most grateful for the full reply which we have had from the noble and learned Viscount. But I must confess that I am not at all happy with the reply which we have received. First of all, I should like to say how much I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, and to express my warmest admiration for the way in which he put this complicated business. As we have dealt with three Amendments together, I will raise point by point the answers as the noble and learned Viscount gave them.
I must confess my ignorance, when talking of the first Amendment, of "qualified privilege". The noble and learned Viscount said that it is better to stick to the well-understood principles of qualified privilege. I confess that I think they are not well-understood, and I am still far from clear about them myself. For example, if an objection is made by any individual or body at a hearing when a licence is to be renewed or granted, are those proceedings reported in the Press? If so, if a Press report quotes anyone as saying that such and such a bookmaker was a defaulter, is it quite clear that the person who said that cannot be prosecuted? Furthermore, it may
928
be hard to prove whether it is true, because, as I said during the Second Reading and, indeed, during the Committee stage, all these matters are going to revolve around betting disputes. If the bookmaker did not pay because of a technical betting dispute in which he was right, he is not in default. But the punter may well have brought the case in the genuine belief that he, the punter, was in the right and the bookmaker in the wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I help the noble Duke? The test is not truth, but honest belief in its truth. Therefore, in the case my noble friend put he would be clearly within qualified privilege. I am sorry if my exposition of the law of defamation was not sufficiently clear, but if my noble friend would care to ask me about any point I should be only too happy to answer him.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Provided it can be published that a genuine person can accuse someone of being a defaulter without risk of being prosecuted, then I am sure we are satisfied that that Amendment need not be made.
On the other two Amendments I hesitate to use strong language, but I rather feel that the noble and learned Viscount has been arguing from the premises of convenience. He talks about the scale of evil. He said that there are only a few defaulting bookmakers. Perhaps this is an over-simplification. If there were only a few burglars in this country, would nothing be done to prosecute them? It is just as bad to steal 6d. as £5,000. It is the principle we are trying to get. To say that because there are only a few it does not matter, seems to me a dangerous moral premise upon which to base arguments.
LORD STONHAM: Like the housemaid's baby.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: While welcoming this Bill in principle, I think that not enough thought has gone into its working-out. Of course, the fundamental difficulty is that by broadening the scope of legal betting and at the same time refusing to touch or alter the Gaming Act there is a fundamental contradiction in the terms of the Bill. That

929
is the real difficulty we are up against. If by making all forms of betting perfectly legal you also made them recoverable, there would be no problem. But by making them not recoverable at law there are bound to be difficulties and contradictions.
I would most earnestly ask your Lordships to support these Amendments, because they are doing a great deal to protect the interests of the backer. After all, if something is legal in the law of this country it should be protected, so that one person is not "gypped" if the other person acts dishonestly and disreputably. Debts on the Stock Exchange and in shops are enforceable, so why not betting debts, too? Why should not those who undertake betting transactions be protected as much as other people? While I have the greatest respect and gratitude for all the work the noble and learned Viscount has put into answering the discussion on these Amendments, I still feel that this Betting Bill would be strengthened if the Amendments were incorporated in it.
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I should like to take up what the noble Duke has said. I think it is a bad argument to say that because there are very few cases therefore we can ignore the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say to the noble Viscount that this is not a question of ignoring it. If that were so, there would be great substance in the argument. This is a question of whether, if you have very few cases, they should be dealt with once a year or at any time. It is not a question of their not being dealt with.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: But you are ignoring it until the end of the year. It is as if you were saying that there are very few defaulting solicitors. That does not mean that the Law Society wails for a whole year and gives the defaulting solicitor eleven months' run. Would the Bar Council do that? Would the Stock Exchange do that? Would the police do that? Clearly they would riot. Where an evil is found, it is to the public interest that it should be dealt with as soon as possible, and not have an eleven months' run. While it
930
is perfectly true that the bad element in bookmaking is not enormous, what there is is bad. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount must know from chief constables as well as the racing community that you have a very bad element who must be dealt with as quickly and as ruthlessly as possible.
I venture to say that the noble and learned Viscount has contradicted himself, because one moment he said that this was a very small problem, and then he said that to deal with it will be a great burden on the justices. Surely, if it is a small problem the amount of work which will come up quarterly is going to be very small. If it is a big problem, it is important that it should be dealt with. Therefore, with great respect, I think it is a contradictory argument we have heard from the noble and learned Viscount.
May I suggest what would happen in practice? Normally a justice would say to the odd punter who comes along: "Did you take this to Tattersall's Committee? Why do you not go there first?" That is the normal court of first instance where you go and deal with the normal "muck and truck" of small betting disputes. If a small punter came along without having gone through that established procedure he would not get such a hearing as those who had gone through that sieve of Tattersall's Committee, which would be at least a prima facie case to the justices that here was a serious complaint against a bookmaker. On this point I hope that these Amendments in some form or other will be put into this Bill.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to support, very briefly, the speeches that have been made in support of these Amendments. Let me say at once that of course we in this House all recognise the conscientious and thorough way in which the noble and learned Viscount always carries out his undertakings to look into a matter. We are perfectly satisfied that he has to the best of his ability given full consideration to these Amendments, which are based on Amendments that were moved at the Committee stage. I should like to follow the method of the noble Duke and deal with these Amendments in order. On the first, would say straight away that I could not justify its wording. I

931
think it is defective, and if one wanted to take this Amendment strictly it would be unworkable. But that is nothing new; we are always moving Amendments which are defective in their wording.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Do I take it that he is referring to Amendment No. 1?
LORD SILKIN: I am speaking of No. 1. The real issue before the House—and this is the way we have always dealt with these matters, at any rate since I have been here—is to look at the principle and not worry too much about the actual wording. What we want to do is to provide in the Bill beyond any doubt that any person who gives evidence or makes a statement about a bookmaker, in good faith and without malice, is protected against an action for slander or libel. If we could secure a statement of that kind in the Bill it would be better that the Government should do it themselves than that we should endeavour to beat the air by putting down unworkable Amendments. But that is the principle behind this Amendment. I am sure that everybody in the House would support an Amendment designed for that purpose. It may be said that it is not necessary because there is the ordinary law; but this really is something special and there are special circumstances which would justify a declaration of this kind in the Bill. We are dealing in the main with ignorant people who might be frightened off by fear of the law of libel and slander, and a statement in the Bill that they are protected would be of great value. I do not want to say more than that on that point.
When we come to the second Amendment, the only case against it is one of expediency. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, gave the parallel of other organisations—the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Stock Exchange—and I absolutely agree with him. If anyone came along and complained to the Law Society that a solicitor was defaulting they certainly would not say that they would leave it till the next annual meeting of the Law Society and let the solicitor go on practising until then. The same would apply to any other pro-
932
fession. I think we must organise the meetings of the licensing authorities so that they can deal with this matter. If it meant appointing 16,500 justices instead of 16,000, I should not be distressed about that. But if it is just that a person should be entitled to complain to the justices that his bet has not been paid, and if it is just that they should be able to consider it, it is even more just that they should consider it quickly rather than wait until the end of the year. To delay justice is to defeat justice. It will not always happen, but on an average it may happen that it will be six months before a matter of this kind can be dealt with. Therefore provision should be made in the Bill for the magistrates to be able to deal with these matters at their quarterly meetings.
The noble and learned Viscount rather assumed that in every case there would be an exhaustive investigation. But it may well be that the licensing authorities would be able to say straight away as regards a certain number of this very small number of complaints that they are frivolous; that it is not necessary for them to have a hearing and that they can deal with them on the spot. That will certainly apply to a good many. As the noble and learned Viscount himself knows, all professional bodies get a number of complaints which they can dispose of without a hearing at all. It may be dealt with by means of a communication to the bookmaker asking for an explanation which he could give and which would then dispose of the matter. The number of cases in which they would find themselves requiring a hearing would be very limited, especially as the number of defaulting bookmakers is, by agreement, very small. In spite of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I hope that this matter will receive further consideration. I feel that unless the noble and learned Viscount is able to give us that assurance, some of us would like to test the opinion of the House, at any rate on the second Amendment. So I hope that, with the leave of the House, the noble and learned Viscount can give us some assurance on this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has suggested that I should ask your Lordships' leave to speak again, which I do.

933
I have been only six years in your Lordships' House, but when I find a position in which so many weighty speeches are made against the view that I have advanced, clearly it would be right for me to examine it again, and I shall do so. The noble Duke, if I interpret him rightly, has suggested that I might examine particularly having some procedure at the quarterly meetings. I should like to consider that, although I have stated the difficulty. While logic is a poor resort for anyone, I should like to justify the apparent lack of logicality which I have conveyed to my noble friend Lord Astor, by one sentence, if your Lordships will allow me, because I do not think that my argument was contradictory. He might have thought it contradictory were I not quoting the noble Viscount himself. I quoted the noble Viscount to say that the number of cases of dishonesty is very small; but our argument was, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just indicated, that there would not only be the very small number of cases of dishonesty but there would be a number of other complaints which were really complaints as to the operation of the bet, and which were not complaints of dishonesty but complaints of dissatisfaction on the part of the punter. That is, I think, the real difficulty, and I hope on examination my noble friend will acquit me of a complete disregard for the rules laid down by Aristotle which I had to study so painfully some time ago.
I gathered from the general run of the discussion that the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, did not get the same support for their first Amendment concerning qualified privilege. I feel that that is not really workable, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will agree. On the point about giving an earlier opportunity to a punter who complains about a bookmaker, I promise to consider that matter, and I will do my best to impress the view of the House on all who are concerned with the Bill, including my right honourable friend.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, of course I accept what the noble and learned Viscount: says; and, as the noble Duke has indicated, we will certainly not press the first Amendment, for we are convinced by the argument upon that. On the second Amendment, I am very grateful for the assurance the noble
934
and learned Viscount has given that he will look at the point again. But could he, without binding himself to accept any particular method, say whether he accepts the principle that there could and should be inquiries by the justices at more frequent intervals than one year?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the Home Secretary's Bill. I will convey to him my belief that that is the view of a great number of your Lordships and that we ought to consider the matter again. If, by any chance, I am not successful, I promise the noble Lord that I will let him know in good time for him to put down an Amendment on Third Reading. As it is not my Bill, that is the most I can do.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has told us, and I have no doubt that in view of his very handsome assurance the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

CYPRUS
3.43 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I think your Lordships would like me to intervene for a moment to give the House a statement on Cyprus which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The statement is as follows:
"The House will, I am sure, welcome the fact that, as announced in a joint communiqué on Friday, agreement has been reached between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders and the United Kingdom Delegation on all outstanding questions.
"It is expected that the documents comprising the settlement will be initialled in Nicosia during the next few days on behalf of all the five parties to the settlement, namely the Governments of the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, anti the representatives of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The text of the Cyprus Bill and an explanatory White Paper will

935
be published as soon as possible after initialling. It is hoped that the White Paper will be presented before the end of this week. The Government hope that the Bill, which will empower Her Majesty to name by Order in Council the day on which the independent Republic of Cyprus will come into being, may be passed before the Summer Recess. The date for independence will be fixed in agreement with the Cypriot leaders. On that day, which will be after the holding of elections in Cyprus, the Treaties and related documents will be signed and become operative.
"The Sovereign Base Areas will comprise two separate areas totalling some 99 square miles. The villages of Ormidhia and Xylotymbou and the Dhekelia power station will be enclaves of Cypriot territory within the Sovereign Base Areas and there will be special arrangements for access to them. Akrotiri, which is too closely adjacent to the main airfield to permit of an enclave solution, will be the only village under British sovereignty. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that, with the arrangements for training and other facilities in the Republic itself which have been agreed in full detail, the Sovereign Base Areas are adequate for our requirements.
"A point which was not susceptible of easy and rapid solution and which involved lengthy and involved consultations between all the parties was the future of the Base Areas. Her Majesty's Government's view on this is that since we have no intention of relinquishing sovereignty the question of cession does not arise. Nevertheless, in view of the importance attached by the Greek Cypriots to this issue, an understanding has been reached that should Her Majesty's Government in future decide, in view of changes in their military requirements, that sovereignty should be relinquished, it shall be transferred to the Republic of Cyprus.
"As regards the administration of the Base Areas a Declaration will be made by the United Kingdom Government describing their intentions, subject to military requirements and
936
security needs, in respect of various aspects of administration.
"It has been agreed that Her Majesty's Government will provide over the next five years a sum of £12 million. Provision is made for the amount of aid in future five-year periods to be determined, after full consultation with the Republic. In addition there will be payments and commitments made by Her Majesty's Government for particular purposes, including a special grant to the Cypriot community.
"The negotiations have been long and complicated. It has, however, proved possible on all points at issue to reach an accommodation between the essential requirements of the United Kingdom and the requests put forward by the Cypriot leaders and to achieve a settlement in full accord with the Zurich and London Agreements. I trust that these matters will now move forward swiftly to a final conclusion."
That is the end of the statement. I would add only that these have been matters of delicate negotiation over a very long period. I believe that what the House wishes to see, above all things, is the initialling of the Agreement take place on Thursday next. I should myself hesitate to give, in reply to supplementary questions, answers on detail, because I should be afraid that the interpretation by someone here might possibly raise questions out there. Perhaps, therefore, the House would wait for the White Paper and (what I imagine the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will wish) a debate. Probably that would be the most convenient course.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that the House as a whole will join in the opening part of the noble Earl's statement. We welcome the progress which has been made in getting a final solution of this very difficult Cyprus problem. What the noble Earl has said following the official statement is, I think, reasonable. I am perfectly certain that the Cypriots having obtained such very substantial concessions from the original plans which were laid before the British Government, we all look forward to their engaging with us in a mutual effort at establishing progressive and permanent

937
goodwill between our communities. I therefore propose to ask no questions whatsoever.
The details we might have to discuss could best be left either to follow a reading of the White Paper or, if it is a question of time—I take it that Her Majesty's Government will want to produce a Bill at an early date—your Lordships might desire to examine that Bill, with the greatest sympathy but yet with all the detail that is required to make it a firm Agreement.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Viscount in saying how much we welcome the general trend. We have, of course, no intention at this time of going into further details. We wish the matter well. We cannot help feeling that as something on these lines has been talked over for so long, there perhaps, satisfaction that matters have come to a conclusion in the way they have, even if the delay has been rather longer than we had hoped would be the case. Our best hopes and wishes go towards this Agreement, which we hope will be initialled in the near future.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. My noble friend sitting beside me tells me that I made a slip of the tongue in reading on the financial settlement. What I ought to have said was:
"In addition there will be payments and commitments made by Her Majesty's Government for particular purposes, including a special grant to the Turkish Cypriot community."
It was merely a slip of the tongue that I happened to leave out the word "Turkish".

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
3.51 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for asking a question somewhat late, and I will delay you as little as possible. I should, however, like to add to the words of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack over the way in which he received the Amend-
938
ments (with which I entirely agree and should like to support) moved by the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Silkin, and by the noble Duke himself. There is one point on which I should like to ask a question, which may be relevant to the consideration the noble and learned Viscount has assured us he is going to give to this problem. When we come to the question of qualified privilege, would he look into the question of whether it would be possible for Tattersall's Committee to provide magistrates' courts with their official list of defaulters as reported to the Steward of the Jockey Club? It seems to me that if that list is sufficient evidence for a racecourse to refuse a defaulting bookmaker admission, or to eject him if he has obtained admission, then it would surely be sufficient evidence for a magistrates' court to refuse, or at least to consider refusing, or subsequently to withdraw, a licence to a bookmaker.
Finally—and this is very brief—the question of the number of cases has been mentioned by various noble Lords, and it may interest your Lordships to know the exact numbers. Over the last five years an average of about 20 cases per year of defaulting bookmakers have been reported by Tattersall's Committee to the Stewards of the Jockey Club. There may, of course, be others who do not bet under the names of bookmaking firms but in their own name, and it is therefore not easy always for Tattersall's Committee to get a clear record as to whether a complainant happens to be a bookmaker or punter. Be that as it may, at the present moment there are no fewer than between 350 and 360 names on the defaulters' list. I suggest to your Lordships, whatever may have been said in this House this afternoon, that that is a sufficiently high number to warrant the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government when they come to consider the Amendments that have been moved this afternoon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me to answer my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, I should like to look into the procedure. I take his point on that matter. I rather suggested a different procedure on the Committee stage, but if I may I will look into the Point again and write to my noble friend.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 2; nor do I propose to move Amendment No. 9 when the time comes.
3.55 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Bodies corporate
". Where a body corporate is the holder of a bookmaker's permit and any material change takes place in the composition or constitution of the corporation the corporation shall within 14 days give notice to the appropriate authority of such material changes.
If the appropriate authority is of opinion that such material changes justify a review or reconsideration of the grant of the bookmaker's permit they may at any time, after giving the body corporate an opportunity of being heard, revoke the bookmaker's permit or take such other action as they may think right."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause which is based upon an Amendment with the same object moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, on the Committee stage. I have endeavoured to improve on the drafting of the Amendment which was before the Committee, but I am not at all sure that I have succeeded. Indeed, it may be thought that I have failed even more than the original Amendment. But the purpose of this Amendment is perfectly clear. A bookmaker's permit may be granted to a company and the full information about the company is before the licensing authority, abut it can happen—and probably it does happen—that in the course of a year the character and constitution of that company has completely changed. It may have a different board of directors, a different shareholding, and a change of control. It may even have altered the memorandum and articles of association. All I am suggesting in this Amendment—and all that was suggested by the noble Duke in Committee—is that, in such a case, where there is what I have described as a "material change" in the constitution and composition of the company, that should be notified to the licensing justices.
They may say, "This is quite all right. We do not propose to take any action."
940
In that case it would involve no material burden upon them. Or they may think that it is a matter which ought to be looked at further, and they may say, "We granted a bookmaker's permit to 'A' and now an entirely different concern is responsible for the permit and we should like to have further information. We should like the new person in control, the chairman of the company or whoever he may be, to appear before us." In that case they will have the right to call upon such person to appear before them and to decide whether or not the change is to the public disadvantage, or whether they can accept the change and allow the permit to continue. In this case I Clink it would be quite satisfactory if such consideration could be given at the quarterly meeting and, if necessary, the person holding the permit sent for and seen at the next quarterly meeting.
I do not think that this is likely to arise very often. As in the case of the previous Amendment, these cases are not likely to occur often; but when these changes do occur I think it is materially important that the justices should know of them and have the opportunity of deciding whether or not they want to continue the permit to the new company, as it may be in certain instances. I have referred to a "material change" in the composition or constitution of the company, and I have been rash enough to try to define "material change" yin Amendment No. 8. I shall not weary the House by describing What is contained in that Amendment. I merely suggest that if the noble and learned Viscount considers that the definition requires amendment, I shall be perfectly happy to accept any amendment that he might suggest as meeting the case. I am suggesting that the
"'material change' is any change in the composition of the board of directors or of the Memorandum or Articles of Association of the body corporate or any change in the shareholding involving a transfer or change of ownership in the aggregate of more than 25 per cent. of those shares which possess voting rights".
I think any of those circumstances would constitute a material change in the company and should be considered by the licensing justices. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I think that there is something in this Amendment and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration. I am very sorry indeed that your Lordships have decided that a bookmaker's permit can be granted to a corporation. In my view, the finest way of identifying a person is to use the word "person" in a legal sense by addressing yourself to an individual. Let me get to the point and give your Lordships an actual example. You all know my friend Angus McKay from Aberdeen and Jermyn Street. He is a bookmaker who has taken money off you before, and is likely to take money off you again. He is a gentleman who can apply for a permit, and no doubt a permit can be granted to him. But the other day Angus McKay told me that, in order to keep on better terms with the Revenue, he has decided to convert himself into a company and to call himself the Aberdeenshire and Jermyn Street Racing Corporation, Limited. It is going to be a small company, with an authorised capital of 100 shares of £1 each; he is going to own 99 shares; his wife, who is a decorator and carries on business elsewhere, is going to own one share; and, of course, you cart be quite sure that his brother-in-law, Alistair McKenzie, is going to take a debenture for £100 over all the assets of the business so as to safeguard completely and bamboozle all the creditors.
Now that company presents all kinds of problems. In the first place, when it comes to apply for a permit, I should like to know who is what and what is who. However, your Lordships have decided that such a company should be granted a permit. But later on Angus McKay may come to the conclusion that it is better policy for him to transfer almost all his shares in the company to his wife in order that he himself may own only one share, so that if he dies he will not be able to leave very much to the Revenue. In the meantime, the brother-in-law, Alistair McKenzie, may decide to exercise his rights under his debenture, and enter in and take over the assets of the company, and appoint himself receiver thereof. They still have a bookmaker's permit; and, in those circumstances, I submit that the position ought to be reviewed again, which is exactly what this Amendment provides.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Meston into this romantic story of the latter-day activities of the Scottish Highlander, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Duke have again raised a serious point. However, I remind your Lordships again, as I reminded you on the Committee stage, that, by sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 17 of the First Schedule, a permit can be refused if
"the business to which it relates"—
in this case the business of a limited company—
"would be managed by, or carried on for the benefit of, a person other than the applicant, being a person who would himself be refused the grant or renewal of such a permit …"
Thus, if a limited company is controlled (I use the word broadly) by an undesirable or dishonest person, a permit can be refused.
My Lords, I am anxious, as I have indicated before, that the procedure under this Bill should be kept as simple as possible, and I ask the noble Lord and the noble Duke to remember two things: first, that the main objective here is to prevent the company from being a façade for an undesirable person; and, secondly (this is a matter of law, and I do not know whether the researches of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire into the law for the purposes of this Bill have carried him thus far, but in case they have not I will remind him of it to-day), that under Section 200 of the Companies Act, 1948, a person in accordance with those directions or instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act is deemed to be a director and officer of the company, and his name must be included in the register of directors and secretaries. So that if the directors act under his control, his name must be included.
Now what I suggest is this. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put forward three constituents as constituents of material change: first, a change in the board; secondly, a change in the memorandum and articles; and, thirdly, a change of more than 25 per cent. in the share holding. In my view, the first is the really important one. I do not think that it is likely that the memorandum will be altered into some such words as, "For the future, the object of this

943
company will be to deceive and defraud the punters with whom it operates". It is not likely that we shall see a change in the memorandum and articles to that effect. Although the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has very carefully considered the difficulties which I myself raised, on the question of shareholding you might, of course, have a small percentage which would affect the control. I am not making technical points to the noble Lord, but I put it in this way: that when you have got control by shareholding, your next step would be to have the board that you want, or else, as I have said, the position contemplated by Section 200, where you have a board which acts in accordance with your wishes. I think that the board is the serious thing here.
Now, my Lords, as to how it is going to "bite", if there were an Amendment saying simply that the company should at once report to the licensing justices any change in the board—that is, if an Amendment were put down making it a statutory obligation to be frank about changes—then, if the person complied with that, the justices would have full information; if they did not comply with it, and it came out at the annual meeting, when his licence came up for renewal, that he had not complied with it, then he would be endangering his licence. If that were done, and if we limited the matter to a statutory obligation to report any changes in the board, and assuming there was a complaint of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the noble Duke and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke mentioned during the discussion on the last Amendment, then, when that complaint came up, there would be the material before the licensing justices as to the change in the board.
What I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is that he should withdraw this Amendment, and I will do my utmost to draft an Amendment (and if I do not, I will let him know, so that he can put one down) on that line, limiting the obligation to a statutory obligation, mandatory on the company, to report any change in the board. That is a simple matter, and there will not be any reason for them to say, "It was too difficult for us to do"; and the licensing authority will be in a
944
position to deal with it with full information should any complaint arise. If the company do not do it, the matter is bound to turn up before the annual meeting, and from the very fact that they have evaded this statutory obligation the company will have jeopardised their licence. I would suggest that that is a reasonable way of attaining the desired object; and, if the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment, I will do my utmost to get an Amendment on those lines ready for the Third Reading, if that meets with the approval of the House.
LORD SILKIN: It goes a long way. I do not attach all that importance to the change in the memorandum and articles; I thought I would do it that way as a matter of precaution. Nor do I think that it is vital to consider the shareholding composition of a company. I fully appreciate the importance of the notification of any change in the board to the licensing authority, but I should like the licensing authority to be able to do something, if they think it necessary. In most cases they will accept the change and take note of it at the annual meeting. But suppose that a company were ill-advised enough to appoint someone who had come to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the licensing authority were aware of that fact. In such a case is it reasonable that they should not be in a position to take any action until the annual meeting? Without asking the noble and learned Viscount to give a reply now, I would ask him to consider whether, in addition to making it mandatory on a company to notify the licensing authority, if the licensing authority, after considering the information given them, think it necessary, they should have the right to reconsider the question of licence. This would put the Amendment on the same plane as the previous one. In both cases, the licensing authorities would have the right to consider the position of the bookmaker in the light of new developments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I shall treat the noble Lord as not having sat down for the purpose of dealing with this point. I have very much in mind the possible action on the previous Amendment, and if we are able to

945
devise a procedure, such as suggested by my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, for looking into complaints, it might be possible to relate this (though I have not worked it out) to changes in the board of directors in the case of a company, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to think over this. I am alive to the nub of his argument—which is, that if changes are likely to produce a board which would operate badly or unjustly or dishonestly, that would be a most material change. I should like to consider this point, if he would allow me to do so.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Authorisation and registration of agents by bookmakers and Board]:
4.13 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "unless" to insert:
"(a) he has attained the age of twenty-one years; and".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have already taken the pleasant element of surprise out of this Amendment, because I used it for argument in an earlier one. Your Lordships will remember the circumstances in which this Amendment arose. Clause 7 makes it an offence if tit person has a betting transaction with a young person; employs a young person in the effecting of any betting transaction or in a licensed betting office; or receives or negotiates any bet through a young person. A young person is defined in subsection (2) as being a person under the age of eighteen. Under the Second Schedule, a young person may not be admitted to a licensed betting office.
During the Committee stage, Amendments were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which would have made the age twenty-one instead of eighteen in relation to employment in the effecting of a betting transaction or in a licensed betting office or receiving or negotiating a bet through a young person. His Amendments would still have permitted a person between eighteen and twenty-one to place a bet on his own behalf. These Amendments were opposed by my noble friend Lord Bathurst mainly on the ground that eighteen was a more
946
appropriate age. But he drew attention to the anomaly that would arise under the Amendments, that it would be lawful for a person between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one to go to a betting office to place his own bet but not to take a bet for someone else as a friendly act. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, then raised the point that under the Second Schedule a principal bookmaker must be twenty-one, and he suggested that this age should be adopted also for a bookmaker's agent. This Amendment gives effect to the noble Lord's suggestion. It is achieved by an Amendment not to Clause 7, but to Clause 3, which deals specifically with the control of bookmakers' agents—that is to say (to use the opening words of the clause) persons who
"by way of business receive or negotiate bets as servant or agent to another bookmaker or to the Board"—
that is, the Racecourse Betting Control Board. The Amendment simply says that such a person must nave attained the age of twenty-one. I hope that this Amendment meets the noble Lord's position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, ine 8, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for meeting the point that I made on Committee stage? I heard the noble and learned Viscount's kind words with some, embarrassment, because I spoke for only a few minutes. However, I am glad that my few words had some effect, for it gives us some encouragement. We must keep on trying.
LORD SILKIN: Beginner's luck!
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords. Again may I thank the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the extent to which the noble and learned Viscount has so far met the points I have raised. Does the Amendment mean that no person under twenty-one shall receive bets as a servant and take a bet for a bookmaker on the telephone or by post?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, my Lords, it does not go as far as that. The Amendment does not alter the age limit for employment in the effecting of

947
betting transactions in a bookmaker's office or employment in any capacity in a licensed betting office. Such persons are excluded from the operation of Clause 3 by the proviso to subsection (1). The Amendment refers to bookmakers' agents. I am sorry that it does not go the whole way, but it goes to the extent to which it was raised. It is an interesting compromise and we have met it in this way.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the Amendment is passed, may I thank the Government and the noble and learned Viscount on behalf of the Churches Committee on Gambling. Although it does not go all the way of the Amendments which my noble friend Lord Stonham moved, we are nevertheless grateful for what has been done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Gaming Machines]:
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, in subsection (2), to insert as a new paragraph (a):
"(a) that not more than two gaming machines are made available for play in any one building or, where different parts of a building are occupied by two or more different persons, in the part or parts of the building occupied by any one of those persons; and".
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Astor agrees, we might discuss this Amendment and his together. But I am entirely in his hands.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, my Amendment covers a different point. I imagine that my noble and learned friend's Amendment will be passed unanimously and the major question might be considered afterwards.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will leave my noble friend's Amendment and deal with my own.
Clause 17 permits gaming machines to be provided in premises to which the public do not have access, but subject to two conditions: that the coin to be inserted does not exceed sixpence, and that the proceeds are devoted to purposes other than private gain. During the Committee stage, on the Question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Mancroft
948
(who has asked me to express his regret that he is out of the country and unable to be here to-day for the Report stage) expressed some qualms about the possible results of the clause. He drew attention to articles which had appeared in the Press suggesting that a "racket" might break out in connection with the provision of "fruit machines"—and he referred to them by their colloquial name. He said that, whilst the clause laid down that the profits from the machines should be used for purposes other than private gain, such as for the benefit of club funds, in practice the owners of the machines would be able to demand rent for their hire. The suggestion was that "strong-arm" methods might be used by undesirable characters in other places to extort excessive rents from the innocent hirers of machines. The noble Lord asked me to look into the matter between the Committee and Report stages to see whether these suggestions were well or ill-founded; and, if they were well-founded, to see whether some precautions could not be inserted into the Bill to prevent what—as he put it [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224 (No. 90), col. 355];
"is normally a pretty harmless and innocent amusement developing into a most undesirable racket".
I have made such inquiries as I could in the period that has elapsed, and the police tell me that there is no evidence of any preparation to operate a "racket." But although that is the position, the observations made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft have led me to look at the clause again to see whether it is capable of being abused in ways which were not intended when it was inserted into the Bill. Its purpose is, of course, to permit the provision of gaming machines on a modest scale—because it is limited to a sixpenny coin—and they are to be used for purposes other than private gain. Your Lordships are aware of what I have in mind: that a number of working men's clubs and political clubs have a gaming machine, requiring insertion of a small coin, and the proceeds, after paying the rent, are used to help the funds of the club. I do not think that anyone would say that it is easy to get into the position of excessive gambling with a sixpenny machine. It takes 40 tries, on the basis that you have no success at all, to expend £1; so

949
I think from that point of view your Lordships will agree that, if the machines are going to be permitted, that is a very modest amount. I think that most of your Lordships will agree that, so long as the machines are used for the purpose of a club or some political or sporting purpose connected with a club, this would not be a harmful matter.
There is, however, the possibility that the clause might be abused by the provision of fruit machines on a larger scale in establishments of a less worthy character than those in which they are mainly found at present. There is perhaps the possibility that a disreputable club, of the type we heard about in a recent debate, might establish a considerable number of fruit machines as an attraction for people to go there. It is true that, if the conditions of the clause were complied with, those responsible would not be able to use the profits of the machines for commercial gain, but they might find it worth while to provide facilities for gaming on gaming machines as an inducement to get persons to attend and to spend their money in other ways. If this fear is a genuine one, then it can be met without hindrance to the purpose which the clause is intended to achieve by placing a limit on the number of gaming machines which may be installed in any particular place. That is what the Amendment does. It limits the number of gaming machines which may be installed in any one building—for example, in a golf clubhouse—to two.
There are, of course, clubs whose premises are not separate buildings but form part of a more extensive building which is divided up between a number of occupiers. The Amendment deals with this kind of club premises by limiting the number of gaming machines to two in any part of a building which is separately occupied. Inquiries which have been made suggest that under present practice there are rarely, if anywhere, more than two fruit machines in club premises; indeed, most clubs which have a fruit machine at all provide only one. Thus the clause, with the Amendment, will go far enough to legalise the existing practice and, therefore, not prevent the moderate and reasonable assistance to club funds and other desirable things, without permitting the installation of so many machines
950
that a harmless amusement is turned into facilities for excessive gambling or as an attraction for less desirable activities. The following Amendment is purely technical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I can quite understand the references of the noble and learned Viscount to those places and classes of clubs where these gaming machines may be installed and are often used for different kinds of club or sport purposes, or for charity. I always think it is rather a pity that such channels have to be relied upon in order to obtain the necessary subscriptions for such places. On the other hand, it does not seem to me that this Amendment meets the point of view—which I think the noble and learned Viscount clearly had in mind because of his reference to the fear of gambling—of the Churches' Committee. They feel that in certain classes of clubs, and it may be in other places, there is still a great danger that it would be attractive to gangsterism and the methods described by the noble and learned Viscount. So, in spite of the limitation put here, I should have thought that it would not be beyond the ingenuity of those who wanted to exploit this to get hold of a building and adapt it for the occupation of a number of tenants, and although the tenants might separately be regarded as genuine, nevertheless, there could be some gangster organisation in the background which would bring pressure to bear upon each one of the tenants concerned. It seems to me that this point has not really been met by this Amendment. Whether the matter can be dealt with on the subsequent debate on the other Amendment I do not know, but as it stands I must say I do not like this Amendment.
4.29 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I sympathise very much with the object of the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has moved but, like my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I do not think that it will provide a sufficient safeguard. It says that there are not to be more than two gaming machines in any one building or in part of a build-

951
ing in separate occupation. But what size are these gaming machines? I do not know whether they exist at present, but it would be a perfectly simple thing to build a gaming machine which could be one single machine but which 20 different persons could operate at the same moment. If it was arranged in such a way that the stakes were held up, it could easily be quite an accumulation of money which would eventually go to some successful individual. In addition, as my noble friend has pointed out, you might have a building which is sub-let to a whole series of persons who agree with the proprietor to take a portion of it, and who become the occupiers of those portions. You can have quite a large number of machines installed in the building, all readily accessible from one part of it to another.
More than that, it opens itself to other forms of abuse. The clause says that the stakes hazarded are to be applied either in the payment of winnings to a player of the game or for purposes other than private gain. Let us take the first step, that the stakes are all applied in providing winnings. It is a very easy thing to devise a machine, whose working will be known to the owner of it, with which, by taking a certain number or pressing a certain button at a certain time, the person doing so receives the winnings. There is no difficulty at all about that. It is a perfectly feasible mechanical operation, and if the law is going to be open to this you will soon find a number of ingenious people engaged upon operations of that kind. It will not be for the private profit, as I understand it, of the person who owns the machine. The person who gets the winnings will apparently be somebody quite different. No doubt he may be a relation or in other ways connected. It will be somebody the owner of the machine wants to benefit. But will it be private gain? It will be the winning of a stake or a number of stakes hazarded which, by this clause as it stands, is made perfectly legal.
Then let us to come to the other branch of it: that the stakes are to be applied for purposes other than private gain. "Private gain" is not defined in this Bill anywhere, if my memory serves me rightly. What is it? The noble and
952
learned Viscount has suggested that if the winnings are devoted to the purposes of a club—a Conservative, Liberal or Labour club—that will be perfectly legal. It will not be private gain. No doubt Conservative, Labour and Liberal clubs are very necessary and commendable institutions, but what about other clubs, and what size will the club be? If somebody forms a club with half a dozen members and the proceeds are used for the benefit of that club, is that private gain? Where is the line going to be drawn? It seems to me that the whole of this clause wants the most serious reconsideration, and that the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has presented is not sufficient to cure the possible hazards which there are in it.
Incidentally, on this question of private gain, suppose that the machines are owned by a company whose memorandum and articles of association are framed in such a way that those who control it are not entitled to any dividend on their shares. Or suppose that it is framed in such a way that the profits made by the company are all going to be donated, not even to a Conservative club, but to a charity. Nevertheless the business of a company must be managed by somebody; it employs people who conduct the business. Those persons might perhaps be paid considerable sums of money for their services. Are those "private gain"? I do not know. It raises some intricate and interesting questions. If salaries paid to officers or servants of a company are not private gain, while profits nearly all disappear in that direction, apparently that will be perfectly legal. Therefore, with all respect, I submit that a little ingenuity—and I have not devoted any particular amount of time to trying to think this out—will find a large number of perfectly legitimate ways of evading the provisions of the clause, even amended as the noble and learned Viscount proposes.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I suggest that the points raised by the noble Lord apply to my Amendment which I am going to move, rather than to this restricted Amendment which has been moved from the Woolsack?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not think so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if this Amendment is carried, and the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is lost, what is the position then?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can answer that question. One must remember that we are now on the Report stage of the Bill and, after all, this clause was explained on Second Reading. There was also the opportunity on the Committee stage for an Amendment that this clause should be omitted, and no such Amendment was put down or moved. I am now moving an Amendment which is restricting the clause—which is making the clause less generally applicable, and is limiting the number of machines. So the position as far as the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, are concerned, is that, although I am not going the whole way in the direction of the Council of Churches, this Amendment is a step in that direction, and if it is negatived the clause will be still further from the position which the Council of Churches desire. So at this stage in the Bill, even from their viewpoint, they would be better off with the Amendment than with the clause as it stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, made a very interesting speech in which he suggested the possibility of choosing winners in these machines. The only time in the course of my life that I have seen a jackpot won on a machine of this kind—that is when all the money in the machine comes out—was in a film called Duck Soup, when that happy position was achieved by a favourite film actor of mine called Harpo Marx. I do not know whether your Lordships remember Harpo, who never spoke. Somebody said to him, "Are you going to get the jackpot?" He gave that ineffable laugh and pulled the handle and the jackpot came out. That is the only time in my life that I have ever seen anyone win a jackpot on one of these machines. I do not think that the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is one of the more serious.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount regard a £1,000 prize which is produced by "Ernie" as a jackpot?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have discussed that point before, and I am entirely behind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced Premium Bonds. That is, as Mr. Kipling would say, another story.
The point that we have really to consider in this context is the fact that, as we all know, many most worthy working men's clubs and political clubs of all Parties have been having one machine, usually with a small coin condition, even when it has been illegal. We want to ensure that when it is used for a very creditable purpose it is possible, and that it will not be subject to abuse. I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition would prefer that these things were not used at all, and they were worried about abuse. In the case on which the noble Viscount puts stress, I think the answer is that if a machine were put into every one of a number of rooms in one building it would be practically impossible for anyone to believe—it would be beyond the limits of human credulity, as seen by courts of law, if they did believe—that it was then used for something other than the purposes of private gain. In the case of the undesirable club, again if you have a limit of two 6d. machines I do not think that you are going to add to the temptations of that club. On the other hand, you are going to help the genuine club.
I think we have a reasonable compromise in this matter. On the basis that the machines are going to exist at all, we could not have a less objectionable limitation and it is a reasonable compromise between the points of view. It is with great respect, I assure the noble Viscount, for the views that he is expressing that I ask him to remember that there are other views as strongly held by members of, I should think, many thousands of clubs who will not abuse this. Therefore, I ask him to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a consequential technical Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, at end add ("and the expression 'building' includes the curtilage of the building").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new Clause:
"Fruit machines"
". Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prohibit, control or regulate the sale, importation or use of gaming machines, including in particular the type commonly known as 'fruit machines'; but any order made under this section shall be of no effect until it has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move not the Amendment on the marshalled list but an Amendment that has been available in typewritten form. I approach this House in sackcloth and ashes for having raised this point so very late in the consideration of this Bill. My only excuse, which I give in all humility, is that I had devoted my entire attention to the betting side of the Bill and had not devoted sufficient consideration to the gaming side.
I think it is very important that we should consider possible abuses of these machines. They are an American invention, and they are illegal over a great part of the United States because they have been consistently abused by undesirable elements. They consist, as noble Lords know, of a machine in which you put a coin, pull a lever and a variety of cylinders revolve; and according to the particular level at which those cylinders stop, you win or lose. The makers and controllers of these machines can rig the odds against the investor as much as they want. The investor has no means of knowing how far those odds are rigged against him.
I submit that these machines are the most undesirable form of gambling imaginable. After all, if you go to the racecourse you have at least a pleasant day in the open air and a nice holiday. If you are a stay-at-home punter you have at least a pleasant hobby apart from your normal avocations; for following racing form gives people a lot of harmless pleasure. If you invest in football pools you have the interest of following football teams and discuss-
956
ing their fortunes with the family. Even if you go to a gambling party you have the social occasion which goes with it. I have always been told that solitary drinking is the worst form of drunkenness, and I submit also that solitary gambling is the worst form of gambling. There is nothing to be said for this particular form of gambling. It takes place indoors; it is something which develops into a vice. One sees, not children but grown men, sitting pulling the lever; on and on they go, hoping to win against impossible odds. In a day when we are much too inclined to take our pleasures without using our minds, by watching television and so forth, this is the most senseless, demoralising, brutalising, animalising form of occupation conceivable. Have we really to think that members of political clubs do not care enough for their cause—that they are not prepared to give an adequate subscription—but have to go through this particular form of robbing their own members? I know that if the Episcopal Bench had been full I should have had support on this point to-day. These machines act, as I say, as a drug on the people who play them; it produces a mental stupor. The fact is that as soon as you have these machines, which are in effect, giving the person who makes them a licence to print money, everybody wants to "get in" on them in some way and abuse his right to operate them. By making it legal for the first time you are inviting everybody to see how it is possible to evade the law.
It is rather sinister, as one has seen in the Press, that the companies who make these machines in America are expecting a substantial export of these machines to the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, it is easy to produce ways in which to evade the intention of this law. I think that at this very late stage in the consideration of this Bill, it would be too much to ask Parliament to prohibit these machines altogether. Therefore I am asking instead that we should, by the clause I have drafted, give the Secretary of State power to watch how these things work. And if he finds evidence of abuse of the intentions of Parliament in any of these ingenious ways, he will have an easy way of making an order and bringing it to Parliament, in order that these abuses may be rapidly

957
checked before they become a dangerous, well-established, public habit. The Amendment is intended to give him that preventive power, though one hopes that it may never be used. But there is here a very serious danger. When you see the way these machines are continually being raided, smashed and hurled into the Hudson River by the New York police, it seems rather absurd that we should be going to encourage their importation into this country, even for the worthiest clubs. So I beg to move this Amendment, in the hope that it will receive the support of the House, even though it comes rather late in the consideration of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has made a most powerful speech in support of his Amendment, and I should like to support him. I am bound to say that I had not realised—and I imagine that not many people had realised—the extent of the evil or the gravity of these so-called "fruit machines." But if it is anything like so bad as the noble Viscount has told us, I am rather surprised that he did not oppose the previous Amendment, which authorises the use of two of these machines—and conceivably more—in any establishment. Nevertheless, I am not going to accuse him of inconsistency.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The last Amendment reduced the number of machines that could be used, and I regarded it as an improvement on the Bill; but I hope that this Amendment will improve it still further.
LORD SILKIN: I thought the point was worthy of comment, because I am bound to say that, had I been aware of the facts the noble Viscount has just given us, I should certainly have objected to any fruit machines being permitted in any building at all. It is rather curious that, these machines having been prohibited, so far as possible, in the United States, we should be solemnly passing legislation here permitting two in any one building, and possibly considerably more where it may be found possible to get a decision that certain parts of a building are different buildings. For what it is
958
worth, however, I feel that this Amendment should be supported.
If this is an evil, then possibly under this Amendment the Home Secretary could virtually prohibit the use of these machines altogether, assuming that none of them is made in this country. He could prohibit the importation and use of such gaming machines, and therefore I suppose that under this Amendment he could completely regulate whether or not machines should be in operation. On the facts given us by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which I imagine will not be seriously challenged, I certainly feel it is something that the Home Secretary should be empowered to do. It is a little late in the day. I should have been happier if we had had this point raised on the Committee stage, and had a chance to consider it more carefully. This is a rather unusual power to give to a Home Secretary. It is not normally his function to prohibit the importation of any kind of commodity; that is more a matter for the Board of Trade. But that is a technicality which I imagine can be put right, and on the assumption that what we have heard represents the facts, I am sure that we shall all wish to support this Amendment.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, perhaps he will help us by clearing up one or two points arising out of the noble Viscount's Amendment. I take it the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is frightened of the future rather than concerned over the existing position At the moment there are a great many fruit machines in this country. I presume that they are made here and not imported, and I take it that this threatened American invasion is expected to come to pass after the Bill becomes an Act. I also take it that the existing position in regard to fruit machines is more or less satisfactory, in that where they are in use they do not attract the criminal element. The only machine of which I know is at my own golf club, where it contributes £50 or £60 a year to the funds of the club; and before I sit down I would point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that I have never seen anyone sitting down while playing a fruit machine, or doing so by himself. Usually there are people sitting round with glasses in their hands.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I add a word as one who must admit that he has considerably more acquaintanceship with these machines than most of your Lordships? I have met them in considerable quantities in other countries, particularly in Havana, in Cuba. I am quite convinced that the restrictions which are applied to the use of machines of this kind, under the provisions in the Bill as it stands at present, are such as to render them quite unprofitable and uninteresting to any commercial development at all. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said originally, the limitation on the coin to be used to sixpence is a limitation so great that it is really not going to be worth people's while to gamble seriously. They will insert their sixpence rather in the same spirit in which they used to insert their two shillings on the Tote, having a little interest while not expecting to make their fortune.
Likewise, the limitation that all stakes hazarded are to be awarded to the winner of the game would, of course, eliminate the possibility of the machine's being so advantageous. But where that cannot be the case, in the alternative, a provision that the stakes hazarded are applied for purposes other than private gain would completely eliminate the interest of anyone who had any proprietary interest in the machine. In my submission that would make it quite evident that the only use to which these machines can be put is something other than a commercial use, such as charitable purposes, or for golf clubs and causes of that kind.
I would submit, however, that there is another rather more fundamental objection to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It is this. We in Parliament have got nearly seven-eighths of the way towards making this provision a statutory enactment. If we accept the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it would enable us to accept this completely as a statutory enactment in the Bill. But his Amendment is, in effect, such as to give the Secretary of State powers of himself to nullify what Parliament has decided, and I submit to your Lordships that this is not a desirable basis for legislation. For my own part, I hope we shall not accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thought that that was not so under the manuscript Amendment, because, as I read it, that Amendment, whilst it provides that the Secretary of State can make an Order, that Order shall be of no effect until it has been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament; and therefore the last point made by the noble Viscount does not really apply. I listened with great interest to the speech he made, and I quite agree that very often, under the present regulations, harm from these machines will not extend over a wide area. On the other hand, it seems to me that Clause 17—and especially the Amendment recently moved by the noble and learned Viscount and carried—certainly makes possible an extension of the use of these machines in other than clubs, or other clubs than the kind we have usually been talking about where these things are used for charitable purposes.
And on this particular Amendment we have not yet said much about its effect upon youth. I think that the more machines of this character that are installed, the larger is the area of demoralisation of young people in these matters. I hope very much indeed that your Lordships will be prepared to ask the Government to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I think it would do a great deal of good. It would give Parliament always a chance to be able to examine the position upon a Draft Order submitted by the Secretary of State. It would be subject to Resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and that Draft Order would be based upon the experience which accrues after this Statute-to-be has been put into administrative operation. We can see then the effect which has taken place, what the dangers are and whether they are increasing, and then leave it to the Secretary of State to bring in an Order and not to go through, perhaps, twelve months' legislation before Parliament considers it in the Executive form.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, if I may just accept the correction of the noble Viscount, I would say that he had the benefit of the manuscript Amendment in his hand and I had not.
5.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment, and one of the reasons was very forcibly advanced by my noble friend Lord Brentford, in the part of his speech which was not disputed by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition—that is, that a sixpenny fruit machine will never become the subject of serious commercial exploitation, because the amount involved is so small. Nor do I think that it will ever become a serious temptation. For those of your Lordships who have complete innocence with regard to this matter, I may say that there are machines with a much greater coin content than sixpence, and, in fact, I think there have been some with a lesser coin content—but very few. It is almost the lowest coin content there has been.
My noble friend Lord Jessel asked me about the position of construction, and I should be glad to deal with that, because your Lordships will realise that what is asked for in this Amendment is to leave complete powers in the hands of the Home Secretary to deal with almost every point. But the position is, as I have told your Lordships, that even to-day, when it is illegal, there are a large number of these machines installed in a variety of clubs up and down the country; and the position would be that, once they are legalised, then of course they could be, to the very limited extent allowed by the last Amendment, installed in working men's and political clubs, and in sporting clubs. Indeed, I think my noble friend Lord Jessel will agree that, if the Home Secretary were to go wrong on the number of figures, that might lead to an unpleasant "cornering" of the number of machines and to putting up the prices and rent.
But, my Lords, from all our information, the Government do not think that there is any fear that, without a form of control such as my noble friend Lord Astor proposes, excessive rents will be charged by racketeers. Once gaming machines become lawful, the price of rent levels will, by the normal operation of economic competition, become adjusted to the proper economic level; and although it may be, as my noble friend Lord Astor says (and he probably knows better than most of us), that there is some danger from foreign-made
962
machines, the Government have no information on that. But we believe that if they came in, and there was an attempt to extort a heavier rent, they would be under-cut by machines made by manufacturers at home; and we are instructed that manufacturers at home have begun production. So there is no information that the Government have of this influx of foreign machines which the noble Viscount mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Jessel gave the picture, I think, of the ordinary user of this machine in one type of club, and I think in most clubs: somebody puts in a casual coin, or half-a-dozen casual coins, as he passes the machine on the way to a place where he is going to get sustenance, or even takes his sustenance and puts in the casual coin as he passes the machine. But I really think that the general picture my noble friend Lord Astor gave of a serious corrupting influence was overdrawn, and I would ask your Lordships to consider that in the light of your own experience of the clubs I have described, and the clubs my noble friend Lord Jessel has described, and also from the point of view of the experience of my noble friend Lord Brentford as to the unlikelihood of commercial exploitation.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has left the Chamber, because he has been here during most of this debate, and he is missing the almost unique experience in your Lordships' House of hearing the Minister make an attack on an attempt at delegated and subsidiary legislation. The number of times on which your Lordships have seen my broad shoulders belaboured because I have endeavoured to introduce subsidiary legislation will be fresh in all your Lordships' memories. Now we have an example, not put in the Bill in the beginning of its passage through Parliament, but on the Report stage in the second Chamber which has considered it, of a provision to give to the Home Secretary the power of delegated and subsidiary legislation on the widest scale that has ever been known in any Amendment to any Bill since the late lamented Henry VIII applied his famous clause. After all, the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition is the most experienced ex-Minister in this Chamber, and if he can quote me an example of

963
subsidiary legislation as wide as this in the whole of his Parliamentary experience I shall be extremely surprised.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I will have a look.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment says:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument … control or regulate the sale, importation or … the use of gaming machines".
The nearest equivalent is war-time Regulation 55, which was the widest war-time legislation that has ever been made. When my noble friend Lord Brentford raised this point the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition said, "Ah! But there is Parliamentary control. There has to be an Affirmative Resolution". I have heard the answer to that point many times when I have been responsible for subsidiary legislation. It is said to me, "What! An Affirmative Resolution—something we cannot amend; something which, when it comes before the House, we cannot override in favour of a better way; something which we cannot deal with? Oh, that will not do. If they are going to take wide powers like that, why does the noble and learned Viscount not put them in the Act?" How often have your Lordships heard that point?
My noble friend Lord Astor has done a service in drawing attention to this matter, but I hope that he will not make us all co-conspirators with him in an act which, if I had suggested it, would have provoked every constitutional fibre in your Lordships' bodies. For those relsons—good, bad and, I hope, amusing—I would therefore ask him not to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the answer given by the noble and learned Viscount. When one has read Lord Hewart's book on the amount of delegated legislation which has been given, especially in the time of Mr. Lloyd George, by which Bills could be varied and even changed by an act of the Department, even without Affirmative Resolutions, I think it will be seen that the comparison by the noble and learned Viscount of himself with Henry VIII—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You, Sir.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: —of myself with Henry VIII is not an entirely accurate one. But I am entirely to blame, and I come before the House in sackcloth and ashes for the fact that I did not raise this matter earlier, at Committee stage. It is entirely my fault; and, as I said at the beginning, I apologise profoundly for not having done so. I have done it in this manner only because I think it is important that we should not ignore the experience of what is happening in foreign countries as regards these machines. It is possible to hire them, and to have all sorts of undesirable arrangements by which pressure is put on the amount of the hiring, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, mentioned. There is every sort of way of getting round it. After all, with even a sixpenny machine, if one can put in four sixpences a minute for, shall we say, eight hours a day, if you take a profit of about 25 per cent. of what is put in, you very soon clear between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. That is not bad, and with two of those there would be £5,000 a year coming in. It is all very well to say that it is a sixpenny stake only, but if you work the figures out it comes to quite a lot. However, it is obviously no use my pressing this Amendment to a Division, for I feel that I shall not have a victory if I do not carry the Government with me. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will pay attention to the lessons to be learned from what has happened abroad, and will watch these machines and their extension, which we are making legal for the first time in this country, with the utmost care, vigilance and suspicion. Having said that, I feel I must withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule [Rules for licensed betting offices]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the introduction into Clause 5, by an Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Spens during the Committee stage, of subsection (5), which forbids the advertisement of licensed betting offices. I could explain the Amendment in detail, but I know that there is other business which your Lordships want to get on to. Therefore, as it is consequential on another Amendment, I beg to move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 14, leave out from first ("premises") to end of line 18.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DUNLEATH: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, and I must confess that it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I do so: not so much because I fear that this Bill will arouse controversial debate, but because this is the first time that I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House. I had hoped that, before making my maiden speech, I should have been able to put in sufficient attendances to familiarise myself more fully with the procedure; but, unfortunately, the fact that I live and work in Northern Ireland has prevented me from attending except on my very infrequent visits to London. I would therefore ask your Lordships to be indulgent to me on this occasion.
My Lords, the Bill is more or less self-explanatory. Its purpose is to enable the holders of full driving licences in Northern Ireland, in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands to exchange these for Great Britain licences without having to take a further test. The situation which has caused this Bill to be introduced is that, in order to obtain a driving licence in Great Britain, it has been necessary since 1934 to take a Ministry of Transport driving test. In the above territories, however, driving tests were not introduced until four or five years ago. It has therefore been quite reasonable hitherto that persons who had obtained such a licence without taking a test should not qualify for a British driving licence without having proved themselves to be up to the standard required of permanent residents in Great Britain. However, now that driving tests have been compulsory for several years in these territories, there appears to be no reason why inhabitants of these territories should not qualify for British driving licences. I think your Lordships need have no fear that there is any dis-
966
crepancy in the standards of the tests in these territories as compared with those in Great Britain. I understand that the Ministry of Transport have looked into this matter very closely, and that their experts have visited all three territories during the last five years and have found that the standards of driving required are as identical as human nature will allow.
At present there is a reciprocal agreement which enables any person who has taken out a full driving licence in Great Britain under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to obtain a similar licence in Northern Ireland, in the Isle of Man or in the Channel Islands. There is one exception only to this, which is Jersey, and there I understand that at the moment amendments to the present road traffic law are being considered which include such a reciprocal agreement. It is therefore only fair that a person who has qualified for a licence on exactly the same basis in any of the above territories should have a reciprocal right in Great Britain.
There are one or two points limiting the scope of this Bill which I think I should mention, but I will not take up your Lordships' time by going into them fully. The first is that for any of these external licences granted in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to qualify for benefit under this Bill they must have been current during the previous ten years; otherwise, they will not be eligible. Secondly, the Bill excludes the holders of provisional licences: the emphasis is on the term "full licence". Thirdly, it excludes any person who has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence to drive any class or description of vehicles in the above territories. In 1956, the practice of disqualifying a driver from driving one class of vehicle only was abandoned. This is still in force in Northern Ireland, but any person thus disqualified will not be eligible under the Bill for any class of driving licence whatsoever in Great Britain. The final point is that a certificate of competence will not be recognised under the Bill in Great Britain unless it has been exchanged for a full licence in the territory concerned.
To sum up, it is felt that a candidate who passes a test in County Down, Douglas or St. Helier should be on even terms with one who has passed an

967
identical test in Aberdeenshire, Cardiff or London. I feel that this Bill will remove a source of annoyance from people who have come from these territories to live in Great Britain and that, at the same time, it will ease to a small extent the burden on the British driving examiners. I understand that the Bill has the approval of the Ministry of Transport and that it enjoyed a clear passage through its Second and Third Readings in another place. Therefore I would commend it to your Lordships' favourable consideration. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dunleath.)
5.22 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I am happy to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, on his maiden speech, a maiden speech which has been characterised by a capability and lucidity of explanation from which I think we may take an example. I think that he is the more to be praised in that he has ventured to introduce a Bill into your Lordships' House in his maiden speech and that he has selected a Bill which is entirely acceptable. Although the Bill does not deal with a large matter, it is a valuable one. It is really very nice to be able to welcome the speaker and the Bill at the same time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not intend to impede the progress of this Bill. I rise only to say that noble Lords on this side of the House will support the Bill and to add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his excellent maiden speech. It makes some of us "old stagers" regret the fact that we did not have the opportunity of introducing a Bill in our maiden speeches. As my noble friend said in another context, we put it down, in jealousy, to "beginner's luck". We accept the Bill and we congratulate the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in also congratulating the noble Lord, may I ask him a question, if it is permissible on a maiden speech? Is this reciprocal: that is to say, does a person who holds a driving licence in this country automatically get one in the territories with which the Bill is dealing?
LORD DUNLEATH: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. At present, with the exception of Jersey, a reciprocal right exists. If a motorist holds a full driving licence in Great Britain and goes to Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man or Guernsey, he can exchange it for a full driving licence without having to take a test. The exception, as I said, is Jersey, but I gather that Jersey will no longer be an exception in the near future.
I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his assistance and for the assistance of his Ministry in getting this Bill through without difficulty. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his kind remarks and for his helpful assistance in securing the Bill an easy passage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Enforcement and Administration of traffic Laws Punishment without prosecution of offences in connection with lights, reflectors, obstruction, etc.
1.—(1) This section shall apply to any offence created by or under an enactment and punishable on summary conviction, being an offence committed in respect of a vehicle—

(a) by its being left or parked on a road without the lights or reflectors required by law; or

(b) by its obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road; or

(2) Where a constable finds a person on any occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion he is committing or has committed an offence to which this section applies, he may give him the prescribed notice in writing offering the option of payment of a fixed penalty under this section without prosecution for that

969
offence; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the date on which proceedings are begun.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "road" to insert "during the hours of darkness". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the real intention of subsection (1), which at present reads:
"This section shall apply to any offence created by or under an enactment and punishable on summary conviction, being an offence committed in respect of a vehicle—

(a) by its being left or parked on a road without the lights or reflectors required by law.…"

It used to be the law that the owner of a vehicle had to have lights effectively operating upon any vehicle on the roads during the hours of darkness. The law was altered to get over a legal technicality in the regulations, which perhaps one day will be presented to Parliament, concerning the 10-year-old motor car. A motorist could not successfully plead, "I have no lights on my car because I never use it at night", because under the Construction and Use (Amendment) Regulations, 1956, it is compulsory to have lights in proper working order during the hours of daylight as well as during the hours of darkness. I do not think the literal impression of subsection (1) is its real intention. I do not think that it is intended to create another offence. It is not intended that a traffic warden or police constable should have power to give a ticket to the owner of a vehicle parked in a restricted area just because the lights do not work during the hours of daylight. I think that my Amendment gives effect to the interpretation which the Government intend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("road") insert ("during the hours of darkness").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: When I first saw this Amendment, I confess that I thought it was a work of supererogation, but on considering it more closely, I came to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I believe that it is necessary. In addition to the technical reason that the noble Lord proferred—namely, that without
970
these words the Bill would in fact create a new offence additional to the offence created under the Construction and Use Order—there is, in my submission, a further objection to it. Basically, I think it is fundamental that it is the duty of a constable or a warden in this connection to verify that an offence has been committed. Without the words which the noble Lord is proposing to put into the Bill, a traffic warden, if he is going to carry out that principle would require to have access to the inside of the car in order to see if the lights will work during daytime. That I am sure is something which the Minister never intended and which your Lordships would not wish to occur. Therefore, for the sake of traffic wardens, as well as for the sake of the public at large, I concur in what the noble Lord said, and I feel that this matter should be clarified, so as to exclude the possibility of there being an offence committed for this purpose under this Bill by reason of the lights not being in proper working order during the hours of daylight.
LORD CHESHAM: Before I deal with this Amendment may I be permitted a personal word of explanation, and perhaps apology, to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Silkin, who are the co-perpetrators (if I may so call them) of the majority of the Amendments. At the time when they were co-perpetrating these Amendments and the Amendments were arriving in a steady stream, a stream of another kind, a stream of bugs with the queer names that all seem to end in "coccus", unfortunately descended upon me and arrived in the region of my upper lip and nose, which necessitated a feat of skill by my medical advisers even to get me here, including the instruction that I should take only a modest part in the first stages of the Bill in order to be fit for battle in the later stages. Consequently, I am most indebted to my noble friend Lord Bathurst, who has nobly undertaken to carry a great deal more of the heat and burden of the day than we had originally planned. I can only say that the proceedings will be none the worse for that. I think I need only add that the modern method of administering antibiotics makes even sitting in my place a slight inconvenience.

971
I turn now to the Amendment itself, and I will deal first with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brentford. He insinuated that the clause, as drafted, would create a new offence. That, I assure your Lordships, is quite impossible under this clause, because it only identifies what are the offences under the existing law. The clause as drafted cannot, and does not, create a new offence in any shape or form. It relates only to those offences which are offences under the existing law. It identifies them, and the query before us is whether or not the ticket system is to be applied to them. That is all the clause does, and it is misleading to contemplate that any new offence can be created. It is not necessary, and the clause does not try or purport, to go into the details of the way in which these offences become offences. Those are clearly set out in the relevant Acts under the law as it exists at the present time.
Therefore I would start by saying that, at face value, at any rate, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is unnecessary. But he is right in saying that there is this provision that a vehicle shall be fitted with the lights that the law requires, as set out in another Act, during the hours of daylight. He is right also in saying that that was a technical measure, and I think I must agree with him that that is not the kind of offence to which it is intended the ticket system should be applied. I do not think it is intended that traffic wardens should wander around looking at all motor cars to make certain that they have two reflectors at the back. Therefore, perhaps I may put it in this way to the noble Lord. This Amendment unfortunately is slightly defective as to wording, but if he would consider withdrawing it now, on my giving an undertaking either to put down an Amendment myself or to discuss it with him to get the wording in accordance with what it should be to match up with previous Acts, I should be glad to give that undertaking.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The point that struck me was that it is an offence under this clause for a vehicle to be left or parked on a road without the lights or reflectors required by law—
972
it does not say which law—and the law as it stands at the present time is that you must have proper lights operating effectively on your motor vehicle during the hours of daylight. However, I accept the noble Lord's undertaking that he will accept the principle of my Amendment and draft out such an Amendment as to make it clear what paragraph (a) means. If that is the undertaking, I accept it and withdraw my Amendment; but if it is not, we shall have to go on arguing.
LORD CHESHAM: If I may speak again, I think we must be clear about what my undertaking is. The noble Lord really must disabuse his mind of the idea that this clause creates an offence. It does not. He referred to "an offence under this clause". It is not: it is an offence under a previous existing regulation, and it is referred to in this clause. It is not created, and no offence is created, by this clause. I cannot say that too often. I accepted the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, but what I intended to convey was that the words he has used "during the hours of darkness", will not quite stand up: they are not quite specific enough for the purpose he has in mind or to be put into the Bill. It is a question of modifying the words "during the hours of darkness" to the required degree to fit the law I was talking about. I do not mind which way it is done—whether we get together upon it or whether I put down an Amendment which carries out exactly what the noble Lord wants in the right words. That is my undertaking.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Which I gladly accept, although I do not accept the noble Lord's explanation of why he has given it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "law" to insert
"or otherwise than with the left or nearside of the vehicle as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway;".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment really paves the way for the third Amendment and, with your Lordships' permission, in order to save time, I should like to argue the case for both together. Together, they are of substance. We must make an effort in this

973
Bill to make it clear—or as clear as we possibly can—to the ordinary vehicle driver, be he a private or a commercial vehicle driver, just what the Bill and this clause of the Bill entails. On Second Reading the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said—I paraphrase what he said. I think, correctly—"It is no good passing laws unless we understand what they really mean." This subsection as at present drafted is very confusing. Unfortunately, there is not one motorist in a thousand—in a million, I could almost say—who understands the law of obstruction, and I doubt whether some of your Lordships do. Obstruction can be a very minor thing or a very major thing. So I want to put into this Bill what obstruction really means.
We can understand a lot of other laws. We can understand the speed limit law. But what is obstruction? Obstruction is the most debatable offence that can be committed by a motor vehicle driver. It is prone to many interpretations. Indeed, even under Acts of Parliament it can be a modest thing. Prosecutions for ordinary obstruction take place under Regulation 90 of The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955, No. 482. Regulation 90 says:
"Save as provided in paragraph (2) of this Regulation no person shall, except with the permission of a police officer in uniform, cause or permit any motor vehicle to stand on any road during the hours of darkness otherwise than with the left or near side of the vehicle as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway."
May I say in passing that the maximum penalty for that is a fine of £20.
Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, says:
"If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn thereby to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."
That is another form of obstruction.
My argument is this. In this Bill we should make it abundantly clear what is the offence for which a driver of a motor vehicle can receive a ticket. We must make it as clear as we possibly can, if this Bill is to do anything that is claimed for it, which is that it would save a lot
974
of trouble, expense and unnecessary police court proceedings. In my third Amendment, page 1, line 12, I say:
"by its obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings."
Now that is perfectly clear. If you leave your vehicle where there is a clear official notification that there is no waiting—which can be a traffic sign. "No Waiting", or by a yellow line on a carriageway—then that is what the noble Lord himself described in his Second Reading speech as, I think he said, not a self-evident offence, but a self-proven offence. I think that was the expression he used, or something like that—if there is such I thing as that; I do not know whether there is. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224 (No. 91), col. 408]:
"… it is proposed to introduce a standard penalty for certain minor offences in which there is no doubt of guilt …"
If you leave "obstruction" in there without a qualification there is every doubt of guilt. If you consult the police, they will tell you that there is no prosecution or alleged offence which causes so much bad blood between the motor vehicle driver and the authorities than a summons for obstruction.
After all is said and done, many of us who have driven cars for years know very well when we have driven over the limit—though we may argue that we did not. We know that. But what is obstruction? On Second Reading I quoted the Divisional Court—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, was presiding at the time—who said that an unreasonable use of the highway can be obstruction. I do not want to minimise the dangers and the seriousness of obstruction, but I do argue that when a charge of obstruction is brought against the vehicle user in the future, it should not be subject to the ticket process of fining; it should be subject to the ordinary prosecution in the courts by summons by the police.
That is clearly stated in what I say in the second Amendment, and if my wording does not clearly define it, then I hope the noble Lord will find better wording. Let me save him the trouble of repeating on every one of these Amendments that the drafting is bad. That I know. But as my noble friend Lord Silkin said on a previous Bill this

975
afternoon, you know what I want to do, and I do not doubt that the Parliamentary draftsman can find a better way of doing it, as the noble Lord has graciously suggested they can with regard to the first Amendment I moved. We must be able to make it crystal clear that all the offences that are subject to a limited fine are clearly stated in the Bill, and if he will accept my wording, that obstruction by a vehicle is caused
"by its obstructing a road or waiting or being left or parked or being loaded or unloaded in a road contrary to directions given by a traffic sign or by carriageway markings",
I suggest that that is as near as it is possible to get. The noble Lord himself said that it is proposed to introduce a standard penalty for certain minor offences in which there is no doubt of guilt, and
"I think that in the majority of parking cases it is fair to say there is no doubt"—
that is what the noble Lord went on to say.
An Amendment on these lines was proposed in another place and it was argued by the Government then that if they accepted the Amendment as worded (it had not got the words "carriageway markings" in it) it would prevent the giving of a ticket for other offences, such as leaving a motor car facing the wrong way after the hours of darkness had fallen. So I added those words to this Amendment to help the Government, and I have taken the words literally from the Construction and Use Regulations. Therefore, if it is bad draftsmanship, do not blame me; Parliamentary draftsmen drafted the Construction and Use Regulations, including Regulation No. 90, which I quoted just now.
I think I have made this case perfectly clearly. I say it is a matter of substance. It will force local authorities to mark clearly and without any equivocation where a motorist—and I use "motorist" in the widest sense of vehicle driver—cannot park his vehicle. That would be the first thing. It would also force them to provide places where he can park his vehicle, which is equally important. I know there is an intermediate gap: can he park his vehicle where there is no sign that he can and no sign that he cannot? The literal interpretation of the law to-day is, No, he cannot, because he
976
can be summoned for obstruction if he leaves his motor car anywhere on the road if, in the opinion of the police, he is causing an obstruction. I think we have to tolerate that for the time being. But I do not want to put the onus of issuing tickets on anybody in that area; I do not want the onus on a traffic warden, and I do not want it on the constable, either. I think that the ticket system has got to be kept for the self-proven offences, where there is no argument or very little argument. But where it is a contentious decision of obstruction I think the police should do what they do now.
With that explanation, with which I hope I have made clear what I am seeking to do, would your Lordships allow me to move the first of these Amendments. Perhaps I should, to save time, add that I have seen a manuscript Amendment to this Amendment. I do not mind it at all; it may be good, it may be unnecessary. But in Regulation No. 90 of the Construction and Use Regulations to which I have referred, which says that a person must not cause or permit any motor vehicle to stand on any road during the hours of darkness other than with the left or near side of the vehicle as close as may be to the edge of the carriageway, there is a proviso (it is on page 33, Regulation 90 (2) (d)) that that regulation shall not apply to
"any motor vehicle in any road in which vehicles are allowed to proceed in one direction only".
In that, the manuscript Amendment may have force. But we may perhaps argue that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("law") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have received notice of a manuscript Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers. In case any of your Lordships have not seen it, the Amendment is as follows:
"Amendment No. 2, at end insert ("except in a one-way street").
LORD SOM̃ERS: I beg to move the Amendment to which the noble Lord the Lord Chairman has referred. I have tabled it after conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because I feel that even though, as he points out, that proviso

977
about the one-way street stands in another Bill, this, as your Lordships will see, is not an Amendment Bill, and therefore unless these words are inserted in the Bill it will be an offence under the Bill to park in a one-way street otherwise than with the left or nearside of the vehicle as close as possible to the edge of the carriageway. The street in which my club is is a one-way street and it is quite a wide one. Parking is allowed on both sides. I feel that in cases like that, where it is made clear that parking is allowed on both sides, cars should be allowed to face in their proper direction. Therefore, I am just adding these words "except in a one-way street".
May I say before I sit down that I am in wholehearted agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said about clarification of the word "obstruction". I would tell your Lordships a little story about what happened to me at the beginning of last month. I had been leaving my car in a mews which is behind my club. I had been told by the club porter that it was all right to leave it there, and I had been leaving it there quite happily since January. Then, suddenly, at the beginning of June I came out and found a police notice tucked under my windscreen wiper, and among the other things that it accused me of was the offence of obstruction. The construction of that mews is rather peculiar. The entrance at each end is quite narrow but immediately you get in the left hand side goes back into a bay. It is quite possible to park your car facing sideways without obstructing the carriageway at all, so that actually the word "obstruction" was a purely theoretical one; it did not mean obstruction at all. That is why I feel that it is necessary for the motorist to know what the law is and what he may do and what he may not do. I know—or rather I highly suspect—that my noble friend, Lord Chesham, is going to say that that is all made perfectly clear; but I am afraid that, with the greatest possible respect, I cannot agree with him. There have been many times when I have wondered whether I might or might not do all sorts of things on the road, and I think that motorists would be found a great deal less guilty of breaking the law if they really knew what it was. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
At end insert "except in a one-way streert."—(Lord Somers.)
LORD SHEPHERD: May I briefly support the Amendment moved by my noble friend? I do not think anybody would dispute that the general public have a variety of definitions for obstruction, particularly when the police accuse them of obstructing. I believe that we must try, so far as possible, in this Bill—and so far as our command of language makes it possible—to define obstruction. We must do so for one very special reason. My noble friend mentioned the hard feelings that developed a year or two ago between the police and the motorists. It was a relationship which I believe we all resented. But this Bill is going to bring into being the traffic warden, who in any case, until he has established himself in the public eye, is going to have quite a difficult time. I think it is vitally important, therefore, that at this stage, when we are bringing in this new official to deal with the traffic problem, we should endeavour so far as possible to lay down what is an obstruction, so that there can be no dispute or ill-feeling between the new traffic warden and the general public. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, feels that the expression used by my noble friend will define more closely what is an obstruction, but I believe the words which are written down in the Amendment are sufficiently clear for the general public to realise what is an obstruction, and will make it possible for them to avoid that type of offence.
EARL HOWE: I listened to the explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, of his manuscript Amendment, but there seems to be another point that requires consideration—the position where cars are parked on one side on one day, and on the other side the next day. I do not know whether the existing regulations or the Bill provide for that; but if they do not I think they ought to do so.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should I like to associate myself with the principle contained in these Amendments as they have been expounded by noble Lords who have spoken, but I feel some apprehension about the actual wording

979
of the Amendments. With regard to the first, particularly, it rather appears to me that it seeks to introduce another existing offence within the purview of the road traffic warden which was not previously contained within his purview in the Bill as drafted. I may not be correct about that, but I am sure that the Government draftsmen will have a much more definite view about it. On the main principle which has been laid before the House, however, I submit that this is quite the most important part of the first Part of the Bill, because the basis of it is that the offence of obstruction shall not be one of the offences for which tickets can be given. I believe that those of us who feel very strongly upon this point are already half-way towards winning the battle, and I very much hope that, as a result of this afternoon's debate, we may receive an assurance from my noble friend in charge of the Bill that we can have the whole battle won.
May I remind your Lordships of what was said in the Second Reading debate by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224 (No. 91), col. 445]:
"I shall merely content myself with saying that so far as the duties of the wardens are concerned it is proposed that in the initial stages"—
and those are the first words of which I am rather frightened—"in the initial stages"—
"they should be in connection with static offences—to do with parking and with not leaving lights on when necessary, and where appropriate, where the local authority agree, with parking meter offences."
There was then an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, subsequent to which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham continued the argument. He said:
"His"—
he was referring to the traffic warden—
"duties will not be broadened beyond what I have said… As I have already said, my right honourable friend will be very interested to hear what your Lordships say about the functions of traffic wardens, and he does not propose, to begin with, at any rate, to include among their duties the dealing with offences of obstruction."
I feel that that is exceedingly satisfactory; but it is relying, so far as statutory legislation is concerned,
980
entirely upon the time when the Minister exercises the power which he has, or will have, to enable traffic wardens to deal with these particular offences. I should like to ensure that there is no statutory authority whatsoever given for that purpose, and that if, as time goes on, it is felt necessary, desirable and proper, that wardens should have such powers, the Minister should come to Parliament again to seek these additional powers.
I appreciate, as I believe your Lordships have appreciated, that there are many degrees of offence in obstruction; and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, speaking just now, expressed, as I understood it, the hope that this Bill would lay down what really is obstruction. I feel that if we were to do that it would involve us in many days' sittings and argument, because as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has emphasised, obstruction is something that the law finds is almost impossible to decide upon, in any event at the present time. In fact, I am myself now involved in considerable legal argument with some of my legal advisers to try to ascertain whether, if I were to leave my car in a street which is not subject to restriction but which may be an exceedingly busy street, as many of our streets in Central London are, and if I leave it not within 25 yards of a crossing and not parked opposite to a car parked on the opposite side of the road, and if I do not leave it there for a period in excess of five hours, I am guilty of obstruction. So far as I have been able to obtain an interpretation of the legal expressions of opinion from the highest of our legal authorities, that is about what one is allowed to do. But at the other end of the scale there are exceedingly minor things which one can do which definitely do create obstruction.
For these reasons I greatly support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said: that the offence of obstruction is just about as far away from any self-evident or self-proven offence as one can get in this country, and that it would therefore not be fair on the wardens, or on the police themselves, to give them the right and duty of deciding whether a person has or has not committed an obstruction. It is essentially a matter for the courts of

981
this country, essentially a matter which is open to argument in every case. I am quite certain that it will only bring the whole system into disrepute, and bring the motoring world into antagonism with authority, if we seek to impose on police and wardens the duty of deciding (and obviously without hearing the arguments of the other party, because in the majority of these cases the other party, the motorist, will not be there) whether or not an offence has been committed. Therefore, I am quite sure that the intention which we seek is the intention which the Government have at the present time. I am therefore asking for only two things: first, that they shall confirm that that intention is to last until they seek other Parliamentary powers; and, secondly, that they shall put it in the Bill.
6.11 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: In considering the two Amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has spoken, I am in a little of a quandary to know quite how to approach the matter. I may as well be quite open, to begin with, and say that I am unable to accept his Amendments, either severally or collectively. I want to avoid, if possible, wasting the Committee's time by speaking for a very long while, and I think it might be better if I were to attempt a short-circuiting move and discuss them together (if I might reserve a right, so to speak, if necessary, to discuss them separately after, because I have definite views about them on both counts), because we might be able to remain more clear and to get on faster if we do it that way.
The interpretation in the mind of any particular man is, as the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Shepherd, Lord Brentford and Lord Somers, said, a pretty loose one. In fact, I think that what has been said in the last few minutes make this pretty clear. Even my noble friend Lord Somers wrung our hearts with his interpretation of what had happened in his case, an interpretation which might obviously not be shared by the residents of the mews who have been complaining to the police—though I do not know about that. It is sufficient to say that the interpretation in the public mind (if one can use such a term) is loose.
982
Perhaps we may look again at what the law says about it—I make no apology for saying this. Section 121 of the Highways Act, 1959, says:
"… a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway …"
And it is an offence under Regulation 89 of the Construction and Use Regulations to cause or permit
"a vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction thereof."
There is the definition and, of course, there is no question of seeking to change that definition in this Clause 1 (1). It is true, and obvious, that whether an obstruction is or is not being caused is a matter of opinion. It seemed to me from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—and it was confirmed by what was said by my noble friend Lord Brentford—that what the combining of these two Amendments seeks to do, quite frankly, is to move "obstruction" out of the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, my Lords. It does not. The noble Lord is completely and utterly wrong—I repeat, completely and utterly wrong. What I seek to do is to define "obstruction" which will apply to the ticket system, not any other obstruction. That is not moving "obstruction" out of the Bill; it is saying what "obstruction" is for the purpose of getting a ticket—selfevident obstruction, when a man is doing something when there is a notice in front of his very eyes saying that he must not do it.
LORD CHESHAM: I am amazed. But that point can wait for the moment. In fact, whether he seeks to do it or not, the effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord means that the application of the ticket system to the offence of obstruction as laid down by the existing law is moved out of the Bill. That is what in fact it means; and the fact that it is desired to do that has been amply confirmed by my noble friend Lord Brentford. Whatever the noble Lord sought to do, I can concern myself only with what he is, in effect, doing. Therefore I think I am completely right to address myself to the problem in that way.
Obstruction, for better or for worse, is a prevalent offence, and I do not see how the law against it can be effectively

983
enforced by ordinary means. If we are to clear the streets in favour of traffic flow, and clear them of unnecessary obstructions, we may have to use, we feel, more effective means of enforcement than we at present have, including, in due course, the ticket system. I do not pretend that the ticket system is anything other than an innovation, and I am not surprised that some of your Lordships have doubts—anticipatory doubts, perhaps I might call them—as to how it would work at the present time in relation to obstruction. I think that the point for which my noble friend Lord Brentford asks—that "obstruction" should be, as the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would do, taken out of the Bill at the present stage—is a reasonable request. I believe that in the future, when the ticket system is established and proven, and we know a good deal more about it, it will be perfectly reasonable to utilise it for tackling the problem of obstruction.
It is not, I repeat, the function of this Bill to define "obstruction". It is already defined as are the other offences mentioned in Clause 1, by the relevant Statute elsewhere. I should like in this connection to say this. I know what I said on Second Reading and what I would do—and this is my "short-circuit" procedure, which I hope will perhaps save some time—is this. If the noble Lord sees fit to withdraw his Amendments, at any rate as collective ones taken together, I am quite prepared to give him an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when he makes the first Order applying the ticket system to London, will exclude from it, under the powers he has in the proviso to Clause 1 (1), the offence of obstruction.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord offers me a tempting bait. I do not know whether I am going to nibble at it, because I am not particularly interested in what the Home Secretary says he will do at some future date—he might not be the Home Secretary then, if there is any truth in what I read in the Press. I am interested in what is in the Bill. I should like the noble Lord to give me this explanation. First of all, I do not want to take obstruction out of this Bill. I do not want to interfere with the powers that the ordinary constable has to-day.
984
What I want the noble Lord to do is this: will he please define what he meant when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224 (No. 91), col. 408]:
"Under Clause 1 it is proposed to introduce a standard penalty for certain minor offences in which there is no doubt of guilt …"
Will the noble Lord tell me that? I can only assume that they are the offences set out in this Bill: by the vehicle
"obstructing a road, or waiting, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road …"
I can only conclude that those are what he calls the minor offences for which the standard penalty will obtain.
It has been said—I think the noble Lord himself said it—that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not intend that the ticket penalty shall go as far as this. By moving my Amendment, all I want him to do is to define such a minor offence which will attract a ticket, and to say whether it includes obstruction as laid down here in this Bill or whether it is that obstruction, which, as he said in another place, is self-evident and without any doubt of guilt—when there is a traffic sign which says "No waiting", or when the kerb or gutter is marked by yellow lines that clearly define that you cannot leave a vehicle there or wait there, and that if you do then you have a ticket. That is all I am trying to do—to see that if a motorist stays at a place in a designated street in which he cannot park, or at any place that is clearly marked so that the motorist knows it, he is subject to a ticket. Will the noble Lord define that for me? I want to see it in this Bill.
I might be tempted to accept the noble Lord's offer if I could get two Amendments accepted that I propose to move later on, but I cannot job backwards. I should like to hear other opinions on this point, because this, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said, is the nub of Clause 1, which brings about this innovation of punishment without trial. That is what it is—punishment without trial. Whether or not the man accepts the punishment without trial does not alter the fact that it is punishment without trial, because he can accept the £2 punishment without going to court.
Now I know what the noble Lord is going to say, because he said it further on in his previous speech, and I cannot

985
quite understand it. It is not, as he quite rightly says, an on-the-spot fine, because the motorist has to walk as far as the nearest clerk of the peace to pay it, but that is the only difference. The noble Lord said [col. 409]:
"His right to go to court is not taken away in any shape or form".
I find that rather an ambiguous statement—"His right to go to court". The only time he can exercise a peculiar right to go to court is if he does not pay the line, in which case he gets prosecuted.
LORD CHESHAM: I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him, but we seem to have rather strayed off the substance of this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, we do not. I am trying to define for what offence you are going to give this man this ticket, which he can refuse to pay, can then be prosecuted and have to go to court, or can pay in twenty-one days and then not be prosecuted. This sets out the offence, and it says here:
"… by its obstructing a road, or waiting …"
That covers all the roads and streets of a town where there is no sign. He can get a ticket if he leaves his car in any street in any town. That is what this says—if he loads or unloads anywhere. I want to say, "No, he cannot get a ticket for that; he can get a ticket only if he leaves his vehicle where there is a clear indication that he cannot". Now am being reasonable?
EARL BATHURST: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That, of course, is the Government spokesman's point of view. Perhaps if he were sitting on the Back-Bench, he would not say it. If the noble Lord will tell me that, I shall be grateful. I will ask him another question: why is his noble friend willing by regulation to take obstruction out but is not prepared to do it in the Bill? That seems a peculiar thing to me. I am not moving to take obstruction out of the Bill. The police can always bring a charge for obstruction inside those areas that are designated as "No parking" areas either by traffic signs or by yellow lines. There the warden or the police constable can give a ticket; but in regard to any obstruction outside that clearly-defined area the police should go through the ordi-
986
nary processes of the law and state their case as to why the vehicle was obstructing that road or street.
6.28 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems to me that we are getting into a certain difficulty in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has moved a series of Amendments, or proposes a series of Amendments, to two at least of which he has spoken. They both refer to Clause 1 (1) (b). But Clause 1 (1) (b), deals with two completely separate forms of offence. The first is obstruction, and the other is
"… waiting, or being left or parked, or being loaded or unloaded, in a road …"
That, I understand, is an offence, created by a certain number of Regulations which have been passed and approved by Parliament during the last few years. I quite appreciate that this Bill creates no new offence: it creates only a new way of dealing with an existing offence. But the fact remains that there are two sets of offences mentioned in this paragraph. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke to them together, and, to some extent, I thought, linked them together. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that if he could get his Minister to make a concession with regard to one of these offences, he hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would withdraw the whole series of Amendments which he has put down, some of which deal with completely different offences. I feel the House ought to deal first with this question of obstruction. Let us have that out, and get it clear. Then we can come on to these other offences, about leaving, parking, loading or unloading a car in a road, which is a different matter altogether.
At the moment I should like to say a word about obstruction, which I think is the main subject with which the Committee are concerned. I understand that the proper definition of obstructing is "to obstruct the free passage of a road". Undoubtedly that is a matter of opinion. It is different from these other offences, which are technical offences, like not putting a car in the right bay of the parking place or leaving it there too long, which are not allowed by the regulations under the existing law. But obstruction is a matter of opinion. I would urge the

987
noble Lord, Lord Chesham, not to dismiss this point by saying that he cannot accept these Amendments. No doubt that is the view of the Ministry of Transport, but it is not necessarily the right view.
If the wardens are given these powers, the motorist will find a ticket on his car asking him either to pay up £2 or go to court. Probably he will go to court, but there may be a strong feeling in his mind that it is better to pay £2 and be shot of the whole thing. I think that it would be a very unfortunate thing if the motorist should pay for an offence that he does not think he has committed, to save the bother of going to court. The noble Lord indicated that the Minister did not propose at present to give the wardens these powers of dealing with obstruction; but, if that is the case, why put it in the Bill? Would it not be better to leave obstruction to be dealt with as at present by the police and the courts, which is the normal procedure?
I cannot quite see why this offence, which is not in the same category as the other offences mentioned in paragraph (b) should not be treated entirely differently. I cannot feel that there would be great loss to the public or to the authorities if that were done. It has been the practice for a great many years and seems to have worked perfectly well. I would also say to the noble Lord that it would give great comfort to many of us if the Minister would take this clause back and look at it further before coming to a final decision, and let us hear more about it on the next stage.
LORD CHESHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Salisbury for drawing attention to the fact that more than one class of offence is referred to in this subsection. I thought that I had gone some way to indicate that I was talking about obstruction only and that there were other aspects to which I would have to return later. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, challenges me in ringing terms to define various offences, but I do not think that it is my function to define what is already defined by Statute.
Noble Lords have set the fashion of going back to what they said on Second Reading, and I would remind your Lordships that on Second Reading I said that in the case of minor offences, where there
988
was no doubt of guilt, this system would be used. I went on to say that it was because obstruction was open to fairly wide interpretation and was a matter of opinion, and not a self-evident offence, that it was proposed not to include it in the ticket system in the initial stages. I had thought that it was clear that it would not be included among the offences for which tickets could be given until we had sufficient experience of the ticket system on the other self-evident (if that is the word we are going to use) offences, and until the whole thing was working and had the confidence of the public. That would be the time for it to be extended to cover the offence of obstruction.
LORD DERWENT: I do not quite follow the argument. If under regulations the Minister empowers wardens to give tickets where an offence is self-evident, how can that be any guide to what should happen where an offence is not self-evident? There would be no experience of obstruction. I cannot see how one is any guide to the other, however long the scheme has been in force.
LORD CHESHAM: In the earlier stages the scheme will cover only self-evident offences. Not-very-experienced traffic wardens could not be expected to deal with obstruction. In any case, the existing method by which a policeman brings a prosecution for obstruction will still continue. I should say that, in London at any rate, the experience is that 90 per cent. of those charged with obstruction plead guilty by post. I think it is perfectly right and proper for the Government to ask for this power to be retained in the Bill for the time when the traffic warden system is experienced and proved. I do not think that any Home Secretary is going to include obstruction among the offences to be dealt with by traffic wardens if he does not think it is going to work. I should like to repeat the undertaking I gave, but I think that it is perfectly reasonable that this should remain in the Bill. I do not think that there is any more clarification that I can reasonably be expected to provide.
6.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: The difference between us has been somewhat narrowed but it has not been explained away. Some of us take the view that in no circumstances

989
should traffic wardens be entrusted with powers over matters which are disputable. These are the function of a police constable, and of nobody else; and they should remain so. On the other hand, if the view of the Government is that traffic wardens, when their position, capabilities and value have been established, should be empowered to deal with disputable matters, such as obstruction, then that should be stated in the Bill. As it stands, whatever the noble Lord says, the day after the Bill has been passed it will be open to a Home Secretary to confer on traffic wardens these powers of dealing with obstruction. I should have thought that, on the noble Lord's own view, the right thing would be to take this matter out of the Bill, or at any rate out of this particular clause; and if it should be decided later to entrust these powers to traffic wardens, the Government should do so subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That would be the way that I would respectfully suggest to the Government of carrying out what the noble Lord has told us is their intention.
Here, however, we are asked to give the Government carte blanche to introduce this thing at any time they choose, without the House expressing its views on the matter. As I say, they can think the experiment of introducing traffic wardens justifies its extension to disputable matters but the public may think otherwise. We surely have the right to express a view as to whether these powers should be extended at some future time. Some noble Lords will take the view that in no circumstances should traffic wardens be entrusted with these powers, but I say that, if the Government take a different view, then it should be done in the form of an Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
LORD WALERAN: I should like to associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said. What I think we want to make certain is that traffic wardens, until they have proved their worth, do not become involved in, as the noble Lord said, any debatable point or matter of opinion as to whether or not an offence has been committed. That surely should be clear in the Bill, and should not be left to a vague whim as to when the Minister may suddenly change his mind and perhaps try another experiment. He may
990
say that he would like to experiment with them—and the Minister is very keen on experiments. I think this should be made quite clear, and if it is not made clear and a proper assurance given by the noble Lord, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will press the Amendment to a Division.
LORD HAWKE: I think my noble friend has made a very good offer, but quite clearly there are many who view with disquiet the possible functions of these traffic wardens. Personally, I believe that unless the traffic wardens eventually have full powers this Bill cannot possibly work. Our object, of course, is to clear the roads and free the traffic lanes. But in view of the various fears that have been expressed, I would suggest to my noble friend that it might be a good idea to take the halfway stage suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and that, in the first instance, matters of opinion should not be dealt with by these wardens until Parliament has approved. Personally, however, I cannot see why one should regard with suspicion the acts of a man of mature age, possibly a retired policeman, yet be perfectly prepared to accept the judgment of a young police officer on his first patrol.
LORD SILKIN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? We do not know what kind of persons we are going to get. It is all very well to say "a retired policeman", but most retired policemen are offered very good jobs once they retire, and I doubt very much whether you will get many retired policemen. Whom will you get? Until we know the calibre of these people, surely it is wise not to put into the Bill that they should be given these powers.
LORD HAWKE: I was expressing only a personal view that I was satisfied, and the noble Lord will have noted that I suggested that a solution might be for my noble friend to consider the useful halfway stage mentioned by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should like to ask my noble friend one question for the purpose of clarification, in order that we may evaluate his offer. He did not, as I understand it, give us an assurance that the Home Secretary would not include in the first order he made any power for giving tickets for the offence

991
of obstruction. Could I ask my noble friend if that order would be made under Clause 1 (11)? Because in that case the order would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution by the House—in other words, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. My noble friend Lord Chesham did say on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 224, (No. 91) col. 446]:
"The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was a little critical of my right honourable friend's power to vary the duties of traffic wardens by order, which of course he can do. But the noble Lord must remember that that order has to be laid and is subject to Affirmative Resolution."
The order to which the noble Lord was referring would, I think, be the order under Clause 1 (12) which says:
"An order of the Secretary of State under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Secretary of State."
That subsection does not make it quite clear whether it is subject to Affirmative or Negative Resolution. I wonder if, when he replies, by noble friend could clarify that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Might I suggest this course? One of the difficulties in which the Opposition find themselves—and when I talk about "the Opposition" I am not referring only to this side of the House, but to the opposition on both sides—is that we get so many conflicting statements by the Government spokesmen. I will quote one by the Under-Secretary at the Home Office on the Second Reading debate in another place. He said:
"The limited range of offences in Clause 1 subsection (1) could, I agree, be extended by order, but my right honourable friend has no intention of doing so."
Has he? I do not know. He has all the powers in the Bill to do it. In this Bill the Home Secretary has the power by order to turn a traffic warden into a fully-fledged police constable.
EARL BATHURST: No.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will come to that in another place in this Bill. It is in there. "For 'traffic warden' read 'constable'; for 'constable' read 'traffic warden'". That is what it says. But the noble Earl challenges me.
EARL BATHURST: Perhaps I may say that it comes under another clause, and is not really relevant to this particular Amendment. We shall be discussing that fully.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not talking about whether it is relevant to this Amendment. I said, "in another place in this Bill" and the noble Earl said, "No". It is in the Bill. By order the Home Secretary can give to the traffic wardens all the powers of constables.
EARL BATHURST: By Affirmative Resolution.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not mind by what Resolution. It has got it in the Bill. Do not plead in aid the fact that 90 per cent. of those motorists who are summoned to-day for obstruction write to plead guilty. So would I. So would you. My time is worth more than hanging about a police court. So please do not infer that because 90 per cent. of the motorists summoned under the Road Traffic Act take advantage of the procedure under the Magistrates' Courts Act and say: "I am guilty; tell me what I owe", that they are ipso facto confessing guilt of the offence with which they have been charged. It is a cheap way out.
I will follow the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I do not want to divide the House, but I shall have no compunction whatever in doing so. This is vital in the interests of those potential victims of this new system. I am going to have this, if I possibly can, as clear as crystal in this Bill. I was brought up in this House in a tough school. When I was in the noble Lord's place I had on the Front Opposition Bench not only the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, but the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the late Lord Simon, who were merciless on this one point: "Put it in the Bill. We are not interested in what your opinion is, or what you say the Minister is going to do. We are interested only in what is in the Bill." I have stood on that precept ever since. So if the noble Lord thinks he is having a rough time now, it is nothing to the time that I had when I was in his position.
I am going to suggest to the noble Lord that I should withdraw both these

993
Amendments. The first one, if I may use the vernacular, is just "chicken feed". It is the second one that is important. The first one I put in because that was the ground upon which his right honourable friend the Under-Secretary at the Home Office turned the second one down, not because of the arguments the noble Lord has brought up. So I am willing to withdraw this Amendment. The noble Lord has heard the views of the Committee. I always think it is far better in this House to pay attention to voices first, before going into the Division Lobby. In point of fact, the noble Lord has not had one supporter. I hesitate to say that, but it is the fact. Every speaker has been against him, and they represent the feeling outside this House. If the noble Lord will agree to consider, between now and the next stage of the Bill, all the arguments he has heard and al the suggestions that have been made, and if he likes to consult with me—if it would not be too undignified, of course—shall be willing to withdraw this Amendment, while reserving the right to put it down again at the next stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord will give me that undertaking, I will follow that course.
LORD TEVIOT: I have sat here and listened with great interest to what has been said. There is just one thing that has not been said. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will listen to this, as it is a new idea. You might get a car in one place where it would be obstructing at one time of the day, whereas at another time of the day, or on a different day, it might not be obstructing at all. I should like the noble Lord to consider the possibility that it is not obstructing all the time, and that there might be a moment when you could say there is no obstruction, although there was at another time. You could give the wardens power to determine, under instruction, whether or not a car which is now obstructing is not obstructing at a different time of the day. I should like that matter considered.
LORD CHESHAM: I will say to Lord Lucas of Chilworth that, like obstruction, whether or not one is having a "rough time" is a matter of opinion. Before I come on to the substance of what the noble Lord said, I should like to make this quite clear in simple words. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not intend at the outset to
994
empower wardens to serve tickets for obstruction. I should like to make that perfectly clear. Constables will be able to do so, but even in that case the Commissioner, I understand, does not intend to instruct them to do so in the early stages until we see how the ticket system works. I see the noble Lord does not like that. Surely on these matters of innovation it is sense to make haste a little slowly, and get the thing working better and better. But that will be perhaps for another time.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that my right honourable friend, or anyone else who should succeed him perhaps in due course, has not a carte blanche to do peculiar things with traffic wardens and police constables and so on—but we shall come to that point later. Neither can he make variations in the duties—as we shall find when we come to Clause 2—in the functions of traffic wardens, except by the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Having made that perfectly clear, I think the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, are to be heeded in this matter, and for my part I should like to have the opportunity of meeting the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to look at this matter again before we come to the next stage. In saying that, I am b mind to say that at this moment I do not stand here convinced by any means.
I must also say this. Out of the issue about which we have been talking—that of obstruction—will come an answer of one sort or another. But I feel that in my own interests I should say that if we resolve that one, and if the noble Lord keeps those two Amendments down, there could be other grounds upon which I should have to speak to those Amendments separately. But I think perhaps it would be better to take that at the time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I accept that from the noble Lord. It has been an interesting debate, and I hope it has been instructive to the Government. With your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw Amendments No. 2 and 3.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before your Lordships decide, I should say that Amendment No. 3 deals with a

995
completely different point. That deals with the other section of offences which I mentioned in the few remarks I addressed to your Lordships just now. So far as I can see, it has nothing to do with obstruction. A car owner can commit an offence by leaving or parking his car, or by loading it and unloading it in a road, whether it is obstructing the road or not. There are quite different regulations. I was rather attracted by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that there should not be an offence unless the motorist did it contrary to a parking sign or carriageway markings. That is a completely different point from the one we have been discussing. The noble Lord may wish to withdraw them both. He may be satisfied about the carriageway markings and the traffic signs, but it is a different point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With that I agree. I was rather linking the two together for further consideration. I suggested to the noble Lord that I would withdraw both these Amendments if the principle in both of them was reconsidered. That I think meets the point of the noble Marquess. I have not by any manner of means given up Amendment No. 3.
LORD CHESHAM: That is rather what I understood. I understood that we had reached the stage when the noble Lord was going to withdraw both Amendments, but owing to our procedure he can withdraw them only one at a time.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is acceptable to me, because I am with the noble Marquess. I want to argue the other Amendments, too, but I thought it would be better to get the obstruction one out of the way. I hold myself free to put down Amendment No. 3 again at the Report stage.
LORD SOMERS: In that case, may I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will not move Amendment No. 3 in consequence of the undertaking.
7.0 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), after "offence", where that word occurs a second time, to insert:
"or having the alleged offence reported to the chief officer of police."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very important. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 says:
"Where a constable finds a person on any occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion he is committing or has committed an offence to which this section applies, he may give him the prescribed notice in writing offering the option of payment of a fixed penalty under this section without prosecution for that offence; and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the date on which proceedings are begun."
That subsection could be read to mean that the alleged offender has an option. The Oxford Dictionary definition of an option is that it is freedom of choice. A man can choose, unless the option is taken away—"seven days without the option of a fine". But it is not stated in this subsection what the option is. It goes on rather to imply that the option is either acceptance within 21 days of a ticket fine of £2 or prosecution. If that is the right inference, then prosecution is automatic on not paying the fine within 21 days. That interpretation is strengthened by the words,
"and no person shall then be liable to be convicted of that offence if the fixed penalty is paid in accordance with this section before the date on which proceedings are begun."
It implies that if he does not pay that fine within 21 days the commencement of proceedings are automatic. Is that correct?
Various statements were made in another place by the Minister and the Under-Secretary—I think the noble Lord made a somewhat similiar statement, but I believe his words were slightly more guarded—that if the person does not pay the fine within 21 days the matter will be handed over to the police, because they have to start verifying, if necessary, who the owner of the car is and going through all the normal procedure. But the point I wish to make is that proceedings cannot be automatic unless it is the Government's intention to take away the powers of discretion of the chief officer of police. I do not believe that that is the intention

997
of the Government for one moment. But if laymen, the ordinary motorists, read that subsection it will convey to 99 out of 100 of them that they have the option of going to the clerk and paying the £2, or being prosecuted. As the Bill stands it is automatic, because you have not stated what the option is.
Suppose the chief constable, in spite of the fact that the man has not paid the £2, decides not to prosecute, is there anything in this Bill to say he must? You cannot have it both ways. Either it is automatic and you have taken away the discretion of the chief officer of police to start proceedings, or, if you have not taken away the right of the chief officer of police to institute proceedings or not, the wording of this subsection is faulty, because it does not definitely state what the option is. The option is, as I interpret what the Government really intend, that he can pay that £2 within 21 days or have the matter reported to the chief officer of police. It is the same procedure as when you are stopped by a constable on any other motoring offence—exceeding the limit or doing any of those other silly things you should not do. What does the constable say to you? He says, "Sir, you will be reported". He cannot say that here, because he may not see the man to say it to. The ticket may just be put on the windscreen. Do you not think it is fair, if the second interpretation is the right one—that is, that the penalty is not automatic—that in this clause you should say so? You should say that the option you are offering is the payment within 21 days or having the matter reported to the chief officer of police. That is why I have put down this Amendment, to test out what the Government's intention is; because as it reads today the proceedings of prosecution are automatic unless the fine is paid within 21 days of the date of the notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("offence") insert ("or having the alleged offence reported to the chief officer of police").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
EARL BATHURST: The noble Lord opposite made a great deal in the Second Reading about the "or" part of the option which a policeman was going to offer. I think that if the noble Lord would be agreeable to read a little further clown, in the next subsection, sub-
998
section (3), he will find that the "or" part of the option is made clear, and it is, of course, that the person who has committed the alleged offence will have to make his own option, and that is that either he thinks he is guilty, in which case he pays within 21 days the fixed penalty, the sum. of £2 or one half of the maximum fine, whatever may be the lesser, or if he so wishes he will be prosecuted in exactly the same way as to-day if a policeman prosecutes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl says "if he so wishes". Can he state "I am not going to pay the fine and I do not wish to be prosecuted"? The noble Earl said he will be prosecuted "if he so wishes". Does he mean that he writes to the court and says, "I do not intend to pay this fine and I do not wish to be prosecuted"? What does the noble Earl mean?
EARL BATHURST: If he wishes to pay the fine, or, in other words, admits his guilt, he will not be prosecuted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But if he does not?
EARL BATHURST: If he does not, he may or may not be prosecuted—in exactly the same way as at present. At present the policeman sends in the report of an alleged offence to his chief of police and the chief of police will no doubt look into the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I agree with the noble Earl, but the Bill does not say that. Why not put it into the Bill?
EARL BATHURST: I am assured that the present circumstances are in no way altered by the Bill. I would go so far as to say to the noble Lord that if what I have said proves not to be true, perhaps the noble Lord will refer to it again. But I assure him that it is the intention that the chief of police, if he sees fit, will prosecute. This applies when an alleged offender has decided not to take the offer to pay the fixed penalty.
EARL HOWE: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, whether he has noticed subsection (6)?
EARL BATHURST: I assure the noble Lord that it is not the intention that there shall be any new penalty involved under this particular subsection. At present if

999
the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was dealt with by a police officer for some obstruction or infringement the chances are that he would be prosecuted.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am certain I should be.
EARL BATHURST: It is almost a certainty. On the other hand, if there were some extraordinary circumstances the chief of police might not prosecute. He might send a note to the noble Lord, or drop the case altogether. I want to make it quite clear that in no way is it intended to infringe the discretion of a chief of police to prosecute. Equally, I should not like to say that if an alleged offender decides not to pay the fixed penalty he has a better sporting chance of getting off, of the chief of police deciding not to prosecute. It would be very wrong to give that impression. If the noble Lord should find that what I have said is not true, possibly he would return to the point at a later stage, but to the best of my knowledge what I have said is the position. I am assured that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack would give this most urgent consideration should it be found that my words are not true.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl is once more doing what the noble Lord did on an earlier Amendment; he is telling us what are the intentions of the Government. He is telling us that it is not the intention of the Government that prosecution shall be automatic in the event of a person exercising his option of going to the court. No one reading this clause would gather that, and all my noble friend desires in his Amendment is that the meaning of the clause should be made quite clear. It should be made clear that a prosecution does not automatically follow where a person does not wish to comply with a ticket, and that the matter will be considered before any such prosecution takes place. It may be that the person does not stand one chance in a hundred of getting off, but that is not the point. The point is that his case is considered and prosecution is not automatic. If the noble Earl will ensure that that is made quite clear in the Bill, then we on our side shall be quite satisfied.
EARL BATHURST: I believe the noble Lord would be satisfied with the situation as it is at present and that neither of the noble Lords has any objection to that. As I am advised and assured, this subsection in no way changes the position as it is at present, except that the alleged offender can take the choice of paying this fixed penalty if he so wishes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As I have always thought, there is nothing between us on this point. But I discussed the provision with a number of lawyers, and all have taken the same view as my noble friend took: that prosecution is automatic. It has always been almost a guiding rule of the House to try to make legislation in a form which the ordinary man can understand. This business of tickets is an innovation. Surely nobody will lose face by the sense of what I have said in my Amendment, and the sense of what the noble Lord has said, being put into that clause; but that would save a lot of time. Perhaps it was a little unfortunate that the noble Earl should have spoken about an "option", for with an option there has to be a choice. The Oxford Dictionary definition of "option" is "freedom of choice". But freedom of choice to do what: to accept a ticket and pay £2 or be prosecuted? But the option is not that. It is to stand the risk of being prosecuted, to have the matter referred to the chief of police who can initiate a prosecution—and in this context he is about the only one who can do so.
If the noble Earl will give me an undertaking that if I withdraw this Amendment now he will see that there are put into this clause words to give the sense of what he and I agree it means, I shall be prefectly happy to withdraw the Amendment, and he and I can discuss what that wording should be. Whether it is this wording or his does not matter, so long as it is made clear. As we go through the Bill, clouded as it is, I will point out to your Lordships many things which are about as ambiguous as they could possibly be. Let us see if we cannot clear up those points, so that we can present to the public a Bill which they can have some reasonable chance of understanding. If the noble Lord will give me that undertaking I will withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: May I, in this connection, make a suggestion intended to be helpful to the Government? I have considerable sympathy for the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I believe the matter is purely one of drafting and that this is a frightfully badly drafted Clause. If my noble friend will have a look at it, with his advisers, I feel sure that some far simpler and more accurate words can be obtained. Because in subsection (2) there is really no option at all—in fact, there is no option anywhere in connection with this matter, certainly no option which an alleged offender has the right to exercise. What happens in that the constable serves upon the alleged offender a prescribed notice which calls attention to his right to contribute the £2. But his attention is not called to his rights for any other purpose. All the prescribed notice can do is to confirm what the constable will have told him—that he will be reported for a summons. I believe that the prescribed notice should do that, and that in the subsection which subsequently deals with the prescribed notice that should be provided. But I submit that the word "option" should be deleted all the way through, including in subsection (6), where it appears to be totally irrelevant.
EARL BATHURST: I cannot quite agree with my noble friend Lord Brent-ford that there is no option on the ticket which will be issued to the alleged offender. It will be made quite clear by some means or another that the alleged offender can take no notice of this ticket at all, and in that case the proceedings may, or will (this is where the difference occurs which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is worried about), take place. I have assured the noble Lord that, so far as I understand this Bill, if the alleged offender takes no notice the position is exactly the same as exists to-day.
I am impressed with what the noble Lord opposite has said, and I know that all your Lordships appreciate the great work which the noble Lord has done with regard to traffic and all these complicated regulations. The noble Lord, I know, is out to help and to get the traffic moving. I am quite certain that
1002
all your Lordships will agree there. I have asked my noble and learned friend whether I could rely upon his judgment and advice, should such complicated legal problems and drafting problems come up, as indeed we envisage in the course of this Bill. If the noble Lord, as he has so kindly offered, will withdraw his Amendment, I assure him that everything he has said, and everything that my noble friend Lord Brentford has said, will be before my noble and learned friend. If, in some way, he feels that better drafting, or different drafting, could be used to make the point, which I myself made, quite clear, I am sure that my noble and learned friend will put something forward or will show good reasons why it is impossible to do so. The noble Lord will realise that I can in no way commit my noble and learned friend, but on that understanding I will certainly ask his advice and help at a later stage.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I take him literally when he says that he will consult with his noble and learned friend, because there is no one in whom and in whose judgment this House has more faith and trust than his noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack. But may I put this point to the noble Earl on the matter which the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, raised concerning the rights of the public? Making Bills is not a hobby or a cross-game of draftsmanship with the Parliamentary draftsmen's department and a game for us. A Bill and an Act of Parliament should state what the public's rights are as clearly as they state what their obligations are and what the penalties may be. We fail to recognise that in this subsection. I want the public to know clearly what is the option they must accept, and then they may like to take a sporting chance. Because do not forget there are two chances. First, the chief of police might not prosecute; and, secondly, if there were a prosecution the alleged offender might put up such a "hard luck" story—we know what magistrates are—that he might get off with a fine of less than £2.
EARL BATHURST: I do not want this idea of the noble Lord to be put abroad

1003
—I expect he concocted that suggestion—that this will be any game of chance or of taking a gamble without being prosecuted by the chief of police. I want to make it quite clear that if the alleged offender does not pay the fixed penalty he stands just the same chance—I think that is the wrong word—but his position is in no way different from what it would be to-day if he were run in and reported. It would be most awkward if the noble Lord should let it be thought that it would pay someone not to pay the fixed penalty. I do not think it will.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With that undertaking, may I have your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I think this might be a convenient time to adjourn the discussion on the Committee stage.
House resumed.

  GOVERNMENT ECONOMIES AND ROAD PROGRAMME
  GOVERNMENT ECONOMIES AND ROAD PROGRAMME