Sitting of 28 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
BALA TO TRAWSFYNYDD HIGHWAYS (LIVERPOOL CORPORATION CONTRIBUTION) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL SAINT PETER UPPER THAMES STREET CHURCHYARD BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (FULLBRIDGE. MALDON) BILL [Lords]
To be read a Second time upon Thursday.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    B.B.C. (External Services)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the overall cost of the overseas information services was attributable to the British Broadcasting Corporation's external services in 1957, 1958, and 1959, respectively.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): Figures are available for financial years only. They are: 1957–58, 439 per cent.; 1958–59. 41·9 per cent.; 1959–60, 390 per cent.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Communist countries increased their external broadcasting by 15 per cent. last year, at a time when the B.B.C, owing to rising costs and the right hon. Gentleman's allocation, were compelled to cut theirs? What possible sense
    922
    can there be in this? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the new suggested budget for the B.B.C. is quite inadequate to meet the needs and the opportunities?
    Dr. Hill: In this form it suggests a reduction. In fact, the allocation for the B.B.C. has increased during the three-year period. The fall in percentage is due to the very substantial increase in the provision for the British Council, for the teaching of English, libraries and the like, and the improvement in official information services, particularly in the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why English broadcasts in the European Information Services of the British Broadcasting Corporation are being cut; and what savings will be made as a result.
    Dr. Hill: To switch £2,000 to a more useful purpose.
    Mr. Lipton: Is this not a miserable and foolish economy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that the very useful half-hour programme broadcast at 7 o'clock every morning for English-speaking listeners is being cut in the next week or two? What is the point of cutting a valuable programme like that, which is doing a lot of good, especially in view of the extension of foreign broadcasting by Russia, China and many other countries?
    Dr. Hill: What has been done is to cut the repeat of a programme which is being given an hour earlier, there being given at the time of the repeat another programme in English of a news commentary character, in the General Overseas Service.
    Mr. Mayhew: When Britain can do this overseas broadcasting better than any other country in the world, why do we cut it down in this way instead of expanding it?
    Dr. Hill: If we are to use our resources to the full, we must switch them from time to time. In the case of European broadcasting, six-sevenths of it is in the language of the country of reception. That is not being touched. What is being saved here is a sum of £2,000 on a programme which, in fact, has its counterpart at the same time in another English programme.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Contributions
    Mr. McKayasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what were the total payments made by all the insured contributors to National Insurance, Industrial Injuries Act, and to the National Health Service for the year 1958–59; what was paid by the employers in the private sector and public sector of industry, respectively; what tax relief the employees as a whole received; what tax relief was received by the employers in the private sector, and the public sector, respectively; and what percentage of the contributions was recovered as tax relief in each case.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The answer to the first part of the Question is approximately £460 million. Contributions paid by employers in the public and private sectors of industry during 1958–59 are estimated as £120 million and £281 million, respectively, sums which I understand would have yielded tax of under £500,000 in the first case, and £143 million in the second, representing less than ½ per cent. and 51 per cent. of the contributions paid. The total tax relief for employed contributors was approximately £40 million, representing about 1.0 per cent. of contributions paid by them.
    Mr. McKay: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information.

    Widow's Pension (Personal Case)
    Sir R. Nugentasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state a case for consideration by the High Court as to whether the contributions under the Contributory Pensions Acts paid in respect of the late Mr. William Comins, from 1942 to 1946, do not entitle his widow to a widow's pension.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The contributions referred to were payments made by Mr. Comins' employer on the basis that Mr. Comins was not an insured person. Mrs. Comins was disallowed widow's benefit following a decision that in these circumstances the contribution conditions for such benefit were not
    924
    satisfied in her case. As my hon. Friend is aware, the reasons for the decision have been fully explained to her on several occasions, but I am arranging for a formal statement of the grounds of the decision to be sent to her, on the basis of which she can, within 21 days of its receipt, if she is advised that a point of law arises, ask for the issue to be determined by the High Court.
    Sir R. Nugent: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision, which in this case is a generous one, will be received with gratitude both by my constituent and by myself?
    Mr. Collick: Can the Minister tell us why it has taken so long to reach the decision which he has now announced?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The decision was reached a good many years ago. The new point in the matter is the request made by my hon. Friend, on behalf of his constituent, that it should be in a form which would render it possible to appeal to the High Court.

    X-ray Examinations
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is satisfied with the number of recurrent annual X-rays carried out on pensioners and others for purposes of reassessment of award.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. I would add that my Department's practice in respect of X-ray examinations is in full accord with the recommendations of the Medical Research Council on radiation hazards.
    Dr. Mabon: Will the Minister reconsider this point, especially in view of the recent regulations issued by the Ministry of Labour under the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, dealing with ionising radiation? Is he aware that these regulations, admirable as they may be, make inconsistent the present-day practice in his own Ministry? Will he consider the matter again and ensure that the maximum dosage recommended in the various categories is made safe, in view of the danger that might arise from the over-use of these X-rays?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know the hon. Member is well informed on these matters. I will gladly look into any point he raises.

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will give the amount paid in pension to single and married persons in 1945, together with the dates and amount of each subsequent increase.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Answer consists; of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    RATES OF RETIREMENT PENSION

    Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936

    Date

    Single Rate

    Increase

    Married Rate

    Increase

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1945*

    10

    0

    —

    20

    0

    —

    National Insurance Act, 1946

    30th September,1946

    26

    0

    16

    0

    42

    0

    22

    0

    3rd September, 1951

    †

    30

    0

    4

    0

    50

    0

    8

    0

    1st October, 1951

    29th September, 1952

    32

    6

    2

    6

    54

    0

    4

    0

    25th April, 1955

    40

    0

    7

    6

    65

    0

    11

    0

    27th January, 1958

    50

    0

    10

    0

    80

    0

    15

    0

    Notes

    ✶ The rates shown for 1945 relate to the contributory old age pensions then in payment under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, and were restricted to the classes of people eligible under that Act.

    † The increase in 1951 was effective from 3rd September for existing pensioners over age 70 (men) or 65 (women) and from 1st October for others then of pension age. Subsequent awards to pensioners who had not reached pension age by 1st October, 1951, were at the old rate of 26s. (42s. married) to be increased to 30s. (50s. married) from the pensioner's 70th birthday (65th birthday for women).

    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by how much the present single retirement pension of 50s. would require to be increased or decreased to give it the same increase in purchasing power over the 1946 pension of 26s. as there has been in the purchasing power of the average wage in 1946 over the average wage in 1960.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For men an increase of 8s. 4d. would be needed, and for women 5s. 11d.
    Mr. Reynolds: Does not the Minister agree that in equity and in order to allow those people who are living on pensions and other forms of National Insurance benefits the same increase in their standard of living as employed people have had—when we could all say that we have never had it so good—the Government should increase their expenditure in this direction? Is the Minister further aware
    Mr. Awbery: Can the Minister tell us whether the first increase in pensions given in 1945 or 1946 increased the pension for the single man from 10s. to 26s. and for the married couple from 20s. to 42s.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Members studies the table he will find happy corroboration of his figures.
    Following is the information:
    that hon. Members on this side of the House, and probably the majority of hon. Members opposite, will be prepared to support him in such public expenditure against any attacks he might receive from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and his friends?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will be aware that the figures given in reply to the Question as he framed it refer only to relativities in regard to a certain category of earnings and that in real and absolute terms there has been an appreciable improvement.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not implicit in this Question that the hon. Member suggests that the retirement pension should be linked to wages, in some way or other?
    An Hon. Member: Like votes to speeches. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: This is such fun, but so delaying.
    Mr. Nabarro: May I continue, Mr. Speaker? Would not my right hon. Friend concede at once that such a proposition is wholly untenable and was strenuously resisted by the party opposite when it was in power between 1945 and 1951?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whatever may be implicit in the hon. Member's Question, I thought my duty was to answer that part which was explicit, and that I endeavoured to do.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether the difference of 6s. 2d. in the value of the 50s. retirement pension over that of the 26s. pension in 1946 is expressed in terms of 1960 prices or of 1946 prices.
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by how much the single retirement pension of 50s. would require to be increased to give it a real value of 6s. 2d., in terms of 1946 prices, over the value of the 26s. pension in 1946.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the cost of raising the single basic pension from its present 50s. to a level where it would have a current purchasing power equal, in terms of 1946 prices, to 6s. 2d. above the 26s. pension in 1946.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the single retirement pension in 1960 represents a purchasing power at 1946 prices of only 3s. 8d. more than the purchasing power of the 26s. pension in 1946; and if, in view of this, he will take steps to raise the existing retirement pension so as to enable present pensioners to enjoy a rise in their living standards comparable with the rise in living standards enjoyed by other sections of the British people.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will raise the 50s. single retirement pension so as to give it a real value, in terms of 1946 prices, of 6s. 2d. more than the value of the 26s. pension in 1946.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Using the retail prices index and the former cost of living index, the value of the present 50s. pension exceeds that of the 26s. pension in
    928
    1946 by 6s. 2d. in terms of 1960 prices and 3s. 8d. at 1946 values.
    An increase of 4s. 3d. would be needed to brings the 50s. pension to the value of 32s. 2d. in 1946. This would cost about £80 million a year immediately, assuming a corresponding increase in other benefits.
    On the general question of the level of National Insurance benefits, I would refer the hon. Members to what I said during the debate on 16th March, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that it is what he said during the debate which has provoked these Questions, and that it now emerges—differently from what he and his hon. Friends said —that in 1946 terms the pension is now worth only 3s. 8d. more? Is he satisfied that after fifteen years this is the best the nation can afford for the old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is nothing inconsistent between what was said from this side of the House in the debate and the figures I have given. The figures that have generally been used in our previous controversies—as no one knows better than the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson)—are the figures at current prices, which are the prices at which the retirement pensioner has to buy what he needs.
    Mr. Lawson: When the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary talk about the real value of the pension as compared with 1946, are they talking about current prices?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly. We are speaking in terms of what the pension will buy, which, though it may not interest the hon. Member, interests the pensioner.
    Dr. Mabon: In view of the Minister's speech, surely he will either raise the pension by 2s. 6d. to justify his own argument in the debate some time ago, or write to the Conservative Central Office telling it to end propaganda which makes claims like this.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I doubt whether my argument, or the Central Office propaganda, requires reinforcement.
    Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that these very small amounts are really a positive disgrace in view of the tremendous increase in productivity since 1946, and does he not really consider that he ought to do more for the old-age pensioners than give them an extra packet of cigarettes a week?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Government have nothing to fear from hon. Gentlemen opposite on any account of what has been done for the pensioners.
    Mr. Mendelson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, on the basis of the assessment which he has given today of how much it costs, he at any rate is responsible for his Department and for the well-being of the pensioners and that he ought to be pressing his colleagues now to increase the pension, particularly at this time of the year when these things are decided?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I dealt with this matter at considerable length as recently as 16th March. Surely hon. Gentlemen will not expect me to add to that at this date.
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state, in 1946 prices, the value of the single retirement pension in October, 1952, 1955, and 1959.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: 23s. 7d., 26s. 5d. and 29s. 10d., respectively.
    Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this rather timely point and urge on him that whatever he has got to spare ought to go to the old-age pensioners rather than to anybody else at this time of the year?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will calculate the improvement in real purchasing power of the single retirement pension in 1960 over that of October, 1946, in terms of a prices index specially calculated to take account of the pattern of retirement pensioners' expenditure.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. No basis exists for making such a calculation in respect of retirement pensioners generally.
    Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old-age pensioners have no confidence at all in the Government's Cost of Living Index? Is he also aware that they very much resent all the arguments which are produced by the Government with reference to that index, and that what they really want is an immediate increase in the pension?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member's Question, of course, relates to the index and not to the pension. On the first part of his supplementary question, I am bound to say that I and, I think, the majority of our fellow countrymen think otherwise.
    Mr. Houghion: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the retirement pensioners do not understand these figures? They do not believe them? All they know is they have not enough to live on. What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he is right, on that hypothesis his hon. Friend's Question asking for more of these figures would not exactly help.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, following experience of the working of Section 4 of the National Insurance Act, 1957, he will introduce amending legislation to enable five-day week workers to qualify for unemployment benefit when working only four days a week.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is obviously an unfair discrimination against those working in the furniture and textile trades and many other trades in that when they are working short-time they find themselves debarred from receiving unemployment benefit, whereas other workers, possibly in the same firm, are able to receive benefit because they have worked more than 25 Saturdays in the preceding year? Will he consider the matter again, in consultation with the unions?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The principle, as the House may remember discussing when the 1957 Measure was going through the House, is that one should not be entitled to claim unemployment benefit in respect of a day when, in the ordinary course, one would not be working, even if work were available. The House accepted that principle at the time.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause great disappointment among many trade unions, which are finding this problem of increasing difficulty? Is he aware that the National Insurance Act was based on conditions of a six-day week, which has now been replaced so widely by a five-day week, and that the conditions for unemployment insurance should be adapted to changing working conditions?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It was precisely to make the necessary adaptation to the changing conditions that Section 4 of the 1957 Act was passed.
    Mr. Whitlock: Will the Minister consider the objections of the T.U.C. which were made at the time when the Clause was first introduced, in order that the anomalies and injustices of the Clause may be further examined in the light of those objections?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All the representations made at the time of the passage of the Bill through the House were carefully examined. Nothing which has happened since justifies me in modifying the views then formed.

  COAL

    Distribution
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Minister of Power whether it is now the Government's intention to implement the proposals of the Robson Committee for improving efficiency in coal distribution.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The Committee's only recommendation in this regard related to the establishment of large, fully mechanised coal depots. On this, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 23rd November, 1959, to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch).
    Mr. Whitlock: But will the right hon. Gentleman agree that between the pithead and the fireplace there is a multiplicity of factors, agents, middlemen and retailers—
    Mr. Nabarro: And the co-ops.
    Mr. Whitlock: —and has he considered the suggestion of the Robson Committee of an investigation into the possibilities of rationalising this trade?
    Mr. Wood: I answered the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend earlier to say that my predecessor recognised that he was obliged to hold consultations about this matter; but there are a number of difficulties, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in face of the setting up of these mechanised coal depots. I am perfectly willing to help in those discussions if those discussions reach a point at which I usefully could help.

    Prices
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Minister of Power whether he has given consideration to the proposals of the Robson Committee that the Government should keep closely in touch with the movements of retail coal prices and the reasons for them; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Wood: I have kept myself generally informed, but I think these prices are best left to be settled by competition between traders and between different fuels. The National Coal Board has kept its basic wholesale prices for house-coal unchanged for nearly three years and it is important to the future of the retail coal trade that the prices charged to the final consumer should also be kept down.
    Mr. Whitlock: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, though merchants receive coal in seven quality grades agreed by the trade, they are not compelled to retail at the appropriate prices agreed and some are advertising low grade coal with distinctive trade names and selling it at high grade prices? Does he not agree that this is entirely unsatisfactory and is as bad as selling short-weight deliveries? Will he protect the consumers in some way?
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of detailed questions which I should be only too willing to

    933
    discuss with him, if he would like to discuss them. On the general question, there has been some small increase in retail prices in the last two years, but I think the retailers are perfectly well aware of the very great damage which would be done to the retail coal trade if their prices rose a great deal further.

    Small Mines
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Power what representations have been made to him by, or on behalf of, the small mine owners; whether he is aware that conditions are about to be imposed on them which are likely to result in the closing down of many small mines and rendering thousands of miners unemployed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from operators of small mines concerning threatened closures and cuts in production; what action he has taken; and if he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to suspend any decisions about the future of licences, pending the calling of a national conference under his chairmanship to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Wood: On 23rd February I met a deputation from the Federation of Small Mines, who expressed concern about the effect of the National Coal Board's proposals for reducing the output of the licensed mines. I have discussed this with the Board, which is responsible for determining the conditions of license of these mines. The Board assures me that it is willing to resume negotiations as soon as it is approached by the Federation.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that the attitude of the National Coal Board has been infinitely more heroic at the expense of these very small mines as compared with its attitude to the vast opencast schemes which have put thousands of miners into the ranks of the unemployed?
    Mr. Wood: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I and the whole House are most anxious that these discussions which are going to take place between the Board and the Federation should be successful. Therefore, I do not want to add at the moment to what I have said.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the right hon. Gentleman say on what terms it is proposed that the negotiations should be resumed? Is he aware, for example, that the proposal, made at any rate in north Staffordshire, was to impose a very much heavier cut in the production of small mines than of the coal industry generally? This would have the effect of putting out of work many of the older, partially disabled mine workers who would find it very difficult to get other jobs. Is he saying that it is proposed to reopen the negotiations without any specific conditions?
    Mr. Wood: These negotiations, as I say, will take place between the Board on the one hand and the Federation on the other. Therefore, the terms on which they are negotiated are a matter for those two bodies which will be negotiating. They are not a matter for me.
    Mr. Blyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we recognise that the small mine owners have to suffer from the changing pattern of consumption in the coal industry in the same way as we have in the National Coal Board? As we have to face 242 closures, if private mine owners do not take their share of this burden it will mean further closures in the big collieries and mines.
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman's remarks will certainly be noted.
    Mr. Lee: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it may not even be a question of small mines closing? Is it not a fact that the Board has had a huge job to do of stocking coal and it might be suggested that the small owners should do a share of the stocking as well? If there is any question of unemployment among people working in the small mines, certainly in many instances the Board would be prepared to employ them.
    Mr. Wood: I think the House will agree that these negotiations are more likely to be successful if I do not comment further at the present time.

    Smokeless Fuels (Supplies)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minis-tea- of Power whether adequate supplies of smokeless fuel now exist to enable the provisions of the Clean Air Act to be complied with.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) on 23rd March.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: We are constantly receiving replies of that character. While I am not doubting the validity of the Answer just given, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that in the localities there are not adequate supplies? Is it not a fact that the National Coal Board has now been carrying out research and development on this for ten years? If so, has not the time arrived when there should be large-scale distribution?
    Mr. George: I have no doubt that from time to time during the winter local shortages have taken place, but over the country as a whole supplies have been adequate over the past winter. With regard to the Board's experiments on smokeless fuels, they have reached a stage now When two pilot stations are being built, and the evidence is that in future they will make a large contribution towards the supply of smokeless fuels.
    Mrs. Slater: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the setting up of these pilot plants is rather late in the day and should have taken place long ago? Is he aware that local authorities are constantly being pressed to schedule more clean air areas and they are handicapped every time by the fact that smokeless fuel just is not available?
    Mr. George: Research can be a very laborious job and may extend over a long period. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Coal Board has pressed ahead as far as it can with research leading to the erection of new pilot plants. As for the latter part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, no local authority has had an application for the establishment of a smokeless area turned down because of a shortage of smokeless fuel.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Power Stations (Coal-Firing)
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Power if a decision has yet been reached as to whether Littlebrook B and Bruns-
    936
    wick Wharf Power stations are to remain coal-fired.
    Mr. Wood: Discussions are still going on.
    Mr. Fitch: Is the Minister aware that any decision to change to oil-firing would cause the greatest dismay in the coal mining industry? In view of the amount of coal stocked, will he see that this does not happen?
    Mr. Wood: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not think it would be right to comment in detail about the matter at present.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the Minister agree that in discussion in the House he has intimated that the Electricity Authority wishes to get back to coal-firing in many of the stations which have been on oil? Here we have two stations which have never been off coal, as I understand it; certainly they are on coal now. Would it not be a most retrograde step if at this stage they went on to oil-firing?
    Mr. Wood: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not think he would expect me to comment at this moment.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Air Traffic Control, Prestwick Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will inquire into the Air Traffic Control System at Prestwick Airport with regard to the hours worked by officers, in order to satisfy himself that the hours of watch are in keeping with conditions that will ensure maximum safety for aircraft using the airport.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is already satisfied that the hours worked by the officers in question are appropriate.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in any three-day duty period these officers work sixteen hours out of the last twenty-four? In view of the fact that this work is done mostly at night, because of the movements at Prestwick,

    937
    does the hon. Gentleman consider that system consistent with air safety regulations as they ought to be worked?
    Mr. Rippon: The average hours per week are 44 and the watch arrangements are those most acceptable not merely to the department but to the officers themselves.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the Question which I put is framed on the objections which are felt and have been made by a very large section of the officers who are engaged in this work?
    Mr. Rippon: There have been no representations against the present system. Some changes have been made after discussions with the officers concerned. Polls are fairly regularly taken and I really think that the hon. Member's allegations are not justified by the facts.

    London Airport
    Mr. Leatherasked the Minister of Aviation what percentage of landings and take-offs at London Airport deposited and picked up passengers direct from passenger exits, and therefore did not require omnibus transport to and from aeroplanes, for any recent period for which figures are available.
    Mr. Rippon: In the first two weeks of August, 1959, which was a typically busy period, the percentage was 49·8 of all arriving passenger flights and 34·5 of all departing passenger flights. In the first two weeks of February, 1960, which was a typically quiet period, the percentages were 51·7 and 34·1, respectively. These figures relate only to the central terminal.
    Mr. Leather: I thank my hon. Friend for these figures, but would he not agree that it is a needless irritant to passengers to be trundled on and off buses, particularly at the end of long journeys? As it appears to any fairly regular user of the airport, and as my hon. Friend's figures show, it happens far more often than not. Would my hon. Friend instruct the traffic control officers to consider the convenience of passengers in this respect?
    Mr. Rippon: I assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made to utilise the inside stands. However, only nine of the 50 stands are within easy reach on foot and, as my hon. Friend probably knows,
    938
    it is internationally accepted that passengers are not expected to walk more than 1,000 feet.
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Aviation what steps he proposes to take to relieve the congestion at times of high traffic density in the north and central terminals of London Airport.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Congestion at the air station on the north side will be slightly relieved by the end of this month, when the customs hall is enlarged. There will be considerably more relief next year when the first part of the new air station in the centre is opened.
    Plans are also being made to increase the number of passengers that can be handled by the existing central air station. It is hoped to complete this in time for the summer traffic next year.
    Mr. Strauss: Shall we see soon the plans for the north terminal building, which will be of great importance and great interest to everyone concerned? They have not yet been published. As for the central premises, is the Minister aware that as about 50 per cent. of passengers now arrive in their own vehicles the congestion is getting very grave indeed at the offices where tickets are presented and examined and, even worse, that the size of the departure and arrival lounges is wholly inadequate when traffic density is very high? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a major reconstruction of the air terminal is really essential if great frustration and delay are to be avoided?
    Mr. Sandys: The building at the north terminal will not be rebuilt. There will be a new building at the centre to handle the traffic now being handled at the north terminal. I shall publish the plans and I shall give the Press access to a model very soon indeed. Very extensive additional car parking facilities will be provided in connection with the new building. I have already referred in my Answer to improvements in passenger-handling capacity at the existing central air station.
    Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be some improvement but what will the rearrangements be? Will there be an enlargement of the existing lounges, which are

    939
    so small, where people have to wait when they want to board a plane or when they arrive? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to do away with the huge area which is now not used for health inspection and also a great deal of the Customs offices which are not fully used?
    Mr. Sandys: At the north terminal, which is the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, there is really nothing much that can be done. It is a temporary building and the best thing is to press ahead with the new permanent building in the right place and not spend a lot of money in tinkering with the old temporary structure.
    Mr. Strauss: But can we have some indication of what is to be done at the central terminal, which I specially mentioned?
    Mr. Sandys: I said that there are plans to rearrange the internal layout as far as we can within the existing structure, and I hope that this will be completed in time to deal with peak traffic next year.

    Prestwick Airport (Starter Equipment)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation if he will speed up the acquisition of starter equipment for Prestwick Airport to ensure that it will be available for the large jet aircraft when they begin using the airport in June of this year.
    Mr. Rippon: As my right hon. Friend told the House on 9th March, the ordering of this equipment was put in hand as soon as it was established that the operators wished it to be provided. I hope that it will be available by June, but we have arranged to hire an existing starter if it is not.
    Mr. Rankin: I hope Chat that is welcome news, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the operators have been rather alarmed at what would appear to be the slowness of the Ministry in dealing with this matter? In view of that, the operators tried to get starter gear themselves but found Chat they could not get it for eight months. Will the Minister be able to get it before that time?
    Mr. Rippon: The only reason for the delay is that the airlines concerned failed to agree on terms for the provision of the starting service until late last month.

    Aircraft Industry
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation what orders for military and civil aircraft he has placed with the two main groups of aircraft manufacturers; and what conditions have been made in respect of any development contracts made.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a further statement on the obligations which Her Majesty's Government are accepting or proposing to accept in regard to the merger of aircraft construction firms, and the amount of public money involved.
    Mr. Sandys: I have had several meetings with these groups. I have told them what projects or types of project would, in my opinion, justify Government support and the terms on which I would be prepared to make it available. The firms concerned are now studying the matter and I hope to receive their proposals shortly. I will make a further statement in due course.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Has the Minister given further consideration to issuing a White Paper setting out these proposals and the terms on which the Government will accept them? Can he say when this large carrot of Government aid, which has been dangling before the industry for so long, will become a reality?
    Mr. Sandys: Well, the industry is sniffing the carrot at the moment and I am waiting to get its reactions. As for a White Paper, perhaps the hon. Member will await a further statement which I shall make and then see whether he thinks that there is sufficient additional information to justify a White Paper. I rather doubt whether there will be.
    Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will consider issuing a White Paper, but is he aware that the Leader of the House has promised in the case of the steel industry that before final agreements are reached on any question of further aid

    941
    an opportunity will be allowed to the House to discuss them? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Leader of the House on whether similar arrangements could be made in connection with the aircraft industry?
    Mr. Sandys: I am always in close touch with my right hon. Friend.

    I.A.T.A. Conference, Paris
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the recent International Air Transport Association Conference in Paris.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. I expect to be ready to make a statement next week.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the statement include the international fares as well as the cabotage route fares?
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

    Night Flights, London (Jet Aircraft)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Aviation when he expects to reach a decision on the application from British European Airways Corporation for permission to operate services at night with Comet 4B aircraft from London Airport.
    Mr. Sandys: I have authorised British European Airways to operate a small number of night services with Comet 4B aircraft at London Airport, subject to the condition that the noise level shall not exceed that of piston-engined aircraft which are already permitted to fly at night without restriction. The noise tests which have been carried out in the last few weeks show that this is technically practicable.
    Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the precautions he has taken, his statement will be received with concern by many people living under the glide path to London Airport? If those precautions are not successful in reducing the noise of jet aircraft to the level of that of piston-engined aircraft, would my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision, and is he considering extending this permission to other airlines?
    Mr. Sandys: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall keep a close check on these flights to assure myself that the
    942
    conditions are being observed. So far I have not received any applications from other airlines.
    Mr. Hunter: Can the Minister please inform me of the dates when the noise tests were held, where, and also the details of the test readings?
    Mr. Sandys: Without notice, I could not do so.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to send that information to me?
    Mr. Sandys: I will send the hon. Gentleman the information.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only noise test in which I am interested is whether or not these Comets flying at night will wake me up? May I ask him to believe that if they do wake me up at night he will hear more about it?
    Mr. Sandys: It depends on how soundly the hon. Gentleman sleeps.
    Mr. R. Harris: Can the Minister say which runway will be used, as this will decide which inhabitants in Middlesex will be affected?
    Mr. Sandys: Not without notice.
    Mr. Rankin: If one B.E.A. Comet is causing all this trouble by taking off at London Airport, why is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to increase the number of independent operators and thereby, perhaps, increase the number of Comets?
    Mr. Sandys: In order to develop the strength and prosperity of British aviation.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Railway Compartments (Heating)
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Minister of Health if he will consult the British Transport Commission regarding the harmful effect of overheated compartments in diesel trains on the health of passengers with chest complaints.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that the heating of railway compartments is a matter of day-to-day

    943
    administration which falls entirely within the responsibility of the British Transport Commission, but I am sure that the Commission will take due note of what the hon. Member has said.
    Dr. Thompson: In view of the large incidence of bronchitis and chest complaints in this country, will the Minister, perhaps in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, bear in mind the fact that the contrast in temperature when stepping from cold platforms into extremely overheated trains can cause severe distress to this kind of patient, and that although the distress may not be permanent, and may not have permanent effects, it can in the short term be very distressing?
    If the Minister is in doubt, may I suggest that he accompanies me one day on the 1.5 diesel train from Waverley Station to my constituency? I assure him that by the time we have got over the Forth Bridge the desperate overheating in the diesel compartment will have reduced him to the state of a limp rag.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I think I must resist the temptation, attractive as it is, to make the journey in company with the hon. Gentleman and must seek his company on some other and more convenient occasion. I am sure, however, that the Commission will have all these points in mind.

    Dental Staff, Dagenham
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the shortage of dental staff in Dagenham; and whether he will take steps to improve the position.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I am aware of the shortage of dental staff in Dagenham, which is part of a general problem affecting the country as a whole. Measures have been taken to implement all the main recommendations of the McNair Committee on Recruitment to the Dental Profession. My right hon. and learned Friend gave details of the Government's plans to expand training facilities in reply to a Question on 16th November last. Arrangements are also in hand for the training of dental ancillaries who will undertake some of the simpler dental operations, thus relieving the burden on dentists, especially in the local authority service.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say how far short the training facilities are of the McNair recommendations?
    Miss Pitt: I cannot say how far short they are, but my right hon. and learned Friend has explained to the House on previous occasions the developments which are taking place and the extra training places which are being provided. I think he also told the House that there is no shortage of recruits and that all existing places are filled.

    World Health Organisation (Malaria Eradication)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health what reply was given by Her Majesty's Government to the request of the World Health Organisation for a contribution to its Special Malaria Eradication Fund.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Her Majesty's Government regretted that they did not feel able to make any further contribution to malaria eradication work additional to that which they already make by way of their contributions to the regular budgets of the World Health Organisation and to the United Nations Children's Fund and the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance, as well as by way of the anti-malaria work undertaken in Her Majesty's territories overseas.
    Mr. Pavitt: Whilst appreciating the Minister's regret, in view of the fact that there are some 250 million potential victims of malaria, will he think further on the question of responding to this special appeal?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: We do not think that voluntary special ad hoc funds are a sound way of financing continuing programmes of international organisations which have a regular budget. We feel that such actvities should be part of a co-ordinated programme within a regular budget drawn up with predetermined priorities.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will propose at the next meeting of the World Health Organisation that all member States be asked to increase their contributions to the organisation in order to enable it to meet the cost of a special campaign to eradicate malaria.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be appropriate to put forward such a proposal.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister bear in mind that America is already contributing very well to the fund, and that if he cannot see his way clear to supporting the ad hoc fund, it would at least do something towards solving this terrific problem if Her Majesty's Government would consider raising an amount in the same proportion as that paid by America?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: We have substantially increased our contribution to the World Health Organisation annual budget over the years. In fact, we are the third largest contributor to it. That budget has itself doubled over the last six years, and there is a further increase in the budget for 1961 of nearly 10 per cent.
    Dr. Summerskill: How can the Minister justify not giving one penny to the Malaria Eradication Fund, in view of the fact that many of the countries for which we are responsible have a very high mortality and morbidity rate for malaria?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I answered the first part of the right hon. Lady's supplementary question when I told the House what was the view of Her Majesty's Government on the way in which this kind of work should be financed within the context of the responsibility of the World Health Organisation. As regards overseas territories, we contribute substantial sums towards anti-malarial work by way of grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts.

    Public Service Vehicles (Smoking)
    Dr. A. Thompsonasked the Minister of Health if he will consult the Minister of Transport with a view to securing nation-wide acceptance of the principle that access to the lower decks of public service vehicles shall be restricted to non-smokers in order to protect passengers, particularly older ones, suffering from chest complaints from the distress that may be caused by excessively smoky atmospheres.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand that the principle to which the hon. Member refers is widely applied in practice. Bus operators naturally wish to satisfy their passengers, and my right hon. Friend
    946
    and I think it best to leave it to them and to the Traffic Commissioners to decide according to local circumstances.
    Dr. Thompson: While admitting the undoubted talent of the Minister of Transport, may I ask the Minister what special medical knowledge he has applied to the case wherein he more or less stated that the inhabitants of Durham who suffer from chest complaints are peculiarly immune to the effects of polluted atmosphere? Will he bear in mind the fact that what is required, and what has been asked for by the County Councils Association in a memorandum to the two Ministers concerned, is the introduction throughout the country of the prohibition of smoking on the lower decks of double-deck vehicles, thereby dispensing with the necessity to prove the need for such a requirement on the occasion of every application for a licence?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I understand that my right hon. Friend allowed an appeal in the Durham case solely in view of the individual circumstances of that particular case. He accepted that, in principle, a ban on smoking could, quite probably, be made a condition of the granting of a road service licence by the Traffic Commissioners. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am aware of the county councils' recommendation to my right hon. Friend, and I will certainly give it due consideration.
    Mr. Marquand: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and myself have made representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about this matter and have requested an interview? Will he in the meantime consult his right hon. Friend and explain to him the importance of preventing women, children and other people being subjected to smoking on the lower decks of buses?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is generally aware of all the broad considerations which arise in this matter.

    Spectacles
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Health what action he will take to ensure that all opticians provide

    947
    proper and detailed receipts, on the official Forms O.S.C.15 and H.E.S.2., for all payments received from patients under the National Health Service, and that National Health Service forms are not used for private transactions in frames or lenses, and so mislead patients that these are National Health Service payments, when they are not.
    Miss Pitt: Opticians providing supplementary ophthalmic services were reminded by a circular in November last that Form O.S.C. 15 should be issued in receipt for payments made under the Service but should not be used for private transactions. My right hon. and learned Friend will take a convenient opportunity of bringing the same point to their notice in respect of Form H.E.S.2.
    Commander Pursey: Is the Minister aware that a large number of opticians do not give any receipts for National Health Service payments at all, and that others give receipts for professional services only, with no details? Is he aware that, as a result of this, prescriptions for lenses and other claims for payment from the National Health Service cannot be compared with receipts, and that there is no check on the work actually done by the opticians?
    Miss Pitt: It is part of the opticians' terms of service under the supplementary ophthalmic service that they should supply a receipt for payments under the regulations for the supply of glasses. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind where this has not been done, I would refer him to the advice given in an earlier debate to put them up to the executive council.
    Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Lady say whether there is any system of checking similar to that used in regard to the supervision of prescribing by chemists?
    Miss Pitt: All prescriptions are sent to the executive council, and have to be authorised by it before, in fact, the spectacles can be supplied.
    Commander Purseyasked the Minister of Health if he will state the usual life of National Health Service spectacle lenses and frames, respectively; and whether there is a defined period after which spectacles can be replaced for the standard price of £1 10s. 3d.
    Miss Pitt: Lenses should normally last until there is a change of prescription. Frames should with reasonable care last longer. Further glasses at the standard National Health Service charge may be obtained at any time, if there is a change of prescription following a sight test.
    Commander Pursey: Is the position that, if there is a change in the prescription after two years, new spectacles can be obtained for £1 10s. 3d., but if an old-age pensioner's eyes have not changed after five years but his lenses are chipped and his frames damaged by ordinary usage, he has to pay for replacements and repairs or the full price for a new pair of spectacles? What is the period after which a new pair of spectacles will be provided as the result of fair wear and tear?
    Miss Pitt: The period varies with the individual. For example, some patients need changes of lenses more frequently, and children outgrow their frames. On the average, I am advised, there is a change of prescription after about four years under the supplementary ophthalmic service, and patients may apply at any time for a further sight test.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my hon. Friend aware I got a new pair of spectacles last week after less than two years?

  MEDICAL RESEARCH

    Radioactivity
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, in view of the fact that radioactivity in the air in Belgium was twenty-five times the normal on 29th February, 16 days after the Sahara test atomic explosion, and that rainfall on that day was 600 times more radioactive than normal, what comparable increase has been recorded in Great Britain since that date.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Fission-products believed to be due to the French atomic explosion were detected in air in the United Kingdom in the period 27th February to 1st March and in rain on 29th February. The total radioactivity from fission-products during this period of four days reached about twice that still being recorded from earlier nuclear explosions but was less than one per

    949
    cent. of the normal amount of naturally-occurring radioactivity in air. The total radioactivity from fission-products in rain on 29th February was about twice that from fission-products present on the average from earlier nuclear tests, but less than a tenth of the total a year ago.
    Mr. Allaun: Whilst thanking the Minister for that answer, which explains why on 29th February he told me that there had been no increase in fall-out, and in view of this reply, would he consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and discuss with him the possibility of urging France not to proceed with her second and larger test which is now due?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Of course, the hon. Gentleman and the House will have in mind that the small increase in radioactivity over the short period to which I have referred—arising after my last answer to the House, as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say—was due mostly to short-lived radioactivity, and only very small amounts of the long. lived isotopes, such as strontium 90 and cæsium 137, were present.

    Strontium 90
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, if he will make a statement on the latest Harwell report showing the approximate doubling, within six months, of the strontium 90 found in British children's bones.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, what consideration he has given to the official report of Harwell scientists showing an increase of strontium units, per gram of calcium, in the bones of children under five years of age from 1·5 in the latter part of 1958 to 2·8 in the first half of 1959; and whether he will make a statement.
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, whether he is aware that the average proportion of radioactive strontium 90 in the bones of stillborn babies and young children in Great Britain in the period January to June, 1959. compared with March to
    950
    December, 1958, has increased by about 60 per cent.; what consideration he has given to the consequences of this increase; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Masonasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Minister for Science, whether his attention has been drawn to the recent report made public by the Atomic Energy Authority which shows a marked increase in strontium 90 found in young children's bones; and whether he will now request the Medical Research Council to undertake an immediate review of the effects of this increased rate of deposition of fall-out.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: My noble Friend and I have seen the report. The increases to which the hon. Members refer reflect the increased rate of fall-out deposition in the six months following heavy nuclear weapon testing in northern latitudes in 1958. There have been no test explosions other than the recent French test since November, 1958, and levels of fall-out in this country have fallen substantially since June, 1959. As I informed the House on the 18th February, the Medical Research Council has kept the matter under constant review and is preparing a further Report on the Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations which will provide a comprehensive assessment of the significance of all the available evidence.
    Mr. Allaun: Is not the increase likely to continue, particularly in children born after June, 1959? Secondly, is it possible that some scientists may be mistaken about the safe level or the danger level, just as they were about X-rays?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, provided that no further quantities are injected into the stratosphere, it is unlikely that the level of strontium 90 in children's bones will rise much above its present level, and subsequently it will probably fall. In that context, the hon. Gentleman will have in mind the answer which I gave to the House in reply to a question by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) on 22nd March.
    The reply to the second part of the supplementary question is "No"—no mistake. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a field in which

    951
    knowledge is fast developing, and, therefore, we look forward to a new assessment by the Medical Research Council, to which I have already referred, to bring the assessment up-to-date.
    Mrs. Butler: While recognising the Minister's limited responsibility in this sphere, may I ask him, as the Minister responsible for the health of the nation, to consider sending a cable today to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Camp David reminding him of these figures and of the fact that failure to reach agreement between America, this country and Russia on nuclear tests will be at the expense of these babies and very tiny children?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a very close knowledge of this subject and keeps it under constant review. I am sure that he has all the relevant considerations very closely in mind.
    Lord Balniel: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this very steep increase will cause a fair amount of public concern? Will he urge on the Medical Research Council the importance of this subject and the urgency of completing its inquiry and making it publicly available?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I said on 18th February that the Medical Research Council is engaged in its revised assessment and that it will be published as a White Paper.
    Mr. Mason: Is the Minister not aware that the estimates of fall-out and its effects have been wrong on four occasions? First, it was found that some countries were being affected more than others. Secondly, we thought that there was a stratospheric reservoir of strontium 90 seeping slowly to earth but it was then found from the Prime Minister's statement that it was coming down in the rainfall far more quickly than we expected. Two weeks ago in Nature a statement was made that it is coming down far faster than even the Prime Minister revealed.
    Now we have the latest and very disturbing report that the strontium 90 uptake in children's bones is far greater than we expected. This is a matter of
    952
    urgency, and the Medical Research Council ought now to be considering a fresh threshold level. Is it not the case that all strontium 90 is dangerous, particularly for young children?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The levels will be reviewed by the Medical Research Council in the context of its assessment of all the evidence available since 1956, which it is taking into consideration in the compilation of the White Paper to which I have referred. The Council will, of course, complete the White Paper as quickly as is possible, compatible with making a thorough, detailed and satisfactory assessment of a very difficult and technical subject.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Minister seeks to reassure the House, but has he forgotten that the Scientific Committee of the United Nations stated that there was no threshold dose in genetic effects?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I have all these considerations in mind, but for the up-to-date scientific assessment as we see it in this country we must await the report of the Medical Research Council. It would be wrong of me to anticipate by piecemeal observations what will be included in a general and authoritative survey by the Council.

  HOSPITALS

    Juvenile Courts, Sheffield
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the breach of the long-established precedent that parents should be responsible for their children in all decisions concerning medical treatment which is involved in the action of the Sheffield Regional Board in establishing special juvenile courts in hospitals with powers to transfer responsibility to local authorities if parents refuse permission for an operation on a child, he will request the Board to postpone invitations to magistrates to set up such courts until the matter has been discussed on a national basis; and whether he will issue a White Paper with a view to promoting such discussion.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Whether the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, would apply to a case of this

    953
    kind, and what would be the effect of any order made under them, are questions of law on which it would not be appropriate for me to express any opinion. Accordingly, I would not feel justified in intervening, and see no reason to issue a White Paper on the subject.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, however, what advice he has given to this regional hospital board in regard to Section 102 (1) of this Act, whereby parents are allowed. an appeal to quarter sessions in a case such as this, and whether or not, in his opinion, that does not completely invalidate the procedure the board project in these circumstances, and, accordingly, indicate that fresh amending legislation, or legislation, is necessary for anything of this nature?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I am sure that the: regional hospital board is aware of the provisions of Section 102 in regard to appeals. The regional hospital Board is not seeking the use of any new powers in this context but merely trying to ensure that where the existing procedure is applicable it should operate speedily.

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA(SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING)
Mr. Callaghan Mr. Callaghan (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the United Kingdom delegate on the Security Council, for the debate which is to take place on Wednesday, 30th March, to support proposals for bringing the South African situation within its jurisdiction?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Instructions to the United Kingdom delegation are under consideration. It is not yet known what form the discussion will take or what resolution or resolutions, if any, will be put before the Council. As the House is now aware, the Security Council meeting has been postponed from Tuesday until Wednesday. The matter which will arise at the first meeting will be the adoption of an item for the agenda. It is not yet certain how the item will be defined. If, however, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will put down a Question to me with regard to that point for
954
Wednesday, I will try to give him an answer.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that on the last occasion on which this matter was considered we found ourselves in the company of only two other States, against 66 members of the United Nations, supporting South Africa on this issue? Is he aware that we are anxious, for our country's reputation, that we shall not be placed in this position again?
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not possible for him to give us an answer tomorrow to a simple question? Under Article 34 a situation which may give rise to international friction can be inscribed on the agenda with seven affirmative votes. Is it not possible for him at least to tell us tomorrow that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to vote against inscribing it on the agenda when a request has already been made for that by a number of independent African States?
Mr. Lloyd: I am fully aware of the deep feelings of the House on this matter. The Opposition are not alone in deeply regretting the loss of life in this tragic incident. The hon. Member asked me several questions. This matter has not been considered before by the Security Council. We must have some knowledge of how the item is to be framed and, later, what the resolution is likely to be, before we pronounce upon what our attitude will be, either to the item or to the resolution. I assure the hon. Member, and right hon. Members and hon. Members on both sides of the House, that we have very much in mind the feeling on these matters.
Mr. Callaghan: While we are glad to hear that advance made by the Foreign Secretary, may I put this question to him: is it not clear that the situation in South Africa has now reached a stage at which it will be in the interests of all, both the Europeans and the Africans living there, that the United Nations should take cognisance of it? While we do not ask him to bind himself in advance to accept anything which might appear on the agenda, because none of us knows what that might be, can he not tell us now that a simple discussion

955
of this matter, which can arise under Article 34 of the Charter, would not be opposed by the British Government?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not want any inference to be drawn from my answer to this, but we must know with some particularity the nature of the item and the nature of the discussion. The hon. Member asked whether we will
"support proposals for bringing the South African situation within its jurisdiction."
We cannot alter the Charter of the United Nations. There it is. Its rules have to be applied. All I can tell the hon. Member, with complete sincerity, is that we will bear in mind the very deep feelings on this matter.
Mr. Grimond: Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that, whatever the form of this proposal, the substance of it will be taken as a proposal that the expression of world opinion on events in South Africa is overdue? Will he also bear in mind that it is very desirable, for the South Africans themselves, that this country should maintain its clear attitude that what has been done in South Africa is abhorrent to all parties in this country? Any repudiation of this, or what might seem to be repudiation, will be quite inconsistent with the Prime Minister's speech in South Africa.
Mr. Lloyd: However that may be, I do not think it reasonable to expect us to define beforehand our attitude to a hypothetical item and a hypothetical discussion. If I may, I will repeat what I said last September in the general debate at the United Nations on these matters. It is still the Government's position. I said:
"In those territories where different races or tribes live side by side, the task is to ensure that all the people may enjoy security and freedom and the chance to contribute as individuals to the progress and well-being of these countries. We reject the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. Our policy, therefore, is non-racial; it offers a future in which Africans, Europeans, Asians, the peoples of the Pacific and others with whom we are concerned, will all play their full part as citizens in the countries where they live, and in which feelings of race will be submerged in loyalty to new nations."
That is the position which I set out last September and that is our approach to these matters.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that this country will not countenance any disorderly debate in the United Nations? Will he remember that this institution was established to uphold the rule of law and that it is indeed sad that it should set such a bad example by ignoring its own constitution? Will he further say that whether the matter falls within the domestic jurisdiction of a member State cannot and must not depend on how strongly some people outside happen to feel about it?
Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree that we must have some regard to the rules of procedure and the terms of the Charter in discussing these matters. But I think that we are all conscious of the deep feelings which are held on all sides about this matter, and in that spirit we will approach this debate.
Mr. Foot: Have the Government considered the terms of the resolution passed last week by the Afro-Asian group of nations stating that immediate consideration by the United Nations of the situation in the Union of South Africa is imperative if the Continent of Africa and, indeed, the whole world is to be saved from a conflagration which might seriously threaten the peace of the world? Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the Government are generally in sympathy with that resolution?
Mr. Lloyd: That is one of the difficulties. That resolution is quite different from the terms of the letter which has been addressed to the Security Council asking for this debate.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether it might perhaps be likely to lead to a happier result for all the people concerned if questions of this kind were discussed at a Commonwealth conference rather than at the United Nations?
Mr. Lloyd: That certainly is a consideration.
Mr. Swingler: Why cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Government recognise that the tragic events in South Africa have an international significance and international repercussions, and that, therefore, without prejudice to his views about any

957
resolution put forward, the Government would actually welcome a discussion of the events and the policies which have provoked them in order to make clear what is world opinion on the matter?
Mr. Lloyd: I have had very considerable experience both at the Security Council and at the United Nations. These matters really have to be dealt with in accordance with the procedures there, just as we have to work here according to our procedures. We have to see the nature of the item before we can decide beforehand what our reactions are to be.
Mrs. Castle: If the Foreign Secretary is uneasy about the form which the other countries' proposals might take, why do not the Government themselves take the initiative in tabling this as an item on the agenda in the form which they believe to be appropriate?
Mr. Lloyd: I can assure the hon. Lady that I am not uneasy, but in this case the request for a discussion has been received from the Afro-Asian Group, and we had much better deal with it on that basis.
Mr. Gaitskell: Since the Foreign Secretary is unable to give us a definite answer today, but has said that he might do so on Wednesday, will he undertake to make a statement on Wednesday in case Foreign Office Questions are not reached?
Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly give an undertaking that I will answer a Question with regard to how we are dealing with the item on the agenda on Wednesday.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  IRON AND STEEL (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Committee stage some of us raised several points which received widespread support. We were rightly—[Interruption.]—
  Mr. Speaker: I would be obliged if hon. Members would recede a little more quietly. I have difficulty in hearing what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is saying.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: During the Committee stage of the Bill, some of us raised several issues which, on reflection, the various occupants of the Chair advised us were a matter not for the Committee, but for you, Mr. Speaker. It was that fact, my study of procedure this weekend, my knowledge of Parliamentary practice, and my opportunity of seeing a letter prepared by you, Mr. Speaker, which reinforced my claim on this point of order.
  In my view, this Bill is not in harmony with established Parliamentary practice. It is not consistent with precedents in Erskine May on the Consolidated Fund or the Appropriation Acts. As I said, several times we tried to raise this during the Committee stage. We were stopped—and I am not complaining about that—by the Chair because it was a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. We accepted that Ruling and now I am raising it with you.
  It was traditionally established, at great cost to those whom we represent, that before we vote Supply the people's grievances shall be remedied, or at least ventilated, in this House. In my view, that is at stake in the Bill now before us and I will produce, in as few words as possible—
  Mr. Speaker: If I understand the hon. Member aright—and I hope that he will tell me if I do not, but I am hoping to save time—I would have thought that he could ventilate on the Question shortly to be before the House—namely, the Third Reading of this Bill—precisely

  959
  all that he wants to say. if I understand it correctly, what the Government are saying about the Bill in that it is in order that these particular loans should be registered, as it were, below the line, instead of above the line, with the result that the House will not have an annual occasion of looking at these proposed expenditures. That is what I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power to say about it.
  On the points which otherwise arise— really rather irrelevant now—that is, whether it would have been possible to discuss these loans on the Consolidated Fund Bill, it is because we have a Bill of this kind, which makes specific authority for this kind of loan, that that matter may have been left out of the issues authorised by the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is for that reason, the Consolidated Fund Bill being a different matter, that my deputy was compelled to rule that the financing of particular nationalised industries could not be discussed on that Bill. I take it that the essential issue which the hon. Member wishes to raise can be discussed during the course of the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Speaker, but I have made a careful study of the whole of the OFFICIAL REPORT about this. I have in mind an undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, for whom I have very much personal respect. I remember that he said it was the practice to "let things go," with an undertaking to see how they went.
  There is too much at stake in this. This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. It is not a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the Speaker of the House. Therefore, while I acknowledge the advice that you have given me, I wish to draw upon my Parliamentary rights to raise the point of order.
  I can understand the Civil List and the requirements of the Royal Family, the judges and others, and Mr. Speaker's salary, being dealt with in this way, because they are above the political battle. However, this matter is not. This is an acute political question and there is very much at stake. Because of the importance of the matter, we have to ask for Mr. Speaker's support.
  960
  In my view, it should be in order, on Consolidated Fund Bill, to raise issues arising out of loans made from the Consolidated Fund, because drafts made upon the Consolidated Fund are a permanent charge. I should make it clear that I would have consulted you, Mr. Speaker, about this matter earlier if I had had the opportunity to do so, because I believe that it is only playing the game to warn people of one's intentions. But, first, my train was late and, secondly, I knew that you would be well-informed about what had happened, as was evidenced by the letter which you sent to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
  However, with the greatest respect, Sir, I have to tell you that I do not accept the validity of some of the points which you made in that letter and which I will mention later.
  Mr. Speaker: I very much enjoy listening to the hon. Member at all times, but he will be the first to understand that I must try to protect the interests of other hon. Members as well. Can he put in precise form what exactly is suggested to be his point of order, when I will do my best to rule upon it? I am afraid that I must restrict him a little.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I have two final points to make, Sir. You will appreciate that my vocabulary has been developed differently from yours and it may be that the charge of not being precise may sometimes be laid at my door.
  My first point concerns the rights of hon. Members to raise questions on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: My difficulty, as I am sure the hon. Member will see, is that any questions which arise on the Third Reading of this Bill can properly be raised, but not questions relating to the Consolidated Fund Bill as though that were a general discussion on the Consolidated Fund, which it is not. That is not the problem before the House. If there is a point of order which arises on the Question now before the House, I should be glad to hear it, but I want to know what it is.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The difficulty is that we want to know where we are before we agree to the Third Reading of this Bill. If we agree to it, it may mean

  961
  that the whole House will have accepted a position which will be prejudicial to our interests, whereas if the matter is raised now and we get an explanation from you and an undertaking from you, when we discuss the Third Reading, we will be able to frame our opposition differently. In your letter you said:
  "… the authority by which the Treasury issue out of the Consolidated Fund sums for the nationalised industries is the relevant provision in the Finance Act, 1956 …"
  I readily accept that, but my difference with you is that one of these loans is to go to an industry which is not nationalised but which is private and which may well be making private profit out of public money.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Thus, while what you said in your letter may be applicable to nationalised industries, it is not applicable in this case when a loan is being made to a private firm.
  Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Member. That was not the issue which arose. I do not want to discus:; what was really a Ruling given publicly by my deputy during the course of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The only reason why this matter comes near me is that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) desired to know whether I confirmed my deputy's Ruling and I said that I did. Indiscreetly, I went on to give some explanation of the principles which showed why that Ruling was right and it is to those that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is now referring.
  I was discussing what could and could not be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill. What can be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill depends upon the issues which the Consolidated Fund Bill authorises. The point I was making in that context—whether the target be a nationalised industry or a non-nationalised industry has no bearing on the matter—was that where the issues in question were issues not authorised by the Consolidated Fund Bill, then matters relevant to those issues could not be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I am sure that the hon.
  962
  Member will be in firm agreement with that.
  Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. This is an entirely different point of order, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South had not finished.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you, Sir. I was not trying to misinterpret your letter and I have not quoted more of it than I considered relevant. I thank you for allowing me to raise this matter, especially as I did not give you notice of it. I should be very glad to have your advice.
  Mr. Speaker: If I rightly understood what the hon. Member has been putting to me, in accordance with the principles of my predecessors I decline to give a hypothetical ruling on a hypothetical situation which might arise on some other question which might arise in the future on some other proceedings. I must firmly decline to do that, since the House would otherwise get no guidance. However, on the Third Reading of this Bill the hon. Member is entitled to make every protest he likes about what the Bill does, which is the matter about which he desires to protest.
  Mr. Nabarro: I apologise for delaying proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but what I have to say is in pursuit of your guidance on a very important matter which I believe to be of general interest to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
  The Iron and Steel (Financial Provisions) Bill deals with moneys which are to be below-the-line accounting and are to be derived from the Consolidated Fund. Do I understand your Ruling, in the terms you used to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), to be indicative of the fact that once these loans are enacted it will not be in order for them to be discussed on any future Consolidated Fund Bill? Is that the point which you have made? If so, that must colour our judgment of the Bill, for, if I have interpreted your Ruling correctly, it means that the whole of the amount provided by the Bill below the line will be an irrevocable act and that Parliament—only the House of Commons and not another place, in fact

  963
  —will have no jurisdiction whatever over the issue of these loans in forthcoming years and that we are dealing this afternoon with something which passes absolutely outside our control once this Third Reading is passed?
  Is it your Ruling, Sir, that on future Consolidated Fund Bills it will be out of order to discuss these loans, notwithstanding the fact that the money for them comes from the Consolidated Fund?
  Mr. Speaker: I have said that I decline to rule on a hypothetical future situation. What will be in order on a future Consolidated Fund Bill will be matters relating to the issues authorised by that Bill and if these loans are now coming into a below-the-line form as charges on the Consolidated Fund, they would not, of course, be authorised by any future Consolidated Fund Bill. That is the position.
  Mr. Nabarro: May I press that matter with you, Mr. Speaker? Your Ruling, then, is quite explicit: once this Bill is through its Third Reading it is irrevocable and the House of Commons has no jurisdiction whatever—unless the Bill is repealed—in respect of these loans on any future Consolidated Fund Bill. That is contrary to the general understanding of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, who have always taken the view that on the annual Consolidated Fund Bill it was perfectly in order to discuss any matter arising from sums derived directly or indirectly from the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. Speaker: That was the effect of the Ruling in relation to the Consolidated Fund Bill given publicly by my deputy. That is the only Ruling in this context. I think that if the hon. Member cares to look he will find that it has, on precedent, been ruled that charges on the Consolidated Fund cannot be discussed on the Consolidated Fund Bill. But I do not want to get into a hypothetical world. I have ruled on the position on this Bill, and the hon. Member has made his point clear.
  Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply grateful to you for this Ruling, which is illuminating to many of my hon. Friends and myself. I now beg to give notice
  964
  that at the outset of the proceedings on the Gas Bill, in Committee, and on Third Reading, I shall test precisely the same point, as the sums involved there within borrowing powers are again derived from the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. Speaker: We do not need notice from the hon. Member about what he will do on some other occasion. I hope that the House can now get on with this Bill if that matter is sufficiently concluded.
  4.1 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The purpose of the Bill is a narrow one, though it has given rise to fairly extensive debate. Its purpose is solely to provide that the payments necessary to meet the contracts with Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the Colvilles should be provided below the line; in other words, that they should be charges on the Government for which it is proper to borrow.
  I think that there has been some confusion about the purpose of the Bill. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said that this legislation was legislation confirming the agreements. It is nothing of the sort, because no such legislation was needed. The agreements were made by my right hon. Friend, or by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, under statutory powers already given by the House, and the details of the agreements were announced by myself and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, in full at the time.
  At that time, apart from some questions from the right hon. Gentleman and one or two other hon. Members opposite there was no opposition to the making of these agreements. It was generally recognised that the agreements were sensible. No one claimed then that the projects themselves, the expansion of strip capacity, were wrong. I do not think that anyone could seriously have argued at the time that it would have been possible to finance expansion of this calibre from the private resources of the market.
  That being so, it was clear that when these arrangements were made with

  965
  Richard Thomas and Baldwins and Colvilles the general expansion of strip capacity that is now taking place would not have gone ahead, and, in particular, the benefit to Scotland which we can foresee from the Colvilles expansion would not have taken place.
  Mr. John Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend feel that Colvilles would not have undertaken this expansion and this enormous addition of strip capacity unless the agreement was made.?
  Mr. Maudling: That is not the point. The point is what would have happened at the time the agreements were made.
  I want to refer to the circumstances at the time, because there was then, as the House will recall, considerable discussion about the need for a fourth strip mill. There was no doubt about the need for one, but the argument was on the timing and the location. It was felt by the Iron and Steel Board that the need for a fourth strip mill was urgent and the Government supported that point of view.
  We accepted the point of view that it was very urgent to get ahead with the provision of this new capacity, and everything that has happened since, and the rapidly rising demand for strip and sheet steel, has vindicated our judgment in the matter. It was clear at Chat time that this project should go ahead. It was equally clear at that time—and this was at the end of 1958, a year before the election—that sums of this magnitude could not have been found from the money market.
  Anyone who studies the terms, the dates, and the amounts left with the underwriters of the last steel issues before that date will see that what I have said is uncontroverted. Our argument is that had the Government not agreed to provide this money these projects would have been seriously delayed, and that would have been a very bad thing for the industries of this country using sheet and strip mill products.
  The second question was the location of this new output. All the technical considerations tended to point towards siting the whole project at Newport, but there were social considerations of another character, of the type we discussed
  966
  during the Local Employment Bill, now an Act, which pointed the other way, and particularly the needs of Scotland, which weighed very heavily with the Government at that time.
  Clearly, there is a considerable need for new metal using industries in Scotland. The traditional heavy industries, shipbuilding and heavy engineering, are suffering great difficulties, and it is an urgent matter, if we can, to get more industries into Scotland to provide employment in metal using trades for the excellent labour force which at present is unemployed. It was felt at that time that there was a danger of a vicious circle, that industry would be attracted to Scotland by the provision of sheet steel manufactured in Scotland, but that until industry came, and until the demand was built up on the spot, no one would go ahead with the setting-up of a strip mill. Without a mill there would be no sheet metal industry, and without a sheet metal industry one would not get the mill.
  The Government, therefore, thought it right to break the vicious circle by Government initiative leading to the establishment of substantial sheet capacity in Scotland. This was not a case of private enterprise coming to the Government and asking for help. In fact, the Government sought and received the cooperation of private enterprise on social grounds. The result has been a development in the steel industry which is of the greatest possible significance to the Scottish economy. It is most important that that should be emphasised.
  The basis of it, financially, is precisely the same as the basis of our general distribution of industry policy, namely, the provision of Government assistance on terms very similar to those to enable private enterprise to undertake operations which are in the interests of the areas of the country where there is a very grave unemployment problem.
  The results of these agreements, particularly the result of the Colvilles agreement, underlines all the work that we are trying to do to attract more employment into Scotland. If the Government had not entered into these agreements at that time, the effect on industry generally throughout the country, and in Scotland in particular, would have been very serious indeed.

  967
  That was the justification and, I suggest, the overwhelming justification, for the action taken at the time by the Government in making these two agreements with Richard Thomas and Baldwins and Colvilles.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Has the first tranche been paid yet?
  Mr. Maudling: No, not yet. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, who will answer the debate, will be in a position to answer these particular points. I have been trying to stress the general principles and motives of the Government in undertaking the agreements.
  These agreements having been made, only two questions arise. First, should the agreements be amended? Secondly, what is the position about Parliamentary control of issues from the Exchequer? On the first point, these agreements were made by the Government in exercise of powers given to us by Parliament, and they were made by the two companies concerned in good faith. There can, therefore, be no question of a unilateral abrogation of the solemn agreements.
  Mr. Nabarro: Nobody has ever suggested that.
  Mr. Maudling: I am not saying that they have. I am trying to make the position clear, with my hon. Friend's permission.
  In the case of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, there is little controversy, because, as has been made clear, the actual terms of the agreement are open to revision when the time comes for de-vesting the company. In the case of Colvilles, the company has said, and I think that the House is aware of it, that it will draw on the facilities given by the loan agreement as little as possible, but, clearly, the Government could not possibly deny the company the right to draw on those facilities to the extent of the agreement into which it had entered in good faith, and on the strength of which it has undertaken this very large project, which, I think everyone will agree, is in the interests of the nation generally and Scotland in particular.
  On the question of Parliamentary control, I do not think that there is much disagreement with the proposition that
  968
  this sort of expenditure is more appropriate to below the line than above the line classification. Below the line items are generally those which are revenue-producing and which are repaid and, therefore, it is appropriate to borrow to finance them This applies to these loans. Of course, whether the payments appear above or below the line, the money will be paid over, as I must repeat, in pursuance of contracts made by the Government on the basis of powers granted to them by Parliament. That is a fact which Parliament would have to face in considering this expenditure in whatever place it appears in our national accounts.
  It is appropriate that with a single undertaking of contract of this kind, Parliament should give approval of the money that is to be issued as a whole, in one operation, because it is one contract with Colvilles and one contract with Richard Thomas and Baldwins. That is precisely what the Bill does. It asks for the authority of the House for the provision of these moneys from the below the line expenditure.
  The Bill puts a limit on the amount that can be issued. I am advised that it does not give any power to issue again money that may have been repaid. In any case, my right hon. Friend has assured the House that the money will be used only for these two contracts. As the House is aware, provision has been made for possible variations in the future as a result of any review of the position. Such a variation cannot involve increased public liability. My right hon. Friend has given clear undertakings to report to the House any variation and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has undertaken that any such report can be discussed, as can any of the annual reports that my right hon. Friend will be making.
  To sum up, my case for the Bill is—
  Mr. John Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the annual reports which his right hon. Friend will be making can be discussed. Will he say on what occasions and explain how they will come up for discussion?
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot say on what occasions, but I repeat the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Leader

  969
  of the House that he will make provision for such reports to be discussed if the House so desires. That is an undertaking which should be entirely satisfactory to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have been intimately concerned with the question raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). Does my right hon. Friend not recall that we have now had the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency with us for seven, possibly eight, completed financial years and that on no occasion has the House of Commons debated its report or been given any opportunity to question it other than by Parliamentary Question, nothwithstanding the fact there is now about £150 million involved in I.S.H.R.A. loans? Is it not likely that the loans under the Bill will suffer the same fate as I.S.H.R.A. concerning Parliamentary debate?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not see any relevance in that interjection, unless it is to cast doubt upon the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in giving his undertaking, which I now quote, that
  "if such a report is made in the first place by my right hon. Friend, or if such a report is made under Clause 1 (6) of the Bill, there shall be an opportunity given by the Government for discussion by the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 427.]
  I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in a matter of that kind.
  Mr. George Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there will be opportunity to discuss such reports if the House wishes. Does this mean that the matter might come before the House if hon. Members request it? What will happen if other hon. Members oppose such a request and the matter is put to the vote? On that basis, an opportunity might not be given. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving an undertaking that if two or three hon. Members ask for a debate an opportunity will be given?
  Mr. Maudling: I think that if there is a desire in the House for it to be discussed, it will certainly be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I do not see how any greater undertaking on this subject could possibly be given.
  970
  To sum up what I have been putting to the House as the arguments for the Bill, the first point is that these transactions were and are, without doubt, in the national interest. If the Government had not made these agreements at the time—I have not heard this point challenged—the provision of sheet steel for our sheet-using industries would have been badly delayed and, in particular, a development of great importance to Scotland would not have taken place. Therefore, these agreements at the time were wholly justified.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I remember distinctly, in the earlier discussion on the Bill, saying that the terms of the agreements might well have been varied. When the right hon. Gentleman says, "if these agreements had not been made", I cannot agree with him that there has been no protest. Had he said, "if some such agreements had not been made", that is another matter.
  Mr. Maudling: On the detailed terms of the agreements, some questions were asked at the time, although if hon. Members opposite felt so strongly about them they should surely have put down a Motion disapproving of what we did. If these agreements, or some such agreements to provide this money from public funds had not been made, we should not have had these developments. That would have been contrary to the national interest.
  Secondly, these agreements were entered into by the Government in the exercise of powers given to them by Parliament in the 1953 Act. Thirdly, in the arrangements that we are making in the Bill, there is full protection for the public purse and for the rights of Parliament.
  Mr. Diamond: Oh.
  Mr. Maudling: If the party opposite thinks that these agreements were so prejudicial to Parliament and to the public purse, why did it not put down a Motion at the time and say so? Why did not hon. Members opposite come along then, when the Government were committed? Now, all that we are doing is providing for the money in pursuance of solemn obligations made by the Government on Parliamentary authority, providing for where that money is coming

  971
  from. This is a late stage to raise these points.
  Mr. Diamond: If the right hon. Gentleman considers it late, why did not he, on behalf of the Government, give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter then? Why did he not take the initiative and bring the matter to the House? Why does he think that £120 million should go "on the nod" without the House knowing anything about it for eighteen months?
  Mr. Maudling: I gave full details of the agreements to the House at the time. Had Hon. Members opposite wished to challenge them, they had their normal constitutional means of doing so.
  My case for the Bill is that the agreements were in the national interest. They were made in pursuance of powers given to the Government by this House, and the Bill and the method of providing the money are appropriate to this type of issue from the Exchequer and fully safeguard both the interest of the public purse and of the House. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I asked the President of the Board of Trade a question just now about the payment of the moneys that we are discussing. He was good enough to inform the House that, as yet, no payment has been made. During the Committee stage of the Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) argued with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about the present financial position. My hon. and learned Friend asked:
  "Then what is this Bill for?"
  The Economic Secretary told us in his reply that
  "Under Section 5 of the 1953 Act, the moneys to be provided for the purpose of this agreement can be provided only from above the line out of voted moneys."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 380.]
  I have been looking at the agreement, which is now enshrined in the Bill. Under the second head of agreement we read:
  "The loan may be drawn in eight tranches over the four years from 1st October, 1959, provided that only one tranche may be drawn
  972
  in any one of eight consecutive periods of six months each, the first beginning on 1st October, 1959."
  We now know that a tranche has not yet been paid. If it is to be paid, as I read the agreement it must be paid before next Friday. In other words, the first six months of the currency of the agreement, beginning on 1st October, 1959, will expire on 1st April, 1960, which is next Friday. The Bill will not have become an Act of Parliament by then. How are they to pay the first tranche?
  The Bill is designed to enable the loan to be made below the line; to be made not by moneys voted for the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but voted in the way described in the Bill.
  If I am right, the Government have until Friday next to pay the first tranche, and if they are to pay it according to the Bill, they must get the Bill on the Statute Book first. Am I right or wrong about this?
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is wrong.
  Mr. Lee: Then let us have a proper answer. During the passage of the Bill the Economic Secretary told us that it was no good our arguing Amendments because the agreement was already valid and had been passed. In other words, there was no point in our disputing the basis upon which the Government decided to make the agreement. As far as we were concerned, it was a fait accompli.
  The right hon. Gentleman has just reminded us that it is eighteen months since we were first told that this was going on. Why have the Government not pursued the matter and paid the first tranche? The right hon. Gentleman has just told us again that this is a valid agreement, which came into operation eighteen months ago. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that the Scottish people should be bowing on their knees in gratitude to the Government. But we now know that not a halfpenny has been paid out since then, and that unless the Bill becomes law by Friday next they cannot pay within the terms of the Bill.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The hon. Member is quite right. If the Bill is not passed the Government

  973
  cannot pay more than the sum of £1 million which appeared in my Vote, against the first needs of the company. The reason why a tranche has not been drawn is that it has not yet been required. The money will be available later, when the Bill is on the Statute Book and it will then be possible for tranches to be drawn by the company as they are required.
  Mr. Lee: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he was saying that the first tranche is out already.
  Mr. Wood: No.
  Mr. Lee: Let me quote again from the agreement:
  "The loan may be drawn in eight tranches over the four years from 1st October, 1959, provided that only one tranche may be drawn in any one of eight consecutive periods of six months each, the first beginning on 1st October, 1959."
  How can the right hon. Gentleman pay the first tranche under the provisions of the Bill when the final date by which the first tranche must be drawn will have expired—before the Bill becomes an Act?
  Mr. Wood: tranches are not necessarily equal instalments. There need be no money drawn by 1st April of this year, or 1st July, or 1st September, but after that tranches can be drawn every so often, up to a maximum of £50 million.
  Mr. Lee: This gets curiouser and curiouser We all agree that within a four-year period there are eight periods of six months each. The first six-monthly period finishes this Friday. I am not arguing whether or not the tranches are equal, but I am saying that the currency on the first tranche will expire this Friday. We are now told that the tranches will not be in equal amounts. In that case, why have eight tranches? Why not give them the lot in the first tranche? Is there anything to prevent that happening?
  Why have we had these rather peevish suggestions, especially from the Economic Secretary, that the House should not expect to have a detailed discussion of the matter, and that we should not expect to be able to amend something because it was signed and sealed long ago? Those arguments have been revealed as a rather
  974
  petulent way of trying to rob the House of its rights and duties in regard to an examination of the agreement. That being so, I would still like a more detailed explanation by the right hon. Gentleman as to the suggestion I have made that the first tranche will never be drawn.
  Mr. Harold Lever: It can be made up later.
  Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman told us that the loan to Colvilles was not a case of private enterprise coming to the Government for assistance. I shall try to develop that point as I go along. It is not clear who approached whom in these matters. In any event, when we study the Bill, and consider the discussions that we have had upon it, it becomes obvious that the Government have one claim to a place in our history books; they have managed to produce a Bill for which apparently nobody in the House can find a good word, but which, nevertheless, will reach the Statute Book. Perhaps the epithet or epitaph which best describes hon. Members' reactions to the Bill was given by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who referred to it as shattering and dastardly.
  Despite its welcome from Government supporters, the Bill remains in the same state—a state in which no safeguards are provided with regard to the use of public money; where there are no assessors, no provision for an equitable distribution of profits, no representation by Government-appointed directors, and no provision to enable the House to insist upon the Government asking it for sanction in regard to any point that may arise. It remains so because our efforts to amend it were victoriously opposed by a combination of the Tories and the Liberals.
  Mr. H. Lever: My hon. Friend has referred to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) describing the agreement and. presumably, the Bill based upon it—
  Mr. Nabarro: Speak up. Speak up. I cannot hear.
  Mr. Lever: We are not all equipped with the same kind of bellows as those possessed by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—which, although he may not think so, is rather

  975
  fortunate. My hon. Friend has referred to the description of the agreement, and presumably the Bill based upon it, as shattering and dastardly, by the hon. Member for Shipley. Do I understand him to quote the description given by the hon. Member for Shipley with approval, and for the same reasons? If he approves of that description for reasons different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Shipley, that hon. Member's speech cannot be prayed in aid of his argument.
  Mr. Nabarro: That has shot the hon. Member down.
  Mr. Lee: I have just said that the description of the hon. Member for Shipley best brought together—put into one frame, as it were—feelings expressed on both sides of the House, including those from this Box, expressed both on Second Reading and in Committee on the Bill.
  Mr. Peyton: These feelings among the Opposition appear to have come to light very late in the day. If the hon. Gentleman cares to cast his mind back a little further to the Second Reading debate he will remember that we had a very chill, midwintery speech from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand).
  Mr. Lee: There was not a single speech from hon. Members opposite in support of the Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: Nor from the hon. Member's side.
  Mr. Lee: We were not here to support the Bill in that sense.
  Mr. Lawson: May I remind my hon. Friend that, as the Member for the constituency in which the strip mill in Scotland is to be built, and speaking for my hon. Friends the Members for Scottish divisions on this side of the House, I said that we were very much behind the purpose of the Bill. We had some objections about how it should be done, but we were very much behind the building of the strip mill and, in our view, if it were necessary for the money to be found publicly then it should be found publicly.
  Mr. Lee: I am not disagreeing with that in the least. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not disagreeing with getting new industry into Scotland. My belief is that the Bill was brought in and a publicly-owned company was deliberately pushed in with Colvilles, and the argument about distribution policy was brought in, merely as a pretext to cover up this disgraceful loan to Colvilles.
  I was describing what the Tory Party thought about the Bill. The passage of the Bill has proved a trying ordeal for hon. Members opposite. The Economic Secretary, speaking for the Government, began his arduous duty with the statement the other evening that so far as his party is concerned, "We are united in our aim." A little later he heard that unity underlined by one of the great united telling him that the sooner the Prime Minister kicked him out of office the better it would be for the Tory Party. Unity of this type is really something to be admired.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must be fair about this. I attacked my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary simply because he was purporting to endorse Socialist practices from ten years earlier That is why I attacked him.
  Mr. Lee: I do not want the reason for the hon. Member's attack; I was just quoting the attack itself. Who knows what reasons are behind what the hon. Member says, anyway? The Bill does not leave the hon. Member altogether unscathed. It is, indeed, a witness of the passing of his reputation as a great rebel against the Government, in that both he and his hon. Friends who breathed such venom and fire against his Front Bench in the small, still hours of the morning not only refused to vote for the Amendment, but—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): May I remind the House that this is a debate on Third Reading and we are not discussing previous debates on the Bill?
  Mr. Lee: I see the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but on Third Reading we discuss that which flows from the contents of the Bill. I felt it necessary to comment that the "nobbling" of the hon. Member possibly leaves the House with a cause without a rebel. We shall watch

  977
  his transition towards the P.P.S. bench with the greatest sympathy.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will sit there now if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  Mr. Lee: "Hope springs eternal."
  The Bill itself was presented in its present form, that is, as a method of financing a public firm and a private firm for no other reason than to cushion its passage through the House. There was not the slightest reason which anybody has yet adduced why Richard Thomas and Baldwins should have been financed in this way.
  Mr. Peyton Mr. Peyton rose—
  Mr. Lee: I cannot give way again.
  I repeat that there has been no single reason adduced why Richard Thomas and Baldwins should have been financed in this way. As a matter of fact, we all thought that it should have been, and could have been, financed in the usual way. The Colville loan has been tied up in the Bill because of the fears of many of my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies, who, naturally and properly, are extremely concerned about unemployment in Scotland.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that this was not an approach by a private firm to the Government. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power said when he opened the debate on Second Reading of the Bill. He said then:
  "But in the summer of 1958, about eighteen months ago, Colvilles, of Scotland, proposed a semi-continuous strip mill additional to their developments at Ravenscraig and it was the company's ability to carry out the project in association with its new work which made this a viable and attractive proposition. It was dependent at that time on the willingness of the Government to provide finance."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1445.]
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong if his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is right. In the summer of 1958, Colvilles proposed—
  Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lee: Let us have it one way or the other.
  Mr. Maudling: The firm made that proposal after the Government had pointed out to it the desirability of
  978
  having a thing of this kind in Scotland. It is all quite simple.
  Mr. Lee: We now know that the Government approached Colvilles first.
  Mr. Maudling Mr. Maudling indicated assent.
  Mr. Lee: That is not what the right hon. Member said before. The Government really ought to make up their mind about this. The Minister of Power has stated that the initiative came from Colvilles; now the right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal was the other way around.
  The contents of the Bill in regard to Colvilles—this is the gravamen of the charge from this side of the House— constitute the terms of a loan which is capable of being demanded only by a firm in a superbly strong bargaining position. Yet we are asked to believe that at times Colvilles was in an extremely weak position and that because of the threat of nationalisation it was, in fact, in a very weak bargaining position. I wonder why the Government could not have explained to Colvilles that it had no right to demand these terms and that its bargaining position, because of the imminence or dangers of nationalisation, was such that it had no right to demand the sort of terms we now see in the agreement.
  The logic of this threat of nationalisation argument is that after the negotiations had taken place, after the threat of nationalisation had gone, the firm could have obtained better terms than those which we are now discussing. What is the logic of that? The hon. Member opposite argued about the awful threat of nationalisation at the time when Colvilles was able to obtain these terms from his Government. Suppose the threat of nationalisation did not obtain, would Colvilles be in a stronger position?
  Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. He has conducted a kind of bogus international match between the claims of Scotland and of Wales, but, in the case of Colvilles, the Government, rightly or wrongly— certainly rightly, in the view of the Opposition—asked the firm if it would put up a strip mill. Languishing as it was under the threats of the party opposite, it could not get the money—£50 million—to do so. The hon. Member has a responsibility in this.
  Mr. Lee: None of which is intended to refute the basic point I made. The fact is that Colvilles knew, as we all knew and all know now, that strip production in Britain had to be stepped up. The firm knew that Government action in denationalising steel had robbed the nation of the power of making a decision over the siting or size of strip mills. This Bill represents a part of the price the taxpayer has to pay. After consulting the Iron and Steel Board, the Government agreed to give financial help, and the Prime Minister, in the House on 18th November, 1958, made a fairly long statement in which he made it clear that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Iron and Steel Board that additional capacity was necessary for the production of strip mill products.
  The Bill that we now have before us is the result of the Government's panic over their failure to get sufficient strip steel. It could well become the first of a series as steel imports increase and the balance of payments position deteriorates. It is extremely interesting at this stage to look back on the parent Act of 1953. One realises why the then Minister of Supply, now the Minister of Aviation, said:
  "When the industry has returned fully to private enterprise there will be no public money involved at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1138.]
  It is now seen by all of us, and lamented by the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that denationalisation in this industry has merely put more public money into it, not less. Having saddled us with this liability for steel, the same right hon. Gentleman seems determined to sink more public money into private aviation than into the steel industry.
  I said that there were a number of reasons why we objected to the Bill. The basic objection is in the method of financing private companies which are quite able to finance themselves. More people than we are worried about this. An organ which hon. Members opposite generally subscribe to told us this on 1st March this year:
  "Vast sums of public money are being shovelled into private industry at this moment. … Once the word gets around that gold has been struck in Whitehall, we shall see such a rush as will make Klondyke look like a Sunday school outing. There will be great forests of outstretched hands—not all over-clean. There will be pressure groups
  980
  packed tight to the horizon, all lobbying and manoeuvring as never before, not all of which will stop short of bribery and corruption."
  That was in the Daily Telegraph.
  Hon. Members have given various estimates of the time factor during which, under this Bill, public money may be tied up in Colvilles. If we look at the heads of the agreement we find that head 11 says:
  "The company will repay the loan with any unpaid interest to the date of payment not later than 1st October, 1978 ".
  Even if the £14 million of public money which I think is at present in Colvilles is returned, the only denationalisation before 1978 will be denationalisation of the profits and, as the equity was sold by January, 1955, that will involve a period of twenty-three years. Colvilles equity was sold early in 1955. That did not justify the need for the firm coming to the Government for this money.
  Between 1955, when the £1 equity shares were sold at 26s. each, bringing gross receipts of £13 million, and Friday, 18th March, this year equities have risen to 75s. 6d., a capital appreciation of 190·4 per cent. and a monetary appreciation of 49s. 6d. In 1955, the amount of ordinary dividend after tax was £652,000 and in 1959 it was £890,000. This is not the kind of firm which is in need of public assistance which the Government are now giving to it.
  I look back on some of the debates which took place on the 1953 Act, which was a Measure providing the central instrument in the agreement we are now discussing. The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Aviation told us on 25th November. 1952:
  "The Bill has two main objectives. The first is to establish a comprehensive system of public supervision embracing the whole iron and steel industry, and so bring to an end the extremely harmful split created by the 1949 Act. The second is to restore independence, initiative and financial responsibility to the companies … "—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 266.]
  In the light of this Bill perhaps the party opposite will agree that "independence, initiative and financial responsibility" seem now to have a hollow sound.
  In the course of the passage of the Bill, my hon. and right hon. Friends

  981
  have attempted to make it a better Bill. We have attempted to get public representation within the Colville organisation. We have failed because of a combination of Tories and Liberals who refused to support us in that effort.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot go into Amendments which are not included in the Bill.
  Mr. Lee: I was looking at the Bill as it is now without those Amendments and deploring the fact that they are not there. I am saying what is in the Bill and what I would have liked to have gone into it.
  The Bill is in this state despite our efforts to make it better. What has been revealed by a Bill of this type is that the party opposite, with its Liberal friends, is determined that the distribution of power in this country shall remain in private hands. I hope that the nation will take a lesson from this. When we have Bills of this description, so biassed in their approach, giving no guarantee of the proper use of public money and showing the determination of the present Government and the Liberal Party, I hope that the nation will see that the only way to get back to a sense of decency in which it can get value for money is to renationalise the industry.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: This Bill in its passage through the House has been the subject of more criticism from every quarter than any Bill I can remember in the ten years I have sat in this place. There have been a variety of reasons, of course, for the criticisms, but every criticism has been virulent and valid, according, as I understand it, to the philosophies of the respective political parties.
  Of course, I respect the views of hon. and right hon. Members opposite who say that the only answer to the problems of the steel industry is complete nationalisation. They fought the last General Election and the one before and the one before that precisely on that policy. They were defeated at all three General Elections.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am afraid that cannot be discussed on the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I shall relate it exactly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Third Reading when I have finished this particular paragraph. My party takes the exactly opposite view. The purpose of this Bill, shortly expressed, is the removal of £120 million from annual Votes and putting that sum permanently as a charge on to the Consolidated Fund. That is the purpose of the Bill. Our difficulty in judging the merits of the Bill, of course, arises from the fact that £70 million out of the £120 million goes to a company which is still nationalised and the other £50 million goes to a company which is denationalised and, though a public company in the sense of the Companies Act. 1948, is a private enterprise concern.
  I look beyond immediate considerations for the reasons which prompted Her Majesty's Government in this extraordinary mixture within one Bill of voting money to a public company, on the one hand, and a private company, on the other. I think the reason is the inherent artfulness in the minds of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, for they knew that it would be exceedingly difficult for my hon. Friends and myself to vote against this Bill at any stage while those two different considerations were inherent within it, a nationalised concern, on the one hand, and a denationalised concern, on the other. They were even more artful—I address my remark particularly to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—
  Mr. J. T. Price: He has gone white.
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, he has gone white —because of the oft-repeated claim that these loans were being made in the course of honouring solemn obligations and contracts entered into before the last General Election.
  This claim has again been made this afternoon from the Treasury Bench and from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not dispute it. These obligations were entered into, and, of course, in the early hours of last Wednesday morning, I was faced with the appallingly difficult decision—[Interruption.]—yes, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself—as to whether to vote in a way which would

  983
  imply that I was in favour of breaching a solemn contract or whether to let a Bill go through which is anathema to my hon. Friends and myself. I decided upon the second course—
  Mr. Peyton: We decided.
  Mr. Nabarro: We decided. I am sorry. At least, the intervention of my hon. Friend for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) demonstrates that I have some friends in the House. I am deeply grateful to him.
  My right hon. Friend has been artfulness personified throughout this Bill. It is undoubtedly the fact that all Conservative Members are gravely apprehensive about the growth of State paternalism. It is no good my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power grinning when I say that. I hope he will stop grinning. This is a serious matter. He is laughing now, which is much worse. My hon. Friends and I are gravely concerned about the growth of State paternalism, the investment of large State funds in private industries. This, of course, has been the principal cause of our anxiety about the Bill. I cannot vote against the Third Reading of it for the same reasons that I could not—
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman did not vote against the Second Reading.
  Mr. Nabarro: I did not vote against the Second Reading.
  Mr. Loughlin: Or in favour of his Amendment.
  Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to rise to make some intervention I will give way to him.
  Mr, Loughlin: The point I wish to make is that the hon. Member for Kidderminster moved an Amendment the other morning and then went into the Division Lobby with the Government against his own Amendment.
  Mr. Nabarro: It would not, of course, be in order for me to dwell on Committee matters, but I will respond to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) in simple and explicit terms. I did not vote against the Second Reading, I shall not vote against the Third Reading, and I did not vote against the Government on my Amendment in
  984
  Committee, for the same explicit reason throughout, that, had I done so, I should have been asking the Government to break a solemn contract and agreement which they entered into with Colvilles before the last General Election. I will quote certain words to the hon. Gentleman. He was not here the other evening.
  Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot go into these matters on Third Reading.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member said that I was not here. I forced a Division to enable him to go into the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member was not here in the course of our debates. Had he been in the House a little longer, he would have known that we on this side have often played the same trick on the Socialists, with very good effect, when they have been afraid to vote on their own Amendments, as, for example, on the matter of National Health Service charges in 1951.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will return to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was about to quote words which have a great relevance in any controversy about who should vote and who should not vote and on what occasions:
  "I say at once that I would compete with any member of this Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, in defending the sanctity of contracts, and I do not wish to see the contract made between Her Majesty's Government and Colvilles broken, vitiated or weakened in any way, whatsoever." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March. 1960; Vol. 620, c. 438.]
  In view of the Rulings given by the Chair about what is in order for discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill annually, the only way in which my hon. Friends and I can register our sternest disapproval of the growth of State paternalism and the huge investment of public funds in private industry is by the vehicle of the very kind of Amendments which we moved late last Tuesday night and which we did not—
  Mr. Loughlin: Which the hon. Mem-ran away from.
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West is still seated upon his broad backside shouting things at me. I will give way once again if he wishes. We have all got his point. The Sunday Express yesterday called it an act of cowardice on my part not to vote.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We must return to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: But this is the principle of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the investment of money in Colvilles.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has been arguing about various events which took place during the Committee stage.
  Mr. Nabarro: Very well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; I will leave the Sunday Express and say that, for precisely the same reasons, I shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I believe overwhelmingly in the sanctity of contracts. But there has been a very real lesson to my hon. Friends and myself in this Bill. We cannot vote against the Third Reading of the Bill because contracts were entered into by Her Majesty's Government eighteen months ago. This will not be so in the future when State moneys are furnished for private industry.
  We have learned our lesson on this occasion. In the future, we shall not be confronted with a fait accompli and a situation wherein we have to advocate the breach of contracts in order to make our point. We shall vote where possible before the money is granted, Which is the proper time to do it. Having regard to the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there will be ample opportunity to debate the tranches of investment in this context and in regard to other nationalised and denationalised industries, I think I can say that my hon. Friends and I have learned a salutary lesson in demanding a debate before the money is granted and not being placed in the invidious situation in which we have found ourselves throughout our proceedings on this Bill.
  We are not alone in such an invidious situation. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), who readily nods his agreement, is in the same situation on this Bill, but for different reasons.
  986
  Evidently, neither he nor any hon. Member opposite will vote tonight against the Bill.
  Mr. Diamond: I will, if I can.
  Mr. Nabarro: Jolly good. If the hon. Member is in a minority of one, that will be highly satisfactory. I shall be the first to congratulate him upon his courage and his lack of cowardice. I only regret that I cannot join him in the Lobby, because if I did so it would be again implied that I was in favour of breaching a contract.
  Long before this Bill reached its Committee and Third Reading stages, very apposite words were written in an organ which I do not believe can be regarded as unduly Conservative in its outlook— not the Daily Telegraph, but the Financial Times of 25th February, 1960. I quote these words, strictly in the context of this Bill:
  "Last summer the Prime Minister unveiled his Government's quite remarkable scheme to pay the cotton industry a large amount of money to shut down its redundant plants. Since then there has been the establishment of the Chandos Committee on the new Cunarders, the gun law handling of the aircraft industry by Mr. Sandys, and now there is Mr. Maudling's vigorous treatment of the location of the motor industry. Along the line there was also a promise of a £50 million loan to Colvilles for their expansion plan … So far there does not seem to have been any general appreciation behind these piecemeal manœ;uyres. Certainly it is much more easy to justify them individually than as a whole. Neither the Government nor industry itself seems to know how far it is prepared to go along this line of policy, how big a commitment can be supported "—
  Mr. H. Lever: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) to force hon. Members who do not take the Financial Times and do not read its leading articles to hear them in extensol Is he not restricted merely to quoting briefly from documents?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is quoting a document, but a great part of it is quite irrelevant to this debate.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, heard the reference to Colvilles.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Much of the article seems to be irrelevant to the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: There is £50 million for Colvilles in this Bill on Third Reading. There is only one sentence to complete the quotation:
  "The Conservative Party itself should give much more thought to this matter."
  I will give the quotation to the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) so that he can read it for himself.
  Mr. H. Lever: I have read it.
  Mr. Nabarro: Did the hon. Member say that he wrote it?
  Mr. Lever: I read it.
  Mr. Nabarro: Judging from the hon. Member's antagonism to the speech from his own Front Bench and his support for Conservative principles throughout this Third Reading debate, he might have written the words himself.
  Here is the second lesson to be derived. This debate and the vigorous criticism of the Treasury Bench and all its occupants—they are collectively artful and collectively responsible for the Bill—have taught a second lesson to the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members. There is a very grave threat to the philosophy of the Conservative Party and the whole of the practice and implementation of Conservative policy inherent in a system of a large-scale investing of taxpayers' money in private industries without hardly any Parliamentary accountability. You will recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the statement made by the Leader of the House in the early hours of last Wednesday morning. He said, "We will see that a financial statement is laid before the House".
  Mr. Lee: That does not mean anything.
  Mr. Nabarro: It means something, but it does not mean very much, because we on this side are again placed in the hopelessly invidious position of not being able to amend this statement and either having to vote against it altogether or having to accept it altogether. That has been our difficulty throughout the passage of this Bill and this afternoon. We want some of the money invested but we do not want all of it invested.
  I shall be applying myself with assiduity to the whole of this problem of how Parliament year by year can control
  988
  the huge sums of capital moneys vested in State industries as well as, in part measure, in private industries before the money is voted and before it is invested, not in retrospection eighteen months to two years removed, which is surely the scourge of every quarter of the House. Every hon. Member surely must believe that a primary duty of ours is to guard public expenditure, whether it is in the context of nationalised industries or on straightforward Departmental Votes over which, sadly, we have insufficient control.
  I shall not vote against the Bill. I shall not be guilty of an act of cowardice. I am defending my reputation in industry and commerce—something which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West would never understand—which dictates that the sanctity of a commercial contract must at all times take precedence over every other consideration. That is why I shall not vote against the Bill and why I did not vote in the early hours of last Wednesday morning during the Committee stage.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to charge another hon. Member with not accepting the sanctity of contracts?
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member does not.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made that imputation.
  Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. Immediately I put the point of order to you, Sir, the hon. Member said that I do not. One can only construe that as meaning that I do not accept the sanctity of contracts.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster made any reflection on the hon. Member's character.
  Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order. I am very sorry about this Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but—
  Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is very cross now.
  Mr. Loughlin:—if an hon. Member charges another hon. Member with not accepting the sanctity of a contract, is not that a reflection on the hon. Member's character in that it suggests that the hon. Member is dishonest?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear any suggestion that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Loughlin) is dishonest. I do not think we should be too thin-skinned about criticism.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). We shall not make much progress in our debates unless we accept the sincerity of one another's point of view. I fully accept that the hon. Member means what he says in drawing attention to the supreme importance of honouring obligations and giving that as the reason why he will not vote against the Third Reading. I also believe that it is not necessary to say that every hon. Member also believes in the sanctity of the agreement. If I believed that the sanctity of the agreement would be called into account by voting against the Third Reading, I too would not vote against it. But, as I am satisfied that it is not being called into account, I shall do everything to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill and persuade my own Front Bench to do the same.
  The Bill is not about the provision of two strip mills. It is about the provision of finance and whether it is to come above or below the line. We are debating only the financial aspect, and it is the terms of the agreement which we shall be deprecating by voting against the Third Reading, not the provision of the strip mills. If it were a fact that the strip mills would not go ahead, then we should all be in a very different position. But it is not such a fact. It has never been claimed to be such a fact by the Government Front Bench itself. The President of the Board of Trade and the Minister himself have both made it perfectly clear that this is a Bill limited to dealing with the provision of finance and to nothing else.
  I am going to make clear the reasons why I, and, as I see it, any hon. Member of conscience, could not vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. In the first place, I regard this matter as a plain breach of trust. We are the trustees of the nation's resources, and under the Bill we are proposing to allow an individual firm, Colvilles—because it was made made quite clear on Second Reading that the transfer of money from the
  990
  State to a nationalised industry is a bookkeeping entry which concerns no one at all—to be loaned money by the Government on terms far more onerous to the nation, for which we are trustees, than need have been obtained.
  I find it impossible to support a Government which does not stand on their hind legs and get the best possible terms on behalf of the beneficiaries for whom they act as trustees.
  Mr. H. Lever: Would my hon. Friend apply the same principles to the financing, for example, of the film industry?
  Mr. Diamond: I am not talking about the film industry, and I will not be diverted into discussing it.
  I regard this matter as one of the most serious which has taken place for some time. There is great concern in the House of Commons, as there was during the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) was not present throughout the proceedings.
  Mr. Lever: I read the proceedings very carefully afterwards.
  Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend says he read the proceedings very carefully afterwards. Those who take part in debates know that it matters enormously what is said and how it is said. In Committee it is not always possible to correct our speeches, and even HANSARD is not a reliable guide to the Committee stage.
  I say that what is proposed is, in my view, a plain breach of trust. I gave my reasons on Second Reading and it would be wrong to repeat them all over again. Nothing which has been said from the Government Front Bench has satisfied me that it is not a breach of trust. There has not been, apart from the Government Front Bench, a supporting speech in the House, so one has had no help in that direction.
  In Committee we attempted without success to improve the terms in such a way as to enable the Government honourably to deal with the matter without breaching the agreement. We made suggestions which could easily be considered with the directors of Colvilles and which could be added to the procedures envisaged under the Bill. But none of those things has been

  991
  accepted. We have attempted to get a rate of interest which is fair to those whose finances we are here to look after. That has been refused.
  We have been told only at the very last minute that Colvilles is going to have to pay for this loan ½ per cent. less than local authorities have to pay for the money they require with which to build homes for the people. Yet we know that during the period when this loan was being negotiated Colvilles was earning, respectively, 60 per cent. and 74 per cent. on its equity capital. The figures for the last two complete years during which these negotiations took place show that in 1957–58 Colvilles made just on 60 per cent. net profit on its capital and in the following year 74 per cent. net profit.
  It defies my understanding how anyone can suggest that a company with a capacity to earn such rates of net profit is unable to pay even as much as a local authority when it is borrowing money from the State. Therefore, those of us who regard our position with seriousness will not accept for one second that, so far as the loan to Colvilles is concerned, the Government exercised their responsibilities to the full in arriving at the terms of this agreement.
  I repeat what the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham should have been here to listen to the hon. Member for Shipley, because he made an absolutely sincere and heartfelt speech. I am sure that my hon. Friend read it, but I am just saying that no one who listened to the hon. Member for Shipley could have one moment's doubt that he was deeply moved by what is going on. The hon. Gentleman is in the great difficulty that he cannot vote against his Government. There is no doubt about what he feels about the matter and I share his views, to quote his own words, that this is a "shattering and dastardly" contract. It is not often that a responsible back bencher on the Government side is able to describe in all sincerity an agreement made by his own Front Bench as "shattering and dastardly".
  That is the first reason why I cannot support the Bill. The second reason is even more fundamental, and is one which
  992
  affects everyone in the House. I regard the Bill as a breach of faith as between the Government and the House of Commons—a plain breach of faith—and I shall attempt to show why.
  I regard it as the duty of a Government not only to act legally, as of course they do, but to act in good faith with the House of Commons. I must, therefore, refer the House to the Act of 1953 which is referred to in the Bill and which gives the authority which the Minister has claimed and which entitles him to come to the agreement reached. Let me first of all read the Title of the Act. Remember that what we are discussing is a loan of £50 million—an investment by the country of £50 million—to a steel firm. The 1953 Act is described as an Act to repeal the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, and to dissolve the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain, and, among other things, to provide for the return of iron and steel undertakings to private ownership and for the disposal of property rights, etc. That is the purpose of the Act.
  Who would have thought in 1953—I was not here myself at the time; I was "resting", as they say on the stage— that this Act, which was the Act to denationalise steel, to divest the nation of its investment in the steel industry, was to be used as the authority to pump £50 million into a private denationalised firm?
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the same Act also prescribed the powers of the Iron and Steel Board. Does he recall that hon. Members opposite pressed the Minister of Supply at that time, the present Minister of Aviation, to take greater powers than he now possesses to stimulate industry and new developments in the steel industry?
  Mr. Diamond: As I explained, I was not here, and therefore I cannot recall these things. Of course, I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, though I do not think that it affects in the slightest the point which I am making.
  My hon. Friends on this side of the House no doubt felt, and still feel, that that was the way in which the matter should have been handled. Had it been handled according to Labour philosophy there would have been no problem.

  993
  Indeed, had it been handled according to Conservative philosophy there would have been no problem. It is only because of this bastard arrangement that we are in this difficulty.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: As some clarification of what my hon. Friend has said, is it not true that, whilst we agreed with capital investment, we also made it abundantly clear that there should be public accountability?
  Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. As I was saying, the Government have acted in breach of faith in not bringing to the House the question of these loans and agreements which they were making under the powers contained in this Act. As every hon. Member at the time must have thought, this was an Act to divest the nation of investments and not to do the very opposite, as the present Bill seeks to do.
  The provision in the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, under which the right hon. Gentleman claims these powers—and I am sure that he is right in claiming them—is Section 5, which says that if the Board is satisfied that there ought to be additional production facilities and the Board reports to the Minister that it cannot secure them by means of consultation,
  "… the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, himself provide and use those facilities …"
  Why did not the Minister provide those facilities? He could have obtained them. Those are the powers which are described in this Act and they are the powers which every hon. Member would have thought at the time he was giving authority to his Front Bench to use.
  The Section goes on:
  "… or make arrangements with any persons for the provision or use of those facilities by those persons, whether as agents for the Minister or otherwise."
  An agency was contemplated. Why did not the Minister appoint Colvilles as agents? There would have been no problem at all. Why did not the Minister say to Colvilles, as the Government have said to many firms on many occasions, "Will you please carry out this undertaking for us on agency terms? We will pay you a service fee. All profits and
  994
  all losses, capital and interest belong to the nation." Why could he not have said that? He could have done so if he had wanted to.
  Nobody anticipated that these powers would be used in this way, and I regard it as a thoroughly back-door method of claiming entitlement to enter into agreements. If agreements are entered into by that back-door method, the only way that the Government can justify themselves is by coming to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, not at the last minute, and asking for approval before the agreements are entered into, or at all events, at a minimum, asking for the comments of this House before spending £120 million. The Government Front Bench seem to be absolutely mesmerised by noughts all over the place, and they seem to think that £120 million can be tossed off just like that. If I were to drop twelve £1 notes on the floor, if that were in order and supposing that I had twelve £1 notes, it would create a sensation. Everybody would notice it. We are talking here not about £12 or £120, but £120 million as to which the Govern-men have not seen fit to come and ask our approval about the arrangement made nearly eighteen months ago.
  The Government have treated us worse than the company has treated its own shareholders. Colvilles did not enter into this agreement without consulting its own shareholders. Colvilles entered into a tentative arrangement with the Government, as is pointed out in the heads of agreement, and then went to the shareholders and said, I believe in February, 1959, "We have the opportunity of entering into this arrangement with the Government. We shall have an opportunity of receiving a loan of £50 million on terms which are advantageous to the shareholders. Will you, the shareholders, agree to increase borrowing powers so that we can do this?" The shareholders, knowing that they were on a good thing, did so.
  The Government have not seen fit to treat the House of Commons with the same courtesy that the directors of a company treated their own shareholders. That takes a bit of answering. I regard this attitude as absolutely overbearing and over-riding. I am sorry to criticise the right hon. Gentleman because I realise that he was not responsible for

  995
  the situation. We know from the date of the agreement that this happened at the time of his predecessor—a predecessor who seems to be aptly named for dealing with the problems of strip mills, a predecessor who apparently may not have learned in the same hard way as we have learned the advantages of keeping the House of Commons and Parliament with you. He may not have learned the advantages of having public opinion with him. There may be other reasons—"mills within mills," as one might say.
  At all events, as to the lack of consultation with this House, it is regrettable in the extreme that the Government should not have thought fit to consult us at all until they were compelled to do so. We should remember that this arose over a year ago. Why are we discussing it now? The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) very wisely pointed out the difficulties of having opportunities of discussing this matter. It should have been in last year's Estimates. We should have discussed it then, not this year.
  Mr. Nabarro: To be technically correct, part of it was wedged in one of the Estimates. As I cannot possibly hope to read every figure that is published in every Parliamentary paper, I confess that I missed it, but evidently everybody else missed it as well. There was a part of it in some Estimate.
  Mr. Diamond: About £1 million, I think.
  Mr. Nabarro: It was something very small.
  Mr. Diamond: It was evidently misleading—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—it was either misleading or needed explanation. One does not expect a £120 million loan to be based on an estimate of £1 million. It was not in last year's Consolidated Fund. I do not understand why the Government have left it until this late moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said, three or four days before the last possible date for the first tranche to be advanced, and indeed we do not know whether it is to be advanced or not. I do not know why the Government have left it to this last possible moment before consulting us about it.
  996
  It is then complained that these are not the circumstances of that time, that the Government are in a different mood from what they were at that time. Why did not the Government protect themselves and raise the matter at that time, if their criticism is valid? That is the way in which the matter should have been dealt with. It is extremely difficult for us as a House of Commons to exercise our rights in supervising this money. As Mr. Speaker made clear to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, there are various ways in which this can be done. Today is our only opportunity of doing it, and that is why we take this serious view about it.
  I say, first, that this represents a breach of trust. Secondly, it represents a breach of faith with the House of Commons, in having acted—no doubt, strictly within the letter of the law of Section 5 of the 1953 Act—by what I call a back-door method of getting the authority for the loan and in delaying bringing the matter before the House for about eighteen months after the agreement had been entered into. The third reason why I shall vote against the Bill is that it is totally unnecessary so far as Colvilles is concerned.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster is in the same difficulty as I am, but for somewhat different reasons. It is the fault of neither of us that the Government thought fit to include both of these essentially different principles in the same Bill. It is unnecessary for several reasons. I have already indicated the first reason. The Minister himself could have provide the strip mill without going to Colvilles. Those are the powers which were already indicated in the Act.
  The second reason is that he could have appointed Colvilles as agent under a management contract. There would have been no problem about what the rate of interest should have been or about any profits, equity or interest or anything else. It would have solved itself. It would all have belonged to the nation.
  The third reason is that Colvilles should have got the money itself. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a very accurate and devastating speech on Second Reading in which he explained carefully, with all the authority that rests in him—for he always goes to the greatest pains and is

  997
  always absolutely accurate in what he says—how this money should have been raised on the market.
  Also, we have the experience of Colvilles in raising £6 million in debentures in January, 1958. All we know about it is that they were fully subscribed. There is also the interesting fact that in 1955 Colvilles—or rather, I suppose, I.S.H.R.A.—issued shares of Colvilles which were oversubscribed thirteen times. Here I am afraid that we have to do a tiny bit of arithmetic. The amount offered was 10 million shares at 26s. a share, in short, £13 million. This was oversubscribed thirteen times: in short, £169 million was offered, and this was in 1955. Therefore, the Colvilles directors could have kept the £13 million they required and £156 million would still have been left—three times as much as it is proposed to lend to Colvilles under the terms of this Bill.
  In those circumstances, I regard it as utter nonsense to say that Colvilles could not have got the necessary funds from its own shareholders on appropriate terms. Of course, the shareholders would not have been "mugs" enough to put up the money on the terms which the Government wish to foist on the nation. But, on appropriate terms, the shareholders would have put up at least the £50 million required. As we know, they showed willing to put up three times that amount, and therefore this Bill is absolutely unnecessary.
  Another reason why I shall vote against the Bill is that I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the shifty answers we have received from, at all events, the occupants of the Government Front Bench. I call the answers "shifty". The hon. Member for Kidderminster called them—
  Mr. Nabarro: "Artful".
  Mr. Diamond: —yes, "artful".
  Let me refer first of all—I wish to go as far as I can with the hon. Member for Kidderminster—to one particularly artful reply. Let me refer to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on 18ih February during the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. He was answering an intervention of mine when I said:
  "Having regard to the agreement which has already been made, does the right hon.
  998
  Gentleman say that it is not open to the House in Committee to alter the provisions in respect of the terms of the loans?"
  What we wanted to know at that stage was, could we do anything about this agreement? Was it open to the Committee to do anything about it? Here is how the "Artful Dodger" dodged the answer to my question. He said:
  "It is not for me to say what may happen in Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1559.]
  That set the tone for the unsatisfactory answers which came from the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Diamond: They were continued by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Let me be clear. I am not accusing the Minister of being either shifty or artful—he is incapable of being either. Let me be equally clear. I am saying that in their answers the President of the Board of Trade and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury disagreed among themselves, went further than they were entitled to go, were shifty, and, up to a point, misleading. Let me give details.
  Let me say why I regard them as misleading. At one stage we were asking about altering the agreement, why could not it be altered and what had happened during the course of the negotiations. The argument of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury was that we could not alter this agreement. Here was a solemn agreement. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman called it "solemn". I should regard it as a stupid agreement, a silly agreement—a sinister agreement if hon. Members wish—certainly the hon. Member for Shipley regarded it as a "dastardly" agreement—"a shattering dastardly agreement". But why "solemn", I do not know.
  At all events, it was the argument of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, that we could not alter it. What did the President of the Board of Trade say? He had not said anything like that at all. He said we did not want a different agreement. We were arguing whether there should be an equity interest and the President of the Board of Trade said,
  "There is no equity participation because we on this side of the House do not believe that when the Government lend money to industry they should have an equity interest in it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1960; Vol. 617. c. 1552.]

  999
  Which is right? Is it right that the Government did want it or is it right—as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury let us to believe—that the Government might have wanted all these things, but there was a fixed agreement and we could not do anything about it?
  We were never told what were the negotiations. Up to this minute we have never been told what were the negotiations; what point of view the Government took; what point of view Colvilles took; whether there was any reasonable compromise or not. Today we are in the last stages of the Third Reading of the Bill, we are being asked to approve the Bill and we do not yet know what has gone on. This is indicative of the extent to which the Government Front Bench is not prepared to bring Parliament into its confidence.
  The other argument which was continually advanced was, "If only you of the Opposition had said something about this earlier, we should have been able to do something about it. Why did you leave it for all this time before complaining?" In fact, we now know that this was a form of agreement entered into by the Government and no matter what we had said, or what argument we had produced, there was no possibility at all of altering any fundamental term of the agreement. But, at all events, we could have satisfied ourselves that although a stupid mistake had been made on this occasion it would not be repeated on a future occasion. We could have obtained such an assurance. It is clear that in certain circumstances if part of this money, for example, does not go to either of the two borrowers mentioned, we have authorised the issuing of money to a possible third party—perhaps to the Steel Company of Wales. We have authorised the lending of this money and, if it is not used by either of the two borrowers referred to, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the money going to a third party. We have still had no promise from the Government that if that is to be done, an agreement will be put before this House before it is entered into.
  Despite all the trouble we took during the Committee stage discussions we were not able to obtain an undertaking—even from the Leader of the House—that if
  1000
  on a future occasion other negotiations took place, or the agreement was varied —it could be varied, if there is an agreement between two parties they can agree to vary it—any variation would be discussed and put before this House before it was entered into. In short, the Government have shown themselves to be absolutely unaware of the need to encourage Parliament in its fundamental responsibility of controlling the expenditure of large sums of money.
  For all these reasons, I find it impossible to support the Bill. I find it impossible to support a Bill where we have terms which are less favourable than any ordinary person would have been prepared to give. There is an absolutely clear breach of faith in the sense that the Government have used powers intended for an entirely different purpose, and prevented the possibility of discussing this agreement for eighteen months or more. We have had nothing but shifty and contradictory answers from the Government Front Bench.
  Now we have got to the stage when, even this afternoon, the President of the Board of Trade said, "If you want to argue about this, put down a Motion." That is his sense of his responsibilities as President of the Board of Trade in the spending of £120 million of the country's resources—he says, "If you want to argue about it, put down a Motion." Why does he not come to talk to us about it? Why does he not seek the approval of Parliament? What is Parliament for? What is to be left of Parliament if we give this Bill its Third Reading?
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I have heard a number of speeches from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) during the course of this Bill. I hope that he will allow me to say that those speeches have been both eloquent and well informed. I feel sure that many of the criticisms he has made of this highly questionable Bill are valid. He used strong words in the speech which he has just delivered. He accused the Government of a breach of faith with the House of Commons. Changing the "d" of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) for "b", he spoke of a "bastard sort of arrangement"
  My hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade seemed to say, in the

  1001
  speech which he made in opening the debate today, that we should not really worry too much about this because it is really a small kind of Measure. That rather recalls the story of the housemaid who gave birth to an illegitimate infant and excused herself on the ground that it was only a very little one.
  I shall not be long in my remarks, because I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucester and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) can scarcely wait to divide against the Third Reading of the Bill— and, having heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), I feel quite sure he ought to be in the Lobby with them—but having set my signature to two Amendments which were tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I should just like to explain where I stand.
  It is not my wish to deny either of these two important firms in this vital industry, either the one which is publicly owned still, or the one which is privately owned, the capital which they need for their expansion. Still less—and this is the crucial point—do I want the Government to break the agreement which they have entered into—admittedly, in the very different circumstances which prevailed before the General Election.
  I certainly do not want the President of the Board of Trade to seek to break the pledged word of the Government or, to use the jargon dredged up from the turgid thesaurus of his Department, to undertake "a unilateral abrogation".
  This debate and the debates which have preceded it mark another stage in the journey towards the better scrutiny of public expenditure, and although we do have on this side of the House a very different philosophy from that of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, they have shown a good deal of common ground between both sides of the House. The consensus of opinion expressed on both sides of the Committee on the question of the Statutory Instrument was quite remarkable, and I think that it is to the credit of the Committee as a whole, and to the credit of the House, that we were able to extract a minimum concession from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  1002
  What has emerged from the debates which we have had on the Bill is that on this side of the House, if we are honest with ourselves, though we do not accept the argument, we must respect the argument which has been voiced by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, that if this sort of thing is to be repeated, if the Conservative Government are to put other Measures of this kind through the House, it will become increasingly difficult for them to resist the claims which have been made opposite that there should be an assessor, that there should be a Government director, that there should be, in the words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton, public representation on these companies, even that the State should be entitled to—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now, on Third Reading, confined to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was trying to deal with some of the arguments which we have heard in earlier speeches on the Third Reading of the Bill. The point I was trying to make was that I can well understand why right hon. and hon. Members opposite should be urging the argument that if taxpayers' money is to be put into private enterprise then the State is entitled to be represented and even to have a share of the equity of the private company concerned.
  In conclusion, I would say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that it is not very long ago that we on the back benches here, under the leadership of those right hon. and hon. Friends of ours, were denouncing the policy put forward by the party opposite in the General Election, the policy which we condemned as back-door nationalisation. My hon. Friends and I are still opposed to it, but the Government will find it hard to resist if they put other Measures of this kind before the House of Commons.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: The one non-controversial statement which can be made about the Bill is that virtually nobody until today has had a good word to say in favour of the Bill. The opposition described it as an outrageous racket. Conservative

  1003
  back bench Members have described it at bastard Socialism. Until today the Government rather tended to describe it as an unfortunate necessity. Therefore, there seemed to be more or less unanimous agreement that the Bill was a bad one.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has pointed out, I did not attend the debates in Committee on the Bill, but I read the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT with some care, and what has tempted me to offer the House a contribution within the discipline of Third Reading is that, when everybody agrees, as said Mark Twain, everybody is wrong, and I am rather inclined to have the feeling that that may be the case. I therefore wish to examine the various grounds offered on both sides of the House in criticism of the Bill to see what merits they have and what merits the Bill has; and quite objectively, and perhaps helped by the rules of Third Reading, the assistance of which has been somewhat denied to some hon. Members of their own choice in the course of their speeches.
  Second Reading is for the comparison of the tawdry offering of a legislating Minister with the Utopian possibilities conceivable to the mind of an hon. Member then making a speech. On Third Reading, alas, we cannot traverse those pleasant pastures of Utopia. We must content ourselves with looking at the proposals actually laid down in the Bill, and say whether, on balance, we regard them as desirable or harmful. That is what I propose to do, and to examine the arguments offered to that end.
  First, until this afternoon the Government's defence of the Bill consisted of three arguments. They said, "We are bound by an agreement which was signed some time ago and we cannot dishonour that agreement." The second Government argument was that the agreement was necessary because the threat of nationalisation by the Labour Party made it impossible at the time for Colvilles to envisage raising the money on the market. The third reason offered by the Government, until today, was that when the matter was raised in the House in November, 1958, nobody made much of a fuss about it, and that is another good reason for passing the Bill.
  1004
  I can sum up my views about these three reasons offered by the Government for supporting the Bill by saying that the first is puerile, the second is false, and the third is irrelevant. This is not a very encouraging beginning, and to some extent the Government have themselves to thank for the kind of reception which the Bill has had and the extreme mistrust with which it has been greeted. I said that the first reason was puerile, but that is not to say that it was not worth using by the Government in an effort to persuade some of their own followers.
  It seems to have had considerable success with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and his hon. Friends. He detests the Bill, but if it is a fact that the Government have entered into a binding agreement with Colvilles it means to the hon. Member that the House is obliged to pass the Bill or otherwise repudiate the sanctity of contract. In other words, if the Prime Minister, in the course of his wanderings, were to contract to supply a dozen maidens to a Middle East potentate's harem, and came to the House for ratification, the hon. Member for Kidderminster would be in some difficulty. He would have to support the necessary Measure to supply the specific number of virgins to complete the contract entered into by the Prime Minister, on the ground that otherwise he would be repudiating the sanctity of contract.
  Mr. Nabarro: This is a wholly false analogy, of course. In this instance, a written contract was entered into between Her Majesty's Government and Colvilles eighteen months ago and it is that solemn contract which I seek to sanctify. The analogy which the hon. Member has made with the private whims and desires of the Prime Minister would not be ratified in a contract, quite clearly. Therefore, this is not only totally out of order, but not relevant to the Bill in any way.
  Mr. Lever: I was trying to help the hon. Member.
  Mr. Nabarro: Help me, indeed!
  Mr. Lever: I was trying to help the hon. Member and also chide him with a humorous illustration, but seriously, his argument that one must support

  1005
  Government legislation implementing a contract, even though the contract itself is infamous, is obviously a rejection of Parliamentary control of all Government contracts. If the Government sign what has been described on both sides of the House as a dastardly contract, it is a dastardly Government, and what one must do is to kick them out and honour the contract afterwards; and one does that by kicking out the Bill. That is recognised Parliamentary practice.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster tries to escape on the back of a whim which I put to him, but the same applies if the Government, for example, negligently and foolishly entered into a contract for the manufacture of cotton cloth and the House thought that the Bill enacting it and the contract itself were horrible and yet it was said that we must ratify it, otherwise we should be repudiating the sanctity of contract. That is puerile. What is not puerile is the attitude of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, which ratifies political cowardice, political insincerity, and expediency in his conduct in the House, for he is making an assault upon the rights of the House and of hon. Members in preaching a doctrine which produces such lamentable results.
  Mr. Nabarro: I bet that the hon. Member does not vote tonight.
  Mr. Lever: I certainly shall if the occasion arises. Parliamentary machinery has many subtle means of expressing dissatisfaction. When an hon. Member does not agree with the Government he can abstain, he can vote, and he can make demonstrations of various kinds. I do not need lectures from the hon. Member, however well-intentioned, on how I shall express my point of view on the Bill. I shall tell the House very freely my view upon it. I merely point out that it is rather lamentable that the Government should have defended it in this stupid way.
  The second point in the Government's reply on the Bill, which is false, is the argument that because of the Labour Party's threat to nationalise the steel industry Colvilles could not raise the money on the market. That is a particularly choice piece of nonsense. One would have thought that if that were true no company could have raised any money on the market, because hon.
  1006
  Members will recall that the Institute of Directors, and an ardent chorus of the entire Tory Press, pointed out that the Labour Party was not only going to nationalise steel but almost everything else, and especially the 500 companies which were listed in great detail.
  But apparently those companies had no difficulty in raising funds. The financial market did not come to a standstill because of the Labour Party's threat of nationalisation, nor was that threat operative in stopping Colvilles raising the money at that time.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Member obviously would agree that no company was so threatened as the companies in the steel industry.
  Mr. Lever: I appreciate that. I wish that the hon. Member had said that before the General Election, when we were told that every one of the 500 companies was expressly and directly threatened and there was no mention of the degree of difference which the hon. Member, with some subtlety, is now making. However, this did not stop Colvilles raising the money.
  The reason why Colvilles did not raise the money under its own steam can be put very simply. The President of the Board of Trade has been smoked out a little and because of the uproar he has since talked some sense about the reasons for the Bill. The reason why Colvilles did not raise the money was the circumstances in which this deal was done. The Government came to the conclusion that it was very urgent in the interests of the country that there should be a vast increase in sheet steel production, planned, organised and financed in expectation of a greatly increased demand. The steel companies, among them Colvilles, did not take such a hopeful view of likely progress in demand. They were very unwilling to commit themselves to huge financial commitments and, not surprisingly, to meet a demand which they had no confidence would emerge.
  Furthermore, the House will remember that, because of a particularly stupid phase of Tory Government policy, we were suffering a recession in the steel industry at the time that the discussions were taking place. Colvilles was not even fully engaged in its existing plant

  1007
  and here were the Government asking it to branch out into a new production of sheet steel on a gigantic scale and telling it rather hopefully that there would be a huge demand in future. At the time, Colvilles did not appear keen. One of the inducements held out by the Government to Colvilles was that it would be able to secure finance on other than exorbitant terms; in other words, at cost price to the Government.
  It is a grotesque distortion of reality, in the light of what happened afterwards, to picture Colvilles—for whom I hold no brief and members of whose board, as far as I am aware, I do not know— as the recipients of National Assistance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) did, or to criticise Colvilles for accepting the project. The truth is that this is not a profit-making bloated capitalist who is seeking to add to his bloated profits at the expense of public money. Rather, this is a more public-spirited capitalist being pressed by a Tory Government to undertake work of a particular character in Scotland, not wholly to his taste, for the reasons that I have given—that the Government and the Iron and Steel Board envisaged a huge increase in steel production, on a scale far greater than was envisaged by Colvilles itself.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has often been quoted critically because he said "Whitehall knows best". As a matter of fact, this is one of those occasions when Whitehall did know best, when the pessimism and shortsightedness of Colvilles' board turned out not to be justified and the Whitehall estimates of what was likely to be achieved in sheet steel demand turned out to be the case. However, we must not look at this through the spectacles of today, but at the time when the agreement was negotiated, when there was a genuine pessimism in many well-informed steel circles, when this looked like a hazardous undertaking, and when Colvilles, clearly reluctantly, were induced to engage in it because it at least knew that the finance for it would be provided by the Government at cost.
  I yield to no hon. Member in expressing zeal for watching money that goes out of the public purse into the
  1008
  hands of private, profit-making companies. I can only say, rather ruefully, that when money was being lent under the Film Finance Bill to companies whom it was never intended should pay it back in full, the duty of exercising a zealous watchfulness over public funds fell upon my unsupported larynx, which has never fully recovered from the ordeal, not to mention the trespass on the indulgence of the House which was necessary.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. He was not present because force majeure prevented him, though I have no doubt that he would have intervened had he been here. It seems odd to me that this hallelujah chorus should develop when £50 million is being loaned for an urgent and desirable purpose to an undoubtedly solvent company which will pay back every single farthing of it at no cost to the country, and that there is this zeal to defend the public purse when nothing was said by any hon. Member on either side of the House on that previous occasion.
  The plain fact of the transaction is that what the Government get is an immense increase in the national asset of sheet steel production planned in good time, located where the country needs it in good time. What do they pay for this? I deeply respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. Ordinarily, I deeply respect his sagacity, but I cannot say I do so on this occasion; for this reason, that the Government get a vast new sheet steel undertaking which is vitally necessary, planned in good time, organised by experts and located where the Government want it. What do the Government pay for it? Nothing. The cost of this loan to the Government will be nothing.
  If I have the honour to be in this House in 1975, when the last instalment of the loan is due, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester is here also, and if that money has not been repaid in full, with the total interest paid promptly on the due dates by Colvilles, I undertake to bring my hat into the House and to eat it in the presence of the then Speaker.
  Mr. Diamond: Will my hon. Friend allow me to interrupt him, since he has

  1009
  been good enough to refer to one or two things I have said? May I draw his attention to the fact that it is not absolutely right to say that it was Whitehall that knew best? It was the considered opinion of the Iron and Steel Board, representing the sum of knowledge of all those in steel, which decided that this additional strip mill was necessary, and that, therefore, Colvilles could be criticised if it took a different view. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are various powers—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that he has spoken once.
  Mr. Lever: It is not open to doubt that there was an honest division of opinion in steel circles at that time, that Colvilles was far from enthusiastic, and that everything looks sure and certain now because there has been a vast trans-formation. The Government were forced to alter their economic policy to win the election, and it is not yet long enough after the election to put the engines in reverse, though no doubt that will come, so the outlook is rosy.
  I have dealt with the reason for the Bill. I hope that I have pointed out that the Bill is a good Bill from the country's point of view, because we shall get some things of great importance. Now I will deal briefly with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends. Of course, it is all right for my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I am sorry to keep on quoting him, but I listened carefully to what he said. It is all right for him to talk about sincerity. I accept without hesitation that my hon. Friend is deeply moved at the idea of the Bill passing through the House unchallenged. Also I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingfbrooke) were all sincere, too. What is much more relevant than their sincerity is their good sense and the accuracy of their criticism.
  It is no use my hon. Friend quoting the hon. Member for Shipley. He happens to be, from our point of view, an extremely reactionary gentleman who says that this is a dastardly agreement. He says that because he is a nineteenth century Manchester Liberal My hon.
  1010
  Friend, who rejects that, cannot turn round and say "A Daniel come to judgment." I agree with him, but for totally opposite reasons, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newton. We have to make our case in logic. The hon. Member for Shipley thinks the Bill is dastardly because he thinks that it is dastardly to use public money to interfere with the natural movements of the finance market, which left to itself will produce a heavenly result of profit and freedom for all.
  That is why the hon. Member for Shipley thinks it wrong and, broadly, why the hon. Member for Dorset, South thinks it wrong and why the hon. Member for Kidderminster thinks it wrong, with complete sincerity but completely up a gum tree. Dr. Johnson said that when a madman comes into your house you should knock him down first and sympathise with him afterwards. I shall reverse that with the hon. Members of the Tory Party to whom I have been alluding. I shall sympathise with them first and knock them down afterwards, I hope.
  I sympathise with them because they happen to be born into the wrong century. They are ardent believers in nineteenth century laisser faire capitalism, Trotsky said anybody who wanted a quiet life should not have chosen this period of history to be born in. He might have added that anyone who wanted to retain a naive and virginal belief in the benefits of the unfettered choice of laisser faire capitalism should have been born at least fifty years before any of those hon. Gentlemen were born.
  It needs a fairly complex technical equipment to follow the argument which proves that the moon is not made of green cheese, but to prove that laisser faire capitalism in the middle of the twentieth century is a menace and a disaster to everybody, economically and politically, one would only need not to have been blind and deaf during the last twenty years. No technical equipment is needed. One has only to see the miseries and torments of unemployment, fascism and ultimately war, brought about because of the naive belief in the benefits of unrestricted laisser faire capitalism.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member pointed out earlier that a

  1011
  Third Reading debate is confined to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Lever: Oddly enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I am probably going on longer than the House would desire—the fact is, with great respect, that all I have to say has a Third Reading relevance in the sense that the Bill is a rejection of nineteenth century laisser faire capitalism. It is a rejection of almost every explicit doctrine preached by the Tory Party in all its propaganda. We have heard the agonies of Tory Members opposite, representing political anachronisms, museum pieces, chanting to themselves over and over again nineteenth century shibboleths which they think have the soothing and reassuring effect of a long remembered lullaby of childhood—why we should find any sympathy on this side of the House with those people I cannot for the life of me see.
  Mr. Gower: Is it not true that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) may not understand the pragmatic approach of a post-war Conservative Government, it is also true that the Socialist Party does not understand why a Conservative Government is so pragmatic?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Lever: I am willing to admit at once that nobody can really understand the baffling contradictions, double-faced-ness, double-talking of the Conservative Party. The hon. Gentleman has made his point with great force.
  Now I want to deal with the opposition from a much saner quarter than either the Government's denigration of their own Bill, or the peculiar utterances of the museum pieces of politics to whom I have referred. I must take into account the violent objection of hon. Members on my own side of the House to this Bill on the ground that it should have been on tougher terms and should have had an equity content. I will put it the other way round. The Bill does not make provision for an equity in Colvilles.
  "Ah", say my hon. Friends, "£40 million of public money. True we get it back. True we get back the interest which the Government will have paid. Look at all these bloated profits going into private hands which the country
  1012
  should have had." That I understand as a very reasonable sort of approach. The only thing is that I am not permitted on Third Reading to say what I would have done. The only point with which we are allowed to be concerned is the effect of the Bill as it stands. It is completely wrong to say that, as the Bill stands, the advance, economically and financially, which Colvilles will achieve will not in any way be shared in by the country. It is true that we could have had convertible debentures. But there is always one great unseen shareholder on every company's register, and that is the Government.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: What a strange doctrine.
  Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend says, "What a strange doctrine." I am prepared to face reality. If my hon. Friend sees anything inaccurate or distorted in what I am saying, let him get up and shoot me down. We cannot ignore the fact that if Colvilles' profits go up, half of them come to the Government.
  Mr. Mendelson: That has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Lever: It is all right saying it has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Mendelson: What we were arguing, and what my hon. Friend is now distorting, has nothing to do with not having been present during the Committee stage, because he read the debate. He is distorting our argument that there will be increased profits accruing to the company and that the nation should have a direct share in those increased profits.
  Mr. Lever: I do not think that my my hon. Friend was at his most charming when he said that I was deliberately distorting his argument. It may be flattering to my intelligence, but not to my morals. My hon. Friend adds to his charm with every intervention. Nevertheless, if he will listen to what I say I think he will find that I have not distorted the argument. I am dealing with the first part of the argument, and I will deal with the other part later. The argument is not that we could not have done a better deal. I would have done a better deal myself, and if you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would kindly allow me to do so on Third Reading, I would be

  1013
  prepared to try to draft a much better Bill, which would give more benefits to the people.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The rules of the House forbid us learning that secret.
  An Hon. Member: What would the hon. Member have done?
  Mr. Lever: I thought I had made it clear. My hon. Friend only wakes up when he hears anything which jars on his preconceived prejudices. Apparently, he did not hear the first part of my argument, when I said that I could have done better than the Government have done. I hope that he is now thoroughly awake and will listen to this part of what I am going to say.
  I have said, and I repeat, that it is true that the Government have not provided the benefits which a Labour Government would have provided. Nevertheless, it is not true to say that the people of the country will not share in any increased profits that result from this sheet steel mill. As has been said in a more august context—the hon. Member says he cannot understand me—I can provide him with an argument, but I cannot provide him with an understanding. The fact of the matter is that— blink away as much as we like—the hon. Gentleman wants more, and I do, and we might get it if we had a majority in the House of Commons; but we cannot blink away the fact that half of these profits will come to the people via the Treasury right away, and it is even more than that.
  Mr. Lawson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this does not apply to capital appreciation? If he bears in mind the fact that over the past two or three years this firm's equity shares have appreciated in Stock Exchange value by about £25 million, he will agree that not one penny of that £25 million will come to the Government in the shape of Income Tax.
  Mr. Lever: The untaxed capital appreciation of shares occurs under a defective fiscal system conducted by this reactionary Government, which system I would long ago have abolished. It distinguishes between capital gains and revenue gains. I realise that my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that any
  1014
  capital appreciation of the shares of Colvilles will not be taxed under the present law, but we are talking about increased profits resulting to the company—
  Mr. Mendelson: I am now questioning my hon. Friend's hearing as well as his good sense. What I said was that the point he was making was completely irrelevant. What he says about accruing taxable revenue can be said about any private company that has not received any Government money. My hon. Friend is clouding the issue.
  Mr. Lever: I will try once again, even at the risk of provoking another discourteous response to the courtesy which I have offered to my hon. Friend.
  It is not true to say that no share of the increase in profits which might be said to result from the increase in production of the Colvilles sheet steel mill will come back to the Government or the people. Half of it will come back automatically. That is obvious. If my hon. Friend says that that can be said of any other company, that does not falsify what I have said. It makes no difference my hon. Friend thinking that my argument is irrelevant. Fortunately, the House allows all hon. Members to decide for themselves—myself and others —whether their arguments are irrelevant. I will give my hon. Friend something else which he might think is irrelevant.
  Out of every £100 of Colvilles profit last year, £50 went to the Government and only £10 was paid to the shareholders. If that precedent is followed at something like the same rate, then, of the increased profits, for every £10 that goes to the shareholders, the Government may reasonably expect to get £50. If my hon. Friend now says that this also applies to other companies and, therefore, it is irrelevant, I cannot help that. I think that it is very relevant.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Mendelson: Tory cheers.
  Mr. Lever: I am not seeking Tory cheers. What my hon. Friend must realise is that an argument is right or wrong, and the fact that it is cheered by Tories or cheered by members of the Labour Party does not make it false or true. I beg my hon. Friend not to try to inject silly prejudice in addition to

  1015
  he has been using for the last ten minutes in response to the courtesy that I have offered him in three interventions in five minutes.
  It is absolutely false to say that, from this vast extension of the steel industry in Scotland, the nation will not share in the profits. We have a fiscal system—it does not go far enough and I should have gone further—which guarantees that the nation will have at least half of any increased profits arising from this development. It follows that the case for rejecting the Bill, on the ground that the nation will not benefit from the increased profits, fails. In the only speech on Second Reading which I found palatable, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that all Scotland wants this mill. How are we to get this mill? "Nationalise the industry", say my hon. Friends. If the industry is nationalised, we shall all be glad that this mill was built.
  Mr. Mendelson: At no stage of the argument did we say that nationalisation is the only alternative. In Committee, we said that we must face the facts of life, but we said that it could have been done on very different terms with greater benefit for the nation. It is to that point that my hon. Friend must address himself, instead of setting up and knocking down Aunt Sallies.
  Mr. Lever: I have already dealt with that point. Outside the sphere of nationalisation, Colvilles—and I regret it—does not take orders from the Labour Party. I would point out to my hon. Friend that it does not take orders from him, either.
  I wish that Colvilles took orders from the Labour Party, and I very much wish that we had a Labour Government, but at the moment Colvilles is free to pick and choose whether it undertakes to provide a steel mill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell said, it is plain that unless the Government, in addition to the moral pressure which they appear to have exercised at the time, had not also offered Colvilles this money, Colvilles would not have provided a sheet steel mill in this area. All Scotland wants it there.
  If the steel industry is subsequently nationalised, then we shall all say, on this
  1016
  side of the House, that this was a good Bill, and we shall be glad that it was passed, because it means that instead of waiting for the anachronisms of modern finance, through their free devices, to provide the steel mill, which means ten years after the demand appears, we shall have provided it by social intervention. At no cost to the country we shall have put that steel mill there in good time to meet the needs of our economy. If the Labour Party is elected in the future and if the nationalisation of steel is one of our objectives, we shall be glad to think that we helped to provide this steel mill. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will apologise to me and will say, "You were right and I was wrong, because we have a sheet steel mill which we should not otherwise have had".
  It is no good my hon. Friend avoiding the argument. Colvilles is not beholden to him to set up a steel mill on his terms. It will set up a steel mill on its own terms, unless we have nationalisation. If there is no nationalisation and if we want Colvilles to run a sheet steel mill for us, then, disagreeable as it may be, we must give Colvilles the inducement which satisfies it—not my hon. Friend—and persuades it to start a mill.
  Mr. Mendelson: We said that we welcome the extension of the steel industry and this location for the firm. I put it seriously to my hon. Friend that he must not ignore that fact. We said it on Second Reading.
  Mr. Lever: There is no need for my hon. Friend to repeat the argument, which I have read carefully and rejected in some detail. I have dealt with the argument. He cannot will the end, which is a sheet steel mill, unless he wills the means. That is the kind of thing that we have often said before. The only means of getting Colvilles to run a sheet steel mill, unless we have a Labour Government, is to provide the firm with finance on terms which, in negotiation, it accepts.
  The only question, therefore, is whether those terms are reasonable. I respectfully submit that they are. On the question of financial control—
  Mr. Diamond: Before he leaves this point, will my hon. Friend direct his mind to the question whether these terms the silly, venomous little cat-calls that

  1017
  are the most reasonable which could have been obtained? The rest of the argument is understood, but he has not attempted to deal with the main burden of the debate—apart from the question of accountability, on which he is about to speak—which is that these terms were nothing like the best terms which could have been obtained.
  Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend asks me to deal with the argument that these are not the best terms which could have been obtained. So far, this remains an argument—a mere assertion which has been made. I have no reason to think that this is true. I cannot in all sincerity say that I am sufficiently aware of the circumstances to make a categoric statement, but, looking at all the evidence, it seems on the face of it that this agreement represents the best deal that the Government could have obtained from Colvilles. That is my sincere conviction. I do not think that the Government could have driven a harder bargain with Colvilles at that time.
  I am not saying this to support the argument which the Government have adopted. It is a great pity, they say, that there was not more indication at the time of the reaction of horror and shock at the thought that Colvilles was to be financed by Government funds. I emphasise that it is not at Government "cost".
  I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Newton not to talk about companies which undertake work of this kind, even for a Tory Government, as "going on public assistance." My hon. Friend does not realise that in saying that he is doing a grave disservice to the very ideals for Which he has always fought. If we want firms to co-operate with the Government, whether this or another Government, in the location of industry, in the planning of our economy and in the rejection of everything held dear by the hon. Members for Kidderminster and Shipley, then we must not go around insulting people who accept our offer and co-operate.
  That is to put a premium on sabotage and on all the backwoodsmen. It means that all the decent, forward-looking, socially conscious business men will not be prepared to co-operate because they will know that they will be rewarded for their co-operation by cheap insults in the House of Commons. I say from these
  1018
  benches—so that it may have been said from both sides of the House, and in the interests of the ideals which I have always held—that I beg my hon. Friends not to indulge in this form of comment unless they are abundantly satisfied that what is happening morally compels it from them.
  Mr. Tom Brown Mr. Tom Brown (Ince) rose—
  Mr. Lever: I am not referring to my hon. Friend. He missed the occasion, when, to my regret, our Front Bench speaker referred to Colvilles as "going on public assistance". On that view, it follows that if the board of directors had told the Government to go to the devil when they said they wanted to negotiate for a steel mill, in 1957, they would have been gentlemen but now, because they have co-operated in this socially and economically desirable project, they are to be told that they are "going on public assistance". It does not help the prospect of an intelligent and flexible planning of our economy, which is expected, at any rate for a period, to be a mixed economy, to have that sort of comment made.
  I want to deal briefly with the question of public accountability. There is no need to be anxious about it. This Bill is not like the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act and other atrocious Measures which have been introduced. This is a straightforward loan, openly declared. Unless I have misread the documents—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—not a penny has been paid, and not a penny will be paid, until Parliament passes the Bill. I do not know what it is that terrifies my hon. Friend when he talks about throwing £12 on the Floor, followed by £120 million on the Floor. I do not follow it.
  Not a farthing is being paid until the House has had the most detailed debate on the subject—much more detailed than would have been the case on the Consolidated Fund. There has been a Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading. Everybody has been entitled to "pile in" and discuss it. Before a penny of this money is paid, it must be authorised by the House. It will not be paid until the House has sanctioned the Bill, as I am confident it

  1019
  will. If the hon. Member for Kidderminster were in his place I would relieve him of his anxieties about this.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am here.
  Mr. Lever: I am sorry that I missed the hon. Member from his accustomed place. I am glad to see him here; it is always encouraging, and in a way inspiring, to see him. He will be glad to know that I am so convinced of the merits of the Bill and so little terrified about the question of accountability that I think that the Bill will have a Third Reading and I will vote for it. It is not a case in which we have debated the Bill before we have known where the money is going. It is going into a loan to Colvilles. I am not dealing for the moment with the Richard Thomas and Baldwins part of the Bill, but with that part dealing with Colvilles.
  Nobody questions the probity and financial stability of Colvilles, and there is, therefore, not the slightest doubt that we shall get the money back. In those circumstances, I cannot see why we have all the fuss over public accountability. The House will decide tonight in favour of the Third Reading, with me in the Division Lobby in favour of it, if necessary.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Member with me?
  Mr. Lever: Yes. but I shall do it because I approve the purposes of the Bill; not because I have deliberately misled myself by misguided arguments. I shall go into the Lobby because I believe in the Bill and because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, I believe that all Scotland is in favour of the Bill. All Scotland is in favour of it because it thinks that it will benefit immensely by the Bill. Scotland also thinks that it is urgent. It will provide additional work in the area of the sheet mill, to absorb existing unemployment. We must also bear in mind the problems for the technically-skilled men in the area. The steel industry is growing. Unless we take more industry to this area we shall have even further unemployment because of the displacement of workers, from existing industry due to improvements in technique.
  The Bill is urgent and it is sensible. Of course, the Government dare not
  1020
  sing its praises or there would be a row on the Government side of the House. The Government had to come to the House piano and to play down the Bill saying, "It is one of those unfortunate things resulting from the fact that the Labour Party had put everybody in such a tangle". In the words of the popular song, the Government could say, "I try to be good, but the boys won't let me." The leading quartette of the Government could sing that song with some justification. They are forward-looking men. The trouble arises from the mixed bunch of political delinquents behind them, always dogging them and inhibiting their possibilities. When they have an enlightened moment, and do something contrary to the Tory doctrine, they must play it down.
  We must not be misled into supporting the most stupid, reactionary members of the Conservative Party, who rightly claim that this Bill follows in the whole tradition of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Nabarro: That is what I object to.
  Mr. Lever: Precisely. The real objection, and why they think that the Bill is dastardly, is that they think it follows strictly in the path of Labour ideas, which is to reject the concept that we can have a free-for-all economy, with no Government intervention and with no planning, ignoring social considerations altogether. This Bill will reject that concept—a concept which is essential to Tory doctrine.
  The Government dare not declare this, because of their followers. I have said that I am sorry for their followers. They have had a bad time. They have not even been able to reintroduce flogging and birching. All they have had is a Labour economic policy. Who knows what will happen next? We might have a tax on capital gains next week, when the Chancellor introduces his Budget.
  I have trespassed too long on the indulgence of the House. I think that the Government have unfairly denigrated their own progeny, for political reasons. I think that some of my hon. Friends have been wrong and have overstressed the inadequacy of the terms of the loan. I am not saying that they could not have been more favourable to the country, but there is no evidence that they could have

  1021
  been more favourable with a Tory Government in power, though, on the face of it, they look reasonable and fair. The net result of the Bill is a great gain in terms of economics and finance, at no financial cost to the Government. Perhaps the greatest gain of all is that the Tory Government have been forced to abandon their own most cherished doctrine of the advantages of laisser faire capitalism.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I have listened a long time to the discussions on this Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I have been here all through this debate, but I have listened with no greater interest than to the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). He would make an ideal Young Conservative. Unfortunately, his ideas are not in keeping with those held by other Members of the Opposition. I find them very similar to my own, however, and I must therefore say a few words in criticism of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
  We have come a long way from laisser faire economy. It is a thing of the past. We in the Conservative Party pointed out in our manifesto that we wanted a planned economy. We have a new conception today of the duties and responsibilities of Government. I saw a glimmering of light in the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he referred to our duties to Scotland and Wales. There are areas in this country, such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which are plagued by heavy unemployment.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned that without the new strip mill in Scotland other industries which have gone to Scotland to help to alleviate unemployment would not have gone there. One of the main functions of Government is to avoid this terrible wastage of unemployment—not only in its social effects but in its loss to the economy. I therefore support the Third Reading of this Bill because I believe it is the Government's duty to plan for expansion and prosperity.
  1022
  Companies such as Colvilles and Richard Thomas and Baldwins should not be tied too strictly to the money market. They should not be tied to temporary fluctuations in trade. We want capital expenditure in the economy to be spread evenly. We want to avoid the cyclical unemployment in capital goods industries which was the curse of the nineteenth century and of the first forty years of this century.
  An important contributory factor to the recurrent cycle of boom and depression, which resulted in such heavy unemployment in this country, particularly between 1925 and 1935, was the difference in investment in the capital goods industries. Certain firms need large sums of money to invest from time to time, such as steel firms and others in coal, railways, aircraft, shipbuilding and nuclear power. All these firms are investing in capital expansion. They cannot depend on the stock market, because the stock market, which performs a very useful function in private industry, suffers from certain natural limitations. It depends on many investors, both small and large, and the day-to-day success of new issues depends on the psychology and the outlook of these small investors.
  The hon. Member for Cheetham said that Colvilles' management was in some doubt as to whether to expand or not. It often happens—it did before the war —that the owners and managers of an industry are in doubt as to whether or not to expand from time to time. Their decisions based on their estimate of future demand and on the price which they have to pay for the money they borrow can be wrong. As a result, much of the investment in this country before the war took place during a boom, and that meant heavy unemployment in the capital industries during the slump, because there was next to no employment in shipbuilding and steel. That caused depression in consumer industries which was reflected throughout the economy.
  The Conservative Party has long ago left the ideas which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster would have liked to impress upon the Government. It has been said today that the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster was going to vote in favour of the Bill, and the reason why

  1023
  the Government were introducing this Bill, was sanctity of contract. I would like to think that there were wider reasons behind the presentation of the Bill than sanctity of contract. The debate itself was full of such platitudinous remarks as "State paternalism". That slogan, like many others, is full of prejudice and has next to no logic in it.
  I therefore commend this Bill because I firmly believe that it is a function of Government, as we see it, firstly, to help to avoid unemployment; secondly to ameliorate the hardship that unemployment causes; and thirdly, to prevent the wastage of vital economic resources and manpower which arises from changes in trade and produces uneven unemployment and depression in certain areas. Finally, I would also agree that even though the Government do not take a direct financial or equitable interest in industry—and that may not be their function; I do not believe it is myself— nevertheless they have a social interest, and the Treasury has a direct interest, in the success of all British industry. The Bill is correct in its purpose, and I support it.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr, George Lawson: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is a rather interesting example of the denizens of the party opposite. I presume that as a good Conservative he preaches the virtues of free enterprise, yet as a Member for a Northern Ireland constituency he very well recognises that free enterprise cannot meet the problems of his area. He therefore supports his Government in measures that transcend private enterprise. I do not know whether he sees a contradiction in that what he preaches he does not praotise. That is the difficulty also for this Government. It is the difficulty that has been present in our debate today, during the Committee stage and on Second Reading.
  Mr. McMaster: I see no conflict in what I said. I see a wedding between private enterprise and State assistance. I referred to large firms—such as those in steel and nuclear power—which need more money, particularly at certain times, than the ordinary economy can provide, but, by and large, of course. I
  1024
  approve of private enterprise. Here in the steel industry we get the wedding between State assistance, when required, and private enterprise, which makes a strong economy competitive.
  Mr. Lawson: In the last few years the steel industry has been boasting of its ability to stand on its own legs. It has been mooking State intervention and nationalisation. I come back to my original point. I support the Bill for reasons which I have given previously, but I want also to expose the contradictions of hon. Members opposite and the Government. The Government went to the country on the basis that free enterprise was best. If the Conservative Party does not believe in free enterprise, what does it believe in? It is difficult to know. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was right to say that this was a matter of Conservative philosophy. He was very troubled about the Bill because of its direct clash with Conservative philosophy. All the difficulties which we have had in our discussions have stemmed from the fact that the Government do not practise what they preach.
  For Scotland, the Bill is a very good thing. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) were in his place, I could point out to him that for Scotland it is a very good thing that the Government are to practise other than they preach, because, like Northern Ireland, in many respects Scotland is in a bad way. Northern Ireland may be in a worse way than Scotland, but Scotland is in difficulties primarily because of the failure of free enterprise to meet Scotland's problems.
  The endeavour to establish a strip mill in Scotland is one of the means by which, through Government intervention, we hope that Scotland will once again be brought into line with developments south of the Border. If anything is obvious—and I repeat this with all the emphasis at my oommand—it is that there would have been no suggestion of a strip mill for Scotland but for Government intervention.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheethann (Mr. H. Lever), have said that in some respects Colvilles is a firm which we should highly respect.
  Mr. H. Lever: I do not know whether Colvilles should be respected. I know that Colvilles is solvent, and I made that point. Secondly, I know of nothing which it has done in this connection which warrants it being subjected to insults, such as being described as taking public assistance.
  Mr. Lawson: I accept that, but it might be useful to recall that the strip mill was suggested early in 1957 and the first proposal was that it should go to the Grangemouth area, a proposal which Colvilles opposed at that time. I am not saying that the strip mill would have gone to the Grangemouth area, but it seems that Colvilles did not want Richard Thomas and Baldwins in Scotland. It may have been that the latter firm would have provided competition for Colvilles' labour and given Colvilles' workers a much stronger bargaining position than they now have, since there is practically no other firm to employ them. However, Colvilles did show it was hostile to the establishment of a strip mill. I have said that in the House before, and I have said it in my constituency and I wrote it in my election address, so I have made no attempt to hide it. It is perfectly clear that Colvilles was approached by the Government and induced by the Government and bribed by the Government to do that which Colvilles at that stage said it was not very keen to do.
  I think that Colvilles is now very keen to go ahead with the idea, and I welcome the discovery with zest to go ahead with the strip mill and hope that Colvilles will make a first-rate job. Colvilles is most efficient about producing steel, but it can be seen that the difficulties which we have had all stem from the fact that in Scotland free enterprise in steel has been letting the nation down.
  Only a few years ago, Scotland regularly produced 15 per cent. of all the steel made in the United Kingdom. We are now down to a little more than 10 per cent. Year after year there has been a progressive drop in the proportion of steel produced in Scotland. What is true of the steel industry is true of many others.
  Scottish Members have urged the Government to intervene, and we shall continue to do so. We believe that there will have to be much more intervention,
  1026
  and all my Scottish hon. Friends are solidly behind granting money to enable this venture to go ahead. We tried to make reservations, and I tried to put my point of view in Committee. However, that point of view was rejected and we are now left with the alternative of supporting or opposing the Bill as it now stands. There is no doubt among my hon. Friends—we believe that the Bill must now be passed as it is, and we shall give it our whole-hearted support.
  6.46 p.m.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Since I moved the Second Reading of the Bill about five weeks ago, from time to time I have had cause to think of amending the description which I then gave it. I said at the time that this was a small accounting Bill. For a small accounting Bill, it seems to have led to a great deal of discussion.
  I want to deal with the very remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) and to say that I have no shame or apology to make for the Bill. I do not know how he detected that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or I had any such shame. As the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said, the Bill will be of great benefit to Scotland, and I make no apology for it whatsoever.
  It might be useful if I said something about the background of the Bill, to which my right hon. Friend referred. There seems to have been a suggestion that from time to time my right hon. Friend and I have made inconsistent statements. It has been clearly known for some time that the Government have been anxious to have a strip mill in Scotland. After discussions among the Government, the Iron and Steel Board and the industry, Colvilles came forward with a proposal to provide capacity in Scotland, so long as financial assistance was available on terms which would make that new development an economic proposition, taking account of the risks involved—and I want later to return to the risks involved for Colvilles at that time.
  A misunderstanding seemed to develop between the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and myself about the heads of agreement and the drawing of the loan. The heads of agreement state

  1027
  that the company may draw once in each period—that is, once in six months—but the amount to be taken in each period depends on the needs of the time. That is the purpose of the relevant head of agreement, and the operative word in that definition is "may". The company has eight chances—that is what it comes to—to draw the loan. It need not draw in eight bits, but the heads of agreement provide that it must not draw more than once in every six months, and it goes without saying that the company need not draw up to the maximum of £50 million.
  The financing of the other loan, that to Richard Thomas and Baldwins by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, was raised by the hon. Member for Newton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). On other occasions, I have explained that I do not believe—and in Committee I quoted the relevant part of the 1953 Act—that the Agency was created for the purpose of financing these kinds of developments. It was created to finance such developments as would assist in the disposal of the companies still owned by the State. Therefor, I do not believe, and I repeat what I said before to my hon. Friend, that it is the purpose or the function of the Agency to finance major new developments of this kind.
  Mr. Lee: I am grateful for what the Minister said about the agreement. It is most remarkable that we talk about there being eight tranches, when apparently the company can draw the whole thing in one tranche. Because of what the Minister said, is there any point in saying that there shall be eight tranches? Why not two, or one? In other words, it could get it all at once if it wished.
  Mr. Wood: The point I tried to explain is that the company cannot draw two lots of money within six months. I imagine that the tranches will begin to be drawn some time in the near future, and they will continue for the rest of the period. That is the position. I want to make it clear that there is no specification in the heads of agreement that the tranches must be equal. They can vary by considerable amounts, but they would not do so because of the continued flow
  1028
  of the work, and the money would be drawn when it was needed. Therefore, the company would draw the money it needed in 1960, 1961 or 1962, at that time, and it would draw the money it needed later at a later date. I do not think that that is a very remarkable position.
  A number of hon. Gentlemen have questioned the terms which were reached between Her Majesty's Government and Colvilles when they came to the agreement at the end of 1958. It is impossible to be dogmatic, but having made inquiries and looked closely into the matter, I am convinced that the terms— and I think I have the support of the hon. Member for Cheetham—were the best deal possible for the Government at that time, although that is open to argument. There is no way in which that kind of statement can be proved. I state my convictions, and I remind the House of what has occasionally been forgotten in this context, the considerable risk and the different atmosphere in which this deal was concluded in 1958.
  I think I said this at an earlier stage. I am convinced that if things had gone differently, and if the state of the market had not moved as it has in the last two years, we should have had very little criticism of the Bill. I hate to say anything rude to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) after the kind things he said to me, but occasionally we have found him guilty—and I think my right hon. Friend found him guilty at an earlier stage—of tending to want the best of both worlds, or, in a more topical phrase, trying to back his horse after it has got past the post. I believe that the criticisms which have been made were made because of the great change that has taken place—and I admit it has —between the conclusion of this agreement and the present time.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester made some serious charges about breach of faith. He suggested that my predecessor had committed some breach of trust or faith by using his powers under Section 5 of the 1953 Act for this purpose. Perhaps his recollection of this is clouded, but I think he will recall, or he can discover if he is so minded, that the Opposition at the time of the passage of the Iron and Steel Bill—and this point was made by my hon. Friend

  1029
  the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower)-was most anxious to give greater powers to the Minister to provide and use facilities or make arrangements for the provision or use of those facilities, if he was convinced that the capacity was likely to be greater in the future.
  The hon. Gentleman's case seems to be that the Government ought to have asked for approval before the agreement was made and it was rather immoral of them to use these powers. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman said, but not before eighteen months had elapsed since the conclusion of the agreement. I apologise for reminding the House, but the fact is that although Questions were asked about this agreement at the time, when it was announced there were no murmurs of disapproval until the introduction of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend were guilty of "shifty replies", and my hon. Friend the Member far Kidderminster used the word "artfulness" to describe my right hon. Friend's reply.
  Mr. Diamond: He used that word to describe the Government Front Bench.
  Mr. Nabarro: I said that the President of the Board of Trade was "artfulness personified", and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power was "extremely artful" in the way he had contrived this. May I correct my right hon. Friend at once? He is wrong in telling the House that there was no murmur of dissent about these steel matters. He has not referred to my three Parliamentary Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th January, long before the Bill came in, expressing the strongest disapproval about the antithesis of denationalisation and the fact that we were investing more and more State money in steel instead of denationalising.
  Mr. Wood: I take my hon. Friend's amendment of the word "artfulness," but it is still fourteen to fifteen months, even if I take into consideration the trenchant Questions he put to my right hon. Friend. There was a long interval between the conclusion of the agreement and those trenchant Questions.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have continuously asked Questions about this. I did not
  1030
  want to embarrass my right hon. Friend in holding his seat in Bridlington at the General Election by suggesting that he was not pursuing denationalisation as quickly as I would have liked. That would have embarrassed him too much.
  Mr. Wood: I thank my hon. Friend for not embarrassing me at the election.
  I have analysed the "shifty" or "artful" replies since the hon. Gentleman made these charges. I think there was also some suggestion that some statements made by my right hon. Friend did not concur as closely as they should have done with statements made by my hon. Friend. I cannot find anything contradictory in them. They seem to be good examples of the many-sidedness of truth.
  There has been a lot of discussion this afternoon about the sanctity of contract. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) say that in his view there were wider reasons for supporting the Bill than the sanctity of contract. That ties in with what I said at the beginning of the Bill, that this is a good Bill because its effects are not only socially desirable but will be economically beneficial to this country.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester disagrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster about the sanctity of contract. The hon. Gentleman believes that a vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, or a vote at some other stage of the Bill—and this is where he came into conflict with my hon. Friend—is not a vote against the sanctity of contract. He spoke eloquently, and to a certain extent convincingly, but I would remind him of what I said at an earlier stage, that, apart from the method of the Agency financing these loans, which I have rejected for other reasons—and I hope that the House agrees with me— this money, once agreed, can be provided only in two ways. The first is by the method chosen by the Bill, and the second would be by leaving it where it began last year, on my Vote.
  The arrangement of putting this money on my Vote, which would completely swamp my Vote and make it entirely top-heavy, certainly would be to make possible the yearly examination of this arrangement. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, however, promised

  1031
  to give time, not only to consider the report which I am obliged by the Bill to make, but also to consider reports that I might make on any variations that might take place in the loan. Therefore, to scrap the Bill and to place the money back on my Vote would make absolutely no difference to the terms of the agreement. There is no doubt between us there.
  Therefore, if the hon. Member carries his protest to the extent of a vote, it will mean either that he wants the money placed on my Department's Vote or that he is fundamentally in disagreement with the terms of the agreement itself. I do not see any benefit to the House in placing the money back on my Vote, nor do I believe that that is the objective of the hon. Member himself. Therefore, I cannot see how the sanctity of this contract can be preserved, except by the method that we have chosen under the Bill.
  I have given the undertaking at an earlier stage that there will be no application elsewhere of this money—that is, to no other firm but Richard Thomas and Baldwins and Colvilles. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said when moving the Third Reading, our legal advice is that I would be prevented from reissuing any sums of money which the Treasury might have received back and then issued to me for other purposes. Therefore, I do not see that there can be any doubt whatever, if my undertaking is accepted, that the loan is arranged and will be used only for the purposes which I have stated—to assist Colvilles and Richard Thomas and Baldwins to do the jobs which we have set before them.
  Mr. Diamond: The undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman is now giving is a material one. Does it apply not only to any variation of the agreements with the two proposed borrowers, but to the extent that if any part of this money is not loaned to either of those two borrowers—and it is contemplated that it might be so loaned because of the revision in 1962—it will not be loaned to any other borrower in any circumstances whatever without application being made to this House?
  Mr. Wood: I can give that undertaking quite clearly. If, for instance,
  1032
  only £90 million of these loans were drawn by the two companies, there is no question of using the unexpended £30 million for other purposes. Therefore. I give that undertaking clearly.
  Mr. H. Lever: Would it not save a lot of trouble and argument if these undertakings, instead of being given at the Dispatch Box at the last moment, had been written into the Bill in plain English? That would have pleased many of my hon. Friends and would have saved a good deal of time. I am not casting any doubt on the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking, but we should not have to rely on a verbal undertaking by a Minister that he will not embezzle the money. It should be written into the Bill.
  Mr. Wood: The Second Reading debate had lasted only seventeen and a half seconds before I gave that undertaking. Therefore, it was given as early as possible, and the hon. Member has kindly said that he is willing to accept it.
  To summarise, the contracts, which have been the subject of a great deal of argument for almost three days, were made under Section 5 of the 1953 Act, under the powers which the House then gave me, and the contract was announced to the House. The hon. Member for Cheetham said that the argument that there had been little criticism between that announcement and the present day was an irrelevant one. Therefore, I shall not dwell on it again.
  Before the Bill appeared, £1 million appeared on my Vote for 1959–60 in order to honour the beginning of the contract if it should become necessary. The only reason for the Bill—which, I remind the House, is a small accounting Bill—is because it was considered inconvenient and inappropriate for large sums to remain on my Vote. Therefore, we have the Bill to bring these sums below the line. It gave to the House—I make no complaint about this, because I have learned a great deal in the course of the three days—an opportunity to criticise in the circumstances of 1960 the loan agreement, which not only was not criticised in the circumstances of 1958, but was warmly welcomed, particularly by hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. It is only right that we should try to cast our minds back to

  1033
  1958, and if we may again, in the words of the hon. Member for Cheetham, look at it in the light in which it appeared then, we shall see that the contract was, on the whole, very beneficial to make. The only purpose of the Bill is to honour that contract. Therefore, I ask the House to give it a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  GAS [MONEY]
  Resolution repotted,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount which may be borrowed by the Gas Council and Area Boards under the Gas Act, 1948, and to amend that Act with respect to the expenses of the Minister in connection with the testing of gas for compliance with standards prescribed under that Act, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer as may result from provisions of the said Act for increasing up to five hundred and twenty-five million pounds, in the case of borrowings before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-six, the limit imposed by subsection (3) of Section forty-two of the Gas Act, 1948, upon the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council and Area Boards.
  Resolution agreed to.

  GAS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS.)
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. William Blyton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end to insert:
  Provided that none of the additional moneys authorised to be borrowed by virtue of this subsection shall be applied for the purpose of the purchase, importation, or distribution of liquid methane gas.
  We put down this Amendment to elicit information, rather than from the point of view of opposing the Bill, because of the apprehensions which exist particularly in the coal industry. During the Second Reading debate the Minister referred to the importation of liquid methane on a commercial scale and said that critical examination would be given to such proposals.
  We are worried about this development. We should like to know what amount of the money to be borrowed is to be devoted to building bigger shins to be used for the importation of liquid methane, and what will be the effect on the coal industry. A short time ago there was talk among important people in the gas industry of ships of 20,000 tons to be used to carry liquid methane to this country. That statement was made during the election by the then Chairman of the Gas Council. Such a policy would lead to a huge reduction in the consumption of coking coal. At present we are faced with the closing of 240 pits in a period of five years, and I remind those hon. Members who favour licences for private mine owners that such owners would have to carry some of that burden.
  The County of Durham produces gas coal. There, under existing conditions, the manpower in the coal industry is to be reduced to about 70,000 by 1965. If, in addition, we have to face the possibility of liquid methane being allowed to come into the country in the proportions which are envisaged, the position will be worsened. In Durham there are large modern collieries on which thousands of pounds of capital have been expended. They have a hundred years'

  1035
  reserve of coking coal. The production at those collieries will be affected if the contemplated imports of methane are sanctioned, and the manpower will be still further reduced. The coal will be left in the ground and our miners will be unemployed.
  The collier trade has faced bad times because of the competition from oil and it will receive a further blow if liquid methane is imported into this country. The collier trade on Tyneside and Weir-side will be affected and there can be no hope of ship owners building coastal vessels if the future trade for such vessels is taken away.
  Again and again I have raised the question of the ever increasing importation of fuel which makes us dependent on imported fuel while our indigenous fuel remains under the ground. I believe that policy to be dangerous both from an economic and a strategic point of view. It should be the duty of Parliament to see that we make the best use of our own resources. We fear that the sum mentioned in the Bill includes an amount of money to be devoted to the future development of liquid methane imports. I say to the Minister that such a policy is a death sentence on the Durham coal field, and that many people now employed in the gas industry will become unemployed.
  7.15 p.m.
  It is argued that liquid methane must be imported in order to enrich our gas, but is that really the case? Or is it that the Gas Board wishes to use the possibility of importing liquid methane as a threat to induce the Coal Board to sell coal at uneconomic prices? I have heard experts in the gas industry say that they want a free choice to enable them to buy in the cheapest market, because they consider the price of coal to be too high. I heard of that policy years ago when it was described as a cheap fuel policy and it caused distress and havoc in my county. Can the Minister tell us whether any of the money is to be spent on the building of ships designed to be used for the importation of liquid methane on a far greater scale than at present?
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill indicates that the Minister has considered the pro-
  1036
  gramme of expenditure of this money. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of the plans envisaged will result in a further contraction of the coal industry in Durham because of the importation of liquid methane gas on a large scale? We have put down the Amendment because we apprehend that the future for coal will be bleak, and the further importation of liquid methane will worsen the position. This is a "bread and butter" question for the people who work in the mines in Durham, and therefore I seek an assurance from the Minister on this point. Our job should be to ensure that our own coal is used. I should be grateful if the Minister, with his knowledge of the schemes involved, will allay our fears or give us some information on the point.
  The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). He said that the Amendment had been put down, not because of any opposition to the Bill, but to get enlightenment. I appreciate his attitude, and I hope to be able to provide the enlightenment for which he asks and remove the fears which he has expressed so that there will be no need to carry this Amendment to a Division.
  I understand very well—indeed, I said so on Second Reading—that apprehensions may be entertained by a number of hon. Members about the possibility of the importation of liquid methane. I certainly understand those fears as expressed by hon. Members who represent Durham constituencies. The position regarding coking coal in that county is one which we are watching with immense care. Anything which may have a considerable effect on the demand for coking coal must cause apprehensions in the minds of hon. Members who represent Durham constituencies.
  I tried to express my views on the matter during the Second Reading debate. I hope I shall not go over too much of the same ground now in giving to the hon. Gentleman the answers which appear to me to be convincing in the present circumstances, and in the absence of any demand from the gas industry for these importations of liquid methane on anything but a trial scale.

  1037
  First, I ought perhaps to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 5, paragraph 6, of the Gas Council's brochure, "Gas Looks Ahead", the last two sentences of which says:
  "It is impossible to say accurately how the present plans of Boards will require modification should new supplies of gas and methods of production begin to be introduced in conjunction with a National Grid".
  These are all possibilities which I mentioned in my speech on Second Reading. The last sentence of that paragraph states:
  "Any such modifications would fall within the later years of the present programme, and an amount of £25 million has been included to allow for them but has not been allocated to any particular Board."
  The Committee will appreciate that proposals of this kind, which the Gas Council may make to me in connection with the possibility of importing liquid methane are similar, although not the same, to the unknown proposals which it may at a later stage have to bring before me in connection with such things as a national gas grid. For the moment, I must direct my attention and that of the Committee to the possibility of these imports being proved to be economically beneficial and to seeing whether, in fact, there may or may not be a case for them.
  The hon. Gentleman has suggested to us that these imports would definitely reduce the demand for coking coal, and he has gone so far as to say that they would be the death sentence of the Durham coalfield. For various reasons, I cannot agree with such a summary judgment. I can see a number of situations in which, as I think the hon. Gentleman would agree, the importation of liquid methane would not necessarily lead to a corresponding reduction in the use of coal.
  First, there is the possibility that methane may be a source of very cheap gas. That will at least be agreed as a possibility by all hon. Members. This would be to the great advantage of the gas industry. Methane would also introduce the advantages of being free from sulphur and carbon monoxide and, in so far as it created a genuine new demand in these ways, it would not be detrimental but actually beneficial to the coal industry. That is the first reason why I believe the hon. Gentleman's judgment is too summary to be wholly true.
  1038
  Secondly, these imports, if they took place, would be very largely used to meet the peak load or other requirements. This peak load and the other requirement which I have in mind are normally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, supplied by carburetted water gas or oil gas. Therefore, if methane imports replaced them they would not be replacing coal but replacing oil, and that, I think, from the point of view of the coal industry would also be beneficial.
  Thirdly, there is the important consideration which the hon. Gentleman mentioned of processes of total gassification, such as Lurgi, which produces lean gas and which needs enrichment either by methane or some other enricher. Therefore, methane in this case would seem to me to be likely to help to maintain the existing markets and possibly increase them for gas made from coal.
  These are the arguments which, in my opinion, entitle me to take a perfectly open view at this moment of the possibilities of methane gas. But as I said in the debate on Second Reading:
  "The appraisal of this experiment … calls for a very high degree of critical care. It may be some time before the Gas Council puts its proposals to me. When it does so, I undertake to examine them urgently and to report to the House as soon as I can."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 253.]
  If after such examination—which I should certainly do with all the claims of the coal industry and all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention tonight in mind—it becomes quite clear that liquid methane gasified in a particular area could have substantial economic advantages, I am bound to admit I should then find it profoundly difficult to justify refusal to use it and a decision to use indigenous resources, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, regardless of cost in a nation such as ours, which is bound to exist, live and thrive on international trade.
  I have given an undertaking, and I hope I can convince the hon. Gentleman that it is with great sincerity, that the whole future of the coal industry and of the gas industry, which is very important to the coal industry, is bound to be taken into consideration if and when such proposals as we are considering at the moment are made to me. I believe, as I said on Second Reading,

  1039
  the criticism of liquid methane at any price viewed the matter too narrowly. If, in fact, methane led to a rejuvenation and a new lease of life for the gas industry and assistance to the gas industry, as I believe it may, it may not be detrimental but actually beneficial to the coal industry.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his careful answer to the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) placed before him. It is, of course, quite natural, if the quantities of coal which the Gas Council will be using are reduced from 65 per cent. to 55 per cent. in a few years, that my hon. Friends, from the Durham area especially, and, indeed, from the whole of the coalfields, are worried as to where this process will eventually lead us.
  There are even wider considerations than that. I recently listened to experts discussing world fuel supplies. One expert opinion assesses the amount and. indeed, the life of natural gasses as very short indeed. They believe that the exhaustion of world supplies of these gasses is going ahead at a very great pace. If that is so, it would be a great mistake to base our future planning development within the gas industry on a type of fuel which may quite speedily not be available to us.
  In contradistinction to that, we also have the fact that when we look at efficiency in coal burning it is the case that that efficiency has gone ahead far more rapidly in the last decade than in any other period since we have had a mining industry. Therefore, following that case at the moment, it appears to be an easy way out of our problem to import methane, but we may well be overlooking the long distance view, which may be a complete inability to get such gasses because of the rate at which they are now being exhausted, the relatively low supplies in the world and the increased efficiency with which we can now use coal.
  One sees, for instance, in the United States that there are very big increases of coal-burning in the power stations which are now being placed nearer to the coalfields. This kind of development may, in some strange way, bring us back
  1040
  to the point where, given a continuance of these developments, there could be very little doubt that coal for the production of electricity, gas and so on would be a far better economic proposition than many of the new ideas for replacing coal.
  7.30 p.m.
  When we look at the fact that shortly there will be such a terrific call on the world's fuel power supplies as other nations become manufacturing nations, it is as well to remember that at the moment one-third of the world's population is using seven-eighths of the world's supply of power. I follow the point made by my hon. Friend that in this connection we have one indigenous product, coal. We all know that as mechanisation increases throughout the world it will not be possible for such a relatively small proportion to burn up so large an amount of the world's power supplies. We may be investing in types of fuel which will no longer be available in a relatively short space of time. In that wider setting we also have to deal with problems of the gas industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave what information he could on the question of the importation of methane. I take it that he does not yet know whether it is considered to be an economic proposition. We should like to know whether he has yet received any plans of any type from the Gas Council. For instance, does he know of any efforts to replace the methane "Pioneer"? How many voyages have taken place so far? Is it contemplated that there will be boats of greater tonnage than the methane "Pioneer" to make the importation of methane a more economic proposition? One hears this and that on this subject. In the coalfields the stories go around and cause very considerable apprehension among coal miners, who very naturally are worried about this matter.
  If it is possible, either now or in the immediate future, to give us further information as to the state now reached by the Gas Council on the question of building larger ships or anything of that type, although it would be bad news if the right hon. Gentleman said that was to be done, nevertheless we would far rather know the position than have the present apprehension.

  1041
  I hope the Council itself will be seized of the fact that there is this enormous increase in the efficiency with which we are now able to burn coal and that there are dangers of what may now look a rather fanciful modern scheme in a short space of time turning out to be not what it appears. My information from scientific sources is that natural gas is now being used at such a pace that, in comparison with the amount of gas reserves, it cannot go on for a very long time. If that is so, I would have thought it a far better proposition to invest more in our home indigenous fuel, coal, than in imports of this kind.
  I have no intention of pursuing this matter, but I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should keep us closely informed on these developments. If he can give more information on the points I have raised I should be grateful to him.
  Mr. Ede: I have the honour of representing more than 75,000 electors in this House. Among them is my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). I want to support the point of view he has put forward this evening.
  From time to time we see passing this House colliers going to the Wandsworth Gas Works for the South Eastern Gas Board. The day before they pass here they start in my constituency. They bring coal from mines there, among them the one in which my hon. Friend served his time in the coal industry. At one time that colliery company and Wandsworth Gas Council, which has been absorbed into the South Eastern Gas Board, were closely interlocked both in their directors and in the people who held the capital of the two concerns. Therefore, it is a matter of the utmost concern to my constituents and other coal mining constituents in the Durham coalfield as to what happens on the issue which has been raised by my hon. Friend.
  I am bound to say that the more the Minister of Power sought to reassure us the more alarmed I became. Because this methane would greatly popularise the use of gas, it was thought that that would lead to a greater consumption of gas coal. That seems a rather peculiar deduction to draw from the high testimonies which the right hon. Gentleman paid to the qualities of methane as a
  1042
  gas producer. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring, said that he did not intend to pursue the matter very far tonight, but it would be wrong for me to leave the Minister under any delusion that this is a matter which is not giving the very gravest concern throughout the whole of the County of Durham. I can speak of that from my personal experience and the experience of other mining areas which in the past have supplied fuel to the various gas undertakings of the country.
  It is no easy thing to meet miners after their experiences in the years between the two wars, still with a haunting feeling of fear when they see anything that tends still further to deteriorate the prospect of employment in their industry. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is one thing for him to make the speech he made here tonight where we are far from a coalfield and another to repeat that statement in an area where men know that their livelihood depends on what is to happen. I ask him to realise that there is a very deep anxiety which broods over the areas where coal has been mined for a very long time for the production of gas. Sometimes they are unable to take the kind of philosophic view which the right hon. Gentleman asked us to take this evening.
  They are not Luddites; they are people who have given their lives to this great industry, which was at the basis of our nineteenth century prosperity. Men now in the industry have seen their position as the primary producers of the wealth of this country being steadily whittled away by the competition of other fuels and other ways of producing power. They have served this country well in the past in circumstances of daily danger, as we all know, and they are entitled to be considered by the Minister and his colleagues in any decisions which have to be made.
  Mr. Wood: I hope that I did not give the impression when I spoke earlier that I did not in every way share the kind of concern of which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has reminded us. I think I said that I appreciated the apprehensions which must be felt—particularly with memories

  1043
  of less pleasant times—when any suggestion of this kind is made or is considered a possibility.
  In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to remind the Committee, looking at it, perhaps, in the opposite way from the way I first looked at it, that both my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I, on Second Reading, I think, spoke about the immense fight which faced the gas industry. I think that that statement of ours won a certain amount of approval in the House and hon. Members generally agreed. The industry is up against it. It has a fight on its hands, and I hope sincerely that it will fight successfully. I am quite certain that my own approach should be to give the gas industry every chance— I hope that, here again, I shall carry hon. Members with me—to compete successfully with other fuels and to win the fight. If the gas industry could show me that liquid methane was likely to be of very great benefit to the industry, I do not believe that it would be either right or wise of me to refuse it.
  Indeed, if I asked the gas industry to go into the fight with at least one of its hands tied behind its back because I would not agree to something which it thought likely to be beneficial, then I should be guilty not only of being unfair and unwisely treating the gas industry, but I should be rightly blamed by those, like the right hon. Gentleman, who are interested in the coal industry, because, if the gas industry does not succeed and does not win the fight, the coal industry will be about the greatest sufferer. That is why I am quite sure that I ought to look into these proposals, if or when they are made, with an open mind, having very much in view the sort of considerations which we have discussed this evening.
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) asked me several questions about the possibility of building other ships, and so forth. In the absence of any proposals—none has yet been put to me by the gas industry—I am unable to answer any of his questions except the one he asked about the "Methane Pioneer", which referred to the past. The "Methane Pioneer" has made seven experimental voyages. I understand that it is not to make any more experimental
  1044
  voyages. The gas industry is assessing the results of those trial cargoes before making any proposals, if, indeed, it does have any to make to me. That is the only answer I can give the hon. Gentleman.
  On Second Reading, I promised that, when proposals were made, I should certainly take an opportunity to report them to the House so that the House would be able, by Question and Answer or in other ways, to express a view upon them. I repeat that undertaking tonight.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I rise to make only a short speech because I heard the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) remark that it would be extremely unwise to base the fuel and power policy of the United Kingdom on the supply of natural gas because, he said, the supply of such gas may be exhausted in a very short time. Of course, we hear this argument weekly, monthly and even yearly, and, in my view, its validity must be assessed in two ways—from an assessment of the proved reserves which are available, and the possible reserves in the world.
  It is right to remind ourselves that, so far as oil is concerned, Kuwait was not an oil producer until 1945, yet the reserves of oil located there are roughly equivalent to those in all North America, Central America and South America. Natural gas is a valuable product in the United States of America, in Canada, in Venezuela, where it is flared, in the Middle East, in Hassi R'mel, Algeria, in Libya, and at Lacq, South-West France. There is no question about the available supplies drying up in the years to come. It is inexhaustible in supply.
  The other point made is that we should make the greatest use of the resources we have available from home and abroad. My right hon. Friend put the point succinctly and quite advisedly, in the best possible way. First of all, he has to decide upon the feasibility of the experiment and then to decide whether the experiment would lead to a reduction in costs. Against that background, we must remember that it is the duty of the Gas Council to supply the community with fuel at the cheapest possible price and give the best service to the customer. If it is to work towards that end, the

  1045
  use of natural gas may lead to a valuable source of fuel.
  Another factor which should be underlined is that methane, not containing carbon monoxide, is non-toxic; in other words, it can kill only by asphyxiation. Also, being lighter than manufactured gas, it tends to rise very rapidly and is, therefore, less likely to lead to explosion than manufactured gas. Moreover, the calorific value is very much higher than that of manufactured gas which we have in the United Kingdom.
  I hope that, in the years ahead, if a proposition is forthcoming, the Gas Council will consider a vessel of 10,000 tons, or perhaps 20,000 tons, which would make it an economic proposition. This should be carefully examined. We must consider all our fuel supplies comprehensively and, on this basis, the gas industry has a close interest. The gas industry is run by one of our national corporations which must pay for itself; it exists on a competitive basis and, for that reason, we should endorse any sound policy which it advocates.
  I appreciate very well the apprehension felt by the National Coal Board but, in this context, let us look back a few years to 1896 when the Flag Acts were repealed. There was much controversy then because, so it was said, the motor car on the road was a menace to the horse and carriage, and a man with a red flag was obliged to walk in front of it so that the car should not exceed four miles an hour. People said that the motor car was a menace and it ought to be put off the road—
  The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): Order. We are not discussing the motor car industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. Skeet: I was referring to the motor car, Dr. King, to show that we have to be in keeping with the times. If we find a source of fuel which can be advantageous to us not merely in the 'sixties but perhaps in the 'seventies, we should look at it from that angle. There is, naturally, apprehension in the coal industry, but, on the other hand, we must look to the future to find anything which may work to our national advantage. That was the reason I in-
  1046
  troduced the subject of the motor car and the Flag Acts. It was simply to illustrate how legislation can impede innovation.
  I think I have made my argument sufficiently clear and I need not on this occasion reiterate what I indicated on a former occasion when I said that we should give the Gas Council an opportunity of trying this experiment because it may be much to the advantage of the whole community.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Speeches of the kind we have just heard from the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) cause a great deal of apprehension. The hon. Gentleman, apparently, is concerned only about economics and costs and he is not at all concerned about social consequences. There is no advantage to this nation in saving 10s. a ton on coal and paying £3 or £4 a week to an unemployed collier. We must strike the proper balance in these things.
  I wish to reinforce the views expressed by my hon. and right hon. Friends. South Wales is as much concerned as Durham about this matter, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate. We heard this story a long time ago. It applied to coke ovengas in the first place. We saw coal not being taken to the small gas works. The gas works were being shut down. At the same time, we saw the waste gas which used to be burnt in flares above the coke ovens being piped into the gas system. That could be justified, although it had very serious consequences. It was a product of the coal. It did not have the social consequences of the introduction of liquid methane gas from Canada, or wherever it may be.
  What has not been taken into account is that this is a matter of obtaining material from hard currency areas.
  Mr. Skeet: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the Middle East and the French zone are hard currency areas?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am speaking of the operations of "Pioneer" which is fetching gas from the hard currency areas. If we are to believe a member of the Gas Council who came to South Wales a fortnight ago, he said that "Pioneer" had made seven trips and

  1047
  the Gas Council was engaged upon evolving permanent plans with no indication of the economic side. If we are to import methane gas on a large scale, what are we to do with coke oven gas?
  All these matters should be balanced. I do not object to the Gas Council carrying out experiments to ascertain what is right on balance, not purely in the interests of the Gas Council but in the interests of the national economy. Certain things may be very much in the interest of the Gas Council but they may damage the national economy in general. If this is to be the method, we must ensure that the social consequences of its introduction are adequately considered. We do not want to keep men in the pits. We want to give them a chance to live. It is unwise and uneconomic to introduce a system of this sort and save a bit on gas but impose something upon ourselves at great social cost because we are not prepared to consider the consequences.
  I ask the Minister to ensure, when he makes his report to the House, that the Gas Council, in putting forward its plan, will let us know the economics of the matter. We want to know how much will be involved. We want to know the cost of gas provided by the coke ovens. The Llanwern plant is coming into operation in South Wales. This, I am told, will produce so much gas that it will knock out many of the generating plants in the Midlands. It is no use bringing in methane gas if the gas from the coke ovens is to become surplus to our needs.
  I hope that these considerations will be kept in mind. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that no new method should be introduced until we are in a position to deal with the social consequences. It will be of no benefit to this nation to have derelict valleys in Durham or South Wales in order to save a "bob" or two, or part of a penny on a therm of gas.
  Mr. Blyton: As we have a chance to return to this matter, and although the Minister's reply was not reassuring to me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Lee: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at the end to insert:
  Provided that no order shall be made by virtue of this subsection unless the Minister is satisfied that adequate financial provision has been and will continue to be made for a comprehensive programme of research into the technical and commercial possibilities of the total gasification of low-grade coals.
  As I said on Second Reading, I have the greatest admiration for the way in which the Gas Council is tackling a very difficult problem and the imaginative way in which it is setting about the job of carrying out more and more research. This Amendment is not to be taken as a criticism of the efforts which we are happy the Council has made. We require more information on the important subject of the total gasification of low-grade coal.
  We know from the 1959 Report and from the pamphlet which the Council produced that some work is being done on the Lurgi plant. We know that the Council is hopeful of being able to burn much more low-grade coal than has been possible in past years. While we agree that the Lurgi plant is probably the best thing that we have had so far, we are also conscious of the fact that the Council has not, as yet, told us that it intends to expand beyond those plants in Scotland and the West Midlands. Great stocks of coal are piling up, many of them of the low-grade type. Whether or not we agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about the rate of deterioration of these stocks, it is, nevertheless, obviously right to find a vehicle which will enable us to utilise as much low-grade coal as possible at the earliest possible moment.
  We hope that the Minister will say something about the extension of the two existing plants. This matter is tied up with much of what the Gas Council stated in its Report about the need for a national gas grid. These things are allied, and, while we wish the Council well with regard to what it has done up to now, we should like to know about its plans for the future to give a bigger supply of gas from the total gasification of coal.
  These are the reason for the Amendment. We hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that, while the Council has carried out these two projects, it looks upon them merely

  1049
  as a pioneering and experimental effort which will be speedily followed by an extension of this development in the industry. I imagine that all sides of the Committee would welcome such an extension.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The Amendment refers to
  "the technical and commercial possibilities of the total gasification of low-grade coals".
  The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has applied himself only to total gasification in plants of the Lurgi type. He made no mention of the total gasification of coal underground, which is a matter of equal importance.
  Between 1946 and 1951, the Chief Scientist's division of the then Ministry of Fuel and Power spent very large sums of money at a place called Newman Spinney, near Chesterfield, in firing underground thin and generally sulphurous; or gassy seams of coal which it would be uneconomic to mine as coal and bring to the surface in an endeavour to sell commercially due to the poor grade of the material and the high ash content. Experiments were then conducted in my constituency, at Bayton in Worcestershire, in an extensive area west of the River Severn, where a fault had left a large number of thin and sulphurous seams of low-grade coal lying close to the surface and in many instances totally exposed. On one occasion the then Minister of Fuel and Power, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd), and I myself visited the experimental plant at Bayton, and it was actually running and producing gas on a modest scale between 1951 and 1954 when mysteriously it was totally closed down.
  8.0 p.m.
  My purpose in intervening in the debate on the Opposition's Amendment tonight is to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say what has become of all these experiments. We spent very large sums of money. I know not whether the money was spent by the Ministry or by the National Coal Board or by the Gas Council or by the gas boards or an amalgam of all of them. But the plain fact remains that in many parts of the world, notably the U.S.S.R., they deal with their low-grade coals, which it is not an economic proposition to mine and sell commercially as coals,
  1050
  by underground gasification and by feeding the resultant coal gases into a gas grid or main which is a very easy and convenient method of total gasification, but below ground and not above as in the Lurgi plants.
  Mr. Lee: The hon. Member is referring to a very important matter. I remember when we had great hopes of that here. I wonder what his information is on this? Mine is that economically it was quite a failure here. I think in the Soviet they have much wider seams.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have read all the extensive technical reports on this matter and in certain parts of the country it was not deemed to be an economic venture. The plain fact remains that we have invested very large sums of money on a national gas grid and bringing to the surface and mining by conventional methods substantial tonnages of low-grade coal with a high ash content which is then carbonised at gas works or burned at power stations. This was the object of the experiments on low-grade and thin coal seams in my own constituency and in the Nottinghamshire coal field. There is an opportunity here for the National Coal Board in proper co-operation with the local gas boards. The resultant product is coal gas, of very high quality —I am told, much higher quality than is produced from a Lurgi plant—when fed into the gas mains.
  I would ask my hon. Friend whether in his reply he will tell me, first, what was the total capital expenditure at Newman Spinney near Chesterfield and Bayton in Worcestershire on these extensive experiments conducted over a period of seven or eight years on total gasification underground of low-grade coals. Secondly, I should like to know whether it is the policy of the North Coal Board or the gas boards or the Gas Council or an amalgam of all of them to continue underground gasification and on a commercial production scale. Thirdly I would ask, if the answer to the second question is negative, why not?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) on this Amendment reflected the great anxiety felt about the future of the coal mining industry especially among those who live in the

  1051
  mining areas. I fully understand the desire to be assured that everything possible will be done to press on to make the best and widest use of our main indigenous raw material. Here at least is one subject on which there can be no difference of opinion. I willingly accept the responsibility for the Government and the nationalised industries concerned to press on with all zeal to that end. I think we all—the Government, the nationalised industries and the Opposition—speak with a united voice. One need only look at the publication of the Gas Council, "Gas Looks Ahead" to see how the Council looks at this very important matter. In paragraph 20 it says:
  "The main object of the Council's research in the field of gas production is the development of new processes which can make use of poorer quality coals and of alternative fuels as raw materials. The total gasification of oil and coal at near atmospheric pressure and at high pressures is being studied, and pilot stage work is now in progress."
  The Council adds towards the end of the paragraph:
  "… it is expected that in due course total gasification will be the major method of gas manufacture…"
  During the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend made his position quite clear on this important matter of research into the total gasification of coal when he said:
  "These needs for new developments in the industry underline very clearly the importance of the research that is being carried out. A fairly wide range of research is being carried out at present. There is study in many directions of high-pressure reactions of both coal and oil with steam, oxygen and hydrogen. I have already mentioned the Lurgi process. Again, there is the possibility of hydrogenating coal to produce a complete town gas."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March. 1960; Vol. 619. c. 254–5.]
  The Gas Council repeats these assurances in its Annual Report for 1958–59. In paragraph 27, referring to the experimental work which is being done at Partington it says:
  "The ultimate objective of the experiment, however"—
  which is a very big experiment indeed—
  "is a process for the hydrogenation of coal …"
  Everything indicates that all concerned, all who are affected by the future, all who can devise research, are very much
  1052
  seized of the need to press on as fast as possible in finding ways and means of using the cheaper, lower grade coals by the method of total gasification and, as the hon. Member for Newton said, there is every evidence of the sincerity and eagerness of the Gas Council.
  Already we have two Lurgi plants being built. He suggests that I should tell him something about the future with regard to extending the use of the Lurgi plants. I would say that I, as an individual, felt that to go on from the Lurgi plant at Westfield and the second at Coleshill before we had any real experience of operating these expensive units in this country would be taking a bit of a risk and that it would be unwise to rush and build up these plants in many places till we had some experience. The fact is that we shall soon have some experience because the Westfield plant is expected to come into operation in the autumn. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that everything is up to schedule there, and we shall soon begin to get experience and gain confidence.
  I can assure him that the gas boards in other areas are studying the possibilities of extending the use of Lurgi plants, but it has to be remembered that the Lurgi is a plant which cannot be built just anywhere. It must be built where there is a large, adequate supply of cheap coal. Therefore, we cannot paint a picture of the plants spreading all over Britain, but the evidence is there that everyone concerned is seized of the importance of extending research into the use of low-grade coal by gasification.
  My right hon. Friend's predecessor was anxious about the subject a long time ago and appointed the Wilson Committee. We are eagerly awaiting the Wilson Committee's report on all aspects of the further uses of coal, and we hope that it will give attention to the hydrogenation process as well as other means of extending the use of coal. We eagerly await this report, and hope that the Committee will pronounce on the usefulness and advisability of extending the research at present being practised.
  It must not be felt that because there is a desire for a greater amount of research into the gasification of coal there is not a lot being done already. A great deal is being done. The Lurgi plant in a way is research itself. A great

  1053
  deal of money is being spent on research into a slagging gasifier to improve the Lurgi process and get it to work at higher temperatures and give a higher quality gas. The keenness of all concerned is evident. The Amendment would add nothing to that keenness. When one considers the capital programme for research which my right hon. Friend must approve and one notes the numerous items which come under that heading, on which my right hon. Friend has to decide with the advice of his Scientific Advisory Council under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Fleck, I think that it would be inappropriate to single out this one item for attention and write that fact into the Bill.
  I appreciate the keenness to see research being extended, but I do not think that writing this into the Bill would make anyone keener than they are today. Between now and the making of an Order there will be an opportunity for the House to see whether this keenness is being kept up and research is being carried out, but the whole subject is being covered by the Wilson Committee, and it may wish to point out what other roads we can follow to achieve the end of using low-grade coal. Between now and the coming into force of an Order made by my right hon. Friend there will be time to judge the Minister, the Gas Council and the boards on the question raised in the Amendment.
  As to underground gasification at Newman Spinney and elsewhere, serious attempts were made to find whether it was an economic process. A fair amount of money was spent. I cannot at the moment give my hon. Friend the Meanber for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) the total sum, but I will write to him and give him the actual expenditure. The final decision to cease operations was made on the ground that the project was uneconomic and that no good purpose would be served by continuing the investigation.
  Mr. Nabarro: Who made the decision that it was uneconomic? My hon. Friend was not at the Ministry at the time but he will recall that the experiments were conducted by the Chief Scientist's division at his Ministry. Who decided not to continue with underground gasification? Was it the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the National Coal Board, or the Gas Council?
  Mr. George: My hon. Friend will recollect that after the initial experiments were carried out, the process of underground gasification was turned over to the National Coal Board, in association with private interests, and at the end of the day the decision not to proceed with the experiment was made by the National Coal Board.
  Mr. Lee: I have no wish to press for any further explanation and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Lee: Before we part with the Clause, I should like to raise one further point. In the course of our discussions we have agreed on both sides of the Committee that we are looking at what we hope will be a comparatively new gas industry. We hope that before long the gas industry will be using more modern methods than have been possible hitherto. We know from reports we have had of the very great successes which have been achieved by each of the twelve area boards in establishing a more rational system within their own boundaries and a system of new piping which has made for a safer industry and an industry in each of these areas which gives the public a far better quality service than was possible before.
  Now we are entering a phase in which we are all looking at the possibility of a national grid rather than a regional organisation. Has not the time come when we should look again at the organisation of the industry? I take second place to none in my admiration of what the twelve boards and the Gas Council have done. They have done an extremely fine job, but if we are to reach a point when gas will be produced from coal at greater distances than ever from the areas where it will be burned and an era when we shall see the development of a national grid, in the sense that we have it in the electricity industry, it may well be that the time will come shortly when we had better look at the structure of the gas industry.
  At present we have the Gas Council and twelve practically autonomous boards looking after the regions. Now

  1055
  we may be able to look at the industry from a much more national point of view and it may well be, because of the changes which we know are coming, that it would be better for us to consider whether the existing type of organisation gives us the best returns in national terms.
  The Times newspaper published a leading article on this very subject on 21st March. Some of us had been discussing this matter for weeks without actually deciding whether or not we should raise it in the House, but The Times said:
  "When the Act was passed the present technical circumstances were not envisaged. At first sight they would seem to point to the usefulness of creating a body for gas analogous to the Central Electricity Generating Board. The case for this is strong. But whatever administrative changes are made it is desirable that they should provide adequately for co-ordination not only within the gas industry but also, where it is appropriate, between all the nationalised fuel producers."
  I think that is a very wise suggestion. It may well be that the time has come when with advantage we could look at the structure of the electricity industry—
  The Temporary Chairman: I do not like to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the debate is going a little wide of the Clause, especially if the hon. Gentleman intends to talk about the electricity industry.
  Mr. Lee: I am using that, Dr. King, as an illustration of something which I wanted to point out about the future of the gas industry and of what we may well desire to see in the industry if we are to have national results as distinct from the great successes which we have had regionally up to now. I have taken the opportunity on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", to suggest to the Minister that the Gas Council may well care to look at this matter. I do not know whether we can ask for a report on it, but I should like to know the reactions of the Gas Council and of the Minister to a type of development which, at first glance, I should have thought would have been appropriate in the new period into which we are now moving.
  Mr. George: I am sure that the area boards would be heartened by the com-
  1056
  plimentary things which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has had to say about the new gas industry, for, indeed, a new gas industry has been created since a very high proportion of present output comes from modem plant. I agree with the hon. Member that it is a safer industry, and every day the Gas Council is seeking ways and means of making it safer for the future. It is an industry with a great tradition, which undoubtedly has been helped in recent years to transform itself so as to face the future with confidence, while appreciating the battle which lies ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman then looked into the rather distant future. When one talks about the national grid and about mighty gas-making units built in our coalfields, one is not talking of tomorrow but of a fairly long time ahead. Of course, it is right that we should talk about it, because it may be that in present-day developments the foundation of a national grid could be laid and eventually come to fruition at the time when we can achieve mighty units situated in the coalfields.
  I would think that the pattern drawn up when the industry was nationalised has shown itself to be a sound one, and it is worthy of note that very soon gas will cross the boundaries of the areas for the first time. The problem will make itself felt increasingly and, when the national grid and mighty plants are there, someone will have to consider whether this is still the best way. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is interesting and gives us food for thought, although the time for it is not now. The main thing which has emerged from his speech is his confidence in the industry and his appreciation of what it has done. I am sure that all he has said will be appreciated at the headquarters of the different area boards.
  Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Reference has been made to gasification and hydrogenation. I shall not make a long speech, although my interest, and that of some of my hon. Friends who are still in this House, has been longstanding. Has the Minister made any inquiries about the substantial sum of public money given to a certain big firm in this country to carry on research into the possible hydrogenation of coal?

  1057
  That happened as far back as twenty-five years ago, and we have never had a report on it.
  Further, the Minister appears to be rather pessimistic about the possibility of gasifying coal in its natural condition underground. Has he made any inquiries as to the success of experiments in large-scale gasification that have been carried on for some years in Russia, in what are known as the Gorlovka coal mines in the Donbas Coal Basin?
  The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will deal with this point briefly. We have been discussing gasification on a previous Amendment, when he could have spoken at length on that subject.
  Mr. Davies: I do not intend making a long speech, Dr. King, I can assure you. However, we are on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and if the discussion of hydrogenisation and gasification was in order on an Amendment to this Clause, I foil to see why it cannot be in order when we are discussing the entire Clause and all its implications. At any rate, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in arguing that point.
  I suggest to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that he should make inquiries into the two matters I have mentioned because, sooner or later, the possibility of both—and, in particular, hydrogenation—will be raised again and again on the Floor of this House when we deal with coal, either directly or indirectly. That is all I wish to say at the moment.
  Mr. George: Since the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) spoke about the hydrogenation of coal being of continuing interest on the Floor of the House, I hasten to reassure him that hydrogenation is an ever-present concern in the minds of the members of the Gas Council. The Wilson Committee is at present studying its possibilities, and we hope that it will say whether the present research is along the right lines, or, if not, along which lines it should be pursued. Hydrogenation is undoubtedly a live issue in the Gas Council, as I have said already.
  With regard to the substantial sums granted twenty-five years ago, I have not the benefit of any information—
  Mr. Davies: What happened to them?
  Mr. George: I will investigate and will communicate with the hon. Gentleman. The underground gasification of coal in Russia is rather a long journey to take tonight, but I have some knowledge of what is taking place there, and I will send the hon. Gentleman a note on this subject as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Nabarro: Before we start with the Bill, I want to make one or two comments on investment by the gas boards and by the Gas Council. It will be recalled that during the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on 16th March my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) raised a matter concerning investment in am advanced meter readers' college at Mere in Cheshire, a capital investment being carried out by one of the gas boards. He was promptly ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  I do not dwell upon that point because it is not appropriate for debate on the Third Reading of this Bill, but it caused me to make researches and I discovered that whereas this Bill raises the total of borrowing powers, as will be seen in the Explanatory Memorandum, from £450 million to £500 million for the entire nationalised gas industry, and in certain circumstances enables my right hon. Friend to go as far as £525 million, the annual amounts for investment in the gas boards fall within the appropriate sections of the annual Finance Act.
  The interesting feature is that it is not within the rules of order to debate on the Finance Bill individual capital projects in the gas industry. Thus again, as I said on the Iron and Steel Bill, once this Bill leaves the House today, covering investment by the gas industry for between four and five years ahead, no Member of the House of Commons can challenge any item of capital investment by any one of the gas boards, save only

  1059
  in retrospection—a matter of from eighteen months to two years after the investment has been carried out.
  That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. This Bill stretches forward for investment purposes for four or five years ahead. I hope, on the Finance Bill, to find ways and means of moving Amendments to capital investment in these industries in order to enable the House of Commons to give prior sanction to capital investment in the instance of the gas boards within the global borrowing powers under this Bill. That is how these matters are related, but it is strictly in order now. not only to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to respond to this inquiry by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford, as to what is the purpose and what is the cost of this advanced meter readers' college at Mere in Cheshire, and notably the final part of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech, which I have since checked. My hon. and gallant Friend said:
  "For eighteen months or so I have tried to obtain this information from the Minister. In correspondence, I asked him point-blank how the public can ever find out how much this building cost, and what the other expenses are. The reply I received this morning is that the public 'have no statutory or prescriptive right to the information.' "—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 1350.]
  I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding his head in agreement with that statement, and I believe that he wrote the letter to my hon. and gallant Friend saying that the general public—
  "have no statutory or prescriptive right"
  to challenge any item of capital expenditure by a nationalised board. Nor, evidently, has a Member of Parliament. For the reasons which I explained in my speech earlier this evening and on former protests of this kind, once a borrowing powers Bill is through the House—this Bill covers five years ahead—no Member of the House of Commons can challenge, by Parliamentary Questions, on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the Finance Bill, any of the items of investment, the wisdom of it, the economy of it, whether public funds are being wasted or not, and, I repeat to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whether the taxpayers' money is being wasted. I take the view that it is taxpayers' money; he does not, but I do.
  1060
  This is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Of course, the gas industry has to have this extra capital. I do not object to the borrowing powers in this Bill, but I strongly object to the fact that only once in every four or five years can I criticise what is deemed by other persons to be wasteful expenditure by the board; but I propose to find ways and means of doing it on the Budget this year by separate votes.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir W. Ansiruther-Gray): I hope that the hon. Member will not go too far in forecasting what he proposes to do on the Budget. I think that we must confine ourselves to the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: As always, I am deeply grateful for your guidance and support, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in this difficult position in which I find myself. Of course, you are underlining the difficulties which I am trying to put to the House this evening—the near-impossibility of a Member of Parliament doing his job in the context of allegations of wastefulness by these boards. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt?
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I certainly do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think he is well enough out of order without me helping him.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman wishes to usurp your duties, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. However, let us stop the squabble and get on with the Bill.
  The point I want to make about the sort of allegation which appeared in a Sunday newspaper yesterday week about the gas board—and it involved its finances—is that this is evidently my one opportunity in four years to challenge that sort of thing. Not that the Parliamentary Secretary will give me any answer, of course. He will refer me to the Chairman of the Gas Council. The Chairman of the Gas Council will refer me to the chairman of the gas board, and then I shall not get any satisfaction. But I will record this complaint in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because that is the kind of thing which Members of Parliament ought to be able to challenge and vote about.
  I hope my hon. Friend does not reply saying that I can raise this matter on

  1061
  the Motion for the Adjournment, because I know what sort of a stuffy answer I shall get late at night in an Adjournment debate. I quote from the Sunday newspaper:
  "The Gas Board in the port of Southampton takes it duties seriously. So seriously in fact that it sent eighteen men to make sure that the housewife who ordered a cooker, water heater and boiler got exactly what she wanted…. First, an inspector palled to see if the main was large enough. Then, a salesman arrived to sell the cooker which had already been bought. Then, a second salesman arrived to sell the stove that was already on order. A van driver arrived with a new meter. A fitter called to fix it. Then two labourers arrived to fix a new main. A lorry driver and his mate delivered the new stove. An inspector called to look at it. A van driver collected the old meter. Another van driver delivered the new heater. Next came a fitter to check the water temperature. Another fitter arrived to check the stove. And a lorry driver and his mate arrived to take away the old one. An inspector turned up to check the water heater which had been damaged in transit. Finally, another inspector called to check and pass all the new installations."
  This was a total of 18 men to carry out a simple installation which, pre-nationalisation, would have been done in a matter of hours by one fitter and his mate.
  The cost of this sort of thing is falling on the local gas board. If that cost were not incurred the Council would be finding a commensurately larger sum from its own resources to finance capital investment and would not be coming to the House for an equivalent sum. This is the sort of complaint which Members of Parliament constantly receive in respect of the nationalised boards. Some of them are justified, some of them are not. This complaint was in a Sunday newspaper called The People on 20th March. For all I know, it may not be a valid complaint.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My difficulty is to know whether this complaint can be remedied by anything in the Bill. We can discuss only what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Nabarro: I realise that and I am skating, as always, on very thin ice, but, as Mr. Speaker wrote to me the other day, no doubt my ingenious mind will find ways and means of raising these matters. It is related to the Bill because had this money not been spent, then the sum required under the Bill would not have been as large as it is.
  Mr. Lee: Surely the hon. Member should have moved that we purchase a copy of The People.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will leave the Southampton case. My point is that, other than on the borrowing powers Bills once every four or five years, we have no means whatever of securing any redress in respect of complaints such as that. I do not take the Parliamentary Secretary's view that it is none of the business of a Member of Parliament, or that it is not the taxpayers' money which is involved. I take the view that we are voting too much money in this borrowing powers Bill for too many years ahead, and I shall seek to remedy that in a few weeks' time by endeavouring to regulate the sum on an annual basis so that the money is spent in such a way that we do not deal with it in retrospection two years later when we debate these industries on the report and accounts of the board concerned.
  Of course the gas boards must have this extra capital, for the most part. It is for that reason that I support the Motion, "That the Bill be read the Third time." But I do so warning my right hon. Friend once again that he will get no more money out of me. I am fed up with his predatory habits in regard to the National Exchequer. I am fed up with his extravagance.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order. Would a discussion on the invention of gas be in order, for if there had been no gas there would be no Bill?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we should not discuss a hypothetical case. So far, no hon. Member has endeavoured to discuss the invention of gas.
  Mr. Nabarro: I will return to what I was saying when I was so frivolously interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has not been in his place during the debate on the Bill and whose absence, of course, we have deplored. I am sorry that I cannot provoke him to a further intervention. I was saying to my right hon. Friend, when I was so frivolously interrupted, that I am fed up with his predatory habits in regard to the national Exchequer, I am fed up with his extravagance, and I do not like him

  1063
  sitting there in the position of the biggest spender in the Government. Nobody is nodding dissent. He is the biggest spender. He authorises more money for these nationalised boards than all the remainder of the Ministries put together. I shall be much sterner about this on future occasions and endeavour to keep him in much better order than that in which I have succeeded in keeping him during the last few weeks.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. George: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is suitably terrorised by the peroration of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and looks forward with dread to the years that lie ahead. I and the House have been entertained by the tale of what my hon. Friend will do to the Finance Bill when it reaches the House, but that is not really our concern this evening. We are dealing with the Gas Bill and its borrowing powers. Underneath that umbrella my hon. Friend asked about Mere College which is the responsibility of the North-Western Gas Board.
  This is an example of the cases which have been raised throughout the years through the desire of individuals or of Members of Parliament to discuss single items of capital expenditure by nationalised boards. There are thousands of individual items of capital expenditure every year, and it would be quite impossible and intolerable if every one of them were open to examination by any individual demanding particulars about it. That is what would follow from giving way on this occasion. The matter has been discussed for a long time now. This item is just one of many, and it would be intolerable if access were given to individuals or members to items of this nature.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman refusing this?
  Mr. George: This has been refused for a long time.
  Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentle-give way?
  Mr. George: Not again. I have dealt with the general argument that it would be intolerable if individuals or Members of Parliament were to obtain access to
  1064
  each individual item of capital expenditure by the nationalised boards.
  Mr. Nabarro: Why not? We have paid for it.
  Mr. George: We have heard complaints about the inability of this House to discuss examples of alleged waste by the boards. My hon. Friend mentioned that at Southampton he picked out another one and put it on record. I took an interest in that rather sensational report. As is usual with such reports when cut down to size it has not the same appearance at all. He mentioned that two salesmen called to sell a cooker already bought. He did not reveal that they were not from the Gas Board.
  Mr. Nabarro: Who were they employed by?
  Mr. George: I said they were not employed by the Gas Board.
  Mr. Nabarro: Who were they employed by?
  Mr. George: He also spoke about the cooker and the water heater being bought and all the people coming to put them in. The cooker was bought from one source and the heater from another, and the respective people came to do their respective jobs. It was not the Gas Board at all. It does not serve a good purpose to pick up sensational newspapers, accept all that is in them, and bring them to the House without checking, as my hon. Friend has done. It is a serious thing to bring them to the Floor of the House no matter how attractive or colourful their stories may be.
  My hon. Friend spoke of too much money being spent too many years ahead, and accused my right hon. Friend of extravagance. I am sure my hon. Friend has some experience of industry —whether small or vast, I do not know— and if he has experience of vast industries he will know that in order to be able to plan ahead and execute their plans they must have the knowledge that the finance is forthcoming. They cannot be subjected to continual investigations about those plans. They must have ahead of them a reasonable period of freedom from interference. That has been the view, rightly, of this House. It might not be the view of my hon. Friend, but in all humility I suggest that in this

  1065
  case he is wrong and that it is right and proper that the boards of vast industries should have a reasonable time ahead to plan and execute their plans.
  Mr. Nabarro: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, does he not recall that when I referred to the extract from the Sunday newspaper I deliberately said that I was not in a position to say whether those allegations were valid but that they were allegations and ought to be replied to? Why does he deliberately twist those words? Let us have another answer?
  Question put and agreed.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  LEGAL AID BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in Standing Committee), read.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move,
  That the Bill be re-committed to a committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 12, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, and the new Clause (Ascertainment of maximum contribution), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Mitchison.
  leaving out of the original Motion:
  "and the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 16."
  Subject to that omission, I move the re-committal Motion.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): On a point of order. I thought that the Amendment also left out the new Clause—Ascertainment of maximum contribution.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I did not understand it to leave out that. I understood the hon. and learned Member to include the new Clause.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is as I said originally and the new Clause stands in.
  Mr. William Ross: There is in my name on the Notice Paper an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, which is at the end to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 2. page 3, line 14, and the new Clause (Amendment of Third Schedule to Legal Aid Act in Scotland), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross."
  Do you propose to call that, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has not been selected.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Clause 1.—(FINANCIAL CONDITIONS FOR LEGAL AID.)
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end to insert "one-third of".

  1067
  The object of this Amendment is to do something to help the person with small savings.
  The difficulty which we have felt and about which we have pressed in Committee is that while the Bill gives substantial relief to persons who are dependent on income, it does comparatively little for those who are dependent on small savings. It is a little puzzling to know why the Government have been so niggardly in dealing with that aspect of the Bill. One would have thought that they were particularly concerned about the person with a small amount of capital or savings, but the Government have done little to help that person.
  This proposal is a modest one. All it proposes is that instead of the whole of what the earlier Act calls "disposable capital" being taken as a contribution towards legal aid, the amount that should be taken should be a proportion of that disposable capital, namely, one-third. It is the same proportion of disposable capital as the Bill proposes with regard to income.
  The disposable capital involved here is not a substantial amount. As we know, the first £125 is not taken towards a contribution to legal aid. If there is disposable capital of over £500, generally speaking it is outside the legal aid scheme. We are concerned with the difference between £125 and £500, namely, £375, and what we propose is that, instead of the whole of that £375 being taken as a contribution towards legal aid, it should be limited to one-third of that amount. That is the maximum amount involved in the Amendment, the difference between £375 and one-third of £375.
  In the Legal Aid Scheme, contributions are made according to means, whether of income or capital. There is no contribution below a certain limit, and above a certain limit a person falls outside the scheme. The general principle of the Bill, which we accept for the purpose of the Amendment, is that we go back to 1949 values. Unfortunately, the Government have refused to go back to the values at the time of the Rushcliffe Report, the 1946 values, although we have pressed them to do so. They have refused to do so despite the Rushcliffe
  1068
  Report and the advice of their own Advisory Committee. However, even accepting the underlying principle of the Bill, it is unfair in its treatment of people with small savings.
  Let us consider the way in which the Government treat capital compared with income. In accordance with the Government's principle of going back to 1949 values, this is what the Bill does with regard to income, and contributions from income. It raises from £156 to £250 the limit below which no contribution has to be made. It raises the limit above which income is excluded from the scheme. It raises the limit from £420 to £700 disposable income.
  The Bill deals with capital differently. It raises the limit below which there is no contribution from capital from £75 to £125, but it does not raise, as it does in the case of income, the limit above which a person with a greater capital falls outside the scheme. Now, as in 1949, a person with a disposable capital of more than £500 falls outside the scheme. In Committee we pressed for the £500 to be raised to the corresponding 1949 value of £875 and we were defeated. This is the first way in which the Bill discriminates against the person with small savings. It discriminates against the person with small savings as contrasted with the person with income.
  The only argument which has been put up against raising the £500 to £875 was that it would mean that lawyers practising under the scheme would get less fees than they would from those who were outside the scheme. That was an argument which was treated by both sides, I am glad to say, as one which did not merit serious consideration. The Solicitor-General, to do him justice, said it with considerable personal reservation.
  In the course of his speech, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated, so I understood, that he would be sympathetic to a Measure which would deal rather more justly with a person with small savings. He said in Committee:
  "If I thought for a moment that this"—
  that was, our Amendment to raise the £500 to £875—
  "would result in a denial of justice, I should feel the force of the arguments used on me very much more strongly."

  1069
  Later, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "The point of these Amendments is not to ensure that a larger proportion of a man's capital is left to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 10th March, 1960; c. 38.]
  That seemed to indicate that if we proposed that a larger proportion of a man's capital were left to him, there would be susbtance and justice in the proposal that would merit the serious consideration of the Government. That is the very proposal which we now put forward.
  I agree that a discrimination was made in the 1949 Act as between capital and income. That Act provides that
  "A person's contribution to the legal aid fund in respect of any proceedings may include—
  (a) a contribution in respect of income not greater than half the amount (if any) by which his disposable income exceeds …"
  a certain amount, and
  "(b) a contribution in respect of capital not greater than the amount (if any) by which his disposable capital exceeds …"
  a certain amount. It takes a proportion of the income but the whole of the capital. What it says, however, is that the contribution to the legal aid fund may include
  "a contribution in respect of capital".
  What has happened in the administration of the scheme is not simply to take a contribution in respect of capital over a certain amount, but to take the whole of the capital over that amount. It is that application of the 1949 Act which seems to us on this side, and, I believe, to a considerable number of hon. Members on the Government side, grossly unfair. So the maximum amount of disposable income that can be taken under the Bill is one-half of the disposable income. The amount of capital that can be taken is the whole of the disposable capital.
  There was an anomaly in the application of the 1949 Act even before the Bill was brought before the House. The difference in treatment is, however, accentuated by the Bill. Whilst, before the Bill, the amount of income which could be taken was limited to one-half of the disposable income, under the Bill the amount is limited to one-third of the disposable income. Nevertheless, at the same time, the whole of the amount of capital is taken under the Bill and there
  1070
  is no reduction in the proportion of the disposable capital which can be taken.
  9.0 p.m.
  I know that disregards are involved. There are disregards in respect of income and in respect of capital. I have seen the Regulations which come into operation today and deal with the question of disregards for dependants in respect of disposable capital. In cases of claims not involving litigation, as I understand it, no deduction, no disregard, no allowance, is made at all in respect of dependants; although we have disregards for allowances in respect of dependants in the case of income and in respect of dependants for capital in cases involving litigation. I do not know whether I have misunderstood the Regulations, but that appears to me to be the result.
  If I am right, it means that we are taking yet a further smack at the person with small savings, because in the case of non-litigious work a person with small savings "is treated differently—and more hardly—from a person with income, or a person with capital when he goes into litigation. I shall be glad if the Solicitor-General will enlighten me about that.
  Let me illustrate how this works out in practice. Let us take first the position of income. As the Attorney-General pointed out during the Second Reading debate, there are now reasonably substantial sums of income still qualifying for assistance under the Legal Aid Scheme. A single person with a gross income of up to £1,180 qualifies. A married person with three children and a gross income of up to £1,625 qualifies. But when we come to assess what is the contribution of these people towards legal aid, we first take into consideration certain disregards, such as allowances for dependants which I have mentioned, and so on. Then we leave the first £250 untouched and then the maximum contribution which may be made is one-third of the amount which is left, that is, one-third of the disposable income after making the deductions or disregards and after taking account of the first £250. During the Second Reading debate, by way of illustration, the Attorney-General took the example of a married person with three children and an income of £1,500 a year who made a maximum contribution of £123.

  1071
  Let us compare that result. Let us take the position of the disposable capital. If a person has disposable capital, after taking account of certain disregards in the same way as with income—that is everything over £125—all that disposable capital goes towards legal aid in the form of a contribution. Whether the amount is £200 or up to the maximum enabling such a person to remain within the scheme at all—which is £500—the whole lot goes towards legal aid.
  Such a person may even be in receipt of National Assistance. He may not even have the capital up to the National Assistance limit, because in the case of National Assistance—we shall deal with this matter in more detail when we discuss a later Amendment—there are various disregards, which are not disregarded under the Legal Aid Scheme. So a person may be in receipt of National Assistance and yet have to make a contribution of up to the £500 limit towards the Legal Aid Scheme. According to the way I have worked this out, a married person with three children would pay more in contributions towards the Legal Aid Scheme than a person with an income of £1,500. That simply does not appear to us to be just. It appears to be quite untenable to mulct persons with these small savings because they are called capital, of a greater amount than a person with a far larger income—an income of £1,500 a year—when the person with small savings may be on National Assistance.
  I referred in Committee to a case mentioned on the Second Reading of the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) —a most pathetic case—of a person who died during an operation in a hospital. Apparently the only asset that this person left was a policy of life insurance for £800. He left a widow with two boys, and the widow had no income of any description. Therefore, as the hon. and learned Member told the House, the widow could be given no assistance at all under the Legal Aid Scheme because she had capital above the £500 limit.
  The Government refused to raise the limit as we proposed which would have enabled that widow to come within the scheme. Suppose she had capital of £500, disposable capital of over £125, would
  1072
  be completely taken, subject in the case of litigation to certain allowances for the children. I think that the allowance is £60 to £75 per child under the new Regulations if there is litigation, but there is no allowance of that kind if there is no litigation. Then the whole of that capital, after the disregards, will be taken. Why should the whole of that capital be taken, whereas if it were disposable income of, say, £800 a year, very much greater than her capital, the amount to be taken would be limited to one-third of the income? It seems to us entirely unreasonable.
  The kind of reason given for it is that small capital savings of this kind are intended to be a nest egg against contingencies—apparently, against precisely this kind of thing. I agree that if substantial sums of capital are involved it is only right that they should be drawn on for litigation, but that is not this kind of case. We are dealing with a case where the capital will be disregarded for the purposes of assessing the National Assistance which would be provided, yet we say that, although that person is on National Assistance, the whole of that person's disposable capital should be taken for the purpose of legal aid, subject to the allowances and disregards which I have mentioned.
  The Rushcliffe Report dealt with this matter and with the principle which appears to me to be unexceptional. It says:
  "The underlying principle should be that while no one should be expected to make any payment if it would have the effect of materially diminishing an already exiguous income, people with substantial sums of capital must in general be prepared to pay their own law charges."
  That seems a perfectly reasonable principle and the Rushcliffe Report deals with it in reference to a small tarder, but here we have a case which is not even that of a small trader. We have a case within the knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington of a widow without any income at all, yet nevertheless the whole disposable capital is taken. That seems untenable.
  We have people almost on the margin of subsistence and the capital is itself a very valuable source of income. The sums involved, producing £500 or something like 10s. a week, or £375 or something like 7s. a week, are small savings

  1073
  and the income from them makes a very valuable contribution to the home. It is these people who have small savings with whom we are concerned. Once we get to those beyond the £500 limit generally speaking they are outside the Measure altogether.
  All we ask is that these people should not be deprived of their small savings. They have not frittered their savings away and they should not be taken for the purposes of litigation, except the £125 minimum. All we ask is that these people with small savings should be treated in the same way as those who, perhaps, are substantially better off.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): As the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed Thomas) pointed out, the effect of this Amendment is to reduce the maximum contribution from capital to one-third the amount by which the disposable capital exceeds £125 instead of the whole of the excess capital above £125.
  As he pointed out, so far as income is concerned, the contribution of one-third of the excess over the new limit provides a sliding scale. The reason for that is that from the very inception of this scheme it has been recognised that a person's day-to-day commitments go up with his income and that it is impossible to require a contribution from income which would entirely alter his way of living. The question raised by this Amendment is whether the same consideration applies to capital and whether it is relevant. On the face of it, of course it is not.
  The distinction goes back to the very inception of this scheme in the Rushcliffe Committee's Report. That was a Committee of outstanding distinction, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General himself served. The hon. and learned Member quoted a passage from that Report, but in paragraph 151 the Committee said:
  "In a scheme of this kind we feel that capital assets stand on a different footing and must be treated separately."
  That is, separately from income. The Report went on:
  "We think it right to take a reasonably generous view of the amount of income a man should have before being expected to pay for legal expenses. We feel that, subject to the
  1074
  safeguarding of a small "nest egg," a man involved in litigation can properly be expected to use his capital before requiring public aid. There are, however, two rather different types of cases to be considered."
  In paragraph 152, the Committee goes on to say:
  "In the ordinary case of the man who in addition to an earned income on which he supports himself has a small amount of capital, we think that the rule should be that capital in excess of £25 in the case of a single man and £50 in the case of a married man should be regarded as available to defray costs incurred."
  9.15 p.m.
  In the first place, we have the argument that the requirement in respect of income above a certain figure should not apply to capital, and, in addition, one has that distinction recognised by the Rushcliffe Committee. Indeed, that Committee recommended a nest egg of only £25 for a single man and £50 for a married man.
  It does not stand only on Rushcliffe. When the Report was implemented, under the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations, 1950, made under the 1949 Act, there was a distinction between capital and income, and the nest-egg there was £75 for a single man and £150 for a married man. The whole sum above those figures was liable in contribution.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman says that that has been administered rigidly and the whole of the excess has been taken. With very great respect, that is not so. The National Assistance Board has shown a wise flexibility, and it certainly does not insist on taking in contribution the whole of the excess, if it would cause real hardship to do so.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
  The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman may find that I shall deal with his remaining doubts as I continue my speech.
  Thus, we have the general principle, the view expressed by the Rushcliffe Committee, and what was provided in the original Act and Regulations. One comes now to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee which advised last year on the Financial Provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, and the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations, 1950. This Committee also, looking at this matter, recognised the

  1075
  fundamental difference between income and capital. In paragraph 8 of its Report, it said:
  "We do not think that the same considerations apply under the Legal Aid Scheme as apply for national assistance. Capital is accumulated, as the Rushcliffe Committee recognised, as a 'nest egg' for dealing with emergencies, and legal proceedings if undertaken in good faith are emergencies for which capital should be used. But we think that some regard has to be had to the decline in money values and to the desirability of encouraging people to save. We therefore recommend that the Act should be amended to provide for no contribution from capital below £125."
  Clause 1 (2, b) of the Bill provides for an increase in the nest egg from £75 to £125. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that all he asks us to do is to go back to 1949 values, and we have refused to go back to 1947 values. The Rushcliffe Committee, of course, recommended £25 for the single man. We are enacting a provision for £125 for the single man. This is five times the amount recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee. Therefore, if that is the test, we have more than taken account of any fall in the value of money. There has been a considerable increase in real terms.
  The matter does not rest there. The Advisory Committee also recommended an increase in the nest egg where the applicant has dependants. Up to now, following the Rushcliffe Committee's recommendations, there has been only one further allowance of £75 for a married person irrespective of the number of children and other dependants he might have. In paragraph 14 the Advisory Committee recommended that there should be further allowances of £50 in respect of a child or second dependant and £25 for each dependant above two. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor intends to implement that recommendation when he shortly amends the Assessment of Resources Regulations. The nest egg for a married couple with two children will be £275 instead of the present £150, over five times the amount recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee.
  Again, the matter does not rest there, because that nest egg is disposable, not gross, capital. Besides the allowance for dependants to which I have referred, there are many capital resources which are ignored—household furniture and
  1076
  effects, for example, a television set, obviously articles of personal clothing and obviously personal tools and equipment for trade. But the value of a dwelling house owned and occupied by the applicant is ignored up to the first £2,000 and only one-half of the equity of redemption over £2,000 is taken into account.
  My noble and learned Friend has in mind to amend this provision so as to allow the whole of the first £3,000 of the house's value instead of the first £2,000. It is therefore unreal for the hon. and learned Member to talk about taking the last of a person's small savings when it is considered that the disregard in the case of a man with a dwelling house is at present £2,000 which will go up to £3,000.
  The Board, in addition, has a wide discretionary power to ignore capital in special circumstances, and it exercises that power. The most usual circumstance in which it exercises that discretion is in the case of someone with a low disposable income and some disposable capital. That covers the sort of case to which the hon. and learned Member referred of someone with some small capital but who is on National Assistance—in other words, having no income. It is simply not true that the National Assistance Board in those circumstances insists on taking the whole of the capital. On the contrary, as a matter of practice, it allows a further £75 where the disposable income is less than the present free income limit of £156 a year. After the Bill, when the free income limit goes up to £250, it will allow a further £125 free capital where income is below that figure.
  Again, above the free income limit the special allowance is reduced pound for pound with rising income. The effect will be that someone with a disposable income of £250 will get a further £125 capital allowance, and someone with a disposable income of £350 will get a further £25 capital allowance. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the capital falls outside the limit of £500 he will not get legal aid. That is simply not true, as we found in Committee. It is purely a discretionary limit for the National Assistance Board to apply.
  Let me give a specimen case so that the Committee will see how it works

  1077
  out. Take a single person with two children.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just made a statement about the amount which is discretionary over the £500. Of course, as the Solicitor-General knows very well, what the Advisory Committee said in that special Report which it was asked to give was that
  "… the Committees grant legal aid where disposable capital is larger than £500 if in their view the cost of the proceedings will be greater than the maximum contribution which the applicant would pay if he got legal aid."
  It is in that case and in that case only. It is not true in general application. There is not a general discretion over £500. It is so simply where the cost of litigation exceeds the amount the applicant would have got.
  The Solicitor-General: We discussed this very fully in Committee, and the way that the £500 works out is to enable the area committees to refuse legal aid where the whole of the costs will be covered by the contribution.
  However, that is not immediately relevant to what we were discussing, and I was going to give a specimen case. I am told that I said a single person with two children. Perhaps I had better say, one married person with two children with a gross income of £750, and £21 family allowance, a total of £771. The maximum contribution from income will now be £21 10s. If there were capital in that case, the applicant would receive £125 personal allowance, £75 for the first child and £50 for the second. Because the disposable income figure qualifies that applicant for the further special allowance which I have just referred to, a further £60 10s. would be allowed. No contribution from capital would in those circumstances be required unless his capital were more than £310 10s., and that is, in addition, after disregarding the value of his dwelling-house.
  In those circumstances, it is really unreal for the hon. and learned Gentleman to speak as if the scheme were framed so as to screw the last penny of capital out of the small saver. In the end it really comes to this, that quite different considerations apply to the treatment of capital under the National Assistance scheme and under this
  1078
  scheme. In the National Assistance scheme it is frequently a permanent or semi-permanent situation, and, as I ventured to point out in Committee, it is reasonable to expect then that capital should be used in small amounts to eke out income, and it is unreasonable to expect it to be completely expended before National Assistance becomes available; but litigation is quite different.
  Litigation is unlikely, one hopes, to be recurrent. This, as the Advisory Committee itself said, is an emergency, of exactly the type for which capital is accumulated. Under the National Assistance scheme it is to the saving of the taxpayer if capital is taken in lieu of assistance, but in litigation the litigant and not the taxpayer is going to get something back at the end of the litigation and he does in fact get it back in 85 per cent. of the cases in the Queen's Bench Division.
  It really comes to this: is it reasonable to tax somebody whose means may be very much less than the means of the sort of person whom I have been describing, with the disregards, in order to let somebody go into litigation with part of the risk insured, he getting the whole of the benefit of that litigation? It seems to me unfair to the small taxpayer to do that, and for that reason I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, though I had hoped to do so and had collected a number of instances of hardship resulting from applicants for legal aid having what I would call a small amount of capital. I do not propose to detain the Committee by giving those examples now beyond saying that they mainly consisted of retirement pensioners in rented houses. I am quite aware of the disregard for those who own a house, but so frequently one finds a couple of old-age pensioners living merely on their pensions with something in excess of £500 savings and living in a rented house and, therefore, not getting any disregard for their dwelling.
  Whatever figures my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General may have put to the Committee on this occasion—

  1079
  and he has rather blinded some of us with those figures—there are instances of real hardship to pensioners. There may not be hardship to those entitled to the disregards—married couples with children living in their own house. It may work out quite well for them, but it does not work out well for the pensioner who is involved in litigation when he compares his situation with that of a man with an income of £1,500 who because he has children and has his own house gets the disregards and the benefit of legal aid. The couple with a retirement pension and with a little over £500 are refused the legal aid certificate. That cannot be right.
  The principle on which the House of Commons decided, as my hon. and learned Friend said, was that those of substantial income should be given legal aid because a person sets his commitments according to his income and when any emergency arises and he finds himself involved in litigation it is perhaps unfair to ask him to set aside those commitments and devote his income to that litigation. Exactly the same argument applies to the retirement pensioners. They have set aside a part of capital and we know perfectly well that if they go on living they will use that capital as their income. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the decline in money value and, of course, any reasonable retirement pensioner looks upon that capital as a nest-egg—as income, not capital. Retirement pensioners know that they have to draw on it in due course. We must recognise that and recognise that these savings are needed for use as income as these people get on in age.
  Whatever these rules may be that my hon. and learned Friend has been putting before the Committee, those who practise and have examples before them of applications which have been refused know that there is hardship in these cases. I cannot help but support the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) in his plea in this case.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: After listening to the debate, I begin to wonder whether anybody benefits at all from legal aid. A case came to my notice not long ago of
  1080
  a disabled person with a very low income who had received notice to quit from his rented house. Not only was the notice served on him but it was served separately on his wife. He received legal aid. They were assessed by the National Assistance Board and in the end it came out—though I speak entirely from memory—that the two could be assessed to pay up to £36 each.
  The case came before the learned judge in the county court and he deferred consideration of it for a period. A sum of that kind to a comparatively elderly, severely disabled person and his wife was frightening indeed to them, as it was to me. As a result of inquiries, I gathered that these costs are taxed by a taxing master at the maximum which could legally be charged whereas, if the case went before an ordinary solicitor, he would probably assess them in his own way at far less than would the taxing master. As I say, it gave me a shock, and I seriously wonder whether it is worth going to the National Assistance Board in any case.
  Mr. Ede: I listened to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and I wondered how far the Solicitor-General would dispose of one case. I know that the answer I shall get from most of the galaxy of legal talent I see before me will be that hard cases make bad law in any event. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us about what happened to the widow with the £800 capital and no income, who had two children. I gathered from what my hon. and learned Friend said that, because she had over £500 capital, she was refused legal aid. I understand that the case was mentioned to the Committee by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and so I assume that the Solicitor-General had heard of it before.
  I should like to know the answer in that case, because it seems to me Chat it is an extreme case of the kind brought forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), where the person will regard the £800 as income. I imagine that a widow with £800, with two boys to bring up and a house and clothing to provide for them, will ask herself, "How long

  1081
  is this going to last? "She will use it week by week, hoping that by the time she exhausts it she will either have found employment or something will have turned up to relieve her of getting into the position where, never having had an income of her own, she will have no capital on which to draw. What happened in that case? If the widow was denied legal aid, how could any lawyer argue that case? Clearly no lawyer would get any money out of it, and certainly if it were a case that ought to be litigated, he should have something.
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this case was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) during the Second Reading debate. That case does not relate to this Amendment, which relates to the contribution from capital which has to be made by those who are admitted to legal aid and not to those who should be excluded from legal aid. I do not know what actually happened in that case, whether there were any special circumstances or whether possibly the Act was over-rigidly administered. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman how it will work out under the new Regulations which I said in Committee my noble Friend proposes to make.
  Take a woman like that. She would have an allowance, first of all, of £125 for herself, £75 for her first dependant and £50 for her second dependant. In addition, since she has no income at all, she would have a further £125 allowance of free capital. I make that come to £375 in allowances, which would certainly bring her well within the limit of £500.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am bound to say that I have some appreciation of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in this matter, but at the same time I do not think anyone can say that the Government are in any sense inconsistent in their approach to this matter, arising as it does from the background of the Rushcliffe Committee.
  We are discussing now the question of a person's contribution, having regard to the amount of capital which is disposable, and, as approached from that
  1082
  angle, the view expressed by the Government is that very little of one's capital shall be regarded as a nest egg, certainly in the light of modern conditions, and that primarily it shall be treated as a matter of income, and that a person in a normal income position shall be able to get legal aid to a large degree in the form of hire purchase investment; that is to say, it is nothing more in the average divorce case than the right to proceed with one's case and gradually to recover from the applicant moneys which he pays by monthly instalments. As it runs today, it is a method of hire purchase.
  I want to draw attention to something which shows how great injustice can occur. Frankly, it is amazing to me that this Bill should have passed its Second Reading, gone through its Committee stage and reached this stage without anybody drawing to the attention of the House the position so far as disposable capital is concerned. The position at the present time is this. For example, if one is a person who has £125 in the world from all sources, one is quite unable to go to the highest tribunals in the land. It so happens that if one's disposable capital is £125, one cannot go to the House of Lords and one cannot go to the Privy Council. One has no means to go there, and that is the situation about disposable capital. When my right hon. and learned Friend indicates that he wants to impose certain limits on disposable capital in actions in the county court, the High Court and the Divorce Court, and he feels that it is not right to raise these limits, I certainly am not prepared to dissent from him, but when, in fact, he is unable to find money for people who have received the leave of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council to go there, having obtained a judgment in the first court for thousands of pounds, he is perpetrating a very serious injustice, and it is about time it was put right.
  I have read and carefully considered the whole matter, and have even gone to the extent of asking a number of the best-known solicitors in London whether they would be prepared to act for nothing in such cases on grounds of prestige. I would rather not mention any names, but, universally, they indicated that they would not do so. I know that

  1083
  members of the Bar are willing to do so in certain circumstances. Whether they are willing or not, the House ought to consider these figures.
  First of all, if one wants to go to the House of Lords today, one's disposable capital to start with must be £700—£200 cash and further recognisances of £500. In addition to that, one has to go through an indignity, and I call it an indignity because it is an affront to any civilised society today.
  I will read from the House of Lords, Form of Appeal, Method of Procedure and Standing Orders, paragraph 10 (iii):
  "The petition must be supported by an affidavit of poverty by the Petitioner and also by a certificate of poverty signed by two responsible persons of official or professional standing who have personal knowledge of the Petitioner's lack of means."
  They must testify that the person is telling the truth when he says that he has less than £100. These are the cases which have led to a hardship which is far greater than anything which would happen to people in the county court or elsewhere.
  9.45 p.m.
  If we are proud of the highest tribunals of the land and of the fact that leave to appeal is given to those tribunals, from the Court of Appeal or, in the case of the Privy Council, often from the Commonwealth, then I find it very surprising that their Lordships passed the Bill without ensuring that the highest tribunals in the land are those where the liberty of the subject is most strongly defended.
  I say little about the position of solicitors in this matter, although I speak in measured language when I say that I know that few, if any, solicitors—and I am speaking in the presence of some very eminent solicitors—would be prepared to take cases to the House of Lords, with all the time which is involved, for nothing. I know members of the Bar in number who would do so. All of us may well do many hours of work for nothing. But the plea I make in this respect arises from the hardship which is involved in this question of disposable capital. I know of three cases at present where, having been given leave to go to the highest tribunal, people are unable to do so because they have not the
  1084
  money to meet the bills—and these bills must be paid.
  Let us assume that they have £500 to £1,000 disposable capital available to them. First they have to find £700. In addition, the printing costs in the House of Lords are between £1,000 and £1,500. They must be met by the appellant. By the time people have attempted to meet these bills, they will be unable to go to the tribunal. It is a great surprise to me that I should have to raise the matter at this stage.
  The Chairman: I am having difficulty in relating the hon. Member's argument to the Amendment.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I am saying that if hon. Members wish to raise the limits of disposable capital, I am not prepared to support arguments of that kind under any circumstances until they are prepared to invite the Government to put their house in order and to put the position right in the highest courts of the land. I am submitting that this ought to have priority over the other cases.
  Today the retired person may often be drawn into litigation. For instance, a widow may wish to retain her house against eviction. Such people very often have a small unearned income and are living on capital. If any change is made, I should prefer to see a lower amount for the income and a higher amount for the disposable capital, and that is directly in line with the Amendment. But I cannot support either view here, or the Bill, as it appears before us, until the House is prepared to give more attention to an injustice which I am sure many do not realise exists. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Second Reading indicated the courts which had been introduced into the provisions. He spoke of Bristol Tolzey Court, sheriffs' courts and courts nobody had heard of and into which very few people go. But not a word was spoken of the two greatest courts of the land and cases of the kind which I have described.
  These hardships arise irrespective of the fact that lawyers may be prepared to work for nothing. It is very good that they should do so from time to time— good for their consciences—and it is probably something which the House warmly welcomes. But even so, there

  1085
  are still people who are unable to take advantage of the benefit of free legal counsel and even a free solicitor because, as a result of the Act of 1893, it was provided that in these cases the disposable capital should be £100 and no more. These cases can be contrasted with the winged words of the hon. Member in calling attention to questions of disposable capital. What has been said by hon. Members falls into insignificance against the hardship that can be created in cases like that of Lady Hoare and the difficulties that arise in cases like that of Colonel Wintle and others I could mention I hope that another place, if not the House, will in due course seek to put this in order and see that we have on the Statute Book the whole proper provisions.
  We have had my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General presenting his case with the lucidity and fairness one always gets from him. Even so, one is unable to extract or understand the precise figures, particularly if one is an ordinary layman or someone not versed in this subject. It is not surprising that one finds very few who know what is meant by disposable income or disposable capital. I hope that in the next year or two i: may be possible to incorporate in a place where they can easily be found regulations which would indicate precisely how the disposable capital—
  The Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is getting very far from dealing with the Amendment.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and agree that it is most desirable to extend the legal aid provisions to the House of Lords. We said so on Second Reading. However, we took the view that this Bill was not appropriate to deal with that aspect of the scheme. We are dealing with alterations of the financial provisions, and it was extremely adroit of him to get so much within the four corners of the rules of order.
  It is not our object in this Amendment, and nor have we ever suggested, that the Legal Aid Scheme is screwing the last penny out of capital. I made it clear that the first £125 of capital, for instance, was entirely free from legal aid contribution. The point we make is that small
  1086
  savings capital is, compared with substantial sums of income, most unfairly treated. If the Solicitor-General is not seized of that point—unless he is not seized of it because he is adroit in his advocacy—then I hope he will be seized of it now. The kind of case we are concerned with is that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and that of the pensioner put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
  The Solicitor-General made a great deal of play with the raising of the minimum amount from £75 to £125, whereby capital sums beneath that amount were excluded from the scheme. Then he said that that was considerably more than the sum mentioned in the Rushcliffe Report. I agree, but he did not go on to read the last sentence of the quotation which he made from the Report of the Advisory Committee, dealing with this question of £125. That sentence was this:
  "This is rather less than the effect of the increase in the cost of living since 1946."
  I was generous—if I may so describe myself—an saying that this scheme, by and large in this Bill, restored the 1949 value. There is nothing much in the £125 point.
  He went on to say that there were disregards and allowances made for dependants. Of course there are. I referred to disregards and allowances made for dependants, but they are also made in the case of income and that does not touch the case which we are making against the Government, namely, that they are treating small savings unfairly compared with substantial income.
  I invited him to deal with the Regulations which the Government have made in the case of non-litigious cases. It seemed to me that in those Regulations no allowances were made for dependants, although allowances are made for dependants in the case of income and in the case of litigation. I cannot understand why no allowances are made for dependants in respect of capital, and capital only, in non-litigious cases. All the hon. and learned Gentleman said about dependants was not even applicable to the non-litigious class of capital applicants.
  Dealing with dependants and disregards, the Solicitor-General referred to

  1087
  dwelling houses and so on, but there are comparable disregards in the case of income, too. What I invited him to do was to compare the unfairness resulting from only a one-third proportion being taken in the case of substantial sums of income, while the whole of the capital was taken in quite small sums of capital.
  The third point was in regard to the Rushcliffe Report. The hon. and learned Gentleman again referred to the £125 limit, which was £75 in 1949 Act. In one of the passages which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, the Rushcliffe Report recognised that there are two different classes of capital to be considered. The one case, which the Report 'said was the ordinary case, was that in which it recommended the £25 minimum amount, which in the 1949 Act was the £75 minimum amount. We are concerned with the principle not of that, but of the other case. Where there is a substantial sum of income and a substantial sum of capital, what matters is the overall resulting contribution. It may be quite reasonably fair where there is substantial income in a particular case to take the whole of the disposable capital where capital sums are comparatively small, but it is not fair to take the whole of the capital in cases where income is small and where, as the hon. Member for Crosby said, the poor person has to resort to capital as a means of supplementing income and making both ends meet.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have in mind that I dealt specifically with that second class of case when I dealt with the discretion which lies in the National Assistance Board.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am coming to that very point.
  In the second class of case, the Rushcliffe Report clearly laid down the principle which I quoted and which I now repeat because I want the Government to recognise it. It is the whole principle underlying the Amendment and is that
  "… while no one should be expected to make any payment if it would have the effect of materially diminishing an already exiguous income"—
  which is what it does when there is very small income and the capital is a source
  1088
  of a very valuable 10s. a week income to the person dependent on it—
  "people with substantial sums of capital must in general be prepared to pay their own law charges".
  Mr. Philip Bell: We are in difficulty when we talk about living on capital because it depends on how old the person who has to live on it is— whether it is a sick person aged 50 with only £500 of capital or a sick person aged 85 with £500 capital. The spreading of the capital if it is to be lived on depends a great deal on the situation.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I hope that I do not treat the hon. and learned Gentleman unfairly if I say that that is very much a lawyer's point. I fail to recognise the human distinction between the two. If there is a person of 50 who is sick and dependent on capital to eke out income, he should be treated in exactly the same way as the person of 85.
  I am coming to the point which the Solicitor-General mentioned about the amount of capital which is in fact disregarded. He said that the National Assistance Board took various factors into consideration in deciding whether to take the whole of the capital or some proportion of it and that—
  It being Ten o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.
  Proceedings on the Legal Aid Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Bill again considered in Committee.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am anxious to understand the Solicitor-General's argument on this part of his case. As I understand it, he is now saying that, apart from dependants' allowances and disregards such as the value of a house which are taken into consideration by the National Assistance Board, it may take into consideration all the circumstances of the case and take a smaller proportion than the whole of the resulting disposable income.
  The Solicitor-General: It is rather more. The Board gives a further allowance at its discretion, although on an

  1089
  unstated scale, before arriving at the disposable income which it reports to the legal aid committee.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No wonder, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, it is difficult to follow the intricacies of this. I am at a complete loss to understand the significance of the Solicitor-General's observations. Apparently the Board makes some allowances which are not covered in any regulations, about which we have no knowledge, which it exercises in accordance with some scale which is private to itself and known to nobody else, which we cannot criticise in this House, and which is utterly unknown. We do not know whether it is fair. We do not know whether it is exercised on the same principle by the different area committees, or how on earth the thing works out.
  We are now told, for the first time, at this stage of the Bill, that the National Assistance Board exercises some discretion of that kind. This point was put expressly to the Solicitor-General in Committee. My hon. Friends and I pressed him about it. We wanted to know whether, after the £125 minimum capita] which was allowed, the whole of the difference between £125 and £500 total disposable capital, namely, £375, was taken, or was not taken, for legal aid purposes. I have the answer here. After considerable questioning the Solicitor-General made it clear that the whole lot was taken, without any indication that there was any discretion in the National Assistance Board, that something less than a proportion was taken, or anything of that kind.
  When we made the point that the whole of the amount was taken, and not just a mere fraction of it, there was never a glimmer of suggestion that less than the whole was taken. Today for the first time we are told that the National Assistance Board, in some utterly unknown way, according to some utterly unknown criterion, exercises some discretion which we do not know, and about which we are not entitled to ask. We do not know whether it is just, or unjust, or what is the amount.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not need to get so excited about this.
  Dame Irene Ward: Yes, he does.
  The Solicitor-General: It is the perfectly plain distinction that we have investigated time and again in the Bill between gross capital and disposable capital. It is true that if one takes £125 and the figure of £500, which is all that we were considering in the Amendments in Committee, the whole of that difference can be taken. What we are discussing here is how to arrive at disposable capital. There are other things besides the £125. That is only the personal allowance. There is also the allowance in respect of dependants. There is also the flexibility of which, I should have thought, every hon. Member knew —the discretion vested in the National Assistance Board. If the discretion of the National Assistance Board is new to the hon. and learned Member, I can only say that I am very much surprised.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: All that this means is that the discretion is exercised before what the Solicitor-General calls the disposable capital is arrived at instead of being exercised after the disposable capital is arrived at.
  The disregards and the allowances are laid down in the Regulations. We know what the disregards and the dependants' allowances are and we know what factors have to be taken into consideration, yet we are told that there is some unknown element, of which we know nothing at all, which is to be taken into consideration. We do not know how it is exercised and all my criticisms of it stand. I should like to know exactly why that is not provided for and why we do not have something provided for which we in the House of Commons can see and get at and be in a position to criticise and see that the administration is properly enforced.
  The Solicitor-General has dealt with the Warwick and Leamington case with some enlightening observations. He told us, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that nowadays in that case the £125 general allowance would be deducted— we all know about that—and that under the Regulations which are now proposed to be made, but which are not yet in operation, there will be £75 for the first dependant and £50 for the second dependant, but that these allowances are to

  1091
  operate only in litigious cases under the Regulations which have not been made and not in non-litigious cases operating under the Regulations which have already been made. Apparently our discussion on the Amendments may have had some beneficial effect.
  The Solicitor-General said that there was then to be an allowance of £125, as the lady in the case had no income. Let us consider that. One hundred and twenty-five pounds is one-third of the difference between the £125 minimum allowance which is allowed in all cases and the £500 maximum above which one goes outside the Legal Aid Scheme. So that, we are told, in the case where there is no income at all, one-third of the income is to be allowed.
  Mr. Philip Bell: Capital, not income.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sorry; I meant capital, not income. One-third of the capital is to be allowed. We very much welcome that. It is a step forward, which we very much welcome, on the lines of our Amendment. It is an admirable thing and we welcome the concession.
  What happens if the lady, instead of having no income, has 10s. a week? Is there any proportional scaling or is the one-third allowance to be given irrespective of income, or only where there is no income? I hope we shall be given an answer to this. It may affect the way in which we act on the Amendment.
  We are concerned precisely with these hardship cases as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. These are cases which cannot, as it were, be laughed out of court. They are cases of substantial hardship to people of poor means who are hit in their poverty simply because they happen to have a little capital instead of a little income. We say that cases of capital and income, if they come within the limits of the scheme, should be dealt with in the same way. Both represent small sums. It is utterly unrealistic to refer to these cases as "nest egg" cases in which we should be entitled to take the whole amount up to a certain figure.
  Dependants' allowances are taken into consideration, because it is recognised
  1092
  that they should be considered irrespective of other matters, whether it is capital, income or whatever it happens to be. But when those deductions are made, we are dealing with what is left. We say that if they are made, people with small means, whether it is capital or income, should be dealt with in exactly the same way. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to give us more encouraging news about this £125 which he has mentioned as being allowed under the National Assistance Scheme—or rather which it is proposed to allow under the Regulations to be made by his right hon. and learned Friend. That would go a considerable way to meeting the purpose of the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: I think I can reply easily to the points put by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). I did in fact give the answer to what happens about £125 where there is this sliding scale, but I realise that I gave it in a spate of figures and it must have been extremely difficult to follow.
  The position is that where the disposable income is less than the free income limit—I will give what is proposed to be done rather than the present figure in order to keep it simple—Dhey allow a further £125 free capital where income is below that figure. So it follows that up to £250 income there is a further capital allowance of £125. Above that free income figure of £250 the special allowance is reduced £ for £ with the rise in income. I gave the example of someone with disposable income of £350 who will get a further £25 capital allowance. The income has risen by £100 so the capital allowance has been reduced by £100.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed surprise that this was the first time we had heard of this matter. It is, of course, the first time it has been relevant in these debates. But it is no new thing to the House of Commons. Indeed, the discretion given to the National Assistance Board in this very regard is given in the Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) Regulations, 1950, Second Schedule, Part II, paragraph 5, which reads:
  'Where there are special circumstances the amount to be deducted from the applicant's capital resources may be adjusted as is appropriate to meet those circumstances."

  1093
  In view of that explanation, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with the cases of small capital to which he has drawn the attention of the Committee.
  10.15 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I always think it dangerous for a layman to intervene in what certainly appears to be a lawyers' argument. My dilemma becomes greater because, owing to other commitments, I was unable to be present to hear the whole of the argument. On coming into the Chamber I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) talking about people on retirement pensions and I thought at once of those living on small fixed incomes. I have listened very patiently to the arguments which have been put forward and I do not feel satisfied on this matter.
  I also listened very carefully to what the Solicitor-General said about dependants' allowances. What he said may well be so in the case of people who have dependants; but, if I assess rightly the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, it is the people who no longer have dependants who will not obtain the benefit of these allowances. Therefore, the older one gets, the less help one appears to get under this scheme. That seems to be very unfair and very unfortunate, because it hits the whole range of people who have retired on relatively small pensions. I am not necessarily speaking of retirement pensions within the framework of the National Insurance Act, but of the whole range of people who retire on small fixed incomes and who will not have the benefit of dependants' allowance.
  I also listened to the argument about the steps that will be taken by the National Assistance Board. When one is talking about people who want to have recourse to legal aid, there are masses of people who, in my interpretation of small fixed incomes, do not come within the range of the National Assistance Board.
  The Solicitor-General: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that very-body applying for legal aid has to have his resources investigated by the National Assistance Board.
  Dame Irene Ward: Of course, I know that the National Assistance Board is the operating body for the investigations. Perhaps I have interpreted my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend incorrectly, but there has been a very long argument about the amount of disposable capital and disposable income. Large numbers of people have very small incomes, and, if I understood it correctly, the case put by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) was in relation to people with small incomes as well as people with much larger incomes.
  I have always found, when speaking about those living on small fixed incomes who come within the purview of legal aid, that the Government argue that it is very difficult to find ways and means of helping them. I thought that under the scheme put forward today, and after hearing the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and from the Opposition Front Bench, we might have gone much further towards helping those living on small fixed incomes. I do not feel that the explanations given have been entirely satisfactory. Presumably the advice given will be to wait for the regulations. I have waited so long with regard to small fixed incomes, without any results, that I am not particularly hopeful that when the regulations come forward they will help us very much.
  The next argument will be that we cannot alter the regulations because they relate to the basic foundations of the Bill. I would have much preferred the Solicitor-General to have been more forthcoming. I hope that, even at this late stage, we may get something a little more satisfactory in the interests of a great many people. I am delighted that today so many of the legal profession are trying to protect the interests of those living on small fixed incomes. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to be more forthcoming than he appears to have been in the arguments which he has put forward.
  Mr. Ede: I wish to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the careful way in which he explained to my untutored mind the way in which the widow who was the protégée originally of the hon. and learned Member for Warwick and

  1095
  Leamington (Mr. Hobson) would fare under the new arrangements. I understand that she has £800 capital and is entitled to £375, that is, three groups of £125 each, leaving her £425. Suppose she had £875 or, to give her a little bit for luck, £900.
  Mr. Philip Bell: If by some accident she happened to expend some of her capital on a fur coat or a cottage, she would be all right.
  Mr. Ede: That is the kind of intervention one would expect the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) to make on what I regard as a very human case. I hope he will take it from me that widows with children and only £800 in the world do not buy either fur coats or cottages.
  Mr. Philip Bell: It is cheaper than litigation.
  Mr. Page: I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) was endeavouring to be constructive and to assist the argument of the right hon. Member by showing how ridiculous the position is in that a person who squanders money on fur coats or something like that can get the benefit of legal aid whereas the widow in this case was refused it.
  Mr. Ede: I do not want to detain the Committee for very long. Hon. Members are always very kind to me and I want to get home as much as do other hon. Members. Do I understand that if this widow had £900 instead of £800 she would still be debarred? That is what I understood the mathematics which the Solicitor-General so carefully explained to me would prove, that she would still be excluded.
  I have frequently had to deal with widows of teachers in cases where, if the woman has not been a teacher herself, all she has is the gratuity which comes out of the superannuation fund. Such a woman has to say, "I have these few hundreds of pounds and two boys to look after. I shall have to spend so
  1096
  much each week to keep myself and the two boys alive, so much to keep us housed, fed and clothed." They work it out and hope that by the time that small capital is exhausted they will have found some means of employment or can persuade the benevolent orphans' fund of the National Union of Teachers to take the boys off her hands.
  These are cases of great poignancy, in my experience, and, judging by the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given, it does not seem to me that the Government, in the arrangements they have made, have grasped the fact that there are very many people who, perhaps as the result of a motor car accident or because some woman's husband has been knocked down by a bus, are plunged from lives of comfort and reasonable security into acute mental agony as they contemplate the future.
  The Solicitor-General: I apologise for detaining the Committee, but the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) always puts his requests for an intervention very courteously, and, of course, he rightly says that these are poignant cases. Indeed, wherever one draws the line, there are always bound to be difficult cases.
  The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which does not immediately arise on the Amendment. Let us suppose that the widow had, let us say, a capital of £900. Would she necessarily be refused legal aid? The answer is "No"; it is still discretionary. Under the proviso to Section 2 (1) of the 1949 Act, a person may be refused legal aid if he has a disposable capital of more than £500 and it appears that he can afford to proceed without legal aid. That still leaves some discretion in the National Assistance Board, although, obviously, there comes a time when it has to draw a line.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  LEGAL AID BILL

    New Clause.—(ASCERTAINMENT OF MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION.)
    From the amount which, but for the provisions of this section, would be the maximum amount of a person's contribution in respect of capital to the Legal Aid Fund in respect of any proceedings, there shall be deducted a sum equivalent to the assets and capital resources, which by virtue of section five of and paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, 1948, would be disregarded in relation to that person for the purposes of that Act; and the maximum amount of that person's contribution shall be. the first-mentioned amount less the said sum.—[Mr. Mitchison.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The effect of this new Clause, very shortly, is this. If it be accepted, the first step, in order to ascertain a person's contribution, will be to work it out according to the rest of this Bill and preceding legislation. The next step will be to deduct a sum equal to the assets and capital resources which would have been disregarded under the National Assistance Act. The result, after that deduction, will be the actual contribution.
    The Solicitor-General has just explained to us on another Amendment the infinite kindness of the Government which does not deprive an applicant for National Assistance of either his bed or his trousers. I recognise that there are certain disregards, domestic resources of one kind and another, and so forth. I recognise also that, in suggesting this new Clause, I have the full weight of all authority against me. The authority begins with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General as a member of the Rushcliffe Committee, and it ends with what we have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General tonight. On the other hand, I have in my favour obvious good sense, good logic, and I hope, a certain amount of reason, which I propose to direct to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    10.30 p.m.
    All I have to deal with really is the nest egg argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman, on Second Reading,
    1098
    when this suggestion was made to him, simply followed the language of the Rushcliffe Committee in saying that the two cases were different. What he said was this:
    " The hon. and learned Gentleman traced that back"—
    that is, the proviso about the £500—
    "to the recommendation of the Rushcliffe Committee, which said that the capital could be expected to be called on if there were a sudden emergency. It seems to me that the sudden emergency of legislation is quite different"—
    I think he meant litigation—
    "from the emergency which calls in the National Assistance Board."
    On that, which is the National Assistance case:
    "That is a continuing emergency in a sense, and, therefore, it is reasonable to have a wider disregard from the point of view of capital than under the Legal Aid Scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 1st February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 706–7.]
    I hope I may remain within the bounds of Parliamentary order in describing that as a somewhat "phoney" argument, but it is just as good or bad now as it was when it started in the Rushcliffe Committee. It has always been the same argument, that there is a difference between an emergency which calls in National Assistance—and in that case we must leave the nest egg alone—and the emergency of litigation, in which we can creep up on the nest egg and suck out the contents. It is the only defence which has ever been put forward.
    I have listened to these discussions. It is a curious view which everybody takes of the assisted litigant. He is always a plaintiff with a somewhat doubtful but plausible case. Of course, he may just as well be a defendant. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what the difference is between the man who gets, let us say. an illness or, if the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to take the other case, an industrial accident, or something of that kind, and, finding, as is so common, the Government's, the National Assistance or Industrial Injuries allowance, insufficient, has to have recourse to the National Assistance Board, and somebody who gets knocked down by a motor car and suffers from an injury and desires to recover some of the damages, at any rate, from the motorist?

    1099
    Or let us take the motorist himself. It is nowadays—and here I shall have the enthusiastic support of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—possible for people in quite humble circumstances to own a motor car which is occasionally a peril on the roads. And that may have been the motor car which caused the accident; and even the motorist may be in need, and properly in need, of some assistance in his litigation.
    If we are to go on with this theory of sudden emergency, litigation always being a sudden emergency, what about the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman will have well in mind—either party in a divorce suit? Where is the sudden emergency? What has happened? Is it that they have quite suddenly decided life has become intolerable? Or that one has caught the other partner out in some assignment of a nature which could be the basis of divorce proceedings? It might apply to either side and be the result only of an accident.
    It is a curious philosophical distinction between the emergency of litigation and the need for National Assistance. A man who suffers an accident of some sort may not be entitled to anything but National Assistance. His circumstances may be such, as I said just now, that National Assistance is insufficient. But in all those cases it is a pure accident whether the calamity takes the form of something rather sudden or something which may happen at one moment but continue for a considerable time. There is no philosophical, sensible distinction between the two things. The extraordinary theory that there was a distinction was adopted by the Rushcliffe Committee, and I think its source was the idea of the assisted litigant as a rather plausible plaintiff with a rather indifferent case. That is what he is often thought to be, but there is no reason for that theory. I suggest that it is about time that we put this right.
    It is proposed here to bring in the capital disregards appropriate to National Assistance. I will not go through paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Second Schedule to the National Assistance Act, because I do not think anyone wishes me to do that at this late hour, and I will put the argument shortly.
    1100
    In some cases and to some extent we have a rather similar effect to what might have been produced by another Amendment on the Order Paper which has not been called and which would have dealt with the problem in a different way. It is nevertheless an invitation to work it out according to the rest of the Act first and then to disregard certain capital provisions. One of the first of them is what are called in that Act "war savings"—and the definition would cover a great deal more nowadays than what are commonly regarded as war savings—in certain forms and up to a maximum of £375.
    There is another provision which contains a smaller sum where it is not a case of small savings; and then there is a restriction to certain classes of savings. They are, broadly speaking, such things as National Savings Certificates, a balance in the Post Office Savings Bank, and that kind of thing. All of us who have had to advise people about National Assistance—and I am sure that we have all had to do it at one time or another—know perfectly well how very important these disregards are. I will not dwell on that tonight, but, once we get rid of the somewhat bogus definition about which I have been talking, I think it is perfectly clear that there ought to be similar disregards in relation to legal aid.
    I listened to my hon. and learned Friend making an excellent case against the curious discrimination against small savings which is apparent in the Bill, and I will not try to repeat it. I can only say that the Solicitor-General has left me quite unconvinced, and I think he has left other hon. Members unconvinced, that small savings have had fair treatment in the changes now proposed. It is extraordinary that an hon. Member from this side of the Committee should have to lecture the Conservative Party, as I am lecturing them, on the desirability of not depriving people of their small savings except in very critical circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) called attention to the slender distinction between these small savings.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. and

    1101
    learned Gentleman, but I hope that he will not go back to the last Amendment; we have already dealt with that.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged, Sir William. I, too, hope that I shall not go back to it. I am trying to have certain capital disregards which are applicable for the purposes of National Assistance applied for the purposes of legal aid. The effect of these capital disregards will be to allow people to keep a certain amount of small savings which otherwise they would not be allowed to keep. This was the obvious effect, in the plainest possible language, in respect of National Assistance, and all I am saying—I do not wish to develop the point unduly—is that small savings are very important, particularly for people in a position such as that described by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.
    For that reason I hope that the Government, having been shown the illogicality of their argument and indeed the comparative absurdity of it, will accept the position and, with a broad-mindedness and generosity which they have failed to show so far, will accept the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) rightly pointed out that if there is an illogicality here—which I do not admit for a moment—it goes back to the very inception of this scheme. It was in accordance with the Rushcliffe Committee's recommendation that a distinction was drawn between treatment of capital under the National Assistance Scheme and under the Legal Aid Scheme. That was accepted by Parliament as a valid distinction in 1949, and it was again accepted by Government and Parliament as a valid distinction when the Regulations were made in 1950. When the matter was recently reviewed by the authoritative Advisory Committee which advises my noble and learned Friend on these matters, that Committee again endorsed the validity of such a distinction.
    The reason for that, as one would expect from such a consistent body of opinion, is a weighty one. Firstly, the National Assistance Board is required to disregard completely the first £100 of capital, leaving aside the question of war savings. That compares with the dis-
    1102
    regard under the Legal Aid Scheme of what is now to be £125, plus the further disregard of £75 for a wife or £75 for the first dependent child, and so on, in the way we discussed in the last Amendment. Thus, just resting there, the treatment of the capital in the way of disregards under the Legal Aid Scheme compares by no means unfavourably with that under National Assistance.
    It is also true that there is a complete disregard of war savings up to £375. That is written into the National Assistance Scheme, as, under special war-time conditions, it was desired to encourage saving specifically in war savings. Where there is capital above £100 which is not war savings, the Board reduces the National Assistance at the rate of 6d. per week for every £25 above that £100 nest egg, and that amounts to a deduction of just under £5 per cent. per annum, so that where there is capital, other than war savings, above £600 no assistance is provided.
    In the first place, I submit that the treatment of war savings is really quite an anomalous one. There is no reason why a particular type of savings should be disregarded disproportionately. Obviously, having been written into the National Assistance Scheme and people having had reasonable expectations aroused, it is very difficult to deal with it; but there are very strong reasons for not writing it into the Legal Aid Scheme— reasons which appealed to the Rushcliffe Committee, to the Labour Government who introduced the scheme, and to the Advisory Committee since.
    Mr. Mitchison: I expected the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that, and I think it right to say to him that, if the Government had been more generous in extending the ordinary cash limit for capital, then I doubt whether there would have been the same weight in this proposal.
    10.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: That is only the first of the fundamental objections of principle.
    The second, which appealed to the Rusholiffe Committee, the Government in 1949 and in 1950, and the Advisory Committee and the Government today, is that the emergency which calls for National Assistance is quite a different

    1103
    type from that which calls for legal aid. That was the point which I endeavoured to make on Second Reading and again in Committee.
    The fact is that where a person falls into indigence which calls for National Assistance, it is not reasonable to expect him to exhaust all his savings before giving him assistance. What is reasonable is to expect him to draw gradually on his savings, if he wishes to eke out or supplement the income which is vouchsafed to him by the National Assistance Board. But, as I pointed out on the last Amendment, litigation is unlikely to be recurrent. It is an emergency of exactly the type for which the capital has been accumulated, as the Rushcliffe Committee and the Advisory Committee pointed out.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman asked what was the difference between illness or industrial injury and being knocked down in the street. The answer is that someone who is knocked down in the street and who applies for legal aid hopes to recover damages from the wrongdoer, and does do so in 85 per cent. of the cases. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about divorce suits, but I should have thought that divorce was a calamity which one expects to meet not more than, I hope, once or twice, or three times at most, in a lifetime. That is very different from the sort of continuing emergency which one gets under the National Assistance Scheme.
    It is also important to consider how the Amendment would work out in relation to the concept of the Legal Aid Scheme, a scheme to help those of small fixed means. I hope that this will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). In order to assist such people, one has to tax; and one has to tax not only the Surtax payer, but the person of small means, the person living on a small fixed income.
    Dame Irene Ward: Relief could be given to them.
    The Solicitor-General: It seems to me to be fundamentally unfair to tax comparatively poor people in order to enable comparatively rich people to do what they are otherwise capable of doing.
    Dame Irene Ward: My point is that the Government should not tax those living on very small fixed incomes. I should be delighted if my hon. and learned Friend would move in that way and advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce a relief of tax in his Budget next week.
    The Solicitor-General: It is very difficult to avoid tax. If we manage to exclude them from direct taxation, many of those of small means will still pay tax, for we still have a very substantial system of indirect taxation. There will always be a point where the tax begins, and it would be wrong to tax people who are less well off for the benefit of those who are better off, if the latter can afford to perform the functions for which it is proposed to give them assistance.
    Let us see how the new Clause works out against that background. It would have the effect of exempting the first £125 of disposable capital—under Clause 2 (1, b). Secondly, £100 is disregarded under paragraph 3 (a) of the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act. Thirdly, £375 of War Savings are disregarded under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the National Assistance Act. The litigant may be a married man, and if his spouse has a second £375 of War Savings that too is exempted by paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to that Act. In addition, a further £500 would be disregarded as such, but would be treated as the equivalent of 10s. a week disposable income in the way that I described when I was dealing with the disregards under the National Assistance Scheme. What one therefore gets is that an assisted person could be eligible for legal aid with a capital of £1,475. The only effect would be to increase his disposable income by £26, and his maximum contribution by under £9.
    Is it right to assist somebody who has a capital of £1,475? That is not the whole of the capital, because once one invokes the National Assistance Regulations one does not disregard only the first £2,000 or £3,000 of the value of his house, and half the value above that, as one does under the Legal Aid Scheme, one disregards the whole of the value of his house, whatever its value. He could therefore have a house worth £5,000 in addition to the £1,475 capital which would be disregarded under the Amendment. Indeed, he could, if he

    1105
    bought Blenheim Palace and had only £1,475 in addition to that, be eligible under the Amendment.
    If he is a commercial traveller, with a car and a television set, they are all disregards. Is it right to assist people with those means who can, I submit to the Committee, assist themselves and undertake unassisted their own litigation? In my submission it would be wrong, and this Amendment should therefore be resisted.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am not concerned to go into detail about the disregards for the purposes of National Assistance. What the hon. and learned Gentleman has in effect been doing is to criticise those. If those cars are to be disregarded for the purpose of National Assistance, and not to be disregarded for the purposes of legal aid, we are driven back to the distinction he seeks to draw between the two types of emergency.
    I say with all the vigour that I can that a great deal of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying has been simply a criticism of the Legal Aid Act and the Legal Aid Scheme. He has been talking as though there were something wrong in providing legal aid for people who might not have started, or wished to start, any litigation themselves, but who might be defendants, and whom for many years we have recognised should be entitled to assert or defend their rights in courts of law, even if to do so they required some assistance from public funds.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman does me an injustice. The Legal Aid Act in its Long Title makes legal aid and advice available for "persons of small or moderate means." That is what I seek to endorse, not criticise. I say that the Amendment provides for people who cannot properly be described as persons of small or moderate means.
    Mr. Mitchison: All I can say to that is that exactly the same argument would apply as regards National Assistance. When National Assistance is provided, certain things are disregarded, because it is thought that they are not things which should disentitle a person to receive National Assistance out of public funds.
    What is the difference on these lines? On that sort of argument, I should have
    1106
    thought that, if anything, there should be more disregards in the Legal Aid Scheme than in the other, because it at least includes persons of moderate means and persons of moderate means are not always—indeed, seldom—successful in getting National Assistance. It is another somewhat bogus argument and I hope that the Solicitor-General will think out the consequences of what he is saying before he gets up and draws these curious distinctions.
    I turn again to the emergency. This is absolute nonsense. It is none the less nonsense because it started with the Rushcliffe Committee and has ended today with the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. I agree with him that if the Government had been generous in their treatment of capital in other parts of the Bill, there would have been no need to move the new Clause. That is the reason why, in 1949 and 1950, this rather illogical distinction between the two kinds of disregard was accepted.
    The Government, however, have been remarkably stingy about the capital limit, to put it in general terms, and for that reason it has become necessary to move the new Clause. Once one begins to move it, one is compelled to see that there is no real distinction between an emergency of one kind, say, a broken leg in an industrial accident, and an emergency of another kind, a broken leg when somebody is run down by a motorist. It is true that the results are different. One is a claim for Industrial Injuries benefit and the other is an application for legal aid, but the difference is sought to be justified on the ground that the emergencies are different. They are not different. They are each the consequence of an accident in a case of that sort.
    When one considers a spouse who is being brought before the court in divorce proceedings, I find it highly artificial to call that an emergency of the sudden and calamitous character which, apparently, the Solicitor-General attributes to litigation of any kind. It is not quite as bad as that. People have rights and they are sometimes entitled, and should be assisted, to assert or defend them. I fail to see any distinction between National Assistance disregards and the disregards that logically there should be in these proceedings. I am well aware that we are a profoundly illogical race

    1107
    and that, I suppose, unreason and authority joined in unholy matrimony may once more prevail, but it is quite wrong.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: I make an appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has argued the case cogently and has put it to us as an extremely hard case and has had it turned down absolutely fiat, almost flatter than any case I have heard turned down for a long time. He owes it to himself and to the high principles of his party to make certain that hon. Members opposite go into the Division Lobby on this issue.
    Mr. Page: Many of us were shocked to learn that the resident of Blenheim Palace, with £1,400, could get National Assistance. The figures which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General put forward were rather shocking. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, that was criticism of the National Assistance scale. It is, I understand, argued that there are plenty of disregards under the Legal Aid Scheme and one does not need to apply anything more or to apply, as is suggested by the new Clause, the National Assistance scale.
    What has not been brought out. either in this discussion or in the one on the previous Amendment, is this. Much has been said about dependants' allowances, the £75 for the first child and the £50 for next, but this may not be taken into account against the capital. That may already have been eaten up in allowances against a small income and they cannot be taken into account twice. So, the person with a small income—say, the £350 person—may have had account taken of all these disregards against his income.
    11.0 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: With great respect, that is not so. These are capital disregards.
    Mr. Page: Am I right, then, in understanding that a child allowance can be taken into account twice over, both
    1108
    against income and capital? I have no doubt that the area offices of the National Assistance Board have not taken it into account in that way; those with which I have had to deal have never done so.
    Surely the argument here is that we might be taxing those of small means to help those who are better off. It is just the contrary argument that I was trying to make on the previous Amendment, and which applies to this one. There are those who are well off who are entitled to legal aid. We can compare those cases with the pensioners who have a small amount of capital, but who are refused legal aid. The Solicitor-General has said again and again that if the capital is more than £500 it is discretionary to grant legal aid. In the cases before me in practice that discretion is not exercised and, from these debates, I hope that it will be exercised in future. If these people have capital over the £500 mark they are disqualified straight away.
    I do not think that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering is right, but at least it has given us the opportunity to argue over these people with small incomes and small capital.
    The Solicitor-General: I would just draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to what the Advisory Committee says on this very point:
    "The Law Society inform us that this is not so and that the committees grant legal aid where disposable capital is larger than £500 if in their view the cost of the proceedings will be greater than the maximum contribution which the applicant would pay if he got legal aid."
    Question put and negatived.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakefield.]
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  War Disability Pensions
  War Disability Pensions
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Air Services, Wales
  Air Services, Wales
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Mental Patients, Bristol (Rehabilitation)
  Mental Patients, Bristol (Rehabilitation)
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
HOSPITALS
  Orsett Hospital
  Orsett Hospital
  MANUSCRIPT, "BREATHE NOT MY NAME"
  MANUSCRIPT, "BREATHE NOT MY NAME"
  JAPAN (BRITISH SUBJECTS, COMPENSATION)
  JAPAN (BRITISH SUBJECTS, COMPENSATION)
  MR. AND MRS. G. ADAMS
  MR. AND MRS. G. ADAMS
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING)
  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unofficial Strikes
  Unofficial Strikes
  Young Persons, Drumchapel
  Young Persons, Drumchapel
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pig Prices (Feedingstuffs Formula)
  Pig Prices (Feedingstuffs Formula)
  Local Authority Smallholdings
  Local Authority Smallholdings
  Eggs (Guaranteed Price)
  Eggs (Guaranteed Price)
  Milk (Retail Price)
  Milk (Retail Price)
  Food and Agriculture Organisation (Freedom From Hunger Campaign)
  Food and Agriculture Organisation (Freedom From Hunger Campaign)
  Dendles Moor, Dartmoor National Park
  Dendles Moor, Dartmoor National Park
  Poultry Progeny Testing Stations
  Poultry Progeny Testing Stations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Income Tax (National Insurance Contributions)
  Income Tax (National Insurance Contributions)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Coal Imports, Northern Ireland
  Coal Imports, Northern Ireland
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
  Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  School Places, Brentford and Chiswick
  School Places, Brentford and Chiswick
  Wellington Technical College
  Wellington Technical College
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Scientific Personnel (Emigration)
  Scientific Personnel (Emigration)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
ADEN
  Official Archives
  Official Archives
  Local Security Forces (Equipment, Clothing and Provisioning)
  Local Security Forces (Equipment, Clothing and Provisioning)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motor Lorries (Emission of Smoke)
  Motor Lorries (Emission of Smoke)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans
The Earl of Portsmouth—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House that I should tell your Lordships that, owing to the long list of speakers that we have to-day, through the usual channels arrangements for dinner from seven o'clock onwards have been made in your Lordships' restaurant.

KENYA
2.36 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS rose to draw attention to the Report of the Kenya Constitutional Conference (Cmnd. 960); to consider its implications for the future; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in drawing attention to the Report of the Kenya Constitutional Conference, and in considering its implications for our future Colonial and, indeed, Commonwealth policy in Africa as a whole, I want to put it on record at the outset of my speech, in view of certain criticisms that have been levelled about the dilatoriness, and even the negligence, of Parliament, that this Motion of mine was handed in on the second Sitting Day after the publication of the Report, and that Her Majesty's Government have gone out of their way to make a day available for the holding of this debate. Wednesday is the normal debating day for private Motions, and all the Wednesdays were booked for two months ahead. Therefore I think I should be expressing the feeling of all your Lordships when I say that we are most grateful to the authorities who arrange these matters for setting aside a Monday especially in order that we can discuss this most important matter.
My Lords, this Report represents the first major achievement in the realm of Colonial policy of a new Government; of a new Colonial Secretary, and of a new Governor in Kenya; and, in the meanwhile, the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has made a personal survey of the African scene on the spot, culminating in a major policy statement in his famous speech at Cape Town. For these reasons, and because this matter has not been debated in the House of Commons, I think it is most appropriate that your Lordships should discuss this question both in its narrower and in its wider aspects to-day, and to debate it with that calm restraint and objective approach, not to mention expert knowledge, for which your Lordships' House is so justly renowned.
First of all, I should like to turn to paragraph 18 of the Report, in which the views of the various groups are given. There it will be seen that three of the four delegations to the Conference were in broad agreement that these proposals should form the basis of the next Constitution on the road towards responsible Government, and that they would make this Constitution work. Those three groups were, of course, the Africans, the Asians and the Mixed Group—the New Kenya Group of Mr. Michael Blundell, representing Europeans, Asians and Africans. The United Party Group—the purely European Party—led by Group Captain Briggs, objected to the whole matter and thought that the proposals were a disaster. Therefore I think we must ask ourselves, in the first place, whether the Colonial Secretary was right to overrule those objections.
It has been said that there should have been an election in Kenya before the holding of this Conference in order that the Europeans attending should have been more representative. I do not know what would have happened, of course, if an election had been held, but let us suppose that it had, and that, as a result, the United Party had formed, with the African Elected Members, the second most important group at the Conference, and that the New Kenya Group had been in a very small minority. What, then, would have been the result? I think we must see that it is quite certain that there would have been no agreement at this Conference, and that the Colonial Secre-

307
tary would have found himself in the unenviable position of having to impose a Constitution on Kenya. My Lords, two Constitutions have already been imposed on Kenya, in 1954 and 1958, and I think that if there had been a third the chances of a grave security risk arising would have been very serious indeed. Therefore, I hold that any Colonial Secretary of this country had no option but to bring about and to accede to the agreement of three of the four Parties taking part in the Conference.
I do not mean that the objections which have been made by the United Party should be ignored, or that the fears lying behind those objections should not be allayed, or that we should do nothing about it—and I will return to that matter later on in my speech. But I think we have to realise that the United Party represents at most 1 per cent. of the total population of Kenya, which is the European population, and that, however important economically that 1 per cent. is—and, of course, it is vitally important to the future of Kenya—nevertheless, in the purely political context in 1960, and in view of what is going on all over Africa to-day, it is quite inconceivable that 1 per cent. of the population can predominate and continue to predominate in the political sphere or impede the political advance of the other 99 per cent. I pause for a moment to say that if any European in Kenya who chances to read these words should imagine that they are the ignorant vapourings of an effete English politician (and I realise that language used in those parts is sometimes stronger than that) then he will be utterly wrong. I speak as a hard-headed Rhodesian farmer with his feet firmly on the ground; a Rhodesian farmer of practical experience and intimate knowledge of the daily lives of European farmers throughout East and Central Africa, and of the difficulties they have to meet every day and will have to meet in the future.
I turn now to paragraph 15, which deals with the mechanics of the Constitution. We see that there is an advance to be made from a position of approximate parity to a position where the Africans will have in the Legislative Council a very substantial majority over all other races. At the moment there are 14 elected Europeans, 14 Africans and 8 Asians and Arabs combined. The
308
figures in the future will be 10 Europeans and 10 Asians and Arabs combined, bringing them to exactly equal figures, which I think is justified and about which I have heard no criticism. There will, therefore, remain, in a total of 53 elected seats, 33 open seats, which in the circumstances of the wide franchise will inevitably be all African seats. I should just mention that there are going to be primary elections to choose the candidates for the European and Asian representatives; and as I have not the time to go into every detail I hope that the noble Earl who is to follow me will explain how they will work, and perhaps with special reference to the system which was put into force so successfully and with such happy results in Tanganyika.
I would also ask him to explain (quite frankly in order to save myself the trouble and your Lordships the time) how the cross-benchers will be elected (the 12 that there are to be in the new Constitution, as in the old) by the Legislative Council itself and not by direct vote: 4 Africans, 4 Europeans, 3 Asians and an Arab. I hope the noble Earl will explain how it is that the majority Party will not be in a position to control entirely the elections of those cross-benchers, but that the proportion may be, say, 3 majority Party to 1 of the minority Parties, or even in some cases 2 from each side.
But, returning to the main Legislative Council, with 33 Africans, we cannot be certain that they will all be of the same Party. There are many manœuvrings going on this very day in Kenya, and we do not know whether there will be more than one African Party. It is conceivable that there might be, and that there will be a Coalition Government comprised of Africans, Europeans and Asians. On the other hand, I dare say it is likely that there will be a majority of one African Party which will claim at least 27 of the 33 seats. That would give them an overall majority of one in the Legislative Council.
But when we come to the Executive Council, we find that there will be 4 Africans, presumably from the majority Party, 3 Europeans and 1 Asian, with the balance being held by the Governor and 4 Official Members. If we examine this Constitution carefully, I think we shall see that it cannot work without the full

309
co-operation of all races; and that is undoubtedly its purpose. If anybody should think that the Africans, by virtue of the majority in the Legislative Council, can hamstring the Government, I would point to the powers of the Governor which still remain: he can, in fact, nominate any number of members that he wishes to the Legislative Council in order that he can carry on his Government in the way that he wishes. But I very much hope that the people of Kenya will realise, and I hope that all speakers to-day and Her Majesty's Government in particular will emphasise, that the onus of responsibility is fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the people of Kenya: that they are being given, as I think, a splendid opportunity to show that they can co-operate in the government of their country.
This applies most especially to the Africans, and I am sure all your Lordships are delighted to see to-day's news: that three Ministers of the Africans are to take part in a caretaker Government pending the bringing into force of this Constitution. I hope that, as a result, we shall not hear any more about some of these foolish and disturbing incidents that occurred here in London at the beginning of the Conference and since the African delegation returned. I daresay that other noble Lords will have something to say about these matters, and I hope that the two noble Lords who have so kindly come especially from Kenya to take part in this debate will tell us of the impact of some of these incidents not only upon the Europeans but perhaps also upon the Africans who sided with us and fought against the Mau Mau. I will say nothing more about that.
But we must face up to the possibility—not only the Government; I would ask the Opposition side also to face it—that that co-operation which we seek now may not be forthcoming. There are criticisms in Kenya that at the first signs of real pressure coming from African extremists the Government of this country will give way; and if that were to happen any possibility of partnership in Kenya would be at an end. It is difficult for the Government to force cooperation upon people who are not willing to co-operate, but I trust that the Government—and I hope the Opposition will back them up in this respect—will make it clear that we could not possibly
310
acquiesce in the granting of self-government, let alone independence, on any other basis than that of co-operation and mutual confidence between all the races; and that if that co-operation is not forthcoming the inevitable result, whether we wish it or not, will be delay in the advance of Kenya towards responsible government.
I come now briefly to the question of the franchise. It is probably the most controversial part of these proposals. As I know that other noble Lords wish to say a good deal about it, I will not spend long upon that aspect, although it is the one with which I myself agree least. I would ask the noble Earl why it has been considered necessary to increase the franchise at this moment to such an extent. I understand that there are 126,500 Africans on the electoral roll, and that their numbers could be three times that if they had registered. Therefore, with a potential electoral roll of 500,000, is it really necessary to increase that at the present stage to equal the franchise for the proposed new Constitution of Tanganyika?
Tanganyika is to get responsible government at the end of this year, and that franchise is going to be operated in Tanganyika after two years of fruitful co-operation. Kenya has not an equal record in that respect. In fact, it seems that the franchise in Kenya is slightly wider, in that anybody over 40 is to have a vote (which is not the case in Tanganyika) and that anybody reading or writing his own language may have the vote, whereas in the Tanganyika Constitution it is confined to English or Swahili. I hope the noble Earl who follows me will comment on those aspects.
I think the real reason for the extension of this franchise is to be found in paragraph 13 of the Report we are studying, where the Colonial Secretary has said that he was sure that a decisive move should now be made towards universal adult suffrage. I couple with that his remark in paragraph 11 above, where he says that Her Majesty's Government's aim was, among other things, first, to build a nation based on Parliamentary institutions on the Westminster model.
I have pointed out on a previous occasion that universal adult suffrage has not guaranteed Parliamentary democracy

311
for individual liberty in Germany or Russia, nor has it prevented military dictatorships in a number of countries over the world. Coming to countries which have been under British administration, and which are now either outside or within the Commonwealth, to name five, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon, Sudan and Ghana, in only one of those countries, namely, Ceylon, does Parliamentary democracy in the Westminster pattern survive, and there it is, as we know, in a precarious position. In the other four it has been abolished. Therefore I am driven to the conclusion that the universal adult suffrage and parliamentary democracy in the Westminster style are, in Africa to-day, and in a large part of Asia, incompatible. I have also quoted Sir John Moffat, who is well known to your Lordships by name, who said that universal adult suffrage, if imposed in Central Africa to-day, would mean the immediate death of democracy.
Therefore, I should like to see Her Majesty's Government not tying their hands to the extent they have, and to have a much more flexible approach and a more flexible attitude to these matters in the future. After all, universal adult suffrage and parliamentary democracy in the Western style are not, I submit, principles at all. I do not accept them as such. I think they are means to an end—means to achieve our real main principles which, as your Lordships may remember when I had the honour to move the humble Address at the beginning of this Parliament, I suggested were maintenance of law and order and the preservation of individual liberty under the common law.
I think there are methods of attaining those two principles other than by the universal adult suffrage and Westminster parliamentary democracy. Indeed, we see that in Pakistan now they are instituting a form of basic democracy based on fully elected village councils, and then the councillors will form electoral colleges. I do not know if there are provincial or district councils; but eventually one reaches the top of the pyramid with the indirect election of the President. But it does seem that that democratic system is perfectly capable of guaranteeing individual liberty. I do not know if anyone thinks General Ayub Khan a dictator. I think he has turned
312
his back upon dictatorship quite remarkably.
If we turn to Ghana, we find that they are suggesting a new Constitution there. There will be direct election to Parliament on the basis of one man one vote. But if we examine their Constitution, or proposed Constitution, we see in fact that Parliament is likely to be in a purely advisory capacity to the one man who will combine the offices of President, Prime Minister, Party leader and Commander-in-Chief. But, at the same time, it is quite possible that it may be called a democratic system. It is quite possible that liberty may be preserved if that one man is a good man. Therefore, I merely say that we should search for ways and means of bringing about our two main principles, and I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Corn-mission which I believe is to go to Uganda to examine the form of government for the future of that country.
I would say in this respect that I think it is quite possible that the most suitable place for the enactment or the operation of parliamentary democracy in the Westminster style is where there happens to be a Federation. I am hopeful of the future of Nigeria. There are many checks and balances between the Territories themselves and between the Territories and the Federal Government. It may well be that our system can be expected to operate on the African or Asian scene where there is a Federation. I think it should work out in Nigeria and it is doing so in Malaya. That may be a salutary thought for those who tend to favour the break-up of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Apart from Constitution making or breaking, I believe there are some practical matters that we can attend to in order to assist the achievement of our principles of law and order and individual liberty. First of all, where it lies in our power I think we can abolish the colour bar, and where it does not lie in our power we can bring strong persuasion to bear. That would relieve the psychological tensions which at the moment make it so difficult to attain our first principle, which is the maintenance of law and order.
Secondly, I think we can examine and re-examine the state of the law throughout Africa. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord

313
Denning, is to take part later in this debate, for in January he presided over a Conference to examine this very question about the consolidation of English, Roman-Dutch and Islamic law. I hope he will be able to give us some encouragement and guidance as to how the law may contribute to the preservation of individual liberty on the African scene, as distinct from Bills of Rights and constitutional laws, which we all know can in fact be broken. I look forward to what he has to say in that respect.
The third thing I wish to refer to is the Oversea Civil Service. Just before the independence of Ghana, in a White Paper of 1956, a reorganisation was carried out by which a Special List was created, but I think we rather missed the boat in Ghana. I think Ghana missed the boat too. But when it came to the independence of Nigeria, a Special List B was created in order to give greater encouragement for Europeans to stay on and assist those territories. I hope we may hear today that that Special List B is to be put into force immediately in the case of Tanganyika. There has been a conference this very month on assisting the localisation of the Civil Service and the Africanisation of them. That is an admirable thing, and I look forward to the noble Earl telling us something about that, with a few facts and figures as to how quickly that process may reasonably go ahead. I am sure that this is where the Prime Minister's remarks on "merit alone" should be taken most seriously, because you can always apply precise terms of merit to the Civil Service. I suppose the most optimistic of us would agree that even in a highly civilised country applying precise terms of merit to politicians is a very difficult thing. In the case of the Civil Service it can and should be done.
Africanisation for its own sake cannot be in the long-term interest of those countries. That is recognised in some quarters now by African leaders. I believe there is definitely a career lying ahead for the young men of our own Overseas Service, some of them not even in the Service yet, to go out and take their place in the Commonwealth. But I would say that this Special List B and its arrangements really are for the benefit of existing officers among the more senior ranks. What about the future? These young men must have an incentive, and I hope
314
that perhaps the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, when he speaks can say something on the subject. I believe there should be immediate reorganisation and combination of the Commonwealth and Colonial Services, and in the future it may shock people in exclusive quarters to think that one day it might even come to an amalgamation with the Foreign Service at well. But if we are going to get these young men doing their jobs in Africa it is essential for the future of what will be Commonwealth countries that we make some move now.
That brings me to my last subject. I believe all these matters, these practical matters, that I have been instancing can do a very great deal both to obtain law and order and preserve individual liberty. They are matters pre-eminently suitable, I suggest, for discussion at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, not only in May but in the future. Far better to sort these affairs out in a friendly and co-operative and helpful spirit rather than wash our dirty linen in public at the United Nations. That does not only apply to South Africa at this particularly tragic moment but to other Commonwealth countries, and there are going to be other cases in the future. I hope that a precedent may be set at this Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and general agreement reached by the Prime Ministers that they may and will help each other with their problems of this practical nature.
The question of individual liberty brings me right back to the safeguards it is suggested should be put into this Constitution for Kenya. There will be a Bill of Rights; this time the Colonial Secretary has had to act on his own because he did not get agreement from the Delegations. I am all for a Bill of Rights, especially one on the lines of the Nigerian Constitution which goes into very great detail. But there is just one point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. At the top of page 10 of the White Paper reference is made to the all-important question of the expropriation of property, which shall not be done except for purposes to the benefit of the country, and then in brackets in line 4 it says:
"(due regard being paid to human needs and individual hardship, confidence and stability, and advantage to the country's economy)".

315
Those words are very well intentioned, but I can see how easily "human needs and individual hardship" might be confused with political expediency and how those who want land which is already well farmed by somebody else might be given it. I hope very much that the language will be in much more precise terms than that, and these actual words may in fact be expunged from the Bill of Rights.
Far more than any Bill of Rights, we are concerned with action that the Government may take now, because the only real safeguard for the future is mutual confidence between all the races and their willing and complete co-operation. This problem of the White Highlands must be sorted out before Kenya ever gets to self-government, let alone independence. I suggest that there are certain things Her Majesty's Government can do. We in Parliament, by and large, are very ill-informed about the White Highlands. I am myself. I should like to know a great deal more. I hope very much that all the available information that there is in various reports in the Colonial Office, and in the Sessional Paper which was produced as probably the last act of Lord Howick of Glendale before he resigned as Governor, dealing with land tenure in the White Highlands in particular, will be put into one single White Paper, so that we in Parliament can judge what to do about it.
I should like to know the extent of the White Highlands, the size of holdings in categories, how much land is developed and how much undeveloped, what the treaties are with which tribes and how much is Kikuyu land. We hear from the African delegates that there is a dispute and that that is why they will not be a party to a Bill of Rights in regard to expropriation of property. Let us have this dispute out in the open and negotiate on this little corner, perhaps, which is Kikuyu land, long before we get to self-government, and so clear this matter up. There are other schemes that the Kenya Farmers' Union is putting forward now for a land resettlement fund. What I ask the Government to do—and I hope I shall obtain overwhelming support, not only on these Benches but opposite—is to take some definite action so as to put this matter right, and put it right now,
316
immediately and without delay, so that the people in Kenya should not be thinking in terms of compensation and leaving the country but in terms of staying where they are for the good of their country and on the grounds of human rights. It would be absolutely inconceivable that these people should be allowed to be expropriated or sent out of Kenya and therefore I ask for some action, perhaps along the lines I have suggested, but action and not merely words. I beg to move for Papers.
3.7 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, when I first knew of Lord Hastings' Motion on our policy in Kenya and its wider implications I felt that it was both welcome and opportune. Now that I have heard his speech, which was thoughtful, penetrating and constructive, and in some degree commendatory of Her Majesty's Government, I am the more glad. It has been the wish of the Opposition that I should follow the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, immediately, and I am happy to do this. But, of course, it does entail one disadvantage—namely, that I shall not be able to deal with many of the points of detail which are likely to be raised by others of your Lordships in relation to the White Paper. So, with your Lordships' permission, I will also, not wind up but try to deal with those points very shortly at the end of the debate. In my speech I shall endeavour to cover essentially the matters dealing with Kenya and the White Paper, and it will, of course, be for my noble Leader to touch on the wider implications of our policy.
The Constitutional Conference as reported in the White Paper is in no way a new policy. It is no way a "sell-out" of white settlers to the Africans, but rather is it a consistent and ordered, and I hope deeply important, step forward in Kenya's destiny, in which all the races of Kenya—African, Asian, European and Arab—must play their part together and in harmony. This is our aim; this is our determination. It is uniquely difficult, the working of one race and another together, but it is also an exciting and an immensely worth-while future and task. But let us recognise that the final outcome depends on the people of Kenya and on the people of Kenya alone. We can help set the pattern; we can lay down

317
the rules. But theirs is the game and theirs its carrying out.
Those of the New Kenya group have made a good start in this matter, with their multi-racial approach to Kenya's problems. I saw them at work at Lancaster House. I saw the stresses and strains to which they were subject. It would be invidious for me to pick out one or other of them for praise, but they set an example which slowly spread all through the Conference. Suspicions gave place to trust, and I believe that a spirit that will be Kenya was born at the Conference. It is a tender thing, which was subjected to the pressures and fears which one might have expected on the return of the delegates to Kenya; but it bas persisted, and we have now had its latest and exceedingly encouraging manifestation, that the African Constituency Elected Members have agreed that some of their number should join the interim Caretaker Government before the new Constitution comes into being, and that they will all support them. I can scarcely overstress the importance of this happening, which is courageous and very welcome.
I have said that the Lancaster House Conference was no "sell-out." It will be remembered that before the Constitutional Conference we had a debate on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in this House, and I recalled then that Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Kenya was as had been stated by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd in April, 1959. In summary, he said that our policy was to guide Kenya forward to responsible self-Government, but that before its attainment four main conditions must be satisfied: first, that power should be exercised by the people through representative Parliamentary institutions which they would not abuse; second, that there should be general acceptance in the territory that every race and community has its pant to play in the public and economic life of Kenya; third, that an improving standard of living can reasonably be expected and the confidence of investors retained; and fourth, that a competent and experienced Civil Service composed of local people should be created.
To complete the picture of our policy before the Lancaster House Conference, I would also refer to a despatch sent by
318
Mr. Lennox-Boyd in November, 1958, which outlined the main foundations on which the so-called present Lennox-Boyd Constitution rests. These foundations are again four in number. They are: the maintenance of multi-racial Government; a final increase in communal representation; a start on non-communal representation; and the setting up of an institution to prevent unfair legislative discrimination against any community. As your Lordships will know, that was done by the setting up of the Council of State which, of course, still remains.
How do the conclusions of the Constitutional Conference offend or differ from the foregoing conditions and foundations? They do not. The only change—if it be a change—is that the aim of self-government is now as defined in the words of the Secretary of State's opening statement at Lancaster House. He said—and I quote:
"independence—I hope within the Commonwealth—is the ultimate objective."
Surely it is time that this clarification was made so that all the peoples of Kenya might face up to the ultimate responsibilities that are theirs. The foundations remain unaltered for one and all to see, but it may be useful for me to go into a little more detail about the various conditions. The first condition was that power should rest with Parliamentary institutions. At the heart of this lies ministerial responsibility through Parliament to the people. One can argue (the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, it seemed to me, was thinking a little in this light) that it is right or wrong in these growing countries, which are inexperienced in our ways, to follow this pattern; and it is almost certainly the case that in many of the African territories we shall see variations developing—this is my point—on a pattern which we have all deliberately chosen, knowing that it is at this time also the indicated wish of those Africans who are taking a leading part in politics.
The Conference, in its constitutional proposals for the new Legislature and for the Executive, has followed the Parliamentary pattern established as we know it, and it has faithfully observed the second condition—

319
"That every race and community has its part to play and that this be generally accepted."
Lord Hastings has pointed out that, although they had some reservations on details, all the groups, save the United Party, accepted the proposals, and therefore met the conditions; and they agreed—this is the important thing—that they would work them. For the first time all the African leaders were prepared to enter the Government under this new Constitution and to assume ministerial responsibility along with the Europeans, the Asians and the Arabs. The question that remained was: what about the interim period? What about the Caretaker Government? Would they join this? If they did, then the omens of a future successful working together, the spirit of true partnership seen at Lancaster House, would be very good. We all know the splendid answer—namely, that there are to be three African Constituency Elected Members as Ministers in the Caretaker Government and an Assistant Minister, as well as the present Minister of Housing, Mr. Amalemba, who has carried his office so well.
If I may digress for a moment, nothing was more striking to me at Lancaster House than how gradually the groups started working together. At the outset they were very suspicious of each other: there was a tendency for them to keep to themselves, to have nothing to do with other groups, and certainly to avoid any serious discussion with them. It is a sad fact that these barriers of race and Party were commonplace in Kenya. Never in Nairobi, I believe, did the groups really get together and hammer things out in frank and friendly discussion. Yet as the Conference proceeded, in the relative peace of London, we saw just this happening. Groups began to form contacts and to discuss matters of increasing importance, until even those who, if I may say it, were most opposed to each other were prepared to discuss and explain their position, and found that perhaps the others were not too bad after all. Then a curious thing developed. All the races—your Lordships will remember that this Conference went on for a long time, for five or six weeks—wanted to get back to their homes. They were all homesick, and they found they were happy to be with others who they knew were Kenyan. I
320
believe that this breakdown of barriers is in many ways, the most important achievement of the Lancaster House Conference; and, as I have shown, it has persisted, in that the Africans have agreed now to work together not only in the future but also in this Caretaker Government.
However, when the African leaders returned home, they were attacked for what they failed to bring back by some of their followers, who demanded much that had not yet been won. I say deliberately "not yet won", because this question of time—how long will the new Constitution last?—has been the subject of a good deal of debate. Indeed, it arose in a matter of question and answer between the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and myself some little time ago. There has been criticism of the expressed intention of some of the African delegates on their return to go on pressing for further constitutional advances, despite the agreement at Lancaster House. We have to recognise that the Lancaster House decisions do fall very short of many of their demands and aspirations. We cannot expect them to remain silent, although we can expect that they will accept, as they have accepted, the next stage of the Constitution. Indeed, they have not only accepted it but agreed to help to work it successfully. But I reaffirm what I said to your Lordships on March 8: that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to consider the destruction of a building which we have so laboriously planned the moment it is erected. There must be a genuine attempt to make the Lancaster House Constitution work before there is any question of its further alteration.
Before I come to the third condition about an improving standard of living and confidence of the investor, all of which for Kenya is epitomised in the words "land" and "safeguards", I want to turn for a moment, to a matter which recently has certainly been causing concern; that is, the increase in lawlessness and the form the activities of some of the ex-detainees are taking. If these disturbing factors continue to grow and threaten security, the Governor will have no hesitation in taking sharp and speedy action, by using such powers as are strictly required, to restore normal respect for law and order. It is good that African politicians have joined in condemning

321
signs of violence, and I know that one and all of your Lordships will support my having said that if violence does show it will be firmly and swiftly dealt with.
This is a moment when I might deal with one or two specific points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hastings, in relation to the White Paper. He asked if I would explain how the primaries are going to work to ensure that the various communal candidates who are chosen are truly representative of their communities. I am afraid that I do not know the exact details of how this is going to work out. There is to be a Working Party set up specifically to this end; but the purpose of the primaries will be to eliminate candidates who do not carry the support of an effective and genuine section of their own communities, and to ensure that only those who have met that test—if I may put it in that way—will survive for the full elections.
Again, the noble Lord asked why we lowered the qualifications of the franchise, making them almost exactly comparable with those of Tanganyika. Those things must be in some degree a matter of judgment. It will be remembered that the Africans had the cry, "One man, one vote." We did not think that that was a good cry at the present time. Our reason for that belief was that we did not think there is a sufficient awareness of the implications of what the vote means, and so forth. At the same time, we felt that there was a sufficient advance in education in Kenya, and in the understanding of these things, to allow us to take a step forward; and, clearly, if that was so decided the easy and natural thing to do was to follow broadly the same pattern as had been set for Tanganyika. As to what the figures will mean in the way of new voters, it is difficult to guess. Whereas the number who could have registered under the present arrangements was about 500,000, in fact about 120,000 registered. I suppose that the potential voters will now be increased to somewhere between 1 million and 1½ million, with perhaps a corresponding increase in the number registering.
The other question asked by the noble Lord was: Is it right that those whom he called the "cross-benchers"—those who are to be national members—that is,
322
four Africans, four Europeans, three Asians and one Arab—are to be, as it were, voted in by the Party with the largest number in the rest of the House. The answer is as shown in the White Paper—that there is to be proportional representation with what is called a "single, non-transferable vote". I am not sure that I fully understand how it works, but I can assure your Lordships that the outcome should be just what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, namely, in the case of the Africans or Europeans, at least one member in each case will be chosen on this basis from the non-majority Party. I hope it is sufficient if I give your Lordships that assurance only, without trying to go into the details of what is an extremely complicated subject.
Coming back to the various conditions for self-government which have been laid down before, your Lordships will remember that the fourth was an efficient, locally-recruited Civil Service. I do not think I need go into great detail on this. That was one thing which was enthusiastically accepted by one and all at the Conference. How to achieve that, and to foster it, is something that the Government of Kenya and we here have been working at constantly and studying over the last years. As the noble Lord said, we have only recently had, at the Colonial Office in London, an inter-Territorial Conference at which representatives of all the African territories were present, including the three Regions and the Federal Government of Nigeria. I believe that what was worked out at that Conference was most satisfactory. Certainly the purpose behind it all was to ensure that the existing Oversea Service people stay in the country while the new recruits are coming up from Kenya itself—and from the other African territories. Whether one should have a scheme similar to this Special List "B" scheme mentioned for Nigeria is a difficult question, because in fact one finds that these things have to be tailor-made to suit each country. But I would assure your Lordships that we are extremely anxious to do all we can to ensure that Overseas people should remain in the country where they are serving.
May I now turn to the question of safeguards? There were discussions, inside and outside the Conference in which full aggreement was not reached,

323
and so it was for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to say what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do. Included in the Constitution will be provisions to safeguard fundamental human rights, and to this end use will be made, as models, of the papers which were submitted to the Conference. One of these contained the provisions of the Nigeria Constitution; the other was a paper prepared by an eminent American lawyer, Dr. Thurgood Marshall, who was adviser to the African delegation. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and myself, to pay tribute to the work of Dr. Thurgood Marshall at the Conference. It was always constructive and exceedingly helpful.
As well as the safeguards for such things as personal liberty, freedom of conscience and religious belief or (and I think this is very important) prohibition of discrimination—those things which are generally covered by the words "human rights"—there will be special provision for protection of property: there shall be no expropriation, save for purposes to the benefit of the country, and then full and fair compensation will be paid; and if that compensation does not seem adequate it can be tested in the courts. We have been told that this is not enough, and that those who wish to leave the country now should be enabled so to do, as Her Majesty's Government have broken faith and changed their policies. I have tried to show that in fact there has been no change of policy. We have been told that a compensation fund should be set up for the purpose by Her Majesty's Government. While it is true that there has been no breaking of faith, we recognise that many of the settlers, who have done great things for Kenya, and without whom it would be a poor and backward country, are fearful to-day. This fear is a terrible thing—white fear of black or black fear of white—and it is something that one has to recognise. It is something that is very real, and although in the case of Kenya I trust it is temporary, we are anxious to do all we can reasonably and properly to allay this fear.
Therefore we come to this question of land, which is the vital issue for Kenya.
324
There could be no greater disaster than if the white settlers at this moment—or at any moment, for that matter—left Kenya. Her progress would suffer; there would be a set-back in her economic wealth the degree of which is hard to imagine. There could be no question of early development; no question of new schools; in fact, many schools would have to shut; road development could not go on. All the sort of things one wants to import from overseas for capital development would have to stop, because it is the Kenya farmer, who is by and large the European farmer, who has made the development of Kenya possible. It has been said, "Oh well, that is not too difficult because they have the land, the best land." They have only one-fifth of the agricultural land of the country and yet they produce four-fifths of the exports. And as to its being the best land, that is just not true. What is true is that this good land is good land now because of the work they have put into it and the money they have spent on its development. I am sure that in time this realisation of the value of the European farmer will be held not only by everyone in this House and by the Kenya Government, but will surely spread to all those exercising responsibility for that country, and they will do, as we aim to do, all they can to help the Kenya farmer and to ensure that he remains.
I had thought of touching on the past history of Kenya land, but there are many speakers to-day to come. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has made an interesting suggestion about a White Paper. I do not know whether or not that is possible, but I will certainly look into it. What I would say at this moment is this. As a result of the setting up of the East African Royal Commission, which sat from 1953 to 1955, there has been a major change in policy along the lines they recommended. From a policy which is based on defined and reserved areas of land for the different races and different tribes, a change was made to a policy based on the best use of land. To some extent it ran counter to past declarations about reservation of the White Highlands. And the same was true of some of the African areas. But the changed criterion, the "best use of the land," must in the long run be the only right criterion on which to work.

325
Since that time there has been land consolidation, changes in land tenure, some new laws affecting African lands and, finally, in October, 1959, detailed proposals were put before the Legislative Council in Kenya covering all land. Those are now to be discussed, and we hope that legislation will result. They give effect to this major change of policy which I have mentioned and, naturally enough, because there is a change, they have been the subject of considerable misgivings. In a sense it is a pity that we have this change in land policy, which is so close to the heart of every one of the citizens of Kenya, and the changes in the constitutional progress coming at the same time. It causes apprehension, but that is the accident of timing, and I am sure that in practice one could not wait and not go ahead on both these things. But because we recognise the vital importance of land, we and the Kenya Government felt it right to touch on this matter in the Lancaster House Conference. As your Lordships will see, it has been mentioned in the White Paper. Specifically there is outlined a scheme to enable more to be done towards the development of land, including approved resettlement schemes with special reference to helping forward African farmers. To this end Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to underwrite aid up to £5 million of loans for re-lending for land development.
The first step in securing this money is, of course, detailed plans, which will be worked out after a review by the Kenya Government. I am glad to say that I have already had talks with the Kenya Ministers who are chiefly concerned, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance, and things are going fast in the working out of the detailed plans. Furthermore, we have also told the World Bank about our ideas, and, my Lords, I am hopeful that plans can be worked out on a sufficiently sound basis to enable an approach to be made to them and to other institutions, as mentioned in the White Paper. This putting of £5 million into the land market, some of which must clearly be used to buy suitable land from willing sellers, will have the incidental effect of stabilising the price of land. Although this is a commercial scheme, and not a scheme to compensate farmers, none the less, as I said, if there is a potential buyer of
326
some millions of pounds' worth of land it must help to steady land values; and in particular I hope it will be of value to the small farmer who may have staked everything in his small farm because it is that type of farm which I believe will be particularly suitable for resettlement.
I cannot at this stage elaborate further on all our plans for the land, but I would make this one last point. If we are successful in them, if the overseas financial investor has a stake in Kenya's land, and if ever in the future there was any temptation for somebody to take it over arbitrarily, those who had that thought in mind would have new cause to hesitate, for it would mean jeopardising the flow of any foreign capital into the country; and that, of course, is so essential for its development.
My Lords, I recognise that in this debate and outside the House, particularly in Kenya, there has been considerable anxiety and apprehension about the consequences of the Lancaster House Conference. I have done my best to put the decisions into a proper perspective and to answer the worries of those with a stake in Kenya, who have every right to expect an answer. Nevertheless, having done this I would say that it is right frankly to recognise the new Constitution for what it is: an important step forward and a challenge to all races. It must be made to work, because, as I have said, we have no intention of putting it up to have it immediately destroyed; and those who think this will happen have got to think again. For the critics and faint hearts I have this to say. There are risks involved, but have you honestly faced the much greater risks of the alternative to an agreed and widely accepted Constitution? Do you really want to continue the uncertainty of the last few years? Can Kenya afford the increase in racial feeling, the exasperation caused by a damming up of African political energies while neighbouring countries all round move ahead, the risk of violence and the undermining of lawful authority which would have resulted from a failure at Lancaster House?
That is certainly not to say that Her Majesty's Government are afraid to stand firm and resist political pressure, from whatever source, when they believe that pressure ill-judged and unwise, and they retain to-day, and will retain in the future,

327
full powers to this end. But I believe that it is only when there is substantial acceptance and recognition of Government as their Government by all the communities in Kenya, African, European, Asian, and Arab, that we have a chance to liberate the constructive forces of co-operation and harness them to the building of a new Kenya. This, my Lords, is what now lies ahead.
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was very grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging that the noble Earl who has just spoken should follow the mover of the Motion, and I am sure all Members of the House will agree that it would be appropriate for the noble Earl to pick up at the end the points and the questions that require answer. It was important, in view of the terms of the Motion and its possible effect upon general African questions, that we should have early in the debate the view of the representative of the Colonial Office, and I am therefore grateful for the arrangement which has been made.
We are, of course, meeting on a day of very considerable significance and importance in the history of that great continent, Africa. I listened—I do not know whether your Lordships did—to the one o'clock B.B.C. news broadcast to-day, and I heard that in South Africa to-day tens and tens of thousands of Africans are remaining away from work, silent in their homes, as an expression of their sorrow for the very tragic events which have recently occurred in the Southern part of this great continent. We all, I think, recognise, in entering this debate about the future of this very large and very important Central Eastern section of Africa which is Kenya, that we must consider the general situation of political development in Africa to-day. It is perfectly true to say of Africa to-day what the great South African, General Smuts, said about the world at large some twenty years ago in the course of the war; that is that
"The whole world is on the march".
There is not the slightest doubt that African feeling in general to-day reveals that the African peoples as a whole are on the march and that Africa as a whole is changing.
328
It is well for us to remind ourselves that this year, following up the independence already granted to Ghana, Nigeria, the Belgian Congo, and most of French Africa are becoming fully independent; that Somaliland, Uganda, Tanganyika and Sierra Leone are moving fast in the same direction; and by the end of the year little will remain of European rule other than in Algeria (which is in a dreadful state at the moment) Portuguese Africa, South Africa, and that part in which we in this country are all so much interested and about which there is still a large Question mark, Central Africa.
May I say that, keeping all these things in mind, I appreciated very highly indeed the tone and the substance of the speech of the noble Lord who moved this Motion and who said that he did not speak as this, that or the other type of person on this matter, but spoke as an experienced Rhodesian farmer. With regard to the question mark that remains about this other part of Africa, while I am surveying the situation in Africa as a whole may I say that if the general approach from the Rhodesias and Nyasaland could be on the lines and in the tone and with the temperament of the speech of the noble Lord this afternoon, then it would seem to me that there would be some hope for a much more favourable settlement than seemed to us to be likely on the occasion of our last main debate on Central Africa.
It can be seen, therefore, that, although the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, feels that if I say this it decreases his confidence in our welcome of this White Paper about the findings of the London Conference on Kenya in Command Paper 960, we do welcome it in the words of the noble Earl who has just spoken by saying that it is without any doubt at all a step forward. I should have thought that every section of opinion in your Lordships' House would agree with the general aim and object appearing from the language which was used by the noble Earl—that is to say, that the Government are putting forward in these proposals something which is to be a step towards self-government—within the Commonwealth, we hope, but nevertheless still self-government—and independence on that basis. We are entirely

329
at one with Her Majesty's Government in that objective.
A good deal, of course, depends upon the pace of progress, and I am perfectly in agreement with both the mover of the Motion and the noble Earl when they say that that will depend very largely upon the attitude of the people in Kenya. There is here set out something of very great importance to which all. Parties and all views will have to pay a great deal of attention. I still feel that, however much certain happenings in Kenya after the London Conference have disturbed public opinion here and there, the indications which have come to us yesterday on the radio and this morning in the London Times of a decision of the African Constituency Members to take part in the proposed Parliamentary Constitution outlined in this White Paper by way of joining the caretaker Government which is to come in, are a matter of very great hope for the future, and I welcome this very much indeed.
Coming now to consider some of the main points which have been dealt with this afternoon, I should like to stick to one or two of the points in the White Paper which have been touched upon. I am certainly no expert on Constitutions, and the noble Earl will forgive me when I say that I do not propose at this stage of the debate to pass any detailed criticism, constructive or otherwise, upon any line of the proposals in the Constitution. It seems to me in general that if the different Parties in Kenya can be brought to co-operate in adopting them and in improving them as they go on, then there is perhaps great hope that there will be a successful outcome; although, bearing in mind what I have said about the general conditions throughout Africa to-day, and what are bound to be the objectives of the African peoples throughout the continent in the next few years, I think we ought to make up our minds to it that complete independence, either within or outside the Commonwealth, cannot be delayed for many years if we are going to promote peace and security for the members of any races who are resident and indigenous in Kenya. I therefore hope that, whatever happens, we shall do our best in this country to act and administer in regard to education and land settlement with that in mind.
330
I welcome very much the statement made by the noble Earl towards the end of his speech to-day with regard to the schemes which are mentioned rather briefly in the White Paper, but which seem to me to be possible of very great development indeed, including as they do within their scope great opportunities for the development of Africans as farmers themselves. May I just interpolate, speaking from my memory of the White Paper, that I welcome very much what was said in the second statement, I think it was, of the Secretary of State to the Conference, when he said that, as a result of his visit to Kenya, he was not only interested in every form of agriculture that he saw but that he appreciated the extent to which Kenya African farmers were already contributing to the state of agricultural development in that country; and these schemes which have been mentioned and expanded this afternoon by the noble Earl will, I think, go a long way to help in that direction.
A very thorny question was raised by the noble Lord towards the end of his speech (which seemed to go along in melodious cadences all the way through, and with which I found myself wholly in agreement) when he came to what I may describe as the White Highlands. I suppose it is perfectly true to say that to those of us who have followed the Press reports and studied the White Paper the whole question of land in Kenya came nearest to breaking point, perhaps, in the London Conference. It is unfortunate that the United Party are still not in agreement with the White Paper, but it is of great encouragement to find that all the other Parties have agreed to the extent that they have with what is in the White Paper.
I support in general the request of the noble Lord that a White Paper be prepared so that Parliament may be brought right up to date with the information available as to each of the points he mentioned, and which I shall take another look at when I come to read his speech. But we had considered this matter, and thought it might be worthwhile to put on record what we think has proved to be the position in the White Highlands; and if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to use my notes and say what the history is. As we have gathered from the records, it is as follows. The

331
White Highlands have been reserved for Europeans since the passing of the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1902, and a subsequent Order in Council under Section 36 of the same Ordinance forbade the employment of non-European farm managers. In August, 1958, the position in the White Highlands was that there were 3,500 European land holdings averaging 2,100 acres each. The total available land in the Highlands was 8½ million acres, of which something over one million acres remain unallocated. That is a very large proportion, although, of course, it is a considerable piece of land.
The land already alienated to Europeans included, of course, considerable areas of grazing and some uncuirtivable land or land occupied by buildings. But, as the 1954 agricultural census showed, it also included about one million acres of undeveloped or under-developed land. The European holdings in 1958 included 500 farms of between 2,000 and 5,000 acres, and 267 of over 5,000 acres. By contrast, in the African lands in neighbouring Kiambe District, after the land consolidation programme there, the largest African holding was 273 acres, and the smallest one-hundredth of an acre, whilst many former African tenants had been deprived of a livelihood on the land by the consolidation programme and were flooding into Nairobi in search of casual work.
In October, 1959, the Kenya Government published its proposals for a new land policy in the White Highlands, and these were referred to by the noble Earl this afternoon. These conceded the right of other races to hold land in this hitherto segregated area, but made no suggestions as to how Africans were to find the financial resources to buy their way in, nor to reverse the previous policy of active assistance to European immigration. Moreover, the machinery by which non-Europeans are to obtain leases under the new arrangements is extremely cumbersome and expensive, and involves appearance before European district and regional land boards, with final appeal to the Governor through a multiracial Central Board. At the same time, arrangements are inserted in the proposals for Europeans to convert their holdings, at present held under long lease, usually 999 years, to freehold. No
332
action is to be taken on these proposals for some months to come, and they have merely been published at this stage to allow the maximum of public discussion. I hope I am taking the noble Earl with me in this part of what I am saying. This Sessional Paper of the Kenya Government has still to be debated by the Kenya Legislative Council.
Now what ought our attitude on this matter to be? What I suspect—and I hope my suspicions are not correct—is that there is a tendency to try to get a long time spent upon arguing, and hammering out details about the White Highlands before any real attempt is made for progress in these constitutional advances. I think that in regard to African native opinion that would be fatal. It is not that I want there to be any delay in getting as much agreement as possible on the White Highlands and on the general question of land settlement: I want it to be as early as possible. There is no question as to that.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount? I hope he did not think I suggested that definite action should be taken and completed before the present proposed Constitution had been put into force. I said it should be completed before self-government was obtained.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I noted that carefully. On the other hand, I should not want the Government to make a statement in which they said there would be no self-government until each and every question about the White Highlands was settled, because I think that would have a serious reaction upon African opinion. As the noble Lord has so rightly said, the responses at the moment from most of the Parties in Kenya have been so good with regard to proposals in this White Paper that I want to try to see that the Government are able to avoid having to take any action which would tend to set back that feeling. For surely, all we want there is peace with freedom: a freedom which is not just an opportunity for human abuse of human rights, but a freedom which will be impregnated with what our Christian missionaries, for getting on for a century, have been seeking to instil into the minds and hearts of Africans.

333
With regard to these White Highlands, and other questions of the ownership of land which might be the subject of expropriation, I cannot see that it is possible to go further than the Secretary of State went in his statement in the White Paper; that is, that there should be no expropriation unless there is proper compensation, and that the issue of this must ultimately, in the event of severe dispute, be settled by the courts. I think that the Government have gone as far as they ought to go in this matter. If one dare say, from an Opposition position like this, a word of advice to the Kenya Africans, I should feel inclined to suggest to them that they would do well for Kenya if they would agree that this should be the basic principle in the question of readustment or resettlement: that there should be compensation, and that all questions of dispute should be decided in the courts.
That brings me to say something in general about what our advice might be to our friends the Africans in Kenya. The new State of Kenya will be tremendously strengthened if African rule, now in sight in the promises made in this White Paper—that is to say, African rule by a majority of African votes in a Parliament—in those conditions, in a multi-racial State, can attract a high proportion of the Europeans and Asians to remain in the country and make their skilled contribution. Sixty thousand Europeans and 150,000 Asians cannot—and I do not suppose that they expect to—any longer control the destiny of 6 million Africans. But they can still make an important contribution to Kenya in medicine, education, agriculture, business, commerce and in the Civil Service. I fastened on to the words used by the noble Earl in quoting Mr. Lennox-Boyd: that a Civil Service should be built up as soon as possible composed of local people. The Africans would do well, I think, to remember that in building up such a Civil Service the white population over there, and any who will be future residents of Kenya, can make a vast contribution in experience and skill. I hope they will bear that fact in mind.
It may be that African political leaders are frightened of their rivals gaining an advantage by criticising them for their slow progress. This, I think, is at the moment the danger of all new
334
nationalist policies. But I think it is worth saying by any of us to the Africans, and as publicly as possible, that their democracy and their independence are now certain: that time is on their side, and that they will do well to moderate their pace, in order to bring as many Europeans and Asians as possible with them and to give themselves time to gain practical experience in government. But the Europeans and Asians should be urged to recognise the realities of Kenya and Africa and establish the friendly, progressive, constructive relations with the Africans which can help to build a healthy and happy new Kenya State.
I have only one other thing to say this afternoon, in regard to what the noble Earl said about safeguards in general and about security, and especially security in periods of outbreaks of violence. It is quite certain that events in different parts of the Commonwealth and in other parts of the world in the last 40 years have demonstrated to anybody who thinks about it that the progressive, peaceful development that all people of true vision would desire is never helped by sporadic outbursts of brutal violence: it is fundamental that law and order should be maintained. I took down the words used by the noble Earl when he said that security will be maintained, and that if violence does break out it will be swiftly and firmly dealt with. I think that, in principle, that is right; but the manner in which it is done is a totally different thing.
We have had to complain from time to time about incidents in cases of particular acts of violence, and so on. We do not want the kind of action, which would perhaps be construed by many of us as having been at least a little unworthy, that was taken in Nyasaland, where the maintenance of law and order seemed to secure the death of a pretty large number of Africans, with many others wounded the number of which we have never yet been able to fully assess, yet only one or two European casualties. A good deal depends on the extent to which the Government are able to obtain and rely upon a well-trained police force. Whilst I certainly support in general the statement made by the noble Earl about the necessity of maintaining law and order, I hope that,

335
if it should be necessary to take this firm and swift action, the methods used in obtaining the correct result will be carefully studied from the humane point of view.
I should like to say this—and I have said it before: in my view, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies has made a greater contribution in this particular approach to the Kenya new Constitution than any which has been made in the life of the Conservative Government since 1951. I am not going to comment on personalities, but I am quite sure that Mr. Macleod has made a good start in this matter. We may not agree with every single part of the kind of approach he has made, and we may offer suggestions from time to time. But if, through the efforts which he has made, co-operation can be obtained from all the races in Kenya to making this plan work, then I believe that this particular action of the Government will result in a great, a good and an abundant harvest.
4.11 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in putting down this Motion for discussion to-day. I feel that it would have been wrong if neither House of Parliament at this time had discussed a matter of such importance as the one we are to-day considering. I would also compliment him, if I may, on the reasonable approach that he made to the subject, on the wide outlook he has given to it, and also on the first-class delivery which I am sure was a pleasure to us all. I also welcome the White Paper, and I personally have very few criticisms of it indeed. There are one or two comments which I should like to make, and afterwards I should like to say one or two words upon the wider effects that the Paper is likely to have. I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Home, is to speak in this debate to-day, because, of course, one cannot isolate one part of Africa from other parts—indeed, one part of Africa from the world at large.
One question the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, raised was that which has often been discussed in your Lordships' House—namely, whether we should give or introduce to territories which are emerging to self-government the sort of
336
constitutional arrangements and Parliamentary democracy that we enjoy in this country. That question has often been raised here, but has never been settled to the satisfaction of all. I think the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was quite right when, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, he said in effect: How could we do any other? This is what we feel to be the best system. How can we advise other countries which are emerging to have some sort of second or third best? If you are not going to have what we consider, rightly or wrongly, to be the best system, what system do you suggest that they should have?" As the noble Earl said: "So far as I am aware, no country has wanted any other system but ours." Therefore, it is not a practical suggestion that we should evolve some second-class Parliamentary democracy for export only. We all know that Parliamentary democracy is a difficult system to work, but that does not mean that it should not be the one which we should advocate.
In a way, the main point of the White Paper deals with the question of land. Always, in any community, land is a ticklish subject, and particularly so in Africa. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was right when he said that the overriding principle is that the best use should be made of the land. In my view, that is definitely the overriding principle, and one of which we should never lose sight. The land in Kenya is not, on the whole, good land, and by some extraordinary act of Providence the great rivers, such as they are in Kenya, do not go through the best land. It may be that in time someone will evolve—I confess that I am not technically equipped to do so—some method, by irrigation, of taking the waters of some Kenya rivers to the better lands, instead of allowing them to go hundreds of miles through lands which are at best described as marginal and, if one were realistic, would not even be put so high as that.
All the speakers to-day have raised the question of the white settlers, and this matter has, of course, been one of the great problems of Kenya. In my mind, we have definitely a moral obligation to these people in the White Highlands. For many years they were induced to settle in the White Highlands. Kenya would never have been born as a State, because there would have been no railway—or

337
at least it would not have been a practical proposition—if they had not gone out there. The country would not have achieved the standard of living it has. So one cannot just brush them aside and say that these people have served their day and generation; thank them very much; shake them by the hand, and that is all there is about it.
I feel that the Government's plan—although it is not worked out in any detail in the White Paper, and certainly has not been worked out in greater detail today by the noble Earl, Lord Perth—has the germ of the right idea: the idea that there should be this Land Development Board in Kenya; that the Board's function shall be to develop the land in the best interests of the community; that it should buy up land from those who want to leave Kenya, and, in the interests of all races including, of course, of Africans, that it shall resettle people on farms which the owners want to vacate. I think that is the right way of doing it. I do not believe that it would be in accordance with British honour to allow the white settlers simply to be at the mercy of the future, without regard to the contribution they have made to Kenya.
Secondly, we must also remember that without them, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, Kenya is going to be in a very parlous condition indeed for some years to come. We do not want them to go, and I am perfectly certain that African leaders do not want them to go. Those to whom I have spoken—and I raised this point with them; I pointed out the importance of the white settlers—have said, "We realise that only too well, and so long as the White Highlands are not regarded as exclusive to Europeans, then we do not want the good white farmers in the White Highlands to go." I am perfectly certain that that will be the view of the leaders of African opinion in Kenya. They know only too well what the situation would be if the Europeans did go.
As to the land development scheme, of course the £5 million will not be nearly enough. I saw a Report in the Daily Telegraph last week that the Chief Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Colonel McKenzie, are going to Washington very shortly to discuss the whole question with the International
338
Bank. They are thinking in terms of £12½ million rising to £30 million loan, the Government putting up £5 million, and the balance, presumably, being put up by the International Bank. I should have thought that £l2½ million rising to £30 million was the right sort of figure. If the International Bank is not prepared to finance this scheme in the way suggested, then I think the Government will have to look to it again to see whether they cannot do something rather better than £5 million.
I should like to say a word about education, which is not touched upon a great deal in the White Paper, though it is one of the most important subjects in Kenya to-day. There is no university in East Africa. There is Makerere in Uganda; there is a technical college in Kenya, and it is the Government's proposal that there should be an East African University in the near future. I am quite sure that all your Lordships would agree that this subject is a vital one, and that we should push on with this as hard as we can. What is needed is not only university training, but also technical training, more technical schools, and more training by industry of apprentices and skilled workmen. The technical colleges must work in association with industry in East Africa to train apprentices and skilled workmen.
I am very glad that the African Ministers have agreed to join in the provisional Government, the Caretaker government, as it is called. One can see their difficulty, of course. There is always a difficulty when you are a nationalist leader, on going into a sort of provisional or interim Government and having, to some extent, responsibility for actions of which you may not wholly approve. But it is absolutely essential that they do so. This happened everywhere else so far as I am aware, certainly in Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, Nigeria, Ghana, to mention a few. It is right, and I am quite sure that the Africans who come in as Ministers will benefit very much from the experience they gain. We all know that Government and ministerial rank is not always easy to operate; all of us who have been Ministers in any shape or form, senior or junior, know that there is a good deal to be learned.
No one has said anything so far in this debate about Asians. I feel that we

339
should say a word about them. They have in the past performed, and they are at present performing, very useful tasks in East Africa in general. They are the middle man, the entrepreneur, the business man. Without them, commerce would never have flourished, and probably would hardly have existed. There are not many people who would be prepared to hump a pack round the bush in Africa, to establish little shops in African villages and that sort of thing. They have done a splendid job. The Africans think that they have sometimes been paid rather too well. But they have done a splendid job in their time. They are a very pliable people, and I am quite certain that they have a good future in Kenya and East Africa generally, provided that they get fair play now. I must say that in one instance that has come to my notice in Tanganyika I do not think the present Tanganyikan Government has treated the Asians nearly as well as they should have done. I hope that will not be the case in Kenya.
Economic development is essential for two purposes: first of all, because it is necessary, in order to improve the standard of living, to have secondary industries in Kenya; and secondly, because it is necessary to make use of the surplus labour that comes in from the reserves and tends to concentrate in Nairobi. I have seen this before, on one or two occasions when I have been in Nairobi. I have been told that when large numbers congregate in Nairobi without work and, of course, leaderless, they are sometimes felt to be a danger. I feel that we ought, as a matter of priority and urgency to establish road works, public utilities and various kinds of secondary industries in Nairobi and other centres in Kenya. There is, I think, a danger—I hope not great—if som.2thing is not done on those lines, of evolving a sort of mob in Nairobi which might be dangerous. We have seen in the Middle East, in Iraq and other places, how these de-tribalised unemployed people can congregate and be dangerous in this way.
I would say one word about justice. Nothing has been said about it. Both the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and the noble Earl the Minister of State have talked about human rights. Human rights are not much good if they are merely in a document. They are useful in a docu-
340
ment for people to see what they are, but human rights and individual rights do suppose a court to enforce them—I believe that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would agree with that. There must be some method of enforcement, some tribunal to which a man who believes his rights are infringed can go and seek redress. It may be that the Kenya court will need help in this way, will need backing.
I am a great believer, and always have been, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is a remarkable body which has the quintessence, as it were, of judicial wisdom. The only difficulty about the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, of course, that it is not very easy for people who live overseas—as do all, or most, who go to it—to get at it. I would ask the members of the Judicial Committee to look at this problem very seriously with regard to one or two of these places like Kenya and make a realistic inquiry as to whether it is not possible for them to pay an occasional visit to the territory. It may mean that they will have to have one or two younger members, and I think that they ought to have some Colonial members, added. But I do feel that, perhaps in two or three years time, when Kenya will be beginning to feel its feet, when self-government is getting near, we should seriously consider whether the Judicial Committee should not hold some of its sittings in Kenya. I believe that it would be a great reinforcement to the local court there.
My Lords, I have said all I want to say to-day on the particular question of Kenya. But I should like for a moment to look at the wider picture. These happenings, of course, are having tremendous effects elsewhere. The Prime Minister recently talked of "a wind of change blowing through Africa." I think that since he made that statement it is not a wind, but a hurricane of change that is blowing from all parts. We can see the difference in one Continent where, in point of time, by air, one spot is not far from another—the difference between the developments in Kenya and Tanganyika and in the Union of South Africa. We are all, I am sure, deeply distressed at the recent tragic happenings in the Cape and in the Transvaal. These happenings

341
have had an effect which it is too early yet adequately to assess. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said, there is another stage today when many hundreds of thousands of Africans are staying in their own houses and not going out, which is, I suppose, a kind of general strike. It is very difficult for us here, I think, to reconcile the two: what we have heard from the noble Earl to-day and the sort of thing that is happening down in South Africa; and it must be very difficult for those who are on the spot. In between the two comes this area for which Parliament is still responsible, to some extent, at least, the Central African Federation. The hurricane is blowing from two directions, but in entirely different ways so far as they are concerned.
I think the effect of the various happenings, the constitutional arrangements in the Belgian Congo, the White Paper in Kenya and the forthcoming elections and new Constitution in Tanganyika, is playing a very great part in the thinking of the Europeans, the white people in Southern Rhodesia. My information (perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Home, will correct me if I am wrong) is that it is no longer the white people in Southern Rhodesia who are pressing for federation, as we were led to believe a year ago or six months ago; a lot of them are now thinking of Southern Rhodesia getting out of the Federation and having some sort of link with the Union. If that is true—if my information is correct; and I have it from a good source—of course that will involve an entirely new approach so far as the Federation is concerned. I just mention these facts because I think we have to realise, as I am sure we all do, that happenings of the kind that we are now seeing in one part of Africa have an immediate effect and impact on other parts.
My Lords, with those words, which I hope your Lordships will realise are not critical of the White Paper—they are comments, rather than criticisms—I trust that the people of Kenya will be able to work their way through the interim Constitution into the new Constitution which they have been promised, and that they, the multi-racial community of Kenya, will have an extremely happy future working together in partnership.
342
There is just one point of advice that I should like to give the Government. There is some danger that they may be under great pressure, in Africa and in this country, to delay the proposals they are making, to change them, to set them aside. I hope that they will stand firm and will do right by the people of Kenya, of all races.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in this debate I find enormous encouragement which we may well set against the distress which we feel about South Africa, for in fact the continent is one, and the problem is the same in every part of the continent. To be able to listen to a debate such as this, full of agreement, help and constructive suggestions, really brings great heart to many of us. If I venture to speak, it is to say something not on any of the details of the Kenya Conference, but something which will be in full sympathy with all that has been spoken already, but which, I think, helps to make clear one or two things about the Church and the situation which are liable to be confused. I feel constrained in conscience and in duty to say them.
The whole Christian Church is deeply involved in the struggle between light and darkness, life and death, now being fought out in every part of Africa. The Church has to take note of the political events and implications of this struggle, and from time to time churchmen feel bound in conscience to make comments upon them. But the Church's concern is never so much with the political manifestations of the conflict as with the faiths, the loyalties and the motives of all those who are concerned in the conflict. The Church is concerned not so much to judge, certainly not to adopt political attitudes of its own; but judgment is necessary; and for two reasons the Church in its widest sense and in its true character is very well equipped to judge rightly and righteously in the course of this struggle. The first reason is that it should have no thought for itself at all and be completely disinterested, with only one desire, to promote reconciliation in every just and righteous way between the differing or the warring parties, between the legal, the lawful and the lawless loyalties of the people—and everybody shares in all

343
three of those categories to some extent; between all the possessive and acquisitive passions which belong to all men. In everything the churches are themselves friends of, and sharers with, all the conflicting parties, and therefore sensitive immensely to the good and the evil in them all.
The churches in this country think about Kenya and Africa with British minds: they have no other minds to think with. But their first essential duty is to think, and pray with and for, the churches in Africa, and not least—this is often forgotten—with the Dutch Reformed Church in Africa who are brethren in the Christian fellowship, as they think with their African or European or Asian minds. And since the Church is neighbour to everybody, the churches here and in Africa will at the same time be trying also to think and feel with and for those of all races and all creeds in Africa. All this I wanted to say, since it is not always recognised, even by churchmen, and yet it is an essential part of the Christian faith, and the churches are an essential part of the political scene. All in Africa or here at home should judge themselves and each other and the Church by no other standard than that which I have tried to indicate.
So I come back to the Kenya Conference. I had two opportunities of meeting the members of the Kenya Conference at receptions. On the first occasion two Asian members separately, neither of them Christian, begged me to pray for them and for the other members of the Conference. I was glad to assure them that many Christians had for long been doing just that. The second occasion was when many of the members of the Conference came, by my invitation, to a reception at Lambeth Palace; and their message was sent to me from one of them—whether African or Asian, I do not know—asking me that before they dispersed I should say a prayer with them all. It was not a European who asked that, which had perhaps some queer significance. I invited them to come to my chapel and there, in the stalls filled by figures kneeling side by side, Hindu, Moslem, Christian, all the races and all the creeds of Kenya, haltingly I tried, on the spur of the
344
moment, to say to God what they in their own hearts wanted me to say to God.
It was against that background that I read the Report of the Kenya Conference, and I hope that it may be read against that background by everybody. I found the Report very good and a good earnest for advances into the future. I make no judgment on the details; I have listened to some of them to-day with great interest. I heard, with wholehearted approval, Lord Hastings refer to the White Highlands and ask for a White Paper, not merely because none of us has the information assembled, but lest we all think that it is a dark thing to be talked about in secret. Let us get it, like everything else, out into an open statement where we can discuss it in friendship.
Although I do not want to press this, I was also interested in the various references made to the Parliamentary structure and to the principle of "one man, one vote". I do not want to suggest that any of us in this country can go back on that principle. I merely want to say in passing that it is not a principle; it is merely a most imperfect expedient which, on the whole, we find works well in this country. But I think it is most dangerous to leave it to be thought that it is a principle of universal application. But what I found in the Report was the creation of a broad realm of trust and trustful co-operation; and that was more than three-quarters of the battle and far more than most people ever expected. It was quite obvious that the right honourable gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, had played an indispensable part in drawing together the members of the Conference; but credit is due no less to the members, European, African and Asian, who allowed themselves to lay aside their own Party objectives and to be drawn together into those conclusions.
I have seen it said that the Colonial Secretary imposed the conclusions on the members of the Conference. I do not believe, and none of your Lordships believes, that that is true. Indeed, it is evidently untrue; and if anybody imposed conclusions on them it was the Holy Spirit and nobody else. Some have told us that the Report is already left behind and out of date and therefore no longer serviceable. I do not believe that either—unless foolish men conspire

345
to make it come true so that it is out of date.
In this African struggle of light against darkness, life against death, the duty throughout the Continent, from one end of Africa to the other, is to create realms of trust and reconciliation. In this struggle, my Lords, we are all accusers of other people, and we are all ourselves under accusation. I often hear people claim that their creed is the Sermon on the Mount; and people who do that rarely realise how difficult is the Sermon on the Mount. For instance:
"Before making your offer to God, first be reconciled to your brother and then come and make your offering, your gift to God. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you to the judge and the judge to the police and you are put in prison. Truly I say unto you: you will never get out until you have paid the last penny."
What a word at this moment to South Africa!—Africans, Afrikaaners, British and Indians too—all in prison, put there by themselves, chained to each other indissolubly. They cannot get rid of each other, and the last dreadful penny will be paid unless the races can release themselves from their bondage of mutual fears and prides. And nothing can do that but humility, generosity and trust on the part of everybody, the Christian leading the way.
In Kenya and throughout the rest of Africa the controversy is the same—this enchainment of us to one another, African, European and Asian; and we stand bound together before the court of history and of God, though, thank God!, we are not yet in prison and there is time to avoid ever getting there. I am perfectly sure that all men of goodwill here, as this debate has shown, or in Kenya, welcome the outcome of this Conference; and Churchmen thank God for it as a work of co-operative humility, generosity and trust, achieved by the spiritual toil and travail of those who took part—yet hardly had it ended when the Devil started off on his favourite game of confounding the Tongues.
Is it not true that in Kenya, as in Central Africa too—and as in South Africa—great damage is daily being done by the unforeseeing, the impetuous, the impatient, the obstinate and sometimes the offensive words and acts of both Africans and Europeans? It is to them that vie must address our pleas and
346
our prayers as well as all our arguments. They are mostly sincere in their conviction. They are either afraid, as we are all liable to be, or aggressive, as we all are liable to be. They are all wanting a security place and power, which can never be guaranteed in any country by any promise, by any Constitution, by any force of law, or, in the end, by any physical force at all. Must we not implore all these, our brethren of all races who are short of wisdom, that if they can do nothing else at least they should say nothing harmful in this matter? There is nothing to choose between African and European. It was Europeans at Nairobi who hailed the right honourable gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, with abuse. It was Africans at Lusaka who mobbed him with cries of "Freedom now!", and both of them equally were doing damage to Africa or running into dangers which none of them can foresee.
May I therefore say, in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the maintenance of lawful authority always has its essential place but it is compromised by the excesses of fear or of moral indignation or political action from its supporters or from rebels against it. And if those excesses are the chief dangers at this time, will not African leaders who care for Kenya, every one of them, persuade their people to be content with one long step at a time?—for it is a long and a good step that has been taken. Will they not persuade them to consolidate the ground now, since it is common ground, at least without being over-anxious, as perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, was at times, about to-morrow?
And on the other side, since every European is a leader and since at this stage all the social and financial advantages of race and power are with them, must not every European, without being over-anxious for to-morrow either, accept the result of this Conference as a great advance in trust and co-operation and do everything in his power to promote and forward it and make it secure? Must it not ideed be in the interest of all of us to forward that reconciliation and mutual trust without which Africa is doomed? And may I dare say that one of the grandest encouragements I have felt this afternoon is the visible

347
sight of Her Majesty's Government, the Opposition, and all Parties, at one in the main outlines and in almost all the details of that which is put before your Lordships? if that could apply to the whole discussion in every part of Africa it would be a great service to the cause of Africa and to ourselves.
4.50 p.m.
LORD DELAMERE: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House, and I crave the indulgence and consideration which your Lordships are always willing to accede on these occasions. First, may I say how extremely grateful I am, and how extremely grateful I am sure the European farmers in Kenya will be, for the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he referred to the skill and ingenuity of the white farmers in Kenya, and also for those made by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ogmore, when he referred to the moral obligation which he considered Her Majesty's Government had towards those people. Remarks such as those, made with the authority of your Lordships' House and widely reported, will, I consider, do a great deal to help to restore that essential confidence which is required to-day.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships for one minute I should like to refer again to the fact that Kenya is entirely dependent on its agricultural production. It has a few limited secondary industries, but alas! they are very small; and though we all hope they will build up, they will certainly take some time to do so. Therefore for many years to come we shall be reliant on agriculture alone. Another factor which I think the noble Earl. Lord Perth, brought out was that the bulk of the agricultural production at the moment comes from European sources. African agriculture is making its contribution towards that production, however. We always hope that African production will be increased and will go ahead; and I can assure your Lordships that everything the Europeans can do to assist to that end they will do. I am afraid, however, that it is going to be some years to come before that African agriculture can make the contribution it should. Unfortunately, as your Lordships are well aware, agriculture production is a slow thing.
348
With that background in mind, I should like to turn to the effects which the Lancaster House Conference and the publication of the subsequent White Paper have had on European farming in Kenya. Here may I say that I am expressing not only what I myself consider, but also what I feel and know to be the feeling of the great majority of those who farm in Kenya. I am sorry to have to say that there is a feeling of great anxiety, and a great lack of confidence has been engendered by these proposals. The effect of that has been unfortunate. Development, obviously, has been halted, and people, not knowing quite what is going to happen next, are rather revising their plans as to the future. There is a lack of confidence in the future, which is unfortunate for it means that the wheels of the agricultural progress, the agricultural economy on which Kenya depends, are slowing down, with probably disastrous results.
In the serene atmosphere of your Lordships' House it may well seem that such pessimism is unfounded. But I would ask your Lordships for a moment to place yourselves in the position of some small European farmer who has sunk everything into a tiny holding in Africa and who feels very worried by the present progress in events which are very difficult for him to understand. It is not because he has any or animosity, but because he is frightened. It is not because the basic pattern of his life is being changed, but because his asset, the thing on which he and his family and his children depend, is going to suffer. Therefore, I think the sooner confidence is restored to these people the better for everybody. Remarks such as those made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ogmore, during the course of this debate will help tremendously; but I do not consider that words are perhaps quite enough.
I am delighted to hear that there is some plan for African resettlement, the details of which are now being considered and which are to go forward. But I would urge your Lordships to try to see that these things are done as speedily as possible. If the pump is not primed, if the wheels are not set going again in Kenya, something very unpleasant may occur which will hold up and completely impede the passage of independence.

349
Moreover, of course, anxiety is a bad thing from a political point of view. It causes things to be said which are better left unsaid, and it impairs the clear judgment which it is essential that everybody should have at a time like this.
This plan for African resettlement, in my estimation, must first be the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. They have set Kenya on the road towards independence and, in my opinion perfectly rightly, have said that it is their responsibility to see this thing through. For this reason I feel that perhaps it is a pity the sum of £5 million was ever mentioned. I think it is far too small a sum, though I should hesitate before putting a specific figure before your Lordships for your consideration. Suffice it to say that what is wanted now is to make it quite clear that this plan is going to operate: that the British Government are going to stand behind it and will put up the necessary finance to do so over a period of years. It is true, and it is equally essential, that international finance must play its part in the matter, and I am sure that can be arranged. But the initial responsibility, as I say, devolves, in my view, upon the originators of the scheme.
I have only one further point that I should like to make, and that is on the question of safeguards. Whatever may be said, however carefully these safeguards may be written into any future Constitution of Kenya, in my opinion they may well, when final independence is granted, not provide the safeguards they are supposed to be. Therefore I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships that the pace towards independence, which we all recognise must come, must be so adjusted that it does not go too fast, and so that, before that day comes, all the communities have a reasonable opportunity of settling down together. I do not mean that there should be any unreasonable delay, but I must warn your Lordships that if, by any chance, that pace towards independence were accelerated too far, a situation might well be created which would have most unfortunate repercussions on the African population. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
4.58 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it is the proud boast, I think, of us in your Lordships' House that whatever subject may be raised, however esoteric that subject may be, we can always find noble Lords in the House who can speak with the authority of personal experience. That boast, I think, will certainly be justified to-day, for there are on the list of speakers, apart from others who have past experience of Africa, two noble Lords who have made their homes in Kenya and who have come here from there specially to take part in this debate and give us the latest news. In particular, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, to whom we have just listened with such pleasure and whom it is my agreeable duty to congratulate on a first-rate maiden speech, bears a name which stands very high in the history of Kenya. His father helped perhaps more than anyone else, to transform the Kenya Highlands from a wild and partially uninhabited waste into the richest and most fruitful part of the Colony. The noble Lord to whom we have just listened has followed his father's example and has made his home in Kenya. He knows the Colony as in the nature of things most of us could not possibly know it, and we are, I feel, particularly fortunate to have him with us at this crucial moment in its history. He has spoken with knowledge, with moderation, and with good sense, and I am sure we shall all not only wish to congratulate him but to bear very much in mind what he has said in the remarkable contribution that he has made to our discussions.
This Motion, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, though it is most immediately concerned with the Report of the Conference, on the constitutional future of Kenya, is, as we all know, so framed as to make it possible for the debate to range wider and cover both the present general position in Central Africa and the likely trends of our policy in that part of the world in the immediate future. And this, I am sure, is right; for, after all, the results of the Kenya Conference, important though they undoubtedly are, and maybe crucial for areas wider than Kenya itself, represent only one stage in the relationship between this country and the African continent. It cannot be

351
divorced from the past or the future. I make, therefore, no apology if in my approach to the results of this Con-conference I discuss those results in the broad setting of the policy of this country to Central Africa since we first undertook our responsibilities there three-quarters of a century ago.
And that leads me to ask this very simple question: Why did we first go to Central Africa in the latter half of the last century? What was the motive that inspired us? Nowadays it seems to be widely assumed that it was a mere vulgar greed for gain, a lust for filthy lucre, that spurred us on. But that was not the view that was taken at the time. It was not the business-men, hoping merely for vast profits, or the imperialistically-minded politicians, who in the latter half of the nineteenth century urged Britain to extend her territories into the hinterland of Central Africa. Indeed, according to that excellent source, the Encyclopœdia Britannica, in the year 1865 a representative Committee of the House of Commons went so far as to pass unanimously a Resolution in relation to Africa to the effect that
"all further extension of territory or assumption of government or new Treaty, offering any protection to native tribes, will be inexpedient."
It was not the politicians, it was the idealists and the missionaries—and I would remind the most reverend Primate, the churchmen—just those people who today are urging us with equal fervour to clear out. It was they who urged on successive Governments that Britain should go into Central Africa because they thought there was a job to be done there which only we could do.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Marquess merely to question the words to clear out"? The last thing in the world I want us to do is to clear out. As has been said several times, I hope the Kenya settlers will stay there. They have indispensable work to do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I should have said "officially to clear out".
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it was Mr. Disraeli who said we should get rid of the Colonies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not care who it was, I am merely saying it was they who urged Britain to go in. David Livingstone, who was one of the first and greatest of these missionaries, was certainly not a materialist. He came from a family so lofty-minded that at first his father would not hear of his becoming a doctor for fear that he was adopting a profession in the hope of personal gain. Why, then, did David Livingstone press for the British to go into Central Africa? It was because—and here I quote one of his most recent biographers—
"He was imbued with an ideal which was bound up with a Christian mission to convert the heathen of Central Africa and liberate them from slavery. He considered that this could best be achieved by the British nation. His goal was the settlement in Africa of English colonists, who he believed were the most trustworthy of all peoples to bring peace and happiness to the unfortunate population."
That, my Lords, was Livingstone's ideal; it was for that ideal that he and his followers lived and died. They found a Continent which was the habitat of innumerable savage tribes at constant war with each other, a country racked with disease and in places depopulated by the slave trade, a hideous trade in which the tribes themselves took an active part. He believed that British rule could abolish those evils. And so, my Lords, broadly speaking, by good administration, sometimes backed by force, it has.
Under our rule the areas of Central Africa for which we have been responsible have improved out of all knowledge. Those great evils which so appalled Livingstone have largely disappeared. To-day there is no slave trade; to-day there is infinitely less disease; the countries are more prosperous; the peoples are happier and healthier and more secure than ever they were before. But this is due—and I think this must be emphasised—not to any fundamental change in the nature of the indigenous Africans. It has been achieved only because we have been there. To take two very simple examples. If there is a system of justice in our territory, in the way that we understand justice, it is because we have administered it. If there are hospitals and clinics for Africans it is because we have built them.

353
I do not for one moment say that the African will not learn all these things which we are able to teach him if we give him time. I do not say—and indeed I expect the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, would contradict me if I said it—that there are not quite a number of Africans who have already learnt these things. But would any of your Lordships who really know Africa put his hand on his heart and say that the African peoples of Central Africa as a whole are to-day ready, or nearly ready, to do without the control which we at present exert? And yet it appears that in Kenya, at any rate, they are going in no long time to have to do without us. That, I should have thought, would be the inevitable conclusion of anyone who read the Report of the Conference. That, it seems, is the policy to which the Government are committed. That is the clear meaning of the statement of the Secretary of State to which Lord Hastings has already referred:
"the time has come for a more decisive move towards universal adult suffrage and Parliamentary institutions on the Westminster model".
Even if Mr. Mboya and his friends intend to keep, in the spirit as in the letter, the agreement to which they have put their names (and Mr. Mboya has made it pretty clear that he does not intend to do that) the Government, if they stand by their present policy, have clearly only a short time in mind before the achievement by Kenya of complete independence. I must say that that alarms me and, I believe, an increasingly large proportion of the British people.
About the ultimate goal which we seek to reach, I do not suppose there is any difference between any of us in any part of this House. It is our object to train the Africans up to govern their country in a civilised manner. That, as we all know, has been for many years the main goal of British Colonial policy, and nobody wants to go back on it. But there still remains the vital question of pace. If it is not considered frivolous in this discussion to use such an analogy, a man might want to drive a car to Brighton. That might be his goal; but if he insisted on going sixty miles on hour the whole time, he would probably never get there at all. It is the same with constitutional evolution. Too great speed can utterly defeat the object one has in view: and that is the anxiety
354
which I think many of us have about the Macleod proposals.
My Lords, I do not want to retraverse the ground which has already been so well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and others, but I cannot help feeling that this whole scheme, as set out in the White Paper, requires a good deal more definition before Parliament ought to be asked to approve it. Take the franchise itself. We are told in paragraph 15 of the White Paper that everyone over forty is to have the vote. But how are we to know who is forty and who is not? Have dependable records been kept of all African births during the last forty years? Then those who hold certain posts are to have the franchise. I am going to say nothing about that. It may be quite all right: it depends largely on what the posts are, and we have not been told this. But take the alternative qualification, that a man must be able to read and write his own language. What language have the Government in mind? For I understand that there is more than one in the Kenya Colony. I was told this afternoon that there are ten. And what is the standard of literacy which is to be required of a man, and who is to pass the candidate? We are told none of these things in the White Paper. Coming, finally, to the last qualification, a man is to have the vote if he earns £75 a year, and no other qualification will then be required. But, my Lords, is it wise always to give the vote to a man, even a man who cannot read or write, because he earns £75 a year?
Believe me, my Lords, these are not, I can assure you, merely captious questions. I ask them now, first, because I imagine this may be the only opportunity. When the amendments to the Kenya Constitution outlined in the White Paper are introduced, I imagine that it will be done by Order in Council, which may conceivably be debated but which, as we all know, cannot be amended. If, therefore, we have any criticisms or suggestions to make, before it is too late, we must, I suggest, make them to-day. Moreover, my questions, I submit, are all relevant to the vital problem of ensuring that those who get the vote are properly equipped to think for themselves—and that, after all, is the most essential prerequisite of all for free

355
democracy; for unless voters are able to think for themselves, whatever colour they may be, they are liable to become the puppets of demagogues. Now presumably Her Majesty's Government know the answers to all these questions, otherwise they would not have passed the Macleod Constitution. But I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will further enlighten your Lordships and the country on them at the end of the debate, for it is on us ultimately that responsibility will rest. If these qualifications are spurious—and, frankly, I believe that, whatever the intention of the Government, some of them are—they might very well be worse than no qualifications at all.
I fully understand that I may be told that these things are not really so important as I think; and it may be pointed out that there are ample safeguards in the proposals of the White Paper. I may be told, for instance, that even in this new Constitution, with its wider franchise, there will be an Executive which, for the time being at any rate, will be independent of the majority of the Legislature, and that this Executive will always be in a position, should that be necessary, to prevent anything very extreme from passing into law. I may be reminded, too—the noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke of them this afternoon—of the other safeguards in the Macleod proposals: the provision, to be written into the Constitution, safeguarding fundamental human rights—whatever, my Lords, they may be—and the other provision protecting the rights of property. All these safeguards, I entirely agree, will be valid so long as the Governor and his Executive are in a position to control the situation.
But what happens, my Lords, when we hand over control, and Kenya gets independence—that independence which Mr. Mboya has said he is confidently expecting in less than five years? What happens then? Is there anything at that point to prevent an African majority in the Legislature, elected on this very wide franchise, under the impulsion of a Government led by, say, Mr. Mboya, or even Mr. Kenyatta, from sweeping away all those safeguards, or at any rate so far as they apply to minorities, at one stroke of the pen?
356
Many of the electors will not even be able to read for themselves the arguments for or against any course of action on which the new Government may decide. They will have to be told by word of mouth: and who is going to tell them—Mr. Kenyatta, Mr. Mboya, or some other extreme leader? Mr. Mboya, at any rate, has already made it clear that it is his aim (I have quoted this in the House before) to "make the white man scram out of Africa".
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that the success or failure of this experiment is a matter ultimately for the people of Kenya (I do not think I am misquoting him) as if they were a single, homogeneous community. But at present, unhappily, they are not a single, homogeneous community: they are a loosely-knit amalgam of different races and different tribes. What sort of justice are the minorities—the loyal Africans, the Europeans or the Asians, on whom the prosperity of the country is mainly due—likely to get from the type of leader it seems probable they will get in an independent Kenya in its present stage of development? To build on something so wide of reality, my Lords, is surely not the way to give confidence to these minorities, or to get the kind of civilised, balanced democracy that I understand the Government want, and which, indeed, all of us in all parts of the House want to see.
If the Government are afraid—and I should not blame them for this—and feel that the average African in Kenya to-day, whatever his other merits—and he has other great merits—is not yet fit for the unrestricted control of his country through a system of parliamentary democracy, surely it would have been a far better way (and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings) to start the next stage of the country's constitutional development with a more restricted electorate of educated and responsible people, to whatever race they might belong, and then gradually broaden it as it appears that they become more and more qualified to exercise the franchise. That is what we did in our own country in building our own democracy. And, my Lords, the British people when we started were a good deal more advanced in civilisation than the African was when we came to Kenya only 80 years ago.

357
My Lords, in what I have said up to now I have been concerned with the danger in dealing with primitive races, and, especially where there are minorities, of trying to go too fast in constitutional reform. But I believe there are even wider dangers facing Africa at the present time. The point I thought was well made in a letter which I received a week or two ago from a man of long experience of Africa. He pointed out that if the European Colonial Powers were to throw in their hand in Africa now, as already seems to be happening in the Belgian Congo and as may well happen in our own territories, whatever our intentions, if we continue our present policy at the present rate—were that to happen, he said, the result would be not only unhappy for the peoples themselves who live there, Europeans and Africans alike, but might well lead to a weakening of the whole political structure of Central Africa as it exists to-day.
For, as my correspondent pointed out, the present boundaries of the African States—Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Congo and so on—are not immutable or eternal; they are not even as well established as most of the frontiers in Europe. They are, in many cases, purely artificial lines, drawn almost in the lifetime of many of us, and often without real geographical or ethnological significance, just to settle the differences between great Powers at the time of their entry into Africa in the latter part of the last century. In particular, they often have no relation to the tribal spheres of influence that preceded them and which in many cases sprawl right across them. Indeed, he said that they have been principally maintained up to now in their present form by good administration and the occasional use of force by the European Governments responsible. But if prematurely—and I emphasise the word "prematurely"—that ad ministration were to be transferred to Africans, who have not the same experience, and the forces which up to now have buttressed it were withdrawn, the tribal rivalries and jealousies might well revive, and with them just those tribal conflicts which only the presence of Europeans has prevented. There could, indeed, well be general decay of law and order everywhere.
That is what my correspondent said, and I believe it is no mere figment of my
358
own or his morbid imagination. One can see it already beginning. In the Congo there have already been clashes between rival tribes which have led, by all accounts, to considerable loss of life. And even in Kenya there have been reports in recent weeks not only of the increasing lawlessness and intimidation but of the waking up of old rivalries between the Masai and the Kikuyu; and I have heard accounts from other sources of growing alarm among the smaller tribes as to the future which is likely to lie before them when the protection of the British Crown has been withdrawn.
I do not say that the urbanised Africans—the Kenyattas and the Mboyas—will not succeed in establishing their rule. With the aid of the Constitution we are setting up, they very likely may. But it will not be by the normal operation of democracy on the Westminster model and universal adult suffrage of which the Colonial Secretary talks so cheerfully. It will be, I believe, by much harsher and possibly more terrible methods. Can we wonder, in such circumstances, that both loyal Africans and the European community who have been encouraged by British Governments to go to Kenya, who have made their homes there and who have borne unflinchingly the terrors of Mau Mau—can we wonder, my Lords, that they feel anxious about the future and that some, at any rate, feel betrayed? The noble Earl, Lord Perth, may regard them as "fainthearted"; but he will forgive me for saying that they have to live there, and he does not.
I fully recognise, of course, that within the last few days the Governor of Kenya, Sir Patrick Renison, in more than one speech has given a more encouraging account of the position and of the prospects in the Colony. Sir Patrick is a man of high reputation; he is also a man on the spot, and we must, of course, pay the fullest attention to what he says. His View, as I understand it, is that the African Elected Members would like to co-operate with us, but they are afraid to say so. And the latest news that the African Elected Members have decided to accept portfolios in the present Government certainly tends, to support his view. I think that that is excellent news, which we must all welcome, because practical experience is good for everybody. But they seem in accepting

359
office, according to an account I read, to have made it clear that they regard even the Macleod Constitution, which is not yet in being, as a mere temporary and evanescent phase pending the achievement of independence.
In these circumstances, I feel that it is essential that the Government should make their position absolutely clear. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said to-day (I am quoting him only from memory, because I could not take down the words exactly, and I hope I do not misrepresent him) that there must be a genuine attempt to make the Lancaster House Constitution work before any advance is made. That, too, is a welcome statement, so far as it goes, and I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl for making it. But, personally, if it does not seem fatuous, I should like the Government to go yet a little further so as Ito avoid all misunderstanding. I should like them as soon and as emphatically as possible—if I may quote words that I thought very sensible in the leading article in the Daily Telegraph on March 17—to
"state categorically that the Macleod Constitution represents an advance which there is no intention of accelerating until experience of African co-operation over a considerable period of time makes this justifiable in practice as well as in theory."
I hope it may be possible for the noble Earl the Leader of the House to make such a statement clearly and unequivocally to-day.
And now, my Lords, I come to the last word I want to say to your Lordships this afternoon—and I must apologise for keeping you so long. It is this. The Prime Minister was reported as saying in a speech a few days ago—and I quote his words:
"Overseas, I feel our authority and influence have never been so great."
That is a proud claim, and it is a bold claim when one thinks of all the great periods in our long history. I hope he is right; but sometimes I wonder whether that statement would stand the test of objective examination. I know that the time in which we live is sometimes described as a second Elizabethan age. That is a pleasant idea, my Lords, and one to warm the cockles of one's heart. But is it really true? The first Elizabethan Age was one of expansion, of seeking new worlds to conquer; and ours is becoming,
360
I am sadly afraid, more and more an age of retreat. Indeed, I sometimes feel that in many ways it is more like the later years of the Roman Empire. Then, as now, at the centre the people had never had it so good; there was never such luxury, such a time of general enjoyment by all. But out on the fringes of the Empire, gradually but relentlessly, the Roman world was shrinking. The outer bastions were being driven in.
There is another unhappy similarity between ourselves and the Romans of those far-off days. Nearly 100 years ago an acute student of colonial history and colonial rule, J. R. Godley, wrote to Mr. Gladstone with reference to the gradual decay of the Roman Empire. This is what he said:
"When the Roman Eagles retreated across the Danube, it was not the loss of Dacia but the satisfaction of the Roman people at the loss that was the omen of the Empire's fall."
I commend those words to your Lordships to-day. It is not so very unlike the attitude of many people in this country at the present time. In the case of Rome, we all know what happened. First, the outworks were driven in, and the threat became more direct; and, finally, as we all know. Rome itself fell and the Dark Ages began. Do not, my Lords, let that happen to us. We are at present in the throes of a cold war. Do not let us rashly abandon the outworks until we know that we are handing them over into safe and dependable hands.
5.32 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, in his moving speech, referred to the anxiety of the settlers and their lack of confidence. The noble Marquess has feared the decay of law and order in the future. Perhaps I may then say a few words—it is my only qualification—on the future of law and order in Africa, because it was my privilege early this year to preside over a Conference on the future of law in Africa. The Conference was attended by representatives of many great territories. Kenya was represented by its Chief Justice and its Solicitor General; Sudan by its Chief Justice, and Judges and Law Officers of every race, creed and colour. As a result of that Conference, I think we can have confidence in the maintenance of law and order.

361
True it is that, as the Secretary of State recognises in his White Paper, there must be a written Constitution, and in that written Constitution there must be judicial protection for human rights, for rights of property and for freedom under the law. It is recommended that they should be taken from the Nigerian Constitution, which has just been written and which records that property shall not be taken except for public purposes, and then only on adequate compensation; that no man is to be imprisoned except by due sentence of a court of law; that there shall be freedom of speech and all the other human rights. These are good words to write into a Constitution. But they are not sufficient by themselves. Constitutions are made by politicians and statesmen, but they have to be interpreted and applied by judges and lawyers. They assume a foundation of a firm body of law.
At the Conference I have mentioned we sought to see whether there was this firm body of law in a country where at the moment we find a jig-saw of English law in part, Indian law in part, Islamic law and customary law—many pieces of a jig-saw all to be fitted together. What about the most important, perhaps, to law and order, the criminal law, much of it unwritten and imperfectly administered? We agreed that the criminal law should be written and not unwritten, and should be uniformly applied to people of every race, creed or colour. That is the basis upon which Constitutions must be built. That applies also to land tenure and to the question of rights to land. In some parts of Africa, if you buy a piece of land it is said that you buy a lawsuit. Again, the Conference recommended that in due course there should be a system of registration of title. After all, unless you know what your land is and your title to it, where can you get your compensation? With personal law, the marriages and births, I am certain that that must be according to the accustomed law. But fin due course there ought to be something of a register of births, deaths and marriages, of which in many places there is none. You need just that substratum of law on which to build your Constitutions, but perhaps most important of all is the quality of the personnel, the judges and the lawyers.
362
That was the point upon which the Conference concentrated. It may surprise your Lordships to know what the position is in East Africa at the moment. There, the judges and the practitioners, the lawyers, are all European or Asian, because they have to obtain their qualifications to practise either by coming to this country or by going to India and Pakistan. The result is that in East Africa at the moment nearly every practitioner is either European or Asian; there are hardly any Africans in the legal profession, or just a mere handful. There is no law school and no system of legal education in East Africa. Where are you to find the judges and lawyers for the country in the future?
Going North to the Sudan, the Chief Justice told us how in what was formerly the Gordon College, now the University of Khartoum, they have a law school. Law teachers come out from England, and teachers of Islamic law train their own legal practitioners. They may not have a Parliamentary democracy, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, indicated, but they have the rule of law, with judges and practitioners applying and maintaining law and order. In West Africa, Nigeria and Ghana have African practitioners. Up to now they have had to come to England or to these islands to get their qualifications, because they cannot be qualified there. But they have come. They practise and apply law in Africa, and their judges judge the law and apply law and order. They keep to the Common Law tradition as well as our own judges. What about the law schools there? Ghana has just started, or is about to start, one. Nigeria recently set up a committee which recommended as soon as may be the establishment of a law school in the University of Ibadan, and a law school at Lagos, moving forward with legal education in West Africa. In East Africa there is a pressing need for a system of legal education for the Africans who are coming on to take the posts in the law there.
It is that need that this Conference should stress. It is said that other education, general education, must have priority. But for the maintenance of law and order, if you are to have judges who are independent and impartial, who are ready to administer the law without fear or favour, you cannot do better than

363
—and indeed you must—train them in the right tradition. And how better than by setting up, as soon as may be, in this country or, better still, in East Africa, law schools to train the Africans for the posts there. If there is one legacy which this country can be proud of giving to the world it is its system of law and order, the traditions of judges of independence and impartiality. How proud I was in India to see how the judges and lawyers there carry on these great traditions! Surely, if we handle the matter aright it can be done equally in Africa. If we so act, build on this Constitution, build up a proper system of law, we shall have done a great deal to hand on our heritage to this emergent country.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I rose only to say a word about the work of reconciliation in Kenya, but I am moved by the noble Marquess's speech to express my thanks that the Conservative faith should have been expressed so brilliantly. That and the Eden memoirs give us the "True Blue" faith which I am sure many in this country would like to hear when we have to face day by day the pink zone. His Roman history is much better than mine, I am sure. But sixty years ago I was in South Africa, and I have watched the story of South Africa, and I cannot see in what he said anything that resembles the facts. He spoke as if David Livingstone had led the Jameson Raid. That is not so. Since our wars with the Boers we have been engaged in a process of penetration by force in order to have economic exploitation of the country. That, broadly speaking, is true. It is this very fact which is the root cause of many of our difficulties in Kenya to-day.
The difficulties, as I see them, are these. We were pushing north: Rhodesia came and then Mr. Cecil Rhodes spoke about "the Cape to Cairo, the Limpopo to the Nile"; and it is because the settlers in Kenya have been so slow in abandoning that idea and have opposed democratic development for the Africans of their own country that we have many of our present difficulties. I suppose that nowadays people in Kenya would deny that they stand for a White Dominion, but I could quote freely from speeches made ten years ago when the determination was to embark from Rhodesia through
364
Kenya to Egypt. The whole thing has been a failure from start to finish.
With regard to the Kenya question itself, what are you going to do? I have been surprised, listening to this very interesting debate to-day, that no one has referred to the actual condition of the people in Kenya. In fact no one seems to have appreciated the disastrous state in which large tracts of Africa are at the moment. The people of Kenya have just come through the experience of the Mau Mau and the most severe form of repression—I do not say it was not necessary—that you can imagine: people locked up with trial or without trial; and one of the great problems of Kenya in the future will be how you are going to reconcile African with African. There are now a number of people, hundreds of people, who have been liberated who previously were thought to be a public danger. They come out and we have on the one side those who would call themselves Nationalists and on the other those who would call themselves the Loyalists, and if we are to have a State which will work constitutionally we must somehow get a harmony among the African people, who are the majority inhabitants of the State.
This can be done only through the agency of the African leaders themselves. We cannot do it. "Tremble" is a strong word, but I was shocked when the noble Earl spoke about the intention to reimpose swift restrictions if there was any trouble. That looked as if people were itching to get back again to an Emergency. Is it supposed you could reimpose a state of emergency on Kenya and go forward with her political advance? It would be quite impossible. Their mind is filled with the horror of the Mau Mau period, and the Government—whatever the Government—is faced with a number of residuary problems from those times. We had a discussion about the Hola Camp incident. What does the Government intend to do about the 1,000 or more people who have been charged and imprisoned, and who declare their innocence and are treated with increasing severity until they admit their guilt, which they will not do. What are you going to do with those people? I do not know. It is a very difficult problem. I am perfectly certain you can do nothing without the co-operation of the Africans.

365
That is why I say that the task of reconciliation, which would be the first task of the re-modelled Government, requires that the Africans should be proud of their State and should know that it is going to be an independent State, predominantly, of course, an independent State of Africans, as it will be in fact. I do not know how that is to be done, but there has to be a lot of going backwards. I speak with memories of the same case in Africa when we fought the Boers, and the same in Ireland when we fought the Irish. In the end we had to come to take the leaders of the rebellion into our confidence and ask for their co-operation to pacify the country. When the Irish Free State was established (it did not settle the problem) it was the agency of the leaders of the Irish Free State—not the Irish Republic—that we had to invoke in order to attempt a settlement with the Irish Republican Army. That is exactly what will be needed in Kenya. You will need men whom the ordinary African admires and looks to as a leader to assist you. All the White Papers will be useless without that.
That leads me to the final, and I am sure the most unpalatable, suggestion I have to make. They are just reforming the Kenya National Union; it was banned and now, as the emergency is lifted, it is being re-formed. The leader, the, president of the Kenya National Union, was Jomo Kenyatta, and I have not the least doubt that we shall ourselves see Kenyatta brought into these consultations in order to pacify the country. I remember quite well that in the Boer War we could not say things bad enough about General Smuts and General Botha, and I have seen them both drive through Trafalgar Square to tumultuous cheers. It was exactly the same with the Irish. "We were told, We will not shake hands with murder", and in two or three years every Under-Secretary was busy getting cramp, shaking hands with the murderers with whom he had to deal in order to pacify the country. The same thing will have to be done in Kenya. I put this forward modestly—I am not a person of importance, but one who has seen these things happen in the past—and I recommend it as a practical suggestion to the Government in their future policy.
5.50 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will forgive me if I do not follow him up the most attractive avenues of disputation which he has opened; but in the few moments during which I shall detain your Lordships I should like to stand back a little from the White Paper and to have a look at what I believe to be the really crucial question to which we have to find an answer, not only in Kenya but in other parts of Africa where our writ still runs. That question is not whether Kenya should have independence or selfgovernment—that has been settled. The question which is exercising my mind, and from the course of the debate it is evident that it is exercising, too, the minds of your Lordships, is this: how in a multi-racial society which is also a politically immature society, can we give self-government without at the same time handing over the minority to the unrestricted tyranny of the majority? I believe that that really is the nub of our problem. I think that is what is worrying us about Kenya and, from a rather different angle, I think it worries us in Central Africa, too.
I do not believe that the Kenya Conference has given us the answer. I accept everything the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said about the Conference: that there has been a degree of co-operation hitherto unheard of in the politics of Kenya; that the spirit of Kenya was born at Lancaster House. I accept that; it is a most gratifying thing. But still I do not believe that the Conference has given us the answer. This problem of the position of minorities in parliamentary government is one that is common to parliamentary government wherever it exists. In this country we have solved it through our Parliamentary institutions, and because we have solved it here, I think we are too ready to believe that we can solve it in the same way elsewhere. That is a pretty big assumption, and I believe that it is, in fact, an untenable assumption.
The plain fact is that you cannot create parliamentary government; it is something that grows out of centuries of experience. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, told us of the many recent instances in which the export of parliamentary institutions had failed. I think

367
it failed for this reason; that you cannot export parliamentary institutions, which are the fruit of centuries of experience, except to those who in some measure share that experience. That is not only true of Ghana, and of other countries in Africa, but it is true pretty well the whole world over. A country really cannot get the advantage of the forms of parliamentary government if it has not this experience of which those forms are only the expression. I think that we here are accustomed too readily to assume that parliamentary government is a kind of fool-proof mechanism, completely automatic, with built-in stabilisers which guarantee freedom with order. But it is not so. Parliament works here because we are willing to make it work, and because there is a vast fund of political experience in the British people. Without that willingness and without that experience, I believe that it would have broken down long ago even here.
There is a distinction between the theory and the practice of Parliament. The theory of Parliament is that the Queen in Parliament is Sovereign; that Parliament is omnipotent. It has been said that there is nothing Parliament cannot do, except turn a man into a woman—and even that qualification, if one is to judge from the papers, is now open to some doubt. Yet still the theory is that Parliament is omnipotent. But that has not been the practice, because in this country there are, outside Parliament altogether, all kinds of checks and balances which can be called in to curb and control a parliamentary majority.
Let us for a moment look at the contemporary scene. Her Majesty's Government have now in another place a majority of, I think, 102—at any rate, it is a perfectly adequate majority to allow the Government to do anything in the world they want to do. So far as the parliamentary majority is concerned, the present Government can, for example, denationalise the coal industry. But in fact it could not denationalise the coal industry—not because of any lack of a majority in Parliament, but because there are things outside Parliament, like a free Press, an instructed public opinion, a long experience not only of trade unionism, but for centuries before that of social and political organization
368
in all its forms. That kind of thing which exists in this country does now, and I think must always, restrain a majority from tyrannising a minority. But these checks and balances simply do not exist in Africa, and if we impose upon the African people a parliamentary system when they do not have any external checks and balances to control the majority in that Parliament, I believe that we are handing Kenya over, not to democracy but to a dictatorship and tyranny.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked, what are we trying to do in Kenya? In spite of the declaration of the Colonial Secretary in the White Paper, we are not really trying to impose a Parliament on the Westminster model as an end in itself. It is only, as the noble Lord said, a means to an end. The end we are trying to achieve is to give Kenya self-government with order and with freedom. We in this country have had a vast political experience, and I think we can fairly say that in the past we have shown a high degree of political inventiveness. But I cannot help feeling that that inventiveness has left us now. Can we really think of no political expedient more likely to succeed and less certainly foredoomed to failure than to impose our own parliamentary institutions upon a society which is unfitted to receive them?
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to what is happening in Pakistan, and to the new Constitution which General Ayub Kahn is developing there. It seems to me that we ought to shed our blinkers and look at that kind of experiment to see whether we may not find in it a more hopeful solution than in Parliamentary Government on the Westminster model. We might consider, too, the Constitution of the United States. There is there a separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. One could say that it was a parliamentary system, but it differs from our parliamentary system in as much as the checks and balances which under our system are external to Parliament are, in the United States, built into the constitutional machine itself. I am not suggesting that we should apply the Constitution of the United States like a poultice to Kenya. Obviously, there are weaknesses in

369
the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, it has not solved, in particular, the problem of a permanent minority. We can hardly say that it has yet solved it in the Southern States. If, however, we substituted for the Supreme Court of the United States the Privy Council here, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore suggested earlier, we might get some form of political organisation which would give freedom to the majority but would not allow the majority to tyrannise the minorities.
There is a more fanciful analogy which occurred to me. We have in our Government to-day a powerful Minister known as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. His main task, I understand, is to organise Government propaganda. There was, however, a time when the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy were more germane to his office; and the Duchy of Lancaster was at one time an enclave in the realm of England which, to some extent, was subject to its own laws yet still within the overriding authority of the King of the realm. I wonder whether it is entirely inconceivable that some solution of that kind, some kind of county palatinate, might not be made for the Kenya Highlands.
I dare say that none of these suggestions is practical, but I seriously believe that we should be looking at this constitutional problem with a more open mind. I am not suggesting that we should abandon the goal of independence and self-government. We should look to see whether there is not some other road that might take us more safely to the goal. I sincerely believe that if we do not find another road, some alternative to a Parliament on the Westminster model, we shall, with the best and highest intentions, plunge Kenya into dictatorship and tyranny and betray the responsibility which we still have to all the peoples of Kenya—African, European and Asian alike.
6.4 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this House has not forgotten the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Hastings when he moved the humble Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne at the opening
370
of this Session. Again, we have been rewarded to-day by a speech of outstanding quality, both in its substance and in the manner in which he made it. As 1960 will be a momentous year in the Continent of Africa, we shall often look to him to give us his expert knowledge in the months to come. Again, your Lordships were privileged to-day to hear a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Delamere. His is the authentic voice of the Kenya farmer, and he comes, as your Lordships know, of a family who have done a great deal for that country. He loves the soil of Kenya and he loves the people—and that includes the African people, too.
It was salutary that he came here today to remind us that the problem in East and Central Africa is not the same as the problem was in Asia where we gave independence to Commonwealth countries, nor even the same as the problem in West Africa, because he told your Lordships—and your Lordships listened to this with sympathy and with a realisation of what many people in Africa feel may lie in front of them—that while there may be compensation for one's business if one is a tenant, there is really no compensation for the loss of one's home. He said that my noble friend Lord Perth had already given some comfort and reassurance. If, in the speech which I am now making, I am able to add to that reassurance in any way, I hope that although, as I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, had sought leave of absence from this House, he will consider that his journey has been worth while. We were delighted to excuse him for ending that leave of absence and we hope he will not feel it necessary to seek leave of absence again, because we should like to hear him very often in our House.
My noble friend Lord Hastings deliberately and properly widened the terms of his Motion so that he and the House could range beyond the immediate and particular problem of the Constitutional Conference on Kenya. He widened it so that your Lordships might include the implications of the political advance of Africans in countries where there are mixed communities of Europeans, Asians and Arabs and where those peoples all look upon their particular country as their own home.

371
That widening of the Motion was, in my view, very wise, because I hope that in the whole series of debates which we have had in recent months on the problems of East and Central Africa, and because of recent events in the North and the South of the African Continent, it has been proved to the people that the problem that we have to solve in East and Central Africa is a problem peculiar to that part of Africa and that one cannot generalise about the whole of the continent. In Central and East Africa, where all the races claim to live as of right, the problem is different in kind.
The goal at which we must aim—and this has been accepted by every speaker in this debate—must be multi-racial. There is no other solution. Any other solution would mean anarchy or, in the words of the most reverend Primate, doom. Therefore, as the precedent to self-government in these territories, there must be various stages on the road, each of which is multi-racial in character and the essence of which is that the rights of minorities and individuals shall be secured. I believe that there is an increased understanding of the essential difficulty of this problem in this country to-day, more understanding than there was even a few months ago, because the problem is how to reconcile and bring together the Europeans who have had generations of experience in government and in politics and Africans who have started on this long road only a few generations ago at most. A vivid illustration of the penalty for failure to find a multi-racial solution can be found in the civil war in Algeria, at one end of the Continent, and in apartheid and civil strife in South Africa, at the other. We must succeed, and Parliament in this country must play the leading part in finding a multi-racial solution, not only in Kenya but in the other dependent territories for which we are responsible in East and Central Africa.
I claim your assent, my Lords, to two propositions. The first is this. From the first moment when, in our African Colonies, we established representative political institutions and admitted Africans to the franchise, the ultimate pattern of self-governing territories within the Commonwealth was sure. Our reasons were both Christian and honourable, because we knew that the dignity of man is incomplete if he has no
372
prospect of political influence in the society in which he lives. If the African is clamouring for freedom to-day, it is because we ourselves have sown the seed and, by our action, we have long ago admitted that, at some point of time, the majority in any given country, whatever the colour of their skin, would assume political power. In Africa, although we could not—and I say to my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, that I still cannot—foresee the time when there will be a transfer of power, nevertheless, we are prepared for the goal when Africans, if they are in the majority, will also form the Governments of their countries.
But there is another proposition which is equally valid. The noble Marquess made a most timely speech and gave us a very necessary reminder of the motives of British political power and British colonialism. This proposition, which is equally valid with the first, I believe, is that self-government means responsible government in which the individual recognises his duty to the whole of society and to his neighbour, and the majority accept the obligation to rule with tolerance and justice. Therefore, before British protection or British control of a country is withdrawn, it is our aim—I do not know that we have always achieved it, but nevertheless it is our aim—to achieve a situation in which that country can guarantee justice within and conduct itself according to the rules of the good neighbour without, in international relations.
My Lords, if we are to succeed in building mixed and responsible communities in Africa, then extreme racialism, whether it be the extreme racialism of the South or the extreme racialism of some Africans in the North, must be rejected. We rightly react against apartheid because, in our view, that implies, if not in theory certainly in practice, the domination of one race by another. But that racialism which claims Africa for the Africans can equally imply an attempt to dominate. My noble friend Lord Delamere expressed his concern that we were prepared to see, or might be prepared to see, one race dominate another, and his particular concern, of course, is that Africans, through their numbers and before they have learned the responsibilities of government, should not be able to dominate Europeans in Kenya.

373
I should like to add to the words which came from my noble friend Lord Perth something which was said by the Prime Minister in a speech the other day. Recognising the part which Europeans have played in Africa, he said:
"They have led the economic progress and been the pioneers. The Africans owe everything to them. While therefore it is right and proper that Africans should share more and more in the life of different territories, yet nothing must be done to destroy the security and rights of Europeans. The picture that we have of a multi-racial society is not to transfer domination from one race to another but to develop on fair terms a sense of true partnership."
My Lords, how does one outlaw extremism, whether it be the extremism of the European in the South or that of the African Congress in the North—by decree, by law? Surely the best way is to enlist the moderate, sensible, constructive Africans and Europeans who both recognise that each in Africa is indispensable to the successful and prosperous future of the other.
If, therefore, it is true that we accept, first, the principle of self-government where there are African majorities, and secondly, that the process of the transfer of power must be an orderly process, then the problem, I suggest, falls into two parts: the pace of political advance, which the noble Marquess raised in the House this afternoon and about which I shall say more, and, since human beings are not perfect, the safeguards for individual and minority rights on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had some words of wisdom to say to us earlier.
The pace and the timing of advance is a matter of judgment, but in any scheme of advance there must be certain ingredients which are of the very fabric of the scheme. There must be a qualitative franchise. There must be, as my noble friend Lord Hastings pointed out and insisted several times in his speech, time to train administrators so that there will be a Civil Service which brings continuity and integrity to the country's affairs. There must be elected institutions which preserve a fair representation for minorities, and there must be machinery for the purpose of seeing that legislation is not discriminatory. To-day, such legislation is needed to protect the African. In the future,
374
When the African assumes majority rule, those safeguards will be necessary to protect the European, the Asian and the Arab.
Any plan of advance—I think that this has been reflected in the House today—must necessarily arouse emotions and must necessarily be debated against the background of two fears which are present in Africa to-day. The first is the fear of the African that he will artificially be held back, socially and politically, even though he feels that he is qualified by merit to exercise political influence. Secondly, there is the fear of the European that he will suffer injustice and a decline in his standards of living and civilisation because the African, through lack of training, does not yet understand the full range of responsibilities which go with democracy.
It is, I think, impossible to generalise. The future of each territory and, therefore, each plan must stand on its own merits in relation to the circumstances of the particular country. But I believe it is worth while for your Lordships to ask yourselves this question: how do we most surely reach the goal of racial harmony and social justice? Is it by restricting political advance to the narrowest limit which education and property allow, or is it, for the sake of the political education and political responsibility which it will bring, better to take a calculated risk and to provide a comparatively wide but qualified franchise and bring elected Africans into government wherever it is possible to do that on merit, relying during the years of education and experiment on the official majority or the Governor's powers, or both, so that political progress may be orderly and just?
My noble friend Lord Salisbury asked whether I could say a little more about timing and I will do so in a moment, but I would call attention to the Report of the Kenya Constitutional Conference, on page 5 of which it is stated that my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary, speaking of the pace of advance, used these words:
"Our task is … to see at what pace Kenya can assume greater responsibility for the conduct of her own affairs … As we plan this stage and all future stages of Kenya's constitutional evolution"—

375
the pace will depend on how far there is co-operation between the races and how far the next stage of evolution can be seen to succeed. And so it is that in this Kenya Plan my right honourable friend has chosen that path. It is a calculated risk, but the Africans who are known as the constitutionally-elected Members are now going to take part in a caretaker Government. They have agreed to work the new Constitution. It is true that co-operation over the years remains to be proved, but if that co-operation is proved it will be a great gain; and if not, then, as my noble friend has said, advance will be delayed.
The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and one or two noble Lords have voiced apprehensions, and they are natural when we are moving into the unknown. There were two criticisms which perhaps I might put, not unfairly, in this way. The first was that Her Majesty's Government are moving too fast. What is the right pace? Is it the pace of the Union of South Africa, of the Belgian Congo, or Algeria? Not in this House—because here we are careful with our language—but elsewhere, there has been talk of the betrayal of Europeans in Kenya and other parts of Africa. It would be quite possible to betray Europeans by going too fast and equally possible to betray Europeans by going too slow; and I believe that nothing could be worse than a kind of Maginot Line complex, where we put up a façade for a year or two which is then shattered and there is a ruin. So again, as to timing, my answer (though it cannot be firm, because none of us can foresee the future, even in Kenya), would be, I think, that we must judge it, in each case, in relation to the circumstances of each country; and in each country those circumstances are different. But what we aim to achieve, at each stage, is co-operation between races in the practical politics of their own country.
The second criticism is that the African to-day is totally unfitted to work democracy; and lessons have been drawn from Asia and Africa. It is true that in certain countries where the full paraphernalia of the Westminster model of democracy has been given that has now been changed for another system. It has been changed for what is called, in Pakistan, Basic Democracy, and in
376
Ghana a Constitution which is something not very far removed from the present Constitution of France. I do not know whether it is possible to say that those Constitutions are not democratic. It will very largely depend on how they are worked; and, at any rate, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, in no country yet, either in Ghana or Pakistan, has the fabric of the law and the independence of the country been infringed, and on that they can build. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Coleraine and to some extent with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that a very careful study must be given to the actual form of government which emerges and which will fit the circumstances of the African.
The most reverend Primate described the universal franchise—"One man, one vote"—as a useful piece of machinery not involving a principle. I agree with him. It is true that "One man, one vote" is at present the slogan of the Africans, but slogans do not always last. If I am not being tactless, I should say that "Nationalisation" has been the slogan of the Labour Party for many years, and now they are left with Clause 4 and even with a gloss on Clause 4; and I am by no means sure that after the Africans in government have had experience they will not themselves decide that a qualified franchise is preferable to the universal franchise or "One man, one vote". At any rate, if the African to-day is not ready for a full share in government, nevertheless he is ready for some share, and that is what is being given in the Kenya White Paper and was agreed at the Kenya Conference.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Salisbury, I thought, ended up his speech in a rather pessimistic mood. He compared the present Elizabethan Age with the old Elizabethan Age, which he said was, by comparison, one of expansion and glory. I believe it is very difficult to compare the two Elizabethan Ages. During the first was the first occasion on which we exported the principles of living in which we believed, so that the seed could be sown overseas and could blossom there in new ground. To-day, in this Elizabethan Age, we have reached a time at home when we have, if not perfected, at least reached a very high degree of political understanding; and we have

377
created what is known as a British brand of democracy. We believe that the law, the justice and the tolerance which are essential parts of our British democracy are something which should underpin society far beyond the shores of our own country.
Here at home we have built a nation which, on these matters, is largely of one mind; and when we export this type of democracy to our Colonies and our great Commonwealth countries we are glad to see it blossom and mature and lend strength, as we believe, to the whole of the civilisation outside. And just as we have given something to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so we believe we have given something to the Asians; and I am sure that the noble Marquess would not wish the Africans to be deprived of the advantages which we believe derive from this form of democracy and this philosophy of living.
Then, again, there is education, with all the technical knowledge that we have been able to send abroad, particularly in the use of energy, which has revolutionised our standard of living, and, if wisely used, can bring health and wealth and opportunity to millions in Asia and Africa whose lot would otherwise have been one of poverty and of distress. I have always thought that the comparison which the noble Marquess drew with the decline of the Roman Empire is superficial. He talked about abandoning the outposts of our Empire. My Lords, that is not our purpose; we want to hold those outposts—not by force but by the compelling example of our ideas, our ideals—and we want them with us to stand up in the world for the principles and conduct which we believe are the absolute essence of democracy and the free life.
I do not believe we can be accused of being in decline or of lacking in imagination because we have converted an Empire into a Commonwealth, a thing which the Romans, I would remind the noble Marquess, were never able to do. So I hope your Lordships will agree that in this Kenya programme arising out of this Conference we have not been reckless; we have shown a degree of trust and confidence which is reasonable and which, we hope, will foster a sense of responsibility; and that from these beginnings in Kenya, and following the line which we believe to be right, confidence
378
and responsibility in these countries of Africa will grow hand in hand.
6.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, when my noble friend and, I might say, bucolic colleague in Kenya, Lord Delamere, rose to speak I felt extremely glad that the "winds of change" had kept the name of Delamere in Kenya and also in your Lordships' House. He has, indeed, taken out of my mouth many things that I would wish to say, but as he has said them better I shall hope to shorten the debate thereby. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for having introduced this debate. It was very necessary, I think, especially to those who live in Kenya and who are full of doubts about the future, and it has also given me the chance to speak in two Legislative Assemblies within 64 hours. To-day I am speaking partly, but without any particular brief, as a member of the New Kenya Group in Kenya, but I am speaking probably even more as a farmer and businessman, especially about the economic side of the changes that have come about.
I think that politically our task is to understand the desire for advance and, as has been said quite frequently in this House, not to sit on safety valves. At the same time, I think it is also equally necessary to distinguish between orderly advance and indecent scuttle. It is a dividing line not held in your Lordships' House as being difficult to understand, but by the British public here it is very indistinguishable. It is also even more indistinguishable with our great Ally the United States of America. I accept, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, has said, that we may have to go possibly at a pace faster than the absolute wisdom of the situation would demand. We have to do that. Therefore, I accept the fact that in the not far distant future we shall need to have a Government in Kenya in which the last word will be from the indigenous African. At the same time I am certain that it is the task (and I have been encouraged during this debate by various Government spokesmen) of Her Majesty's Government to see that when that last word is given it will be one at least of reason and also, we hope, of wisdom.

379
My Lords, I think it is necessary to do a short analysis, dangerous as such a generalisation may be, of the African mind. The African shows two very distinct sides of himself. One we can recognise and sympathise with and understand—namely, the desire for education and knowledge; the desire, as an African, to be treated as he should be, as a friend and fellow man regardless of his skin. But there is another side which is sometimes overlooked, a side deep in his heart which has for millennia inherently rejected civilisation. I do not think it was any accident that 65 years ago inland in Africa the draft animal, the plough or the wheel was unknown. Contact, certainly for three or four millennia before that, from the the North and East had given him that knowledge; but perhaps with wisdom—who knows?—these benefits were complications in his simple and precarious tribal life. Thus, there is a reaction, now that organic tribal life has been so much destroyed, for the African in his not ignoble tribal life was part of an organism, which was the tribe, rather than an individual and a personality. But one has seen as a result of that breakdown a partial reversion, very often based on twisted and tortuous Old Testament teaching, into secret and dangerous societies. In the twelve years I have been in Kenya I have known at least four, and that includes Mau Mau. That means that the individual is often perplexed.
I say that in our planning for the future political life of Kenya or East Africa it is necessary to take in this second side to the African's nature. It is, in fact, the European's duty in Kenya to act as a catalyst for the skills and the new advances which have become very much more apparent in the last few years than ever before. Also we have to remember what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said: that the tribal life, which is still strong, may indeed be a great danger in the future chaos that can arise unless the European in this case acts not as a catalyst but as cement between the various tribes, often, in Kenya, who are as different in their characteristics as the Swedes are from the Sicilians. We have another duty, and although this has already been stressed, I feel that as I have come from Kenya, I ought to say it again. We have old friends and people
380
with whom we made solemn treaties, such as the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the Masai people. We have many African friends who have shown incredible bravery and loyalty in the Mau Mau rebellion. There is no praise too high for the nobility of spirit which some of them have shown.
I turn to more recent politics. The New Kenya Group is a group of people of all races who have been trying to build a society in which we can work for the whole country and forget the colour of each other's faces. The noble Earl, Lord Home—though he did not mention the New Kenya Group—said that this policy of moderation is one which alone will make (I think I am right in saying this) the country work. I have only one rider to add to that. The people of other races who joined the New Kenya Group in the beginning were subjected to very great and serious intimidation. They had shown great courage, and we cannot have a policy of moderation unless intimidation can be controlled. There, too, we have a duty, as has been said, to the people, of whatever race, who have made their homes in Kenya. We have a duty, equally, to see that a country of whose achievements I personally am very proud does not recede in those achievements when self-government comes. I say that because one of the things I think we should be most proud of is the almost incredible advance which many African tribes have made in their agriculture through the work both of devoted officials and, very often, by the example and help of "un-officials"—those who are not officials.
That brings me, my Lords, to the economy of Kenya and, indeed, of East Africa as a whole. It is fashionable, especially for ambitious politicians, to say that political stability must precede economic security. I need hardly say in your Lordships' House that political advance can succeed only with economic stability; and without a prosperous middle class, which we are just in the process of establishing—and just in the earliest process of establishing in Kenya—we cannot have an advance on democratic lines which would not mean either chaos or dictatorship. The Lancaster House Conference, whatever its virtues, has left many untied ends which have made for great uncertainty

381
Here I feel a real sympathy with the African Elected Members. The "winds of change" have blown some of them into ministerial office; they have to face responsibility to a people many of whom, among the rag-tag and bobtail of the times, believed that Uhurn treatment meant no more taxes, no more police, and land just as you want it. Therefore, they are subject to tremendous pressures from their own people and from much greater extremists in the political field. Nearly all the African Elected Members realise that agriculture is the greatest source of Kenya's wealth and that the European is needed to keep it so. Like my noble friend Lord Delamere, I intend to stay in Kenya and do everything I can to help the change and to continue to earn my living there; and that is equally the view of a very large number, perhaps the great majority, of Kenya settlers. There are, however, obstacles to a sound economy. There are, first, the present uncertainties, leading to a lack of reinvestment or ploughing back of Kenya profits into Kenya. And there is a halt, owing to uncertainty, very largely gathered from the newspapers, of investments from overseas.
Finally—and this is, I think, the most important of all—there is the growing and sinister shadow of unemployment, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, earlier to-day. If we do not dispel uncertainty and encourage overseas capital and take immediate steps to deal with unemployment, the future is very black. There will be a few Europeans who will not face the changes and who will leave. My own belief is that, however much we may regret their departure as friends, that need cost us no dismay, because we need friendship and understanding with other races more than anything else.
I personally welcome the ending of land barriers. I am prepared, as I have said, as soon as those barriers are ended in Kenya to take a young African from a neighbouring tribe into partnership with me on a part of my land. But, whatever settlement is made, we must be quite certain that African settlement on underdeveloped land in the White Highlands is made for the best land use. Political decisions on economic issues will be disastrous.
We need very well and carefully thought out resettlement schemes, prob-
382
ably much more carefuly thought out than there has been time to think them out to-day. They are necessary in due course, just as much in underdeveloped tribal areas and undeveloped areas outside European and tribal land. But the greatest need now, I think, when land consolidation has grown so miraculously and successfully, is for funds for African farmers to put their own farms, now consolidated, to intensive use. It is very doubtful, except in a few undeveloped European farms, that settlement of Africans there could make the slightest difference to the unemployment issue; in fact, I believe that it will be the other way round. But the intensification of African farming—even growing 2 acres of tea on 10 acres, which is quite possible in many areas—would mean two or three more people at work on that particular area.
It may come as something of a shock to your Lordships to find that unemployment exists and is growing in alarming proportions in East Africa, and especially in Kenya. It is due, first of all, to health services and increasing expectancy of life. It is clue to a birth rate that grows as polygamy decreases. It is immediately due to the fact that 80,000 detainees, or thereabouts, have been rehabilitated and released. All this amounts to the fact that the present rate of economic expansion, let alone a halt in economic expansion, cannot absorb the growing population. While we have large bodies of people roaming about the towns and looking for work in the country, they are the fuse of the political explosion, and a great deal of agitation that takes place to-day is due to them.
I realise very well that Great Britain has many colonial commitments and cannot be expected to treat Kenya as the only pebble on the beach, but I do submit that Kenya is the key to East Africa. Her fate can affect the Rhodesias as well. She is also one of the last vital and viable strategic strongholds on the Indian Ocean. Make no mistake, my Lords, if we cannot, through British example and direct help, give economic stability to Kenya, the Communist cartel will, and all Africa, economically and politically, will be lost thereby. I also submit that if Great Britain cannot give all the assistance necessary she must encourage Europe and America to invest as well.

383
I am sometimes frightened by the latter-day attitude towards investment taken by the City of London. "Safety first!"—and I say this in all humility—seems too often to replace a policy of carefully calculated risk. Think of the danger to the merchantmen in the eighteenth century and at the turn of the eighteenth century when our commercial empire was being built up. The risks now are infinitely smaller. We must somehow break the vicious circle of investment waiting while political uncertainty continues. "Good money after bad" is an old tag, but good money after doubtful politics can often save a situation. A political takeover will be peaceful and orderly only in stable conditions. I am certain that those with courage to make big investments in Kenya, on a Kenya-Tanganyika basis, will to-day reap a reward far richer than they would by waiting for political stability which, if by a miracle it arrived, would find everybody wanting to jump on to the band waggon.
That is not sentiment from my affection for Kenya. I say it advisedly. Considering the growth of Kenya's national income, not only, in the main, from farming and plantation crops, but also from a very considerable industrial expansion in the last ten years, I think I am right in saying that the national income has trebled itself. There is a market of over 20 million people waiting in East Africa. Their productivity and standard of living are steadily rising. Once they were based, on the export side, mainly on non-African products, such as sisal and coffee; but some of the African lands in the reserves are the richest in the world and now they are beginning to be used as they should be. With our administration and the settler's help a very large part of the African population are begin-nine to emerge from subsistence farming and are growing crops of high-export value—coffee, cotton, pyrethrum and so forth. The increasing wealth they will bring in will mean that the Africans will be good customers abroad as well as in Kenya, just as Tanganyika's diamonds and Uganda's cotton and electricity are creating demands for higher trade.
To give one practical and personal example, I am closely connected with a building society in Kenya which started
384
six years ago with something like £250,000 capital. To-day, with the savings in Kenya, which include quite a large proportion by Africans, the assets of that Society are well over £6 million. I am also connected, in an even smaller way, with selling books in Kenya. We took the risk in Uganda this year, with the boycott in full blast, when life generally was very unpleasant, of buying a bookshop in Kampala. In ten months we have pretty well doubled the turnover of the previous year. That shows that there is opportunity there for those who are willing to take it. I make this plea because it is vital that something should be done to increase the economy of Kenya to the rate at which it can absorb its population.
I submit that the revolving Settlement Fund, as my noble friend has said, is the first need. This will start confidence. I submit that our local resources must be augmented at the same time in order to start wealth-producing Government investment (because at present the budget is very tight in Kenya), on roads, on tourism, on starting new forest planting and on other things such as fire-prevention, methods of preservation and increasing water resources—all wealth-producing things which will produce enduring employment and, by so doing, breed new employment. I submit again that this might well be supplemented by world services for development. After all, the U.S.A., to take one example, bears no small responsibility for the political pace at which we have gone: I think it is only fair that she should bear the burden of some of its results.
Finally, if the great finance houses of England can be encouraged to invest it will, by example, bring in hard-headed investors from Europe as well. I suggest that the Government might well guarantee a proportion of the capital invested by European finance houses in countries such as Kenya. After all, we have the precedent of the export credit scheme in days gone by, and that was not for guaranteeing to our friends but mostly to the doubtful countries. In East Africa we have people for whom we bear, as I have said, great responsibility, and this method of finance would start the flow going. I am not thinking of this sort of help for Kenya alone but for East Africa as a unit. We have our political jealousies and differences between these

385
States, but, if we are not in the same boat, at least we are in the same convoy economically. There are many opportunities, which I will not at this time enumerate to your Lordships, especially in communications between the countries and the Rhodesias.
I have come to love the country of my adoption, and I am deeply absorbed in the welfare of all its people. I am deeply pleased, too, that underneath the scum of political ferment, there is beginning to be a real friendship and understanding among the people who form what I can describe only as our Joseph's coat of many races and many tribes. This is too great a start to abandon, and too necessary as a solution, because we are a microcosm of all the world's problems and we must try to achieve that solution in full. No one knows better than I how difficult the times may be in the next few years. We shall need, apart from the business measures and political measures, most abundantly the grace of God; and here the heart of the Commonwealth we shall need to show that we have not shuffled off responsibility like an old snake skin; that we have the guts to govern with firmness and understanding, and with imagination and loyalty to our friends.
6.59 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate I should like, before passing on to give a few impressions of the wisdom of trying to apply the Westminster model to African territories, to say one or two things about the way in which the White Paper fills me with something less than enthusiasm. I assume that your Lordships probably, like me, have been struck by the almost studied ambiguity' of phrase at certain important points in this Paper. I am well aware, of course, that absolute precision at all points was not, in the circumstances, possible; but surely, when one is stating fundamental principles upon which the whole acceptability of the detailed proposals must rest, it is vital that there should be a clear relationship between the constitutional proposals and the principles which they purport to represent. Otherwise, my Lords, there is left a feeling almost of insincerity. One cannot afford, I suggest, to be vague or verbose in statements upon which men's lives, liberty and livelihood are going to
386
depend. The Conference did not have a very good start; and, as I view it, it finished with not too much goodwill and not too much good faith—which was illustrated by certain of the very imprudent public comments which were made by African leaders in various places almost immediately after the end of the Conference.
Looking at the White Paper, after a preliminary sketch of the Constitution and the personnel grouping of the Conference, we read:
"… all those who have made their homes in Kenya are entitled to make a full contribution to the work of governing their country".
In fact, of course, the proposals in paragraph 15 of the Report will, as I see it, leave Europeans and Asians as impotent minorities with no likelihood of obtaining any portfolio as a Minister. All power will be vested in Africans inexperienced in administration and chosen by an electorate which is almost entirely ignorant of the principles and practice of democracy.
Looking at paragraph 11 of the Report, we here have what, with due respect, I would call a number of high-sounding generalities about the right of each community to remain in Kenya and play a part in public life; about the spirit of mutual tolerance; and about all the other things—which, incidentally, are markedly absent. The paragraph concludes with the remark,
"… for a time the interests of minorities might have to be secured through constitutional safeguards".
My Lords, surely we have learnt in recent times that, when a country is independent, no safeguards written into the Constitution are likely to last any longer than the dominant power in the land wishes them to last. The African members, led by Messrs. Ngala, Mboya and Dr. Kiano, do not want, and do not admit that they need, any probationary experience. It is useless, to my mind, to inscribe these notices about giving them probationary experience, because they quite definitely think that they do not need it: and it is only after protracted bargaining that the three Ministers have now accepted seats in the Government—and I am very glad to see that they have had the wisdom to do so.
One point which also struck me when reading paragraph 13 with paragraph 15

387
of the White Paper was that the position of minority communities on the common roll is to be safeguarded by the reservation of twenty seats; and for these there are to be communal primary elections, of which something has been said this afternoon. The White Paper says that
"… in order to ensure that the candidates elected command the effective and genuine support within their own community",
these primary elections will be held. Then, I gather, they will be elected by the common roll community, including Africans; and it seems to me that, with the African predominance in those communities, no European (or Asian, for that matter) would have any chance of being elected unless he was persona grata with the African community. They would have the power of selecting the European who pleased them, which seems to me a weakness and a thoroughly undemocratic position.
Then, coming to the safeguards, paragraph 20, all that is written there about the judicial protection of human rights, the legally enforceable protection of the fundamental rights of the individual against the State, the independence of the Judiciary, the protection of property rights, and so on, only make valid sense, as I see it, if you can assume goodwill and good faith and a genuine belief in such principles, not only by the leaders but as engrained in the traditions and history and way of life of the bulk of the population. Those conditions, my Lords, are not present; and if the levers of power are placed in the hands of irresponsible and inexperienced leaders, whose influence is largely based on exploitation of the emotions of a primitive electorate, the result, as I see it, must be a steady return to those conditions of chaos from which European enterprise and administrative experience rescued the country in the last sixty years. It is, I suggest, not only urgent to do justice to Africans, but also to convince Europeans that they, also, are going to get fair play. There is no need for me to go into the question of the White Highlands, because it has already been dealt with this afternoon, but it seems regrettable that Mr. Mboya and others have expressly excluded them, as they stand at present, from the protection of rights, because they say those rights are and always have been in dispute.
388
The White Paper, towards its close, in paragraphs 21 and 22, urges the need for a steady increase in the number of local people, especially Africans, in the Civil Service. That, of course, is a vital necessity, in that without a competent Civil Service of integrity and ability no Government, wherever it may be, can function properly. But you cannot recruit and train a Civil Service with a wave of the hand: nor can you create the morale and traditional loyalty needed in less than a period of many years. And judging by the utterances of African leaders, I cannot believe that members of the Colonial Service would wish to accept a position in which they will be expendable in many ways, and with no guarantee, when independence comes, of fair treatment endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. May I ask, with every respect, what sane civil servant would stay to work under the presidency of Jomo Kenyatta, which we are told would occur if independence came? This is a man who has inspired horror and disgust, and certainly would not inspire respect.
My Lords, one final word on the White Paper. Paragraph 24, on page 12, refers to the Coastal Strip, and to
"… Her Majesty's Government's intention to continue for the present to discharge as hitherto its responsibilities in this matter under the existing agreement with the Sultan of Zanzibar".
This cautious statement gives rise naturally to grave apprehension when we compare what Mr. Mboya and his fellow leaders said in public. They said:
"The Coastal Strip held on lease from the Sultan of Zanzibar is part of Kenya. We intend within the shortest possible time to make sure that this Treaty between the Sultan and the British Government is abrogated."
In other words, Mr. Mboya who, in his own grandiloquent phrase, demands to be given at an early date the title deeds to his own homeland, proposes to tear up the title deeds of the Arabs of the Coastal Strip, whose ancestors have been there since before the days of Christ. That is bound to inspire apprehension of the way in which power will be used when it falls into those hands.
The question of representation, too, I suggest ought not to be forgotten. When African leaders say that they represent their people, 6 million Africans, it is, I suggest, manifestly not

389
true, because with present tribal loyalties—and the tribal loyalties and divisions are still strong in Kenya—it would be hard for any leader to say in that sweeping way that he represented that number of men not of his own tribe.
Much has been said, and, I suggest, too little is done, in this White Paper about safeguards for the European community whose home is in Kenya. But, apart from them, is the Secretary of State proposing to do nothing to save the loyal Kikuyu from the wrath to come, after he has installed in the seats of power the men who hold Jomo Kenyatta as their Messiah and already nominate him as the first President of an independent Kenya? Let us not forget that Mau Mau was more of a civil war than a rebellion or a war against Europeans, and that outside of the Kikuyu the Meru and Embu tribes have no support at all from the rest of Kenya.
I should like to say a final word about that, in view of what was said by, among others, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. One has it now on good authority that the "cult of Kenyatta" is being sedulously encouraged and is again very much alive, and intimidation is growing in all ranks of society, not excluding members of the Legislative Council. The African loyalist now, I hear from several sources, is being reduced to the position of a pariah in his own community. Medals, loyalist badges and other insignia denoting past allegiance to the Crown are too dangerous to be worn. In the face of these facts, it is to me a little difficult to hail the White Paper as a triumph for moderation.
But judgment of the proposed new Constitution obviously must rest upon whether there is faith in the intentions of the African Elected Members, and time only now will show that. It seems to me that they have talked perhaps rather loosely and too freely about their intentions, and it may be that the responsibility of accepting office now will induce a wiser frame of mind. When noble Lords opposite say the time must come when we shake hands with Kenyatta., and they compare him with various leaders in the past in other countries, are they not being a little unreas-
390
onable in that comparison? It is only a few days ago that there was the seventh anniversary of the Lari massacre in Kenya, where 150 men, women and children were massacred in cold blood by the followers of this leader who it is suggested should now be taken back into the fold. I personally am unable to sympathise with any such future.
I would ask noble Lords to consider whether advance along the lines of this White Paper is likely to produce the tolerance needed to make the Westminster model of Western democracy a workable proposition in Kenya. I do not think so. Universal suffrage and all the institutional paraphernalia of Western democracy will not work in the plural societies of Africa unless the fundamental ideas and mental attitudes, the principles and tolerances which have inspired their use with us, are widely held by the people concerned. As I see it, the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy is not suitable for export to most of these societies of Africa. Recent examples have shown that the recipients will rapidly adapt it to their own nature and beliefs, and that the result will hear little or no resemlance to democracy as we define it.
I read recently in an East African paper an article in which this point is examined, and the conclusion of that article is one with which I agree. To suppose that you can at will accelerate the speed of democratic practices in a country where there are communities at stages of evolution separated by a thousand years, religions and ethics which, at their lower levels at least, possess no common ground, and peoples as widely different ethnically as Europeans, Arabs, Sikhs, Gujeratis, Hamites, Nilotics and Bantu—to suppose this is to live in a world of fantasy. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said this afternoon, many of these countries are just inventions of our own or other colonial Powers, lines drawn on a map often through the middle of tribal areas. It is asking rather a lot in so short a time to ask an accidental agglomeration of tribes like that to become a nation and to work a democracy as complex as our model. The result, I suggest, is likely to be one more despotic Government in Africa.

391
The author of the article to which I am referring asked the question:
"What kind of development is likely to secure 'good government' in our sense for Kenya?"
And the answer to that is that it cannot yet be an African-dominated Government. For there is no sign yet that those Africans who might have the mental equipment necessary for the responsibility of government subscribe to the public philosophy which would impel them to govern with a sense of responsibility for all races, tribes and communities, not only for their own. Moreover, even a group of adequately endowed men at the top cannot give one democracy. The whole nation has to be permeated from top to bottom with certain beliefs and principles which are familiar to us and, incidentally, took us 700 years of natural, unforced growth. Democracy, if it means anything at all, must represent the unfettered will of a whole people, and not the whim or the enlightened philosophy of a handful of men at the top.
There is another quotation I should like to make. Mr. Mboya told us that what he stood for and what he wanted at an early date was "undiluted democracy" in Kenya; and that spells African dictatorship. There are, in my view, only two choices. One is to retain control indefinitely and accelerate education in its widest sense, especially at the lower levels of local government and co-operative groups of social, trading and administrative nature, until the principles of democracy have become endemic. The other is just to drop the burden—the tired Titan unequal to the legacy of his race. I suggest that the time has come to look destiny in the face, as the noble Marquess suggested to us this afternoon. Let us be honest in our decision, and do not let us blame the faceless miracle of mass ignorance known as world opinion. Let us face the situation from our own point of view, and from our own knowledge and experience.
I have taken up overmuch of your Lordships' time, but the subject is one of such immense importance that it is difficult to compress one's thoughts within the brief span of a speech in your Lordships' House. I should like to conclude, if I may, with one quotation from the postscript to Lord Radcliffe's book containing
392
his Reith Memorial Lectures on "The Problem of Power". It runs like this:
"It would be a fatal thing for the future of England if we were in course of time to lose our character, which we have prized too little, and to preserve our institutions, which we greatly over praise… I do indeed doubt whether the English, who so deeply misunderstand their own point, have not proved but poor guides to those many other countries now burning with political self-consciousness, with whom they have been associated over the last expansive century, and upon whom they have so honestly tried to confer some of the benefits which they conceive themselves to possess. Constitutional forms and legal systems are very well in their way, but they are the costumes for the men who wear them. Their sober shapes can be seen performing the strangest antics, unless the people inside them have a real grasp of the civil ideas which they are designed to express. And those ideas are conceived in terms of human character and human purpose and they have no significance without them."
Those are words on the Westminster model from an authority such as Lord Radcliffe. Speaking myself as an administrator, and one who has had some experience of trying to work these things in African and other conditions, I realise how fantastic in some ways it is, when one is trying to plan in a country something which one knows is at that stage quite unsuitable for the climatic conditions.
I know that Kenya problems must be dealt with in the context of trends throughout the whole Continent of Africa, where, incidentally, there are upwards of 50 artificially erected states and islands. It is a staggering problem if you reflect on it. We are not dealing with nations who grew naturally. We are dealing largely with nations who are our own artificial production, and regard must be had, we are told from many sources—and we have been told recently, in very convincing words, by Mr. Antony Head in another place—to the allure and threat of Communism. But I do not believe, as the American Government seems at times to think, that Communism will be defeated by giving to self-appointed African leaders all they ask, or that extended monetary support will produce models of democracy and apostles of freedom. It does not work that way. So much attention is being paid to the political and economic aspects of government, that the vital importance of a sound administration and

393
a reliable Civil Service is apt to be overlooked. But I suggest to your Lordships that that is just as important as economics and politics. Apart from the overwhelmingly important problem of human relationships, Africa is full of problems, natural and imported, which range from erosion, poor soil, lack of water, the tsetse fly, malaria, and the whole list of diseases which afflict man and beast, on to world Communism, world Socialism, Egypt, Pan-Africanism, the Afro-Asian Movement and the Africa Committee.
I believe, and to that extent agree with Mr. Macleod, that you cannot solve the problem of a Continent with a blueprint. In each section, and almost in every one of the present territorial divisions, wisdom would call for very different pace and pattern of political development. I venture to think that both the pace and the pattern indicated in this White Paper are wrong in present Kenya condition, without any reflections, may I add, as to what may be right or wrong in other circumstances elsewhere in Africa. In any case, the White Paper represents the next step. It has been said in classic literature that even the gods cannot recall their gifts, and I would ask Her Majesty's Government never to forget that. So I conclude with a hope that Her Majesty's Government will see to it that many of the high-sounding pronouncements of principle, and so forth, contained in this White Paper, are given effect, without which those protestations have very little value.
7.28 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are accustomed to sustaining an African debate during the dinner hour usually receive the same fare—the oil of optimism from me, and the vinegar of pessimism from the noble Lord who has just spoken. He has once again stimulated us with some vinegar and I shall proceed. I hope, to sooth you with some oil, the oil of optimism.
I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government most sincerely on the Report of the Kenya Conference. The Constitution which has emerged from it seems to me to be the most hopeful Constitution that has yet been proposed for Kenya. I sincerely hope (and I say this in no personal sense) that it
394
will not be known as the Macleod Constitution, but that it will be known generally as the 1960 Constitution. And that, I believe, would be the wish of the Secretary of State himself. For who can know better than he that this Constitution has not been imposed on Kenya? It has been worked out by a Conference of Kenyans over which he presided. It is not the slab of imposition; it is the fruit of agreement, and it is for that reason that I take a hopeful view of it. To me it would seem that the terrible problems which have faced Kenya during the last decade have received the careful thought and concern of men of good will of all the races living there, with the result that I believe the future of Kenya to be brighter than that of some other African countries usually regarded as happier.
Here I should like to pay a tribute to the adaptability shown by the settlers of Kenya. If anybody had told me when I was visiting Kenya twelve years ago that within a few years there would be African Ministers in the Government of Kenya, with the tacit consent of a majority of the white settlers, I should have found it difficult to believe. If anyone had told me that that would happen in spite of the settlers and others, all the inhabitants of the country, having to suffer an ordeal so terrible as that of Mau Mau, I should have found it impossible to believe. This achievement, the achievement of agreement by three out of four Parties from Kenya on a Constitution for the immediate future, is an achievement that reflects the greatest credit upon all the parties concerned. And among them I think we should pay tribute to the African delegates. It is not only white men who have had to show restraint. The same quality has been required, and I suggest has been shown, by African delegates at the recent Conference. This "wind of change" is something that had been noticed by them long before it has been noticed here. They have for a great many years been thinking that the speed of their political advancement was much, much too slow.
They have repeatedly been told that they must not think about countries in other parts of Africa which have been granted independence because the local conditions make the situation in Kenya entirely different. But is that so? It would seem to me that the wind of

395
change should always be followed by the word which I think followed it in the famous speech, the word "throughout"—the wind that is blowing throughout Africa. And it is no longer any good for people whose minds are still soaked in the outlook of the nineteenth century to say to the people of Kenya, of Southern Rhodesia, of Nyasaland, of Algeria, "Yes, of course the time will come when you shall decide for yourselves what form of government you will have, but we cannot have speed in a cool climate." Which are the parts of Africa that have had swift constitutional advance? They are the parts not where agitators are hot but where the climate is hot, and we who have educated Africans all over the Continent in precisely the same way, fostering in them the same aspirations, teaching them the same beliefs about human dignity, about democracy, about patriotism, have to recognise that our pupils learn these lessons whether the climate is hot or whether the climate is cool.
It is a most extraordinary thing that anybody should have written to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, suggesting that political advance in Kenya is likely to lead to the decay of law and order. Which are the parts of the Continent where law and order has already decayed? We have criticisms of Ghana. Even I have criticisms of Ghana. We are not wholly happy about the future of Nigeria. Even the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, would admit to anxieties about Nigeria.
LORD MILVERTON: If I may interrupt, certainly not.
LORD HEMINGFORD: The noble Lord has no anxieties about Nigeria?
LORD MILVERTON: None whatever.
LORD HEMINGFORD: I am delighted to find that the vinegar is being affected by the oil. I have some anxieties about Nigeria. It is a very large country, and to get the kind of unity that a nation requires in a very large country with provinces of different traditions and types is difficult. Whilst I believe that the Nigerians will succeed in their great project, one cannot help—at least I cannot help—having some anxieties for Nigeria. But though I have criticisms of Ghana
396
and have anxieties about Nigeria, those are only speculations about the future. Where is it that we have been dismayed by finding law and order already broken down? In Ghana? No. In Nigeria? No. In Tanganyika? No. Although Tanganyika is so close to Kenya and its climate not wholly dissimilar, there has been no decay there. The countries where there has been decay in law and order are those where the majority of the people have been doubtful as to whether they were to have the opportunity of governing themselves.
In thinking of the type of Government that they are to have it is useless for us to spend much time on planning particular Constitutions, for—here I am in entire agreement with my noble friend Lord Milverton—it has been proved time and again that constitutional safeguards are of no certain value once a country has achieved its independence. There is only one safeguard, and that is the safeguard of good will. I suggest that this is the age of internationalism—the age in which people know what is going on in other countries. People are affected by what is going on in other countries, and if the world is to have any happy future, people have to learn to live together and to co-operate. We know that it is easy to say words of that kind and most difficult to carry them out in practice. It is for that reason—and especially for that reason—that I have the respect for the Kenya settlers which I have already voiced. They have shown, as have the Africans and the Asians, sufficient good will to agree on a Constitution for Kenya. They have done so under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State. The Government are to be congratulated and Kenya is to be congratulated.
7.42 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to make my speech. I have, however, a couple of small points which I think have not been made, one of which at any rate I should press upon Her Majesty's Government. The first was raised originally by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and subsequently by several noble Lords; it concerned the applicability of the Westminster model to various communities with entirely different backgrounds. To this I would

397
say only one thing—namely, that we have taught these communities, where they live within the Commonwealth, to believe that the supreme and perfect specimen of democratic institution is our institution here in Westminster, and however wise we may be, that is the institution on which they wish to model their own, and they will not be satisfied—indeed they will be suspicious that they are being cheated—if we give them anything else. Therefore we have, I submit, to give them the Westminster model. We have also, I think, and for the same reasons, but not only for the same reasons, to give them universal suffrage. I was a little dismayed by the most reverend Primate. It seemed to me that it was an odd sentiment to hear from the Archbishop that universal suffrage was not a principle but merely an expedient. To me it seemed the other way—an expression of the principle of human equity which I believe the Church upholds.
The point I really wish to make and which has not been made is in relation to the elections which will be held under this Constitution. We are given to understand that the elections cannot be held before March of next year, and probably not until June, one of the difficulties being, I understand, that no register has been made in Kenya since 1948. But this is a long time and, it seems to me, a most dangerous time. Obviously, there is a state of considerable tension in Kenya at the present time. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, is no longer here, as I should have liked to ask him whether he would not agree that all those who have taken part in this Conference in London will be under considerable and varied pressures when they get back to Kenya—not only the Africans but also the Europeans, and probably the Asians: those who agreed to this Constitution.
To my mind, their agreement is the strikingly important thing which has come out of the Conference, because without this agreement the Constitution could not have been introduced without being imposed, and an imposed Constitution is already at a great disadvantage. But I am convinced that all those leaders of their communities will be "shot at" by the extremists on either side, and I believe it is desirable that the time between now and the next elections
398
should be the shortest possible. After all, in Tanganyika a new Constitution was decided on in December last, and they are to have their elections in September next. I cannot help wondering whether this could not be expedited in Kenya. For this reason I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings—and indeed with every other speaker—in the matter of the franchise, because so far from wishing to narrow the franchise it seems to me that from the point of view of making the register it would be much easier if in fact universal suffrage was introduced. Frankly, where you have reserved seats I cannot see why you are so ready to have any limitation of the franchise at all.
In passing, may I ask—perhaps the noble Earl can tell me—what is the reason (because I cannot find it in the White Paper, and it does not at any rate spring to my own mind) for the National Members? I have nothing particularly against them, but equally I have nothing in their favour that I can think of. Are they just a hangover from the previous Constitution, in which there were what I think were called the Specially Elected Members?
All the speeches in support of this Constitution have stressed the need for co-operation. Kenya is the scene of possibly the most difficult problem in Africa, that of a multi-racial community. This can be a source of appalling trouble. Many troubles have already arisen from this source. It can also be a source of strength. It can be a source from which all the many races can draw inspiration. By their inter-relationship and their contacts they can bring forth something new, something fresh, something good. I hope that the necessary co-operation will be forthcoming, that this transitional period will be got through safely, that the Constitution will work successfully and that independence will be attained very quickly.
7.48 p.m.
LORD WRENBURY: My Lords, my reason for speaking in this debate is simply that I have a great many Kenya friends, and I have a suspicion that possibly their point of view, certainly in our national Press and in discussions that one hears in general, is not always put, although I think that it has been put in

399
this House to-day. I have tried to imagine myself as one of the white settlers here to-day, and I felt, certainly when the noble Marquess was speaking and also when the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, was speaking, that they would have heaved a sigh of relief and said, "Thank goodness, there are at least two people who really understand our point of view!" Conversely, I think that of a number of other speakers they would have said, "My goodness, I wish I could get them on to my farm! I should like to see that noble Lord checking, or trying to get the milk record checked, with African labour, or running the farm. Yet he apparently feels that a Constitution on the Westminster model is still workable."
As your Lordships will observe, I am speaking from the Cross-Benches. I am not reactionary, nor do I believe that the white settlers are reactionary in their standpoint; but I think that they are much more concerned with the practical working out of this new Constitution, and that it is not very helpful to them to use phrases such as those which have been used—saying that the future of Kenya is in the hands of the people of Kenya, that we must have mutual confidence and that everybody must play their part in unity. Nobody would deny that that is perfectly true and that we must try to do these things. But we must give them a Constitution which has some hope of carrying out those things, and I feel that in the present proposals we are possibly moving too fast.
I want to draw a distinction between the white settler, the farmer who owns acres of land in Kenya, and the European who is out there on a Government contract, as an administrator; because it has been said that these proposals have the tacit consent of Europeans there. While I accept that the farmers are people who would do all they possibly could to make the proposals work, I am not sure whether, in terms of mere numbers, we are not getting their point of view diluted by those who are out there for commercial reasons and administering in the field.
The other point I would make is that I hope Her Majesty's Government are, so to speak, in touch with farmers in Kenya, for this reason. When I first went out there I was told that in the
400
early days, before district officers and district commissioners were so busy, it used to be a common thing for them to drop in for breakfast or lunch and to swap gossip with the farmers. I was further told that it was one of the pities of modern Kenya that there was no time to do that now, with the result that the link-up between the administration and the settler was now very much less than it used to be. I was in Kenya before, during and after Mau Mau, and certainly during my time it was disturbing to hear the acid comments of Kenya farmers on how very ill-informed the Administration were. The farmers claimed, rightly or wrongly, to have told the Government, in perfectly plain terms, that Mau Mau was on its way and to have been disbelieved. Some of the most successful operations against Mau Mau were conducted by the Kenya settlers themselves because they were competent to speak the language and knew the land.
I am most anxious that we should be sympathetic to the point of view of the Kenya settler, because, unless I got a very unrepresentative cross section of opinion, I believe a great many of them feel that the only thing that is keeping them there is the fact that they cannot sell their farms except at a cut-rate price; and unless more confidence can be engendered there will be disastrous results for the Colony. Mr. Peter Marrian is reported in The Times to have said that 80 per cent. of the country's exports are from agriculture and 94 per cent. of those are European—although presumably that percentage will go down as African production gets up.
What impressed me, however, was that certainly when I went out in 1952 settlers were saying that they regarded their children as Kenyans and intended, if possible, to try to avoid sending them back to this country for education. Certainly, in short, they were talking about being Kenyans. But the last time I was out there, after Mau Mau, their attitude was entirely different, and I am afraid it can be summed up only in the words: "Anybody who can get out would be well advised to do so."
I believe there are various elements which could give confidence to the people who are out there now. First, there is the importance of sympathy and

401
showing that one understands their point of view and the difficulties they are having to put up with. Secondly, I think it is absolutely essential to make clear that tub-thumping is not going to weigh in any way with Her Majesty's Government. Just because Mr. Tom Mboya and other people go back and give the impression that the recent Conference is likely to lead to a purely temporary Constitution, Her Majesty's Government should come out strongly against that and make clear that the Constituticn is something which will last for some time.
In my rôle as a pseudo-Kenya settler, listening from the sidelines and deciding the future of my hypothetical farm, I should not have been altogether satisfied, or prepared to make many future plans, on the assurance given to us by the noble Earl, Lord Home. I believe one ought, perhaps, to look at this almost on the lines on which the Chancery Court act when they are deciding about a variation of a settlement. We must have the rights of all parties before us, minorities as well as those with the principal interests; and the decision should be firmly and fairly decided without any pressure from outside, either by people or by any feeling that the tide cannot be held back and that therefore we had better bow to the inevitable because it is coming sooner or later. I believe that that is a terribly dangerous point of view.
Another thing which, I believe, would give confidence to Kenya farmers is some definite lead or assurance about Jomo Kenyatta. I see that a delegation went to see the Governor on March 23, suggesting that Kenyatta should be released. In spite of what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I can see absolutely no justification for that. The noble Viscount's argument appeared to be based on the fact that because, in the past, murderers had been shaken by the hand, we should take that as a precedent. I have never understood why German generals who were responsible for most ghastly atrocities in the last war should be going round Germany to-day, and much the same argument applies to Kenyatta. I cannot see why expedience should overrule justice.
Another point which is certainly worrying many of my correspondents in
402
Africa now is what kind of protection is being given to loyal Africans—quite apart from Europeans. That point, I think, was mentioned certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and it is something that they mind about very much. Quite honestly, Mau Mau would never have been rooted out without them. The only way you could tell the difference between a Mau Mau chap and an ordinary loyal Kikuyu was by the loyal Africans telling you who the Mau Mau were, so at least a deep debt of gratitude is due to these people and we must see that they are properly protected. Clearly, they are not in a position to pull out of Africa, whatever the Europeans' position is, and we must see that they are not taken racing down the hill to destruction without some proper safeguards being given to them.
I feel that in regard to the new Constitution some explanation should be given of why it is coming so fast. I dare say it is perfectly obvious, but I see that the present Constitution was promulgated on April 3, 1958; and on April 22, 1959, the present Conference was called to consider the next stage. Perhaps there were reasons for that, but it suggests to me, and I am sure it suggests to Tom Mboya, that the present stage is not going to last very much longer than that. I agree that the right criterion is to see how things go, but at the same time if one is in the position of somebody thinking of investing funds in Kenya or of somebody with funds invested in Kenya wondering whether it is worth while to keep them there, it is not much comfort to find that the present state of things, which is definable, is going to be superseded in eighteen months' time by something about which you know nothing at all except that it will be a "further stage on the road of progress", and that therefore there will be loss of control by the responsible members of the community.
A further point is the need to avoid an ignorant electorate. There has been a great deal said about the Westminster pattern this afternoon. I am afraid that I am one of those who feel that the Westminster pattern is not suitable in all its aspects for exporting to Kenya. I do not think that one should be intimidated by the challenge of the Governor, Sir Patrick Renison, that nobody has been able to think of anything better,

403
and that therefore this is the best thing in the circumstances.
I should like to tell your Lordships a story I have heard from a Kenya correspondent who says that an African recently called at a house in Nairobi and, when asked what he wanted, said he would pay "twenty-five shillings to have first choice of your house". What had happened was that an African gentleman had said, "Well, of course, Uhuru is due to be declared at any time now, and all these houses will be vacant, and I will sell them to you for twenty-five shillings at the auction. I am also told that all the cars in the shop windows in Nairobi will be sold at auction for about ten or twenty shillings." It is, as one would say in the law, a case of res ipsa loquitur. I would say that if one has people of that sort of mentality one wants to be careful whether they are capable of reading their own language. I do not know, but they might be excluded in any case. However, I feel that one wants a Constitution which will ensure that people who can be taken advantage of in that way are not taken advantage of by political leaders.
I do not want what I have been saying to be taken as an unmitigated criticism of the Report. I have concentrated on the passages which can perhaps most easily be criticised, because so much has been said in its favour. Quite clearly, the question of safeguards and what is said about them will be very welcome to all the Kenya farmers, as also will be what is said about financial aid—because I take it that that financial aid will be available to both white and black according to their proper needs. Perhaps most of all I welcome the proposal for localisation of the Civil Service. On the question of suffrage I should like to say how very much I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, because I do not believe that Africans have birth certificates. Certainly when I tried to get a licence for my driver out there it was impossible because he did not know how old he was. Therefore, on the face of it, to say that all people over forty are to have the vote would appear to be, from a practical point of view, very difficult.
I should also like to know whether they are supposed to be able to read Swahili or Kikuyu or Masai, or what
404
ever their tribal language is, because I can see that to be any use as an elector a man must be able to read a national newspaper. I do not believe the national newspapers are going to be printed in Kikuyu or Masai or Kamba. I should suppose they will be printed in Swahili, and that that is, or should be, the operative language. I also feel that £75 as the income qualification is remarkably low, because even when I was out there a year or two ago the minimum wage in Mombasa was something like 95s. a month, which was not far short of £60 a year. So that £75 is going to let in Most of the people who are in good domestic service jobs, regardless of education.
I must admit that I think making Constitutions is rather like making a suit of clothes. One can say without hesitation, "This is a jolly good suit of clothes," or "jolly good Constitution." But the one remaining factor is: does it fit the person it is meant for? With the best will in the world I cannot see that the suggested Constitution is going to be right for the people it is meant for, even with maximum good will on the part of all parties concerned. I should have preferred to see the seats on the community basis kept as they were under the Lennox-Boyd Constitution and the common roll seats on a more exclusive franchise on this basis; that for the common roll vote qualification would be according to the amount of tax paid rather than the amount of income earned. It seems to me that the contribution made to the country's economy is important; that the educational standard should be much as it was before, or perhaps even a higher one; and that the third qualification should be headmen and other local leaders, or distinguished Government servants who render public service in that way.
On that basis, some people would have two votes, but the people voting on the community basis—those of the lower franchise—would be voting for their own countrymen. So, whether they knew anything about politics or not, they would say, "Mboya is the sort of chap I like", and they would vote for him, regardless of what the issues were; whereas the more intelligent people, who would be voting on a common roll basis as well as on a community basis, and therefore wielding

405
more power, would have the necessary knowledge to guide them in the right choice. At any rate, that system would have the germs of change in it, in that Africans would strive to better themselves, educationally and otherwise, in order to qualify for the second vote. Then, as they did so, so the number of African seats in the Legislative Council would increase, and the thing would be self-generic instead of being that frightful jump which has caused so much concern to people now.
My Lords, I am sorry to have taken so much time. Everything I have said has been said with considerable humility, because there are so many experts here that I almost did not say anything at all. Nevertheless, I felt that it was important to say something on behalf of the settlers; and I should like to end by quoting from a letter written by a very great friend of mine, who lives out there and has brought up a family out there, and who is one of the Kenya settlers of whom Britain can be very proud. She feels that the thing has got too much for her. This is what she says:
"I am selling cows as quickly as I can. I want to have as little on the farm as possible. I always hoped to die leaving my farm a worthwhile one for my family or Africans, but the future looks too grim for words. In ten years it will be chaos, with no Christian standards, governed by a people with a background of witchcraft and Mau Mau oaths. It is very hard lines on the Christian native and the loyalists, who now go in fear of their lives. I only hope some firebrand will not stir up the Masai, the Samburker, the Coast people, and a few other tribes up north, who have no love for Kikuyus and have no intention of being governed by them. They were proud of being under the English Queen, poor things! What has happened to England's standards?"
The only point I want to emphasise there is that the writer of that letter is not thinking of the Europeans only but of the Africans as well; and I think the letter speaks for itself.
8.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, if he will allow me to say so, I think the most illuminating part of the noble Lord's speech was the anecdote about the African and the house, because it showed that there are confidence men in all races, and perhaps the Africans are not so different from us after all. I should like to take up only one or two points, because so much has been said this
406
afternoon. On the question of leaders, I think the noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, must have misunderstood my noble friend Lord Stansgate about Kenyatta. I understood Lord Stansgate to say that we would have to negotiate in the end with Kenyatta because he is one of the leaders of the Kikuyu people, and as such he would be the person with whom we would have to negotiate.
I think we underestimate the intelligence of the Africans. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said that unless voters can think for themselves they become a prey to demagogues. Of course, what is a demagogue and what is a leader rather depends on which side you are on and which side he is on; but I think, with great humility (because I am no anthropologist, and I have no African experience, but I have heard this from those who are expert), that the African is by no means unable to think for himself. He may not have been able to read; he may not have invented the wheel, and all the rest that we hear about; but most African races, before we came and upset it all, had a tribal organisation that had a good many elements of what we call democracy in it, and which required a pretty high standard of judgment, intelligence and independence from the individual tribesman, the individual person. Lord Salisbury appeared to think that, because Africans lived in mud huts and had none of the skills that we have acquired, they were therefore unfit to have the vote—and that, I thought, was the strain that ran through a good many of the speeches this afternoon.
One other point that I should like to take up is from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. Early on he said that there are two essentials that we must keep before us in bringing the African peoples forward on the road to self-government. He said that the first was law and order, and the second was the liberty of the individual. Surely there is a third, is there not? If we think the individual needs his liberty, if we value the individual, surely he must have the right to determine his own future. He must have a say in his own Government; and that is what it is all about. I was surprised that the noble Lord left out what is at least of equal importance, I think, with the two principles that he mentioned.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I just intervene for a moment to say that my worry is that the man in the street (to put it like that) will get the sort of Government which will suppress his liberty, and that is what we have to avoid.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: He has to get the Government first, and that is where we say he is not a full individual. Frankly, from this side of the House I think I can say that we do not regard the road to self-government as complete unless there is "one man, one vote". That may be a slogan, but it is a very simple and elementary truth, following on from our belief in the fact that the individual is the important thing.
May I end with a warning and a hope? Several noble Lords talked about acceleration, and hoped the Government would not accelerate the process. My Lords, it is not a question of using the accelerator but of using the brake—of how hard you put the brake on—because the desire for self-government and political advance is there. We implanted it and we encouraged it, and we have committed ourselves to the ultimate goal of self-government for all our dependent territories. But if we try to keep the brake on too hard, we have warnings before us in other parts of Africa where there are plural societies. I was not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Home, was saying that East and Central Africa were unique in being plural societies. Surely the big fact to keep before our eyes is that Algeria and the Union of South Africa are plural societies, and it is just because they have mismanaged their affairs that we see what could happen if the brake were kept on too hard.
Finally, I would say that there are grounds for hope, not the least of which was the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth. The noble Earl belongs to a political group which I understand is gaining strength and is committed to a policy of racial tolerance and good will. I believe that that is where there is plenty of ground for hope, and Her Majesty's Government are well justified in pursuing the results of the Conference. We hope that many people who have interests, land and so on in Kenya will not sell out, but will agree to carry on whatever the colour of the skins of the Ministers in power, because, as the noble Lord,
408
Lord Hemingford, said, what is required is that there should be good will between the races. That applies also to the officials in the administration and, as they are now called, the expatriate officials serving in Kenya. We hope that they will go on and give the new Government the benefit of their experience. With those signs of good will I think there is every hope, and we support the right honourable gentleman the Colonial Secretary in his efforts.
8.22 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Hastings for instituting this debate. It has been one that I think none of us will forget for a long time. I am sure that one of the things we shall remember is the extraordinary unanimity that has been shown, on both sides of the House, on all major points. It struck me as being a very thoughtful House, still waters proverbially running deep. We were fortunate to hear the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, and to have also back with us from Kenya the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth. Anybody who heard their speeches, and anybody who reads them to-morrow, should, I think, feel that the bogy is laid for ever of the hysterical, greedy, grasping, myopic Kenya settler. The views that they put forward are, I understand, the views held by the great majority of those who farm with them in Kenya.
I think that in this House, so far as the Europeans, Asians and Africans go, we can see all sides of the question, and we can see, and sympathise with, their difficulties. Tributes have been paid to the Europeans in Kenya. Indeed, they built up the country for the good of all and to the detriment of none. They have prospered since the war and they are now caught up in this crisis of confidence and a political issue. When I first went to Kenya 26 years ago there was no political crisis at all, but there was an economic crisis of the first order: sisal sold at £11 a ton, coffee at £25 a ton, and it was difficult to make a living. They have seen every kind of storm, economic, political and otherwise, and they have gone on doggedly doing their job, building up that country; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, we have a moral obligation to them which I think

409
no one on either side of the House has denied.
It is quite plain that the majority of the Kenya settlers accept the idea that the Africans must have a larger and larger share in the government of the country and the only thing they feel is what we all feel—that is, that as they get a larger share so must they show a commensurate responsibility and restraint in the use of it. The African political Parties in that country have grown up in just the same way as new political Parties in all new countries in the Commonwealth. You start off not with a leader and a Party; you start off, in fact, with what are leaders and followers. You have it all to yourself because no one wants to listen to moderation and the agitation leader has the hustings at his entire command. So long as you are talking, and so long as you do not accept office, you have power without any responsibility of any kind. In Africa, also, there is something that does not exist in quite the same way as in most other countries—the extraordinary feeling of haste. The Africans grow older much more quickly than we do, and somehow it seems a faster race with time. Five years hence seems a long way off to an African, and ten years almost unthinkable.
I must say that my heart was lightened enormously this morning when I read in the newspapers that three Africans had decided to take the responsibility of Government portfolios: in other words, to come out from the privileged position of irresponsibility to the highly shot-at positions of members of a Government. I give them the highest marks. I also give the highest marks to Mr. Abalemba, who has had a lonely, isolated period as the only African Minister for some time past, a post he has discharged with the greatest skill and one in which he has incurred a great deal of criticism.
In this crisis of confidence, which we hope we are going to see ameliorated, it is always worth remembering that when politics and economics ever clash politics always wins. With new Parties coming to power, and with new leaders, you will have a lot of fiery talk and refusal to compromise. You get that in any country. But it matters almost more in Africa, because the flashpoint of Africa
410
is very low and it does not require a large spark to set off a very large blaze.
Kenya is immensely important economically to the whole of that part of the world. Mombasa is not merely a port of Kenya, but is the port of Uganda; and it is also the port for certain parts of Northern Tanganyika. Nairobi is the undisputed commercial capital of the British East African territories. We are seeing now an unwillingness for capital to go in there, and capital they must have. Capital to my mind—though we were chided by my noble friend Lord Portsmouth with being a little timid in the City of London about capital—runs rather like a river: it will run in the channels which are prepared for it and in which it can maintain its momentum. In a place like Kenya, having poured in there in the past, it can pour out again and dry up completely. One thing it cannot do is to go to any country where it is unlikely to receive a just treatment. Like water, it cannot flow uphill. The onus is on all the races to show that they can work together so that Kenya is a creditworthy country. On that a great deal depends.
A lot has been said about the "wind of change", and the word "nationalism" has been used a great deal. In many ways the trouble in Kenya is that it is not nationalism. Nationalism is really possible only in countries of homogeneous peoples. Nationalism is possible only when you have a feeling of nationality. That is something which Europeans in Kenya have. To have a feeling of nationality about Britain is natural for them. It is a difficult thing for the African, who is much more often apt to think of his race or his tribe. I have always imagined that Dr. Nkrumah changed the name of the Gold Coast to Ghana, because the Gold Coast was an entity which could not be easily grasped, and "Ghana" had some heredity in their history and was a name which they could grasp. Whatever happens, government must go on, and government will go on within the framework of the Civil Service, whose task it is to keep the wheels turning. We pay them an unstinted tribute. They are a curious British mixture of idealism and common sense. We cannot Africanise them overnight. We have been trying for a long time to get the

411
first ones in, and we have them in, but it depends on education. After all, those of us in this House who went to preparatory school, public school and a university, took thirteen years getting educated. Education is rather a slow process. By all means let us hasten it, if we can, by speeding up educational facilities.
Last of all, of the "Westminster model". I cordially agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, said about everybody wanting a Westminster because they regard it as the finest model of government. I did not agree with the rest of what he said. Shorn of all its trappings, what does this "Westminster" democracy mean? Surely it means government by respect for the other man's point of view; the acceptance of compromise as part of politics. Have we not on all sides of this House accepted compromises? Ten years ago this present day's debate would have seemed unlikely, and twenty years ago unthinkable. Last of all it is the acceptance, in principle, of the Government alternating from one set of hands to another.
At Lancaster House it has been claimed that a new feeling of Kenya nationality was born. The further step taken by those three Africans mentioned in this morning's newspapers I believe was a far-reaching one. I believe, as the most reverend Primate believes, that there is hope and real hope in Kenya. It can never be a melting pot. It must always exist by the recognition of, and respect for, the differences of others. If those races can work together—and they did against Mau Mau, which was a unifying force and not a disruptive one—then, indeed, there is tremendous hope, so long as both sides see the need for the acceptance of compromise—and there is every sign of it. But let us not take our next step until we are quite sure that we are treading on ground that we know is firm; and that is common ground.
8.33 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain your Lordships long. We have had an interesting debate and a number of very good speeches, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who has just
412
sat down. It seems to me that there has been fairly broad agreement in the House with the exception, perhaps, of the noble Marquess who, I think, gave every argument against political reform which has been used since 1832. I do not think you can do that to-day. It has been said that a wind is blowing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, was quite right in saying that it is wrong to describe it as nationalism. I should term it Africanism. Just as you have the same breeze blowing right across Asia, so there is the consciousness of the African's need for a place in the sun.
I speak with no authority whatever on the African problem. I have been only a little way into Africa, but I think there are some things one can learn from the history of our build-up of the Commonwealth. The first is this. You will always find that a people wanting reform want it to go quicker than it can. That is one of the difficulties with an interim Constitution. The tendency is for them always to think of the next Constitution, and not to try to work the one they have. I saw that quite a lot in India. I think it is of importance that when this Constitution comes in they should have some successes—that is to say, that constitutional change wants to be backed up with a big economic drive. Sometimes we make a mistake by retaining in our own hands the unpleasant side of government and giving all the pleasant sides to the others. I think that makes only for irresponsibility.
I agree with what has been said about the courage of those members who have taken office. There is a tendency for everybody else to say, "We would have done much better than you. You have gone back on us." They need to be backed up, and they need to be able to do things. I am glad to see the financial proposals in this White Paper, because they have got to be given their chance. I am not much surprised by the argument for the restriction of franchise. I have never found that the possession of a certain amount of money necessarily made for an equal proportion of political sense—quite often the other way. Nor do I believe that because a person cannot read the Daily Mail he is politically unintelligent. After all, we have enfranchised many people who could not read and write but who speak a great

413
deal of common sense. Take the example of India. That was a big leap in the dark. We franchised an enormous, illiterate population. But it worked. They had an election. The important thing is that it gives those people the chance at some time or other of being able to use that vote. Exclude people from the vote, even though they cannot all use the vote very wisely, and it is unconstitutional action. After all, a great many people do not use the vote very wisely in this country.
The suggestion is that you cannot learn by talking, but you can learn only by reading. There is a great deal more sense spoken in the workshop or the "pub" than you get from a great many newspapers. If they have this vote, then they may talk about it; and if they have not, they will not talk about it, and perhaps they will not think about it. This is a tremendous step for a multi-racial community. It is an experiment fraught with tremendous importance, not only for Africa, but for the whole of the Commonwealth. There is a chance here of setting a great example to be followed. I am bound to say that the work of this Conference was remarkable and that all three Parties and the Secretary of State deserve our thanks for what they have done. I think it will have an enormous effect throughout Africa and thoughout the British Commonwealth.
I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on the way in which he brought about that Conference. We should be wise to contempate an extension of the franchise, and we must be prepared for this Constitution not to last for ever. It is an interim Constitution. If we can get our African friends to work it, that is of major importance. So often constitutional advances of this kind are used merely to obstruct Government in order to get a further advance. Our African friends will realise that they are inexperienced, and that they will get an invaluable experience from working this Constitution, even if it does not go the whole way. It does give an example to all communities to work together.
Finally, one word on safeguards. I do not believe safeguards in Constitutions are much use. I entirely agree with, I think it was, the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, who said that what is
414
needed is goodwill. If you put in safeguards, you generally tend to get an attack on them by other people; if you rely on goodwill you may do a great deal. I always greatly admired the traders and interested people in India who said, when the time, came, "We will ask for nothing; we will rely on goodwill". They have been abundantly justified. I think it may be the same in Kenya.
8.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as all the previous speakers have said, we are indeed in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for bringing this Motion before us to-day. Having just heard the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, speak, I am also greatly indebted for his wise words based on great experience, and I know that for my part I will bear them all in mind when we consider what we may do in the future.
The Constitution that has been laid out in this White Paper was not, as various noble Lords have said, an imposed one; rather was it one which represented perhaps the highest common denominator of agreement, and as such we know that the Africans, the Arabs, the Asians and the Europeans, are all going to try to make it work. I am very glad about the almost universal approval that has been expressed in this House to-day. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, raised the question of timing. I think his warning and his doubts about timing are very valuable. We must think about these things. We must not just plunge ahead, and I, for one, will be sure to see that these warnings are borne in mind. I would point this out to him, however: that this new Constitution is but one step forward, as appears in the White Paper. We say:
"This stage and all future stages of Kenya's constitutional evolution."
That shows what is in our mind; this is one stage and there will be future stages.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl. What I think worried me and others was that though he says there is a general measure of agreement on this document, there does not seem to have been agreement about the length of the stages. I think Her Majesty's Government generally want to give these new

415
proposals a fair trial and not go further ahead unless they prove a success, but that did not seem to be the view of the African Elected Members. Therefore I was very glad to get the assurances which the noble Earl gave this afternoon. I only wish they were slightly more specific. But as far as they go I think they improve the position.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think the important thing is that at this moment the African Constituency Elected Members have actually translated their words into action during the interim stage, which they recognise as an interim stage before the next Constitution comes into force.
May I take up one or two questions raised on the White Paper? The noble Marquess asked about franchise qualifications. Seventy-five pounds—well, that is not a bad qualification to have. It is about the qualification of a taxpayer, and generally I think it is an accepted thing that taxpayers should have a say in the running of things. Again, the question was raised about the ability to read and write in their own language. What language? The language of the tribe. It was proved in the last elections that very often the local voter would need to read appeals or other writing in his own language, and it is a usual and proper thing as a qualification.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, who judges? Who will be the judges of literacy?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I should think almost certainly the provincial administration. It is the sort of thing they have had to do before. Then the question arises about over forty years of age. It is quite true that there may not be records that go back forty years in every case, but we have the census of 1948 to help us. I think the noble Marquess knows and your Lordships know that the elders are people of special importance and have a special reputation, and it is valuable to get their advice and their vote on political matters. It may be that somebody may be 38 or 37, but I think we must accept that generally they are over 40 years of age.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, that may satisfy the noble Earl, but it does not satisfy me.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am sorry, but there you are. Then we come to the question of office holders. The office holders will be the same kind as those in Tanganyika.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not complain about them.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I have not got the full list before me. I should be glad to send it to the noble Marquess. The point is that these office holders are thinking people, and that is the thought we have in trying to arrive at the qualifications for the franchise. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, asked why there are National Members. That is part of an undertaking that we gave that we would have these people for a period of time, and we are obviously not going to break that undertaking. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in what I am afraid I found a very carping speech about the White Paper, which necessarily cannot dot all the i's and cross all the t's, asked what was the good of a Legislature with only 20 seats for the Europeans and Asians and other races out of 53; they would not have a chance in the things to come; they would not have a voice. It seems to me that he entirely forgot the fact that there is to be an Executive; in that Executive there are to be four official Ministers and eight unofficial, of whom four are to be African, three European and one Asian. So there is every reason to expect that the Europeans and Asians and unofficials will have a real voice in the running of the country. So much for the detailed questions that were raised on the White Paper as such.
The next thing to turn to is the issue of land. This is one of the three really important things that have been discussed in this debate. We heard the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, talk to us about land, with his experience of Kenya, and he made a particular point about unemployment and the need to try to help to get things right again. Of course, as is to be seen in the White Paper, we have, apart from anything else, agreed to contribute a regular sum by taking over the cost of the forces; this will release about £1 million a year for the people of Kenya to use for whatever purpose they may choose.
Then the mention of land gave us the chance to hear from the noble Lord,

417
Lord Delamere. To me his was one of the most encouraging speeches; for example, when he said it was his determination—which was also echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth—that the whites, the European farmers, were going to help the Africans. We heard Lord Portsmouth say how he was waiting until the law allowed him to have an African as tenant to help him develop his land; and I know that is in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, and many others of the European farmers. That is the sort of spirit that we want to see.
What was most clear, and the thing that is really worrying about land, is the fear of the farmers—their lack of confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Wrenbury, stressed that. I would only say that we have tried—I and my noble Leader—to do what we can to reassure the farmers and the Europeans in Kenya that their fears are groundless. Just to illustrate how groundless these fears are I would say this. I have heard on many sides that there was great apprehension in Kenya because, when the Prime Minister was making a speech the other day in which he told of his African visit and the various countries that he had been to, he was talking about the Federation and he gave assurances that those of the Federation would not be let down or deserted. This was a perfectly normal thing, and one would have thought no more of it. But the cry went out in Kenya, "Oh, we were not mentioned; therefore we are going to be deserted." I can only assure your Lordships that the Prime Minister, when he was talking of the Federation, did so because that was one of the countries he visited; but he had equally in mind—and I give full assurance on this—that people in any other of the African territories in which Europeans live, including Kenya, were of course included in the words of assurance that he gave.
Apart from reassurances in words, what is even more important is reassurances in a practical scheme. That, of course, is what we are working on. I was glad to have Lord Ogmore's support in saying that he thought we were working on the right lines. I would say this, first of all, on this scheme: that it is not only for the Africans; it is to be for all the races, and is based, of course, on the best use
418
of the land. I agree entirely on the urgency of this scheme, but we cannot get it going until the new laws about land tenure have been passed in Kenya; and even then it will take time. These things must take time to get them right. It is much better to take a little longer and to get them right than to have the thing in a mess. It is most complicated, but I can assure your Lordships that I am doing all I can to get things moving. It is absolutely clear that we have to get it launched well before the elections.
Then we come to the question of safeguards. As so many noble Lords have said, written safeguards have value only if those who come after are prepared to accept the written word. All the same, I think we must not depreciate or despise them too much. They have a real value—the value of judicial enforcement, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning pointed out—as a Bill of Rights; and if they are in a Constitution then it is that much more difficult to ignore them or, as it were, to take them out. Of course they depend on their acceptance by those who are in power. But there is a good start, as so many noble Lords have said—namely, that the African Constituency Elected Members have not been intimidated but have had the courage to come in now, in this difficult period before the new Constitution comes into force. As the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said, we owe a great debt of gratitude to them.
Mention of intimidation recalls the great stress that has already been laid to-day on the need to prevent victimisation of the Kikuyu loyalists and to protect them from vengeance by Mau Mau sympathisers. I entirely accept that we have an obligation in this matter, and I am sure that no one in your Lordships' House would wish it otherwise. If we do not afford them protection and support, then the machinery of government, for which we so much rely on the African loyalists, would break down, and respect and trust for our authority would disappear. Having said this, I must make it plain that our aim must not be to perpetuate past feuds. It is too much to expect that the past can or should be entirely forgotten, but with the ending of the emergency regulations our aim has been to close the unhappy chapter of the past

419
seven years. None the less, we must, and will, be on our guard against the resurgence of Mau Mau. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that he felt that we should think of Kenyatta as a political leader who ultimately is to be brought into the discussions.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is not what I said. What I said was that, speaking from my own experience, I hazarded a guess that he would be brought in.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am indeed glad to have the difference—it is a most important difference. If I may say so with respect to the experience of the' noble Viscount, he should not draw a parallel, because Kenyatta is no ordinary nationalist leader. He is not just somebody who has gone beyond the bounds of the law in advocating some extremely nationalistic policies. He is a man who was convicted in the courts, having his conviction confirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, of managing Mau Mau—in other words, a man who organised a violent, primitive and brutal movement which caused untold suffering to his own people. I think I need say no more on this particular point.
Law and order must and will be maintained; and it is a comfort, but no surprise, to me to think that the most reverend Primate and all noble Lords confirm that they are behind us in doing this. Constitutional progress in stages which in its turn means responsibility, land development and safeguards, whether written or, perhaps even more important, unwritten, are the three hopes of Kenya's future. All the races must together form Kenya. That is a desperately difficult thing. If it succeeds—and I hope and pray that it will—it will be one of the greatest of human triumphs, and its effects will surely spread far and wide all over Africa.
8.58 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I know that we are all most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for speaking a second time to-day; for picking up those many points which have been made during the course of the debate, and answering them in detail, and especially
420
for the reassurances which he has given in his last speech, which I am sure the people of Kenya have been waiting to hear. It only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which I feel sure I am right in saying has been one of the most interesting that we have had in your Lordships' House for a very long time. I am sure, too, that I am right in saying that the tenor of all the speeches was extremely high.
I would thank all noble Lords, but I think I should mention only two names, those of the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, and of the noble Lord, Lord Delamere, and say how sincerely grateful we are to them for coming here from Kenya; that we really mean it; that their speeches contributed a great deal to our debate, and that we hope that what they have heard here will have made them feel that their journey was worth while. My Lords, I thank everybody again and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GLASGOW CORPORATION CONSOLIDATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on the 16th of February last discharged, and Bill committed to an unopposed Bill Committee.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.