Sitting of 25 April 1961

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

    Capital Gains (Tax)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals or firms, during each of the past three years, have disclosed that they make a business of seeking capital gains on the Stock Exchange or in property or other deals; and how much Income Tax, Surtax and Profits Tax, respectively, has been paid on the profits from such activities.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): This information is not available.
    Mr. C. Johnson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that a large number of people are making capital gains in this way, and that there is strong evidence that many are making a living at it? In these circumstances, and in view of the very strong language that the Chancellor himself used in his Budget speech about enforcing the law against such people, and his saying, rather grandiloquently, "This is the law", does he not think that there is some obligation on him to show to the House that the Income Tax law is being enforced?
    Mr. Lloyd: My Answer was that the particular information for which the hon. Gentleman asked is not available. Of course, the Inland Revenue is making every endeavour to enforce the law. As for the general point, whether it was grandiloquent or not, I stand by what I said in my Budget speech.

    Decimal Coinage
    Mr. Proudfootasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the advantages of a system of decimal coinage in facilitating the alteration, by rebate or surcharge, of Purchase Tax and Excise duties.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have given no specific consideration to the advantages of a decimal coinage system in this connection.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Has my right hon. and learned Friend realised that this would be most helpful to his staff and, more important, to consumers?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am told that in this case it is not thought that it would make very much practical difference. Nevertheless, I do not want my hon. Friend to think that that means that I am not very interested in the matter to which he is so much attached.
    Mr. du Cann: My right hon. and learned Friend has, I know, the whole question of the introduction of decimal currency in consideration. Can he tell us when he thinks that it may be possible for him to make an announcement in the matter, particularly as so many Commonwealth territories have now introduced decimal currencies?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I could give my hon. Friend even an estimate without notice, but I will consider the matter and try to let him know.

    Repertory Theatres (Grants)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the increased grants in aid, which he intends to make available to support the repertory theatre movement in this country, will be made available, in accordance with their needs, artistic standards, and public value, to all repertory theatres whether profit distributing or not; and whether he will make this principle clear to the Arts Council before it finalises the proposals which he has requested it to make to him on this subject.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. It is a fundamental principle of Arts Council

    205
    policy that its grants and guarantees are available only to non-profit-distributing companies.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the drama derives a good deal of support, inspiration and personnel from the repertory theatre movement? Will he do all he can to foster it?
    Mr. Lloyd: I certainly will do all I can to foster the repertory movement. With regard to the case of profit-distributing companies, I would be very grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) would put before me any facts about their situation.
    Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement, when turning down the National Theatre project, that he was to give support to provincial theatres, has caused a great deal of confusion as to the exact form in which that assistance will be made available? Will he ask the Arts Council to expedite its consideration of the matter because, meanwhile, theatres in the provinces are closing at the rate of one or two every week?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not admit that there is confusion. I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's statement that provincial theatres are closing at the rate of one or two every week; I do not believe that to be the case. However, I am certainly not out of sympathy with his suggestion. I think that it is important that we should establish the position as quickly as possible.

    Unemployed Persons (Special Compensation)
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has, apart from unemployment benefit, for compensating workers who are removed from their employment as a result of the operation of his proposals for regulating labour supply, in cases where they fail to obtain suitable employment.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no plans for special compensation of the sort suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The employment situation would, of course, be borne in mind before using this instrument, if the power to use it is
    206
    granted by the House. Its effect in the way suggested would be one of the primary considerations in deciding whether or not to use it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not surprising that the Chancellor has a scheme, but no plan to go with it? What is to be the position of a man who is deliberately pushed out of employment by the application of the Chancellor's payroll policy, in contrast to someone who loses his employment because of a trade recession? Surely, if a man becomes unemployed as a result of Government policy, he is entitled to some additional consideration.
    Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I think that the House has to face the fact that with any kind of economic regulator there is bound to be hardship in certain cases. It is quite pointless to think otherwise, or to try to persuade people that there will not be hardship. I certainly admit that there would be hardship in certain circumstances in this instance, and that hardship would be one of the primary considerations to be borne in mind in deciding whether to use the regulator.
    Mr. Jay: But does not the Chancellor realise that this is not a question of hardship, but of economic waste as a result of making people unemployed? Can he not give an assurance that this payroll surcharge will not be applied in areas that are development districts under the Local Employment Act?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am not prepared to give such an assurance at present. This must be a weapon to be kept in reserve.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that when the Government, as a result of the application of their policy, deliberately cause hardship, no compensation is to be provided to the person who is the victim of that policy?
    Mr. Lloyd: When the hire-purchase restrictions were put on, they caused hardship.

    National Income and Expenditure
    Mr. du Cannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing for each of the last 15 years the total national income, the total of all Government and local government expenditure,

    207
    and the percentage the latter is of the former.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. With permission, I will circulate the table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. du Cann: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will be good enough to consider publishing these figures on an annual basis, so that the country as a whole can see whether Government expenditure in relation to national income is being contained or otherwise? Would he now say whether those figures show, as a trend, a decrease or an increase?
    Mr. Lloyd: They show a varying trend—the figures are from 1946 onwards—but, as I think I have said, the last three years show an upward trend. I think that the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is also "Yes, Sir".
    Following is the table:

    Year

    Gross national product at factor cost*

    Central and local Government expenditure†

    Col. (3) as a percentage of col. (2)

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    £ million

    £ million

    1946

    8,787

    4,577

    52·1

    1947

    9,387

    4,175

    44·5

    1948

    10,446

    4,232

    40·5

    1949

    11,136

    4,587

    41·2

    1950

    11,695

    4,588

    39·2

    1951

    12,850

    5,257

    40·9

    1952

    14,005

    5,833

    41·6

    1953

    14,951

    6,101

    40·8

    1954

    15,981

    6,039

    37·8

    1955

    17,033

    6,241

    36·6

    1956

    18,380

    6,772

    36·8

    1957

    19,472

    6,978

    35·8

    1958

    20,392

    7,417

    36·4

    1959

    21,081

    7,824

    37·1

    1960

    22,292

    8,334

    37·4

    * The figures for 1955–1960 are taken from the recent National Income White Paper (Cmnd. 1333) and incorporate revisions which have not yet been carried back to the figures for earlier years. The effect of the revisions in 1955 was to reduce the figure in the final column by 0·2.

    † These figures are taken from Table 42 of the Blue Book "National Income and Expenditure 1960" with comparable figures for 1946–1949 and 1960. They cover current and capital expenditure on goods and services, debt interest, subsidies and grants by the Central Government (including the National Insurance Funds) and local authorities but exclude loans and other transactions in financial assets.

    British Museum Reading Room (Opening Hours)
    Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make possible the opening of the Reading Room in the British Museum for five nights a week.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), on 21st February.
    Dr. Stross: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that the Reading Room is in future to close at 9 o'clock instead of at 9.30? Secondly, does he really believe that one of the greatest libraries in the world should be denied to people who have time only in the evenings, especially as about 100 are still there at 9 o'clock each night when the Reading Room is open?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have had a report on the matter. Not all the evidence tends the same way as the hon. Member suggests, but, as I have said before, I propose to give this experiment a full trial and then decide whether it should be extended or continued.
    Mr. H. Wilson: In comparison with the very large figures that we were debating last week, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what would be the cost of doing what my hon. Friend asks? While taking note of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his Budget speech about candle ends, may I ask whether this candle end is not rather too small for him to be chasing after when there are far bigger ones that he is not chasing after?
    Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman gives me notice of that, I will consider the size of the candle end.
    Mr. Hale: Will the Chancellor also bear in mind that while every user of the Reading Room greatly appreciates the efficiency, courtesy and ability of the staff, it still takes nearly an hour and a half to get a book at the Reading Room as compared with twelve or fifteen minutes at the Bibliothèque Nationale?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Education Costs and Personal Savings (Tax Relief)
    Mr. Wadeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will include in the Finance Bill provisions for special reliefs in respect of the costs of children's education and of personal saving for married men whose gross earned income does not exceed £5,000 a year.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wade: In view of the Chancellor's statement last week about the difficulty of a man earning £5,000 a year being able to provide for the education of his children and to save, may I ask him, first, whether he is assuming that all Surtax payers send their children to fee-paying schools, or, in his calculation, does he envisage some extension of fee-paying? Secondly, if it is so difficult for a man earning £5,000 a year to provide for the education of his children and to save, has the Chancellor any proposals for helping those earning £2,000 a year or less? [HON. MEMBERS: "£1,750."] Is not their difficulty even greater?
    Mr. Lloyd: As to the first part of his supplementary question, I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right; I was basing my remark on the assumption that they would send their children to a fee-paying school or, under the university grant system, would pay a substantial amount for university education.
    As to the way in which I try to help them, there will be some assistance to them and to others in certain income groups lower than that in my proposals, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman. There was a certain amount of laughter when I made the remark about the £5,000-a-year man not being rich, but I am not certain that people would laugh quite so much if they realised that the net income of a man earning £5,000 a year gross before my changes is equivalent to the net income of a man earning £1,400 a year gross in 1937, and £770 gross in 1912.
    Mr. H. Wilson: But after all these calculations, is it not a simple fact that that man's net income after taxation is still a good deal higher than the net income after taxation of a man earning £2,000, £1,500, or £1,000 a year? Is not
    210
    that a fairly obvious point? If that is true, and if there are all these difficulties at the £5,000-a-year level, why does not the Chancellor address himself to the obviously greater difficulties of those on a much lower level of income, including old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Lloyd: Substantial efforts have been made to alleviate the problem for lower-income groups in the past—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—certainly they have—and this time my proposals will deal with Surtax payers.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that this remark of his has greatly interested the miners working at the Barony Colliery, Auchinleck, in my constituency? Will he come to Auchinleck and address the miners there on the difficulties of those earning £5,000 a year?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, except in so far as they may understand my plan, because, irrespective of the way they cast their votes, they are people of great political sense.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the Chancellor think that it is also difficult for those on £1,000 a year to survive under his administration?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should not think it is anything like as difficult as it was under the administration of night hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

    Building Societies (Profits Tax)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated additional amount of Profits Tax that will have to be paid by building societies.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Approximately £½ million.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not obvious that if this extra Profits Tax is charged on building societies already operating on fairly narrow margins, about 2¼ million borrowers from those societies will have to pay higher rates of interest? Will the Chancellor bear in mind that ½ per cent. increase on a mortgage on a £2,000 house is equivalent to 11s. 8d. a month? Has he in mind the hardships that may be entailed for those 2¼ million borrowers?
    Mr. Lloyd: The point is that the Royal Commission recommended that building societies should pay Profits Tax, and should be charged Profits Tax on the same basis on which other concerns are charged. I do not see my way to making an exception.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Unemployment Areas (New Industrial Projects)
    Mrs. Hartasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will recommend to the National Research and Development Corporation that it should consider the needs of areas of unemployment for new industry when investing in new industrial projects.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My right hon. Friend is asking the Corporation to bear this consideration in mind, although he thinks that in practice there is little scope for it to help.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the development announced in the recent Report of the National Research and Development Corporation on investing in a number of shares in a new company making printed electrical circuits was welcomed by very many who would like to see an extension of State enterprise in this direction, and that one would hope that the President of the Board of Trade, in putting forward this suggestion to the Corporation, would particularly emphasise the needs of Scotland, where there is a dearth of science-trade industries?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am sure that that is one of the considerations which the National Research and Development Corporation will have in mind, although as the hon. Lady is clearly aware, most of its expenditure is development expenditure on a contract basis in collaboration with existing firms or research institutions.

    Lamp Manufacturing Industry (Tenders)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the continued identical tendering of firms to local authorities for lamps; and what evidence he has received of monopoly
    212
    conditions in the lamp manufacturing industry in the course of considering further references to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The prices indicated in the schedules of tenders for electric lamps sent to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member are by no means all identical. Since the Monopolies Commission reported in 1951, the Board of Trade have received very few complaints about the supply and prices of electric lamps.
    The information which the hon. Member has sent gives my right hon. Friend no reason to think that in this industry the conditions to which the Act of 1948 applies prevail, but he will be glad to consider any further evidence which the hon. Member may wish to bring to his notice on this point.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in the list submitted to him by the Stoke-on-Trent Council there was identical tendering except in two cases? Is not that sort of thing happening time and time again, resulting in the expenditure of large sums of money by a public authority which is endeavouring to light its streets properly? Has not the time come for a review of this matter?
    Mr. Macpherson: In the list that I saw there were at least two firms which were prepared to offer electric lamps below the general level of prices, and one was offering them at above that level. In one case, a firm was offering some above and some below.
    As I have said, if the hon. Lady has any evidence of the existence of an agreement, it ought to be brought to the attention of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements.
    Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend has already brought this information to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, is it not his duty to pass it on to the Registrar?
    Mr. Macpherson: That is what I am suggesting to the hon. Lady—that she should pass it on, because it is open to anybody to do so. We have no evidence whatever of the existence of any such agreement. If anyone has any evidence, it is up to him to pass it on to the Registrar.
    Mr. Jay: If it is open to anybody to do so, and the Parliamentary Secretary has had the information from my hon. Friend and the local authority, is there not a duty on him to make it available to the Registrar?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir, because, as I have said, there is no indication, from the evidence submitted, that there is any such agreement.

    Overseas Governments (Import Restrictions)
    Mr. C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has sent to the communication sent to him by a Leicester knitwear company, which last year exported 37½ per cent. of its total production as against 12 per cent. exported by the whole trade, complaining that its exports were shut out suddenly by new import restrictions imposed by an overseas Government, and that two other markets had been partially lost by new restrictions; if he will make representations to get these restrictions removed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the case which he mentioned in his speech in the House on the 22nd February and on which I made some observations later in the debate on that day. I have since discussed the complaints fully with the head of the firm concerned. The restrictions apply to imports from all sources and do not discriminate against those from the United Kingdom, nor are they contrary to the international obligations of the countries concerned. We shall continue to do all we can to help our exporters, but to urge other countries to import goods which they cannot afford benefits neither them nor us.
    Mr. C. Osborne: What I am proposing to my right hon. Friend is that where a foreign country arbitrarily and suddenly excludes all imports without giving traders notice, and at times shuts out goods which are on the ocean, actually in transit, he should use his power to say to them that if they do that to our goods we shall use the same powers to stop the stuff which they send to us. Is he aware that the trade could do with some help of that kind, and, if so, will he provide it?
    Mr. Erroll: We make representations, whenever import cuts are arbitrarily made, to ensure that goods already in transit are allowed into the country and paid for, but it would not be fair for us to try to go further than that.

    Cement Manufacturing Industry (Tenders)
    Mrs. Slaterasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that tenders received by local authorities for cement supplied by members of the Cement Makers Federation are often identical; and if, in view of this evidence of monopoly conditions and in view of the completion of consideration of agreements relating to cement prices by the Restrictive Practices Court, he will now refer this industry to the Monopolies Commission for examination.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware that tenders for cement are usually identical, no doubt as a result of the Cement Makers' Federation Agreement. This Agreement has recently been found by the Restrictive Practices Court to be consistent with the public interest. Agreements subject to the jurisdiction of that Court are outside the purview of the Monopolies Commission.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not that kind of Answer make nonsense of the whole question of monopoly? Is it not obvious that in one case the answer is that nothing can be done because there is not identical tendering, and that in this case, when there is, the answer is that it is consistent with the law and is, therefore, in the public interest? Does not the hon. Member agree that every local authority—to whom the Government make grants—is affected by this kind of ring?
    Mr. Macpherson: There are two distinct cases. One is the monopoly where there is one person involved. The other is where several persons are involved and where there is an agreement among them. The Court found that the agreement resulted in cement prices being fixed at a reasonable level and that the public interest was, therefore, in no way damaged.
    Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Member realise that that is in absolute contradiction to the argument which hon.

    215
    Members opposite continually put to us when they say that we must have competition? Is not this a case in which there is absolutely no competition because there is an agreement to have none?
    Mr. Macpherson: I think that the hon. Lady will recognise that price competition is not the only form of competition.

    Trade with South-East Asia
    Mr. C. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade what help he has given to the four British trade missions now fact-finding in South-East Asia, under the leadership of Sir Edward Thompson; who will represent him at the conference to be held in Singapore; if he will be seeing the delegation on their return; if bigger long-term credits will be available; what restrictions prevent low-priced goods from South-East Asia being imported into the United Kingdom; what requests he has received from the governments of South-East Asian countries for action to stabilise raw material prices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Erroll: As the Question asked by my hon. Friend raises a number of points which cannot be answered briefly I will, with permission, circulate the Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborne: When this team makes its report on conditions in South-East Asia and makes recommendations about the steps which could be taken to increase our exports to that area, will my right hon. Friend promise that his Department will then give serious consideration?
    Mr. Erroll: I assure my hon. Friend that we will very closely study the recommendations. The report is to be made to British industry and commerce and also to Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Osborne: Will it be published?
    Following is the information:
    The British Trade Delegation, which is working through four simultaneous missions to Indonesia. Thailand and Burma, Malaya and Singapore and the Philippines and British Borneo, was formed by the Federation of British Industries at my invitation and is being jointly sponsored by the F.B.I. and the Board
    216
    of Trade. The Government has assisted in the planning, organisation and briefing of these Missions and the services of H.M. Representatives abroad, who have also assisted in this, are fully available to the Missions during their tours. I have also agreed with the F.B.I. to contribute to the expenses of the Missions. H.M. Government will be represented at the final conference to be held in Singapore by Lord Selkirk, Commissioner General in South-East Asia, who will take the chair, and by H.M. Commercial Diplomatic Officers and Trade Commissioners in the countries being visited. These officials will have accompanied the missions on their tours in the individual countries concerned. I look forward to meeting the Delegation on its return.
    United Kingdom trade with the area now being studied should benefit from the improved credit insurance facilities which my right hon. Friend announced on 12th April. I shall consider any recommendations the Mission may make on the desirability of any further facilities of this sort.
    With only very minor exceptions, there are no restrictions on imports into the United Kingdom from the countries being visited by the missions. No requests have been received from the Governments of the countries being visited for action to stabilise raw material prices.

    Motor Car Sales (American Service Men)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the continuing importance of earning foreign currency, he will ask the United States Government to reopen facilities, now closed, for British cars to be sold on United States bases and for United States Service personnel to retain British cars for more than a year free of Purchase Tax prior to export.
    Mr. Erroll: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) on 18th April.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: When my hon. Friend is making representations to the American authorities on this subject, will he bear in mind that traders have been earning about £1½ million worth of dollars a year by selling cars to the Americans? Will he point out to the Americans that it is rather unfair that only American cars can be sold on these bases and that that is contrary to the spirit of the message of President Kennedy to Congress when he said, "Protectionism is no answer to our problems"?
    Mr. Erroll: The United States Government have not imposed a direct ban on the purchase of British cars by United States Service men. My right hon. Friend has made known to the United States Government his concern about the matter.
    Mr. Bullard: Was there any consultation between the American and British Governments before this ban was instituted—I know that it is not an absolute ban—on the sale of British cars through the PX? Is not this an arbitrary action and should there not have been consultation?
    Mr. Erroll: There was no consultation, but we were informed of the decision.

    New Jobs, Blyth
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of new jobs likely to be available in the Blyth constituency during the next six months.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: In the combined employment exchange areas of Bedlington Station, Blyth and Seaton Delaval, which comprise most of the hon. Member's constituency, expansions by local firms should produce about 700 new jobs over the next three or four years. I cannot say how many of these will become available during the next six months.
    Mr. Milne: I thank the hon. Member for the figures and the slight encouragement which they give to the area, but does he not realise, from the visits which he and his right hon. Friend have paid to my constituency, that something bold and imaginative is required to tackle the problems of the area? Will he consider scheduling the south-east of Northumberland as a development district?
    Mr. Macpherson: This matter is under constant consideration, but the present figures of unemployment do not justify my right hon. Friend in deciding that it comes within the terms of the Local Employment Act.
    Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what new jobs have been made available in the Blyth constituency during the years 1958, 1959, and 1960.
    Mr. Macpherson: In the employment exchange areas of Bedlington Station, Blyth and Seaton Delaval together, three industrial building schemes were completed in the three years 1958, 1959 and 1960. Blyth "A" power station was also completed within this period. The employment provided by these four schemes is over 400.
    Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer merely adds weight to the comments which I made in my supplementary question on the previous Question?
    Mr. Macpherson: It also adds weight to my reply, because it still remains a fact that the average rates of unemployment over the year were 1·4 per cent. for Bedlington Station, 2·5 per cent. for Blyth, and 3·1 per cent. for Seaton Delaval.

    Circuit Cinemas (British Quota)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the continued closure of cinemas and the resulting predominance of two major circuits, he will reconsider the question of introducing a different and higher level of British quota for these circuits, compared with other cinemas.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has no power under the Films Act, 1960, to prescribe a different and higher level of quota for circuit cinemas.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this suggestion was made when the quota legislation was last revised and that a request by the President of the Board of Trade for legislative power to do this would be welcome? If we are to maintain the level of British film production with fewer outlets as cinemas close, it is necessary to have a higher quota. In view of the predominant position of the two major circuits, is it not ridiculous to continue with a situation in which the two major circuits have only the same quota as the remaining and smaller cinemas?
    Mr. Macpherson: It is a fact that the two circuits are achieving a higher quota, but the reasons why this suggestion was rejected at the time remain valid.

    Butter Supplies
    Sir A. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent increased supplies of butter in recent weeks are responsible for the fall in United Kingdom prices; from which countries additional quantities are coming; and what evidence he has of export subsidies, direct or indirect, which could be countered by anti-dumping duties in the interests of the home producer, New Zealand and other regular suppliers.
    Mr. Erroll: Most butter prices in the United Kingdom have fallen in the last six months, against a background of increasing supplies from home production and higher imports from various countries, including Argentina, France and the Republic of Ireland. The fall in prices has been causing concern to supplying countries and international discussions of the problem have been taking place.
    As regards the last part of the Question, it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the consideration which would be given to an application under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, if one were made.
    Sir A. Hurd: Are these discussions proceeding and, if so, will they be brought to a conclusion soon? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Board of Trade will keep a constant watch on doubtful practices pursued by some countries to stimulate their exports of butter and eggs to this country and ensure that his Department is ready to act as soon as circumstances warrant?
    Mr. Erroll: The discussions have been useful and a number of recommendations have been made, including that the traditional suppliers to the United Kingdom should send only normal amounts and that others should avoid exporting to the United Kingdom. I think that we should see how those recommendations work out. We are keeping our eyes wide open on this matter.

    Colour Film Processing Industry
    Mr. Steeleasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the colour film processing industry to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind when considering possible new references to the Monopolies Commission, and he will gladly consider any relevant information the hon. Member cares to send him.
    Mr. Steele: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that representations have been made in the past two years to the Monopolies Commission, but that, so far, nothing has been done? Is he aware that the two large firms are now marketing their films in such a manner as to have complete monopoly? Are not the representations of the trade worthy of consideration?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has received only one representation—from Glasgow—on this subject, but he would be very glad to receive further information from the hon. Member.
    Mr. Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been mentioned in two reports of the Monopolies Commission itself?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, I was not aware of that, but I shall certainly look into the matter.

    Employment, Bishop Auckland District
    Mr. Boydenasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to relieve general unemployment and also provide a reasonable choice of occupation for juveniles in such villages as Cockfield, Woodlands, Middleton-in-Teesdale, Eggleston, Stairdrop, Copley and Butterknowle in the Bishop Auckland constituency.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend would be glad to see suitable further employment provided in all these villages. In those of them which are in the Bishop Auckland development disstrict the facilities of the Local Employment Act are available.
    Mr. Boyden: How many factory sites in these villages, or within two miles of them, are known to the hon. Gentleman's Department? Since the passing of the Local Employment Act, how many industrialists have been taken to any of these places?
    Mr. Macpherson: I should require notice of both those rather particular questions.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not that a comment on the lack of energy of the Board of Trade? There is a serious problem for nearly all these villages, yet the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to know what the facts are. Will he instruct his Department at least to investigate the position?
    Mr. Macpherson: The records for which the hon. Gentleman is asking would need some compiling. I did not think it necessary to take them out to answer his Question, but if he asks, I will try to get him the information.
    Mr. Lee: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, according to his Answer, we are spending a lot of money under the Local Employment Act and we are now to spend more public money, through the payroll tax, to ensure that the work of the Act is not effective? Will the hon. Gentleman look into that?
    Mr. Macpherson: I shall certainly consult my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Employment, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the recent increased unemployment in Aberdeen, resulting in diminution in Great Britain's productivity, exports, and intake of foreign currency; and, in view of his responsibility for development areas, if he will consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour with a view to rectifying this situation.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My information is that, despite some recent redundancies, unemployment in Aberdeen is decreasing. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend would be glad to see more industry going there; he keeps in close touch with his right hon. Friends on this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there have been a number of dismissals at Messrs. Hall, Russell's shipyard and other places in Aberdeen and that one good way of rectifying the grave situation would be by a fair distribution of existing industry
    222
    and by publicising the excellent shipyards and other works in Aberdeen which are available for the relevant industries?
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and learned Member himself does a very good job in publicising Aberdeen's shipbuilding facilities, but the fact remains that unemployment in Aberdeen has been dwindling and that the average for the area is lower than the average for Scotland.

    B.O.T.A.C. Aid, West Dunbartonshire
    Mr. Steeleasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for aid have been made to the Board of Trade Advisory Committee from West Dunbartonshire; and how many have been granted.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Applications have been received from seven firms. Three have been offered assistance—though one has refused the offer—three have been rejected, and one is still under consideration.
    Mr. Steele: That means that so far none has been given any assistance. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently, when he was kind enough to meet a deputation from my constituency in which the assistance of the Board of Trade was offered, B.O.T.A.C. was, on the same day, turning down an application from a firm in my constituency, which was to extend an application which I had vetted and which I felt was one which could be accepted?
    In view of the fact that that application has been turned down, the firm is likely to go out of business. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether anything further can be done by the Board of Trade? Surely he ought to do something, because it is now being widely said that the only firm which is successful in getting an application granted is one which does not require assistance.
    Mr. Macpherson: I believe that the other two which were offered assistance have accepted it and, therefore, it will be forthcoming.
    I will look into the second part of the question and consider whether anything can be done, but, as has been pointed out, the Board of Trade

    223
    Advisory Committee makes recommendations and our powers are only to accept the recommendations for assistance or to refuse them. The Board of Trade has no power itself to override the Board of Trade Advisory Committee.

    Local Employment Act (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. McInnesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the delay in determining the financial assistance that can be given under the provisions of the Local Employment Act; and what proposals he has to eliminate such delays.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: There was certainly delay last year while the Advisory Committee was disposing of a considerable backlog of cases submitted under previous legislation. But, once the applicant has submitted up-to-date accounts and other necessary information, cases are now dealt with in about two months.
    Mr. McInnes: Not only were delays taking place last year, but even during the present year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that all the organisations in Scotland which are engaged in attracting new industries to Scotland are absolutely disgusted at the unwarrantable delays taking place. Will the hon. Gentleman look further into the matter and see that some definite improvement takes place?
    Mr. Macpherson: I think that the hon. Member is exaggerating somewhat, to say the least. The main delay which takes place is as a result of the difficulty that some applicants find in preparing the information, getting their statement of accounts, and sending in with an estimate of their business prospects. Once all that is before the Board of Trade Advisory Committee, the delay, as I say, averages about two months.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Would my hon. Friend agree that some of the supplementary questions regarding assistance under the Local Employment Act are giving a completely wrong impression in the country? Would he agree that in most constituencies his Department is working extremely well and that they are finding that the Act to be of great benefit to them?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. The fact is that about £14 million of grants and loans have been offered in Scotland under the existing Act.
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Scottish Council, Development and Industry concerning the arrangements for deciding the financial assistance to be given to firms wishing to go to scheduled areas of high un employment under the Local Employment Act, 1960; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: None, Sir. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has received representations from the Scottish Council, which claims that hundreds of jobs have been lost in Scotland because of the delays under this Act? Is not this sufficiently important for the Board of Trade to put itself to some bother about the delays, to get the information, and then take some steps about it?
    Mr. Macpherson: I do not think that the hon. Member is entirely correct. The comparison that is being made is between the Local Employment Act and assistance which can be offered in Northern Ireland, but the Local Employment Act applies throughout Great Britain. It is the same everywhere. The jobs have not been lost in Scotland because of B.O.T.A.C. delays.
    Mr. Jay: Has the Board of Trade asked the Scottish Council if it wishes the Government's new payroll tax to apply to Scotland? If not, will the Board of Trade do so?
    Mr. Macpherson: I prefer to await any further announcement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to make.

    Exporters (Tax Concessions)
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government mutually to agree with other countries to amend existing agreements

    225
    connected with giving tax concessions to exporters; and what factors limit the pursuit of such a policy.
    Mr. Erroll: The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to secure the elimination of export subsidies and to this end we have sought to strengthen the international rules which restrict the grant of tax concessions for exports. This policy enjoys the support of organised industry.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the event of our thinking it worth while to introduce a tax concession there would be nothing wrong in approaching other countries which would be affected to agree mutually to alter the internal terms?
    Mr. Erroll: I would not care to answer a question as hypothetical as that.

    Exports (International Agreements)
    Sir Harmar Nichollsasked the President of the Board of Trade what international agreements affecting exports have been amended in recent years with the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Erroll: I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind the international agreements relating to the use of tax concessions and other financial aids to export. Changes designed to strengthen the international rules against artificial aids to exports have been made both in O.E.E.C. and G.A.T.T. The E.F.T.A. Convention also includes similar provisions. The most important changes were those introduced with the agreement of the United Kingdom Government, during 1960.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this instance I have not in mind only tax concessions? Could he tell the House whether or not at any time there has been an amendment of an international agreement of any sort, not only those covering tax concessions?
    Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend's supplementary question goes so much wider than his original Question that I should like to see it on the Order Paper.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I think that my Question is quite clear. It refers to international agreements and does not specify any particular sort of agreement.

  SCIENCE

    Strontium 90 (Children's Bones)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give the latest information available to him regarding the content of strontium 90 in children's bones.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The latest information available regarding the content of strontium 90 in children's bones is contained in the Medical Research Council's Monitoring Report No. 1, published in December, 1960.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not that Report show that, despite assurances that the level would fall following the suspension of tests three years ago, it was still rising and, in the case of one child, was dangerously near the 10 strontium unit level? Is it not surprising that the Agricultural Research Council's Report, a few weeks ago, showed that it depended not so much on the rate of deposit as on the total accumulation?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that the encouraging fact which emerged from the Report of the Agricultural Research Council was that the amount of strontium 90 in milk was becoming lower during the twelve months ended June last than in the previous twelve months. That is a trend which we all hope is continuing.

    Marine Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what are his Departmental responsibilities for research into marine nuclear propulsion.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend has responsibilities arising from the statutory power of the Atomic Energy Authority to undertake research into any matters connected with atomic energy, including marine nuclear propulsion.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that we are behind other countries in this field? Three years ago studies were initiated and five firms submitted tenders. Why is there this delay? Is it not because the Minister of Transport has failed to give a decision? If so, will the Parliamentary Secretary insist that his hon. Friend will jerk the Minister

    227
    of Transport into some action? We are lagging behind the Soviet Union, Western Germany and the United States of America.
    Mr. Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority, for whose programme alone, of course, my hon. Friend is responsible, is at the moment engaged on a programme of research and development studies of reactor types thought most likely to lead to competitive marine propulsion systems. Questions about a British nuclear-powered ship, as the hon. Member knows, should be addressed to the Minister of Transport.

    British Space Programme
    Mr. Gowerasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if, in view of recent developments in Russia and the United States of America, he will re consider the possibility of instituting an independent British space programme.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Decisions on the nature and scale of our future space research effort must await the outcome of current discussions with other countries on the possible development of a satellite launcher based on Blue Streak
    Mr. Gower: While we must obviously consider carefully whether we can afford expenditure of this kind, should we not also consider whether we can afford not to have a space programme and lose possible by-products of research on this subject?
    Mr. Freeth: We have, in fact, a space programme, a programme of scientific research experiments intended to complement the efforts of other countries in this field.
    Mr. Peart: When are we likely to get a statement on the European agreement?
    Mr. Freeth: We are at present in discussion with the German and other Governments concerned.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Battle Abbey Stonework (Maintenance)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works what steps he is proposing to take to maintain adequately the surviving stonework of Battle Abbey.
    The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): I am not responsible for maintaining Battle Abbey, which is privately owned. However, I am always willing to give advice to owners if they ask me to do so.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that Battle is a long way from the Dagenham constituency and that the hon. Member for Rye is quite capable of making any representations which are necessary?
    Lord John Hope: My answer would have been exactly the same whichever hon. Member had asked the Question.

    Earl Lloyd George (Statue)
    Sir G. Nicholsonasked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement about the proposed statue of Earl Lloyd George.
    Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. On the recommendation of the Committee, of which my hon. Friend is Chairman, I am appointing Mr. Uli Nimptsch as the sculptor for the statue.
    Circumstances have made it necessary for the Committee to meet many times in the last few years and I should like to thank them and my hon. Friend for the care and patience with which they have carried out their work.
    Sir G. Nicholson: I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful, as I am, to my right hon. Friend for that Answer. It was not an easy decision for there were several sculptors apparently of equal merit. The Committee was very sorry for the disappointment caused to those who were not selected.

    Richmond Park (Accidents)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Works if he will give the figures of deer killed by motor vehicles in Richmond Park after dark and in daylight for the first four months after the speed limit was increased and the later opening during the winter months was introduced, and comparative figures for the same period for the three previous years.
    Lord John Hope: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The speed limit was increased on 4th August, 1960, and the Park opened to traffic after dusk one month later. The figures of known casualties to deer are:

    August

    None

    September

    None

    October

    Three

    November

    Four

    December

    Four

    In addition, in the three months October-December four collisions with deer were reported but no injured deer was found.
    No figures are available for the previous years, but the number of casualties is thought to be small.
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Works if he will give the figures of road accidents in Richmond Park for the first four months after the speed limit was increased to 30 miles-per-hour, with separate figures for injured and killed, and comparable figures for the three previous years.
    Lord John Hope: I will, with permission, give the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In the four months after the speed limit was increased, there were only five accidents, of which three concerned bicycles only. Pedestrians were not involved in any of the accidents at all, and no one was killed.
    Mr. Royle: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people living in Richmond are concerned about his intentions with regard to the Park? Will he give me an assurance that he has no intention, while he holds his present office, of widening the roads, installing traffic lights, installing "Keep Left" signs and other safety paraphernalia which we find on the public highway today?
    Lord John Hope: Yes, I can give that assurance. Some feeling has been irresponsibly stirred up locally. It is based on false figures and imaginary prospects and, therefore, upon unwarranted anxieties.
    Following are the detailed figures:
    In the four months from the 4th August, 1960, when the speed limit was increased, the figures were:

    5 accidents, 6 injured

    In the comparable period of the three previous years they were:

    1957

    1 accident,

    1 injured

    1958

    1 accident,

    1 injured

    1959

    2 accidents,

    3 injured

    Royal Palaces (Expenditure)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works how many letters or other communications he has received concerning the recently announced increases in expenditure on Royal palaces; and how many of the letters support, and how many condemn, such increases.
    Lord John Hope: I have received two letters. One was critical of one item in the Estimates. The purport of the other was obscure.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that kind of Answer will not get him very far? Is he aware that I have sent him 112 letters, 103 of which support the view that I take and only nine support the proposal that he is making? Does he think that it is a civilised priority that £50,000 should be spent on 1A, Kensington Palace when hundreds of thousands of people are living in slum conditions?
    Lord John Hope: Considering all that the hon. Member has been saying about this matter, I should not have thought that just over 100 letters meant very much one way or the other. Indeed, as he himself has said, some of those letters he sent me were critical of himself, such as that which began with the words:
    "Better for you if you left the Queen alone."
    Mr. Hamilton: Why did the Minister, in his original Answer, give inaccurate information? [Interruption.] Further, can he say why at this time £50,000 should be spent on one house when the Government are saying that they seek to provide National Assistance for people who need it most?
    Lord John Hope: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know which Question we are on. I understood that we were on Question No. 39, which is about letters which I have received, or are we on the next Question? I could not hear above all the shouting.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) was asking a further supplementary question to Question No. 39.
    Lord John Hope: The answer to that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question which I heard is that my original answer was not inaccurate.
    Mr. Hamilton: But the right hon. Gentleman had 112 letters from me.

    IMMIGRATION FROM THE WEST INDIES
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Prime Minister what consultation with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers took place at the recent conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and during his recent visit to the West Indies on the control of immigration into the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I would not wish, in general, to add to the agreed communiqués issued after meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. But the Government of the West Indies were informed that the control of immigration would not be discussed at the last Conference.
    As regards my talks in the West Indies, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 18th April.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not clear that while the Government are dithering on this issue more and more people will want to come to this country before the vague threat of a ban on immigration is finally imposed? Ought not the Government to make a statement on their policy in the matter without delay?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that it would be a mistake to settle an issue of this kind without very grave consideration.

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement on his visit to the United States of America.
    The Prime Minister: I do not feel able to make any statement enlarging upon the joint communiqué issued by President Kennedy and myself after our meeting in the United States and what I said in the House on my return on 13th April.
    I have answered a number of Questions arising out of points mentioned in the communiqué, but I do not think it would be proper to go beyond this.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a curious dearth of information about his activities since his return and that this is not really up to his established reputation as a publicist? Can he tell us whether he is suffering from shock, or is merely tired?
    Mr. Nabarro: Very poor.
    The Prime Minister: It is in accordance with the rules of these meetings, of which a great number take place—and very sensible it is—that communiqués are issued and statements may be made relating to or explaining the communiqués, but not statements at large.

    FREE TRADE AREA AND COMMON MARKET
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his conversations with President Kennedy, he will undertake a new initiative to resolve the differences between the Free Trade Area and the Common Market.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the Prime Ministers of the member countries of the European Economic Community to join him in examining the possibilities of British entry to the European Economic Community and of closer association between the members of the European Free Trade Area and of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking, as a result of his talks with President Kennedy, to negotiate the entry of Britain into the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: I do not consider that this is a problem to be tackled by formal discussion at the level of Prime Ministers at this stage. We are actively engaged in seeking a solution of the differences between the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community.
    I was encouraged by my exchange of views with President Kennedy and we certainly shall not slacken our efforts. The problems are not simple. We have to reconcile the interests of our own

    233
    agricultural industry, our fellow members of the Commonwealth and our partners in the European Free Trade Association.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Boston speech was one of the most obscure speeches about integration by a Prime Minister since Mr. Ramsay Macdonald? Could he say precisely what he meant by "integration"?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I used that word.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is it not clear that the danger to Britain grows daily by our not joining the Common Market? Is it not also clear that a great change of policy has taken place since the Prime Minister's conversations with President Kennedy? Would it not be a good opportunity, when France is in such great trouble as she is today, to make clear to her that we stand very firmly with her and that we seek to encourage her by making a gesture, by initiating talks, to show our interest in the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: I should not have thought that this was a very good moment to try to initiate very detailed negotiations.
    We must not over-simplify the problem—I do not think that most people do—by talking of joining the Common Market like joining a club, paying the subscription, and that is all there is to it. It is a very difficult, complicated matter. We have very great interests to consider, in honour and duty—our obligations to the Commonwealth, which date from very long-standing arrangements, our obligations to our own agriculture, and, of course, our obligations to our partners in E.F.T.A. I have always felt that we should pursue, at least for the time being, the kind of informal discussions which are going on, because, as I have previously said in the House, I should be very unhappy if formal negotiations were started which led to no result. That would have a very bad effect in Europe as a whole.
    Mr. Grimond: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the first step before anyone joins a club is for the would-be member to make up his mind whether he wants to join the club or not? After that, he may be black-balled, or find the
    234
    conditions unacceptable. That is the first step. Have the Government taken it? As the Prime Minister was saying in America that the split in Europe is extremely serious, does he not realise that the people primarily responsible for it are the British Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that we all recognise that derogations or special arrangements would have to be made if we are to keep our honour and obligations. The problem is: can they be reconciled with the institutions and the operation of the Common Market under the Rome Treaty? It is not an easy problem. I admit that it is of immense importance. I do not think that we ought to rush it. I do not think that we ought to ask the country to take a decision until the whole of the scheme, in the light of other movements which may be made to co-ordinate the efforts of the free world, can be considered as a whole.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that British industrialists in the last few years, in the face of all the difficulties to which he has referred, have not been standing still and have been meeting the situation by investing British funds in the Common Market countries, which is at least as good as exporting from this country to the Common Market countries?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate that there are advantages and dangers, but I think that this confirms how difficult the problem is. I have never disguised this. I think that it is one of the most difficult we have. I still feel that the approach that we are making is on the right lines. I might add, since it was mentioned in the communiqué, that I felt that with this advance with the new American Administration they would be prepared to accept what would be a greater degree of discrimination which would follow the merging of the Six and the Seven because of the general advantages in world stability. That is a big change, and it may help.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I recognise the complexities of this problem and the need to reconcile, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, the points of view of the Commonwealth, E.F.T.A., ourselves and the rest of Europe. Would the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about

    235
    the procedure which he thinks should be followed in this matter? Is he contemplating that there should simply be a continuation of detailed technical negotiations on individual products, which do not appear to be getting very far, or does he contemplate some rather broader approach by which, for instance, we and our partners of E.F.T.A. might agree to accept the principles of the Rome Treaty while making it plain that we must negotiate particular issues, such as, in our case, free entry for Commonwealth products?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; that is a possible approach. There are, of course, three obligations. There is the obligation to enter into a single agricultural system for Europe. That has not gone very far yet in the Rome Treaty. There are advantages in going in early and perhaps guiding in the way we would want. It is a great difficulty. There are also the Commonwealth obligation and the E.F.T.A. one. I do not want to say anything here which would injure what I hope we may be able to achieve.
    Frankly, I have thought that there were two aspects to this—economic technical problems to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and something rather different, whether there is really the will to bring this about. I have felt that if there is, and if that could be arranged on the political basis, somehow or other we would find a way through the difficulties.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I take it from that that the right hon. Gentleman contemplates direct negotiations with the French Government on this second question of the political implications and what he calls the will for us to join together?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; not necessarily immediately, and certainly not at this moment. I think that it has to be cleared up at the top level whether there is a chance of making an arrangement on this kind of basis, and then we should proceed to what would be the very long and complicated negotiation on the
    236
    details. I will not go further than that. I appreciate that there are different views, but I know that the House as a whole realises the importance to this country and the whole free world of the right approach to the matter in the right way and at the right time.
    Mr. H. Wilson: While it is clear that after these Washington discussions and before very long fundamental decisions will have to be taken, is the Prime Minister aware that many of us will welcome the statement that he has made that Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed with this matter with very great care, so that the right decision can be taken, and that we particularly welcome what he has said about the safeguarding of the three interests which he has mentioned? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to proceed only in agreement with our partners in the Commonwealth and in E.F.T.A., and that in any final solution that may be reached the economic interests of those countries which, for one reason or another, cannot join the Common Market will be fully safeguarded?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; all those considerations have to be borne in mind. Might I put it this way? I do not believe that all this could be brought about perhaps with a purpose which might lie even further beyond extending Europe to a still wider sphere without some losses and without somebody being hurt somewhere. Of course, nothing can ever be done without that happening. The question is: is the theme large enough and are the gains big enough for all the countries concerned to show that it is worth doing and that it ought to proceed? That is the kind of political decision that will ultimately have to be made by all the Governments concerned.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN
John Robertson, esquire, for Paisley.
William Thomas Williams, esquire, for Warrington.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS [17th April]
  Resolutions reported.
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT 17 th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.823–39.]
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith on each Resolution,
  pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  First to Fifth Resolutions agreed to.
  Sixth Resolution—Vehicles excise duty—read a Second time.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 204.

  Division No. 143.]

  AYES

  [3.35 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Holland, Philip

  Aitken, W. T.

  Dance, James

  Hollingworth, John

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Allason, James

  Deeds, W. F.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian(Preston, N.)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Arbuthnot, John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Balniel, Lord

  Duthie, Sir William

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Barber, Anthony

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Barlow, Sir John

  Eden, John

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Barter, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Batsford, Brian

  Emery, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bell, Ronald

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Jackson, John

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Farr, John

  James, David

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Fell, Anthony

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Finlay, Graeme

  Jennings, J. C.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Bidgood, John C.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Foster, John

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bingham, R. M.

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Bishop, F. P.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Bossom, Clive

  Gammans, Lady

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gardner, Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Box, Donald

  George, J. C. (Pollock)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Braine, Bernard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Brewis, John

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Gough, Frederick

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Gower, Raymond

  Lindsay, Martin

  Bryan, Paul

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Buck, Antony

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bullard, Denys

  Green, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Longbottom, Charles

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Gurden, Harold

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  McAdden, Stephen

  Chataway, Christopher

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

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

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

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

  Collard, Richard

  Hastings, Stephen

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hay, John

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Cordle, John

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  Maddan, Martin

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Maginnis, John E.

  Costain, A. P.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Critchley, Julian

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Marshall, Douglas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Marten, Neil

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hocking, Phllip N.

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Teeling, William

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Pym, Francis

  Temple, John M.

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

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mills, Stratton

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rees, Hugh

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Morgan, William

  Rippon, Geoffrey

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Morrison, John

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Robertson, Sir David

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Turner, Colin

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Roots, William

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Noble, Michael

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Seymour, Leslie

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

  Sharples, Richard

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dannis

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Shaw, M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Walder, David

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walker, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntr'd & Chiswick)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Smithers, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Partridge, E.

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Whitelaw, William

  Percival, Ian

  Speir, Rupert

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Peyton, John

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wise, A. R.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pitman, I. J.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Woollam, John

  Pott, Percivall

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Talbot, John E.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hunter, A. E.

  Ainsley, William

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, George

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Baird, John

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

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

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Evans, Albert

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benson, Sir George

  Finch, Harold

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Blyton, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Kelley, Richard

  Boardman, H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Lawson, George

  Bowles, Frank

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Ledger, Ron

  Boyden, James

  George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gooch, E. G.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lipton, Marcus

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grey, Charles

  Logan, David

  Callaghan, James

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  McCann, John

  Chapman, Donald

  Grimond, J.

  MacColl, James

  Chetwynd, George

  Gunter, Ray

  McInnes, James

  Collick, Percy

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  McPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Cronin, John

  Hannan, William

  Manuel, A. C.

  Crosland, Anthony

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mapp, Charles

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Healey, Denis

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Marsh, Richard

  Darling, George

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mason, Roy

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Holman, Percy

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Holt, Arthur

  Milne, Edward J.

  Deer, George

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mitchison, G. R.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Howell, Charles A. (B'ham, Perry Bar)

  Moody, A. S.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Morris, John

  Dempsey, James

  Hoy, James H.

  Mort, D. L.

  Diamond, John

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Neal, Harold

  Oliver, G. H.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Wade, Donald

  Padley, W. E.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Paget, R. T.

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Warbey, William

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Small, William

  Weitzman, David

  Parker, John

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Snow, Julian

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Peart, Frederick

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Whitlock, William

  Pentland, Norman

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wigg, George

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Steele, Thomas

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Stonehouse, John

  Willey, Frederick

  Probert, Arthur

  Stones, William

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Proctor, W. T.

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

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

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

  Williams, T. W. (Warrington)

  Randall, Harry

  Swain, Thomas

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Rankin, John

  Swingler, Stephen

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

  Redhead, E. C.

  Sylvester, George

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Reid, William

  Symonds, J. B.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Woof, Robert

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Robertson, J. (Paisley)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Ross, William

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.

  Seventh to Twentieth Resolutions agreed to.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, or any other Government Department, incurred for the purposes of provisions of that Act relating to the payment of surcharges by employers, including any increase in the sums payable by the said Minister out of such moneys under section nineteen of the Post Office Act, 1961, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—
  (a) of such sum (not exceeding two hundred thousand pounds) for the redemption of the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 as
  may be required to make up any deficiency in the assets available for that purpose in the 1855 Ottoman Guaranteed Loan Investment Account of the National Debt Commissioners;
  (b) of the expenses of the Treasury in connection with the redemption of the Loan;
  (c) of any increase in the money which may become so payable by virtue of any provision of the said Act applying to the Loan the provisions of section five of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955 (which relates to unclaimed moneys in respect of Government stock).
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 197.

  Division No. 144.

  AYES

  3.50 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Cole, Norman

  Aitken, W. T.

  Box, Donald

  Collard, Richard

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Allason, James

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Brewis, John

  Cordle, John

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Corfield, F. V.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Costain, A. P.

  Balniel, Lord

  Brooman-White, R.

  Coulson, J. M.

  Barber, Anthony

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bryan, Paul

  Critchley, Julian

  Barter, John

  Buck, Antony

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Batsford, Brian

  Bullard, Denys

  Crowder, F. P.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Cunningham, Knox

  Bell, Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Dance, James

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Bidgood, John C.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Duncan, Sir James

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Duthie, Sir William

  Bishop, F. P.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bossom, Clive

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Emery, Peter

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Pym, Francis

  Farr, John

  Leavey, J. A.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Fisher, Nigel

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rees, Hugh

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Foster, John

  Lilley, F. J. P.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Robertson, Sir David

  Freeth, Denzil

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Gammans, Lady

  Longbottom, Charles

  Roots, William

  Gardner, Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Seymour, Leslie

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Sharples, Richard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Shaw, M.

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  McAdden, Stephen

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Goodhart, Philip

  McArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Gough, Frederick

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

  Smithers, Peter

  Gower, Raymond

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Green, Alan

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Speir, Rupert

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Gurden, Harold

  Madden, Martin

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  MagInnis, John E.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Talbot, John E.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Hay, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mawby, Ray

  Teeling, William

  Henderson, John (Cathoart)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Temple, John M.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Hendry, Forbes

  Mills, Stratton

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Morgan, William

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Morrison, John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Turner, Colin

  Holland, Philip

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hollingworth, John

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Noble, Michael

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hopkins, Alan

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

  Walder, David

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Walker, Peter

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon, Sir Derek

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Watts, James

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Partridge, E.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Whitelaw, William

  Jackson, John

  Percival, Ian

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Peyton, John

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wise, A. R.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Pitman, I. J.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Woollam, John

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pott, Percivall

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kimball, Marcus

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Kitson, Timothy

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

  Ainsley, William

  Benson, Sir George

  Bowles, Frank

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Boyden, James

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blyton, William

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Boardman, H.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Baird, John

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Redhead, E, C.

  Callaghan, James

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Reid, William

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Rhodes, H.

  Chapman, Donald

  Jeger, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Chetwynd, George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Collick, Percy

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

  Robertson, J. (Paisley)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ross, William

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Darling, George

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lawson, George

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ledger, Ron

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Small, William

  Deer, George

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Snow, Julian

  Dempsey, James

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Diamond, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dodds, Norman

  Logan, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Loughlin, Charles

  Steele, Thomas

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  McCann, John

  Stonehouse, John

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  MacColl, James

  Stones, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

  Evans, Albert

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Swain, Thomas

  Finch, Harold

  Manuel, A. C.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mapp, Charles

  Sylvester, George

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A.

  Symonds, J. B.

  Forman, J. C.

  Marsh, Richard

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mason, Roy

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Milne, Edward J.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Tomney, Frank

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, John

  Wade, Donald

  Grey, Charles

  Mort, D. L.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Warbey, William

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Watkins, Tudor

  Grimond, J.

  Neal, Harold

  Weitzman, David

  Gunter, Ray

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Padley, W. E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hannan, William

  Paget, R. T.

  Wigg, George

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Healey, Denis

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Willey, Frederick

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Parker, John

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Williams, T. W. (Warrington)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Peart, Frederick

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Holman, Percy

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Holt, Arthur

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Prentice, R. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Howell, Charles A. (B'ham, Perry Bar)

  Probert, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Hoy, James H.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Randall, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  [20th April]
  Resolution reported,

  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.
    Resolution read a Second time.
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money] and agreed to this day, and upon the Resolution [20th April] relating to Finance Bill (Procedure) (Isle of Man Act, 1958), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir E. Boyle, and Mr. Barber.

  FINANCE
  Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

  DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.2 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The object of this Bill is to give effect to the intention of the Government, announced in this House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st March, to create a new Government Department to be called the Department of Technical Co-operation. This new Department will deal with the provision of aid to overseas countries in the form of what is known as technical assistance, and it is being created to bring together certain responsibilities and functions which are at present divided amongst the three overseas Departments—the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and the Colonial Office.
  Up to the present time, requests for technical assistance have been dealt with by one or other of these three Departments according to whether the requests have come from a foreign country, from one of the independent countries of the Commonwealth, or from one of our dependent territories. The Government's proposal is that such requests should in future be handled by the new Department, irrespective of the country from which they come.
  Before I go into detail about the functions of the new Department, I think perhaps the House may like to have a short explanation why this Bill is being introduced by a Treasury Minister. I sincerely apologise to the House for the fact that I address them so often, and I think that many hon. Members will feel
  248
  rather like certain people felt about Hamlet's ghost—
  "What, has this thing appear'd again?"
  There are two reasons for this. First, the Treasury has a general responsibility for all matters relating to the machinery of Government; and second, one of the most important functions of the Treasury is to see that, within the necessary overall limits determined by the circumstances of our Budget and balance of payments, public money is spent prudently and with the right choice of priorities. I am quite confident that, from this point of view, a decision that all requests for technical assistance now dealt with in the overseas Departments should be handled by one Department will mark a definite advance.
  The wide range of assistance given to overseas countries, under the general heading of "technical assistance," was described at some length in the White Paper (Command No. 1308) published last month. I do not think I can define technical assistance better than by quoting the definition given in paragraph (9) of the White Paper. According to this definition, technical assistance covers:
  "training in the United Kingdom and overseas, the provision of experts, administrators and other professional men and women; the provision of advisory technical and consultant services and expert missions, and the supply of equipment for training, demonstration, pilot schemes or surveys."
  I think one can, without undue subtlety, draw a broad distinction between helping overseas countries with trained men and women, special equipment and so on, and helping them with the provision of capital aid. It is perfectly true that a capital project may include some element of technical assistance; and it is certainly true that technical assistance may quite often help to pave the way for the success of some major capital project, by means of a pilot scheme or by the expert assessment of the local resources that can be made available. Hon. Members will probably have read the interesting remarks in Mr. Andrew Shonfleld's book The Attack on World Poverty, in which he lays stress on the concept of pre-investment before some major scheme of capital aid is undertaken. In the same way, a technical assistance scheme

  249
  may on occasion, if it is to fulfil its purpose, require equipment on a scale exceeding the normal provisions of this kind of aid. Nevertheless, I feel confident that there is usually, in practice, a pretty clear distinction to be drawn according to whether the object of the scheme in question is capital development, or whether it falls under one of the heads which I have already quoted from paragraph (9) of the White Paper.
  So far as capital aid is concerned, I believe that our present procedures are adequate. I am talking now about the machinery and not about the scale of capital aid, which can be discussed during this debate. The point I was making is that our procedures regarding capital aid will not be affected by this Bill. I should like to make it absolutely plain to the House at the outset of the debate that the new Department of Technical Co-operation will not be responsible for the provision of capital. That will remain, as at present, with the overseas Departments. I think that is perfectly reasonable. Loans or grants to overseas Governments do not normally involve the United Kingdom Government in any close technical examination of the project or plan for which the money is to be spent. On the other hand, the mobilisation and application of our resources for technical assistance is a task of very considerable complexity, and requires the kind of co-operation which a unified Department can best provide.
  Now I want to give the House some indication of the present size of our technical assistance effort. At the beginning of 1960, which is the last date for which figures are available, about 47,500 overseas students were receiving educational training in this country of some kind or another. About 2,000 of this total of 47,500 students held some form of United Kingdom scholarship. About 2,500 trainees have come to this country under Colombo Plan technical assistance arrangements since they started in 1951, and 380 British experts have been employed under the Colombo Plan in South and South-East Asia. I can remember very well when I was at the Ministry of Education visiting a technical college in the north of England and meeting there a pharmacologist who had just come back from working in Nepal under the Colombo Plan technical
  250
  assistance arrangements. Altogether, some 6,000 officers, covering the whole range of professionally qualified men and women, were recruited in this country to serve overseas Governments during the years 1955–60.
  Some of this assistance, particularly in the educational field, is at present handled not by the overseas Departments but by the Ministry of Education, the British Council, the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, and certain other bodies. For the most part, where arrangements of this kind are working well there is no intention of disturbing them, although, naturally enough, there may be a need for some marginal adjustment of responsibility from time to time, and I hope, if I may say this respectfully to the House, that those adjustments will be made with the minimum of friction. In any event, most of the forms of aid which I have described have been provided in the past by the overseas Departments, and will be provided in the future by the new Department.
  I should like to give some examples of the work which will be done by the new Department when it comes into being. One table in the White Paper of last March lists 36 different categories of experts whom we recruited last year for service in the United Kingdom's dependent territories. They ranged in alphabetical order from "administrators, architects, auditors" to "veterinary" and ended with a substantial category headed "miscellaneous" to include people who could not be classified even in that long list of 36 separate categories. The Government have found in practice that the business of recruiting a biologist, for example, is not such a different job whether he is to serve in Asia, Africa, or the Caribbean. The Government consider that the work of recruiting these specialists can be done more easily and efficiently if it is centralised in one Department.
  I am sure that there is no need for me to emphasise to the House the importance of the work done by these experts. It is a great deal less spectacular than some other forms of overseas aid. Technical assistance does not easily catch the headlines in the same way as the damming of a great river or the founding of a new major industry in a territory. But, nevertheless, it will

  251
  often lay the foundation on which a sound project of capital investment is based, and it may very well provide the skill without which a major industrial problem may be unable to develop its full potential.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Gentleman continues to emphasise the word "technical" which is in the title of the Bill, and he quoted the definition from the White Paper. The Bill refers to social services. Are they primarily only to be ancillary to technical development? How, for example, will the problems of medicine, the vital problems of a veterinary service and of veterinary research into the problems of large areas of the continent, continue to be tackled?
  Sir E. Boyle: That certainly would come within the ambit of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) speaks of technical assistance, and there is special mention in that context of assistance in the fields of economic development, administration, and the social services. I would say that obvious cases which one would consider to come within the ambit of the Bill are those concerning experts needed to advise in such things as the starting of a new industry, the provision of skilled administrators in every field, and under the heading of "social services" the provision of veterinary services would be most certainly included.
  I was about to add when the hon. Member intervened that it seems to me that in the whole matter of economic development, whether of growth at home or abroad, there is always danger of putting too much emphasis on the spectacular. Putting in weight all along the line, sometimes in unspectacular ways, may have just as great an economic effect as those aspects of economic development that most easily attract public attention.
  The United Kingdom has a long record of service overseas both in the public and private spheres, which dates back over several centuries and of which we as a country can justly be proud. Anyone reading the White Paper could hardly fail to be impressed by the size and authority of our effort. Nevertheless, the needs of emergent countries are becoming more urgent every year—I would say
  252
  almost every month—and the supply of qualified people available for service overseas is naturally limited. It is, therefore, of the highest importance that we should have the best possible arrangements both for selecting them and for using their abilities in the best directions.
  Another important responsibility of the new Department is the administration of the scheme set out in the White Paper presented to Parliament last October by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary for the continued employment of overseas officers. As the House will recall, this scheme is designed to help certain Governments to retain the services of overseas officials until local public services can be firmly established. It is expected to cost about £12 million a year, apart from compensation payments. This is not my own direct departmental responsibility, but I think, as all members of the Government think, that this is something of great importance from the point of view of the future of a great many countries and territories. I should, however, make it plain that the new Department will not be responsible for the transfer, promotion and discipline of the overseas service in dependent territories. That responsibility will remain with the Colonial Secretary.
  Another part of the responsibilities of the new Department will be concerned with the technical assistance provided with the help of the United Kingdom through the United Nations Organisation, in particular the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and Special Fund. The new Department will also take over the present work of the Technical Assistance Recruitment Unit of the Ministry of Labour, which recruits personnel in this country for service with the United Nations.
  The Department will also deal with technical assistance under the Colombo Plan and under the newly-formed Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan. It will be responsible on behalf of the United Kingdom for technical assistance matters discussed in the Development Assistance Group, and for any such discussions held in the new Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: Does that mean that when

  253
  a development plan for a dependent territory is to be drawn up, the new Department will be more involved in that task than the Colonial Office?
  Sir E. Boyle: That is a difficult question to answer in advance of the new Department being set up. It is one of those questions which cannot be answered simply "Yes" or "No", but it is precisely the sort of issue which will arise and which we shall have to consider carefully on its merits when the new Department comes into being.
  I apologise to the House for giving this catalogue, but it is difficult to be explicit on this matter and not at the same time be rather tedious. Among the other responsibilities of the Department will be the provision of technical assistance to a number of Middle East countries under the Central Treaty Organisation arrangements and also through the Middle East Development Division. The increasing importance of international co-ordination and the growth of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister calls inter-dependence throughout the world are themselves among the strongest reasons for the creation of a new central Government Department.
  In general—and I emphasise this to the House—the relations of the new Department with other Departments and organisations over matters of technical assistance will be the same as those of the overseas Departments hitherto. Where other Departments and organisations have specialised responsibilities in the field of technical assistance, these in general will be left unchanged. For example, as a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, I naturally have in mind those educational matters for which I used to bear a share of responsibility. In this respect the very valuable work of the British Council will retain its full importance, and the Ministry of Education will remain the Department responsible for Britain's contribution to the work of U.N.E.S.C.O.
  I have already indicated that the creation of the new Department may well necessitate a number of marginal changes in other people's responsibilities; but it will be far easier to consider such matters in a practical way once the new Department has come into being and has started work.
  254
  Now I pass on to the place of the new Department within the central Government machine. The new Department will, as has already been announced, carry out its responsibilities within the general framework of the policies for which my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies are responsible. The intention is that the new Department should be in charge of a Minister, to be known as the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, whose rank will be equivalent to that of a Minister of State. The permanent head of the Department, the chief civil servant, will be known as the Director-General, and his rank will be equivalent to that not of a Permanent Secretary but a Deputy Secretary in another Government Department.
  The staff of the new Department is expected to number something over 1,000, but this will not mean, at any rate initially, the creation of more than at most a very few additional posts. It will mean the transfer to the new Department of posts from the existing overseas Departments and, broadly speaking, the transfer of equivalent numbers of staff. In so far as any new posts are created, either at home or overseas, the Government will certainly keep in mind the possibility of re-employing former members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service with the right qualifications, and we certainly hope that the new Department will help to increase the opportunities for former members of the Service to be employed on technical assistance work.
  The Government hope, subject to the approval of Parliament, to set up the new Department before the Summer Recess. Its main offices will be in part of Carlton House Terrace. Perhaps I might also remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said that the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will be a Member of the House of Commons and he will, therefore, be available in this House to answer for the work and organisation of his Department.
  I am sure, nonetheless, that the House, will agree with me when I say that some of the most important work of the Secretary for Technical Co-operation may well consist in visits overseas, both to

  255
  individual countries and as a British spokesman at international gatherings, and I am sure the House will gladly, so to speak, grant him leave of absence from time to time. Of course, it will be up to the usual channels to make any arrangements for answering Questions and so on if the Secretary is away.
  Sir James Duncan: Could my hon. Friend explain who will be the Secretary's boss? Will he be directly under the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Sir E. Boyle: He will not have a boss in the sense that my hon. Friend means. This will be a Government Department on its own. The Secretary for Technical Co-operation will work within the broad framework of the policies for which the three Overseas Ministers are responsible, but he will be his own boss so far as the House of Commons is concerned, and it will be possible to put Questions down to him.
  Sir J. Duncan: He will have direct access to the Prime Minister?
  Sir E. Boyle: That is so.
  Now I come to a matter which is naturally somewhat close to my own heart as Financial Secretary. The new Department will have a Vote of its own to cover both its establishment expenses and its expenditure on the provision of technical assistance, including the cost of the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. I would say to the House that on a provisional estimate, this Vote will be of the order of £30 million, including certain expenditure now financed out of Colonial Development and Welfare funds. But this £30 million will not represent new expenditure. As the Financial Memorandum to the Bill explains, this will be in place of corresponding expenditure by the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office, and the Bill, which is designed to authorise a plan of administrative reorganisation, does not involve, other than incidentally, any net increase. I will see to it that Estimates for the new Department, and revised Estimates for the three overseas Departments, are presented to the House as soon as possible.
  Now I come to the Bill itself. Hon. Members will see that the Bill to give
  256
  effect to these provisions is a short one, and I should have thought in itself quite uncontroversial. Clause 1 provides for the creation of the new Department under the charge of a Minister with rank equivalent to that of a Minister of State, and for transferring to him the proposed functions. Later on the House, in the form of a Committee—not that this is anything to do with you, Mr. Speaker—will be asked to consider the question of the Minister's salary.
  Clause 2 relates merely to the oath of allegiance. Clause 3 provides for the appointment of his staff and for the payment of the Department's expenses. The remaining Clauses in the Bill are all in the nature of consequential provisions.
  I think it is fair to say that in Britain today there is more widespread interest in the needs of the under-developed countries than ever before. Whatever our views may be about the moral implications of an affluent society, and however much we may differ in this House in detail about the sort of society we wish to see, none of this can in any way lessen the significance for the whole of the human race of the fact that millions of ordinary wage-earners, in the advanced industrial countries of the West, have now achieved a standard of life and of opportunity which has hitherto been denied to all save a tiny fraction of humanity. What is more, this fact is becoming more and more widely known and understood, and its implications known and understood, in those parts of the world where the standard of living is still, for the overwhelming majority, only at the level of bare subsistence.
  I commend the Bill to the House as a reflection of the importance which the Government attach to meeting rapidly and effectively the needs of the less developed countries for technical aid from the United Kingdom towards the furtherance of their social and economic progress.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Marquand: I am sure that the whole House agrees not with the last couple of sentences in the Minister's speech, but with those generalisations that he made about the importance of world poverty today, the growing understanding of its nature and its size, and the difficulties that we

  257
  have to encounter if we are to overcome it.
  There are three major problems confronting us and which call for an urgent solution. One is disarmament; the other concerns our relations with Africa, which we discussed last night; and the third is the problem of the dire poverty of two-thirds of the world's population. The Bill derives any significance that it possesses from its association with that grave problem.
  Unfortunately, the gap between the more prosperous nations, comprising about one-third of the world's population, and the conditions of the remaining two-thirds of the world's population who are poor, is widening. It has not been closed by what has been done hitherto. Mr. Paul Hoffman, who knows as much about this subject as any man, who is certainly as well qualified as anyone to talk about it, having been the administrator of the Marshall Plan which set Europe on its feet after the war, and whose qualifications are unrivalled, has calculated that, in the last ten years, whereas the annual rate of income of the better-off nations has been increasing by 3 per cent., the annual growth of income in the 100 underdeveloped countries with which he particularly deals has been at the rate of only 1 per cent. While we are getting richer at the rate of 3 per cent. per year, they are improving their condition at the rate of only 1 per cent. per year. Therefore, though some progress has been made, the gap between us is widening all the time.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Lansdowne, stated on 22nd February that the average income today is the United States is £750 a year, that the average income per head of population in the United Kingdom is £360 a year, but that for over 50 underdeveloped countries the annual income per person is only £35. Many Commonwealth countries are included in the latter statistics. Two Commonwealth countries, in particular, are key countries in the battle against world poverty. One is Pakistan, which has only just managed to break even after the end of its first five-year plan, which, at the end of its first five years of attempted economic development, is no better or worse off than it was when it began. It is now setting out on another five-year plan,
  258
  aiming, this time, to increase its annual income per head by 2 per cent. For that objective, which we all hope and pray it will achieve, it needs foreign aid of £90 million a year.
  The most serious problem of all arises in India, the largest of these great underdeveloped nations. Her hope was that her present plan, a third five-year plan, would enable her to reach at the end of it what is called the take-off stage or what is sometimes referred to as the break through, or of becoming self-propelled, whichever phrase we like to use. The hope was that at the end of the present five-year plan India would be in a position to generate sufficient capital from her own resources to continue to expand the annual income at a reasonable rate without recourse to overseas aid. Recent population calculations made in India suggest that the amount of aid required to achieve that highly desirable objective may have been seriously underestimated.
  We have been told that, apart from the reduction in the sterling balance—and, after all, that is only the repayment of a debt which we owe to India for services rendered during the war—Great Britain's aid to India so far has totalled £80 million. Obviously, a more intensive effort now has to be made if India is to achieve the objective of take-off. In the face of this newly-discovered great increase in population, her total foreign exchange gap for the present plan is estimated at £1,482 million, but her request for overseas aid for this year from other countries, including our own, totals £228 million. In his ten-year plan, to which I refer particularly in speeches which I make in the country as the world ten-year plan for economic development, Mr. Hoffman estimates that there must be an increase over the ten years of £7,000 million over and above the present amount of Government aid to the 100 underdeveloped countries to which he refers.
  I think that the House could have reasonably expected this afternoon some indication of the part which the Government intend this country should play in these big efforts. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that there were many difficulties in the way and that our present balance of trade situation was such—if

  259
  I did not misunderstand him—that we would not be able to do this year all that we had set out to do, and almost certain that we should not be able to increase our effort. Most certainly, I cannot be making a mistake in interpreting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Budget speech as indicating that we should fall short at the present rate of providing our fair quota of what this gigantic ten-year Hoffman plan calls for. We may fall short of what India wants in these difficult times and unless we can help her to make a success of her takeoff she may lose hope.
  The Chancellor pointed out the need for a surplus on current account if we are to invest overseas. If we are to have this surplus, we must either increase exports or reduce imports or have a combination of the two. I agree that in present circumstances it is difficult to do this. I will not enter into controversial discussion on this point; that has been done on the Budget debate and can be done on the Finance Bill. We have given our reasons why the country is in this difficult position at present. Let us leave that aside and concentrate on this problem of aid for the underdeveloped areas.
  Our resources do not match the needs of the moment. Surely that involves some assessment of priorities in what we do. If our total resources are less than the reasonable claims calculated by world experts, we must somehow devise a measure of determining which activity shall be given priority in what we are able to afford. The first paragraph in the White Paper, Cmnd. 1308, which was issued a short time ago and which is, of course, our main guide to the general purposes of the Bill, tells us that during 1960 Government aid for overseas development totalled about £150 million and private investment from this country to the underdeveloped areas totalled about £100 million, a round figure total of £250 million.
  I am glad that we have had the figure for private investment broken down to a figure which applies to the underdeveloped countries. The previous figures given to us included private investment in countries such as Australia which, although physically underdeveloped, are not economically underdeveloped. We are told that this represents
  260
  doubling the effort in the last three years. That is good, but there was need for it. The Chancellor evidently doubts whether he can do much more, and we must, therefore, try to ensure that all this aid is used to the best advantage.
  The £100 million of private investment counts just as much against our balance of payments as the £150 million of Government investment. It is all going for the same general purpose. If my argument is correct—and I feel that it is—that this is insufficient for the urgent needs of the moment, then both the public and the private investment must have the test of priority applied to them.
  It was because of this major problem that I hoped that the Government would have come forward this afternoon with a Bill not merely for centralising under one control technical aid given to underdeveloped countries. I agree that there is a case for this and I am glad that it has been done. But many of us on this side of the House hoped that a Minister for Aid would be appointed, a Minister responsible for surveying the overall problem and determining the priorities. We need not discuss how he would indicate the priorities to private investors, but it will have to be done by someone if we are not to make a mess of this in the next few years.
  Three years ago I suggested the establishment of machinery for co-ordinating aid, technical as well as capital, and bringing the Colonial Development Corporation well into the centre of the setup. The Corporation could become the Government spearhead in an effort of this kind, advising the Minister from the practical experience which is possesses in assessing what the priorities should be. Ministers are at some disadvantage in assessing these priorities since they are at some distance from the problem and are, naturally, apt to have proposals put to them piecemeal. This Minister for Aid, if only we had him, could also be responsible for a vigorous British Government initiative in trying to secure a greater degree of stability in the terms of trade. All who have studied the problem agree that this is a major problem in the provision of economic aid to underdeveloped countries. The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, pointed out the other day what has been pointed out

  261
  before—that a 5 per cent. drop in the price of tropical products on which the underdeveloped countries mainly rely for their trade could wipe out the value in one year of all the aid given to them. Everyone who has been in these countries knows that this is a serious problem. I will not elaborate it, because I have given many examples in other debates.
  If we could secure a greater stability in the terms on which we exchange our manufactured goods with these tropical products, through agreements not necessarily identical with but of the same type as the wheat, tin and sugar agreements, we should, at the same time, tend to stabilise the terms of trade in general, and we should not then encounter periodically, as we have every two or three years since the end of the war, the problem of an adverse balance of payments and a continual fluctuation in the balance of payments, with an accumulation of gold for a year or two followed by a year or two of financial stringency, credit squeeze and a reduction in our export trade.
  A stabilisation of the terms of trade can be achieved. Proof of that lies in the agreements which have been made. More effort needs to be given to that objective, especially by this country which, with her world-wide trading activities, is more subject to the evil results of fluctuations in the terms of trade than is almost any other country.
  Recently, proposals of this kind for setting up a Minister to discharge this sort of function about aid were made, I believe, from other sources, and on 22nd February the noble Lord, the Earl of Perth, said in another place:
  "The whole question is still under study, but I would say that whether it"—
  and by that he means capital aid—
  "is included now or not, the great thing is to make a start."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd February, 1961; Vol. 228, c.1088.]
  I deduce from what the noble Lord said on 22nd February that the idea of having a Minister of Aid to co-ordinate all aid, to be responsible for priorities and perhaps to undertake a greater initiative in stabilising the terms of trade was under consideration by the Government and that it has been turned down.
  I suspect that the representative of the Lord High Executioner is sitting on the
  262
  Government Front Bench. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was not responsible, because he is not in the Cabinet, but he is present today as representative of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I suspect that it was the Treasury which dashed the hopes of all of us who thought that our great effort in this third largest problem in the world today would be placed under a new, co-ordinated, active direction in the person of a member of the Cabinet.
  The hon. Member said that he might have been mistaken this afternoon for a ghost. I think that he is classed for the rôle of midwife of a not tremendously impressive baby. It is because, in Lord Perth's words, that this may represent a start and may be the first trembling step towards co-ordinating at least one aspect of aid, and, because it may lead to other steps and to what we think is the only sensible way to run this business, that we welcome the Bill and hope that it will prove successful.
  We are encouraged to believe that it will prove more important than it looks at first sight by the story which has appeared in reputable newspapers that Sir Andrew Cohen is to be appointed chief official. I suppose that he would hardly accept such a posit unless he thought the purpose worth while and unless he thought that it would contribute to the problems of the underdeveloped countries which he knows so well from his long experience, especially in the Colonial Territories and in the Colonial Office. If he is to be the head of the administration under the Minister it is a guarantee that the Department will be vigorously administered.
  Is the status of the Minister to be as high as the hon. Member indicated and is he to have direct access to the Prime Minister? That statement took my breath way. It did not sound like the status of a Minister of State to me. If it is so, so much the better, because it means that he will be a more important Minister than I thought. I thought that he would have more of the status—because that is indicated elsewhere—of the Secretary for Overseas Trade during the Labour Government. That post has been raised to the status of Minister of State, but, even so, I am sure that that Minister has not direct

  263
  access with his problems to the Prime Minister; he is bound to go through the President of the Board of Trade.
  I hope that we shall have a Minister who is fully alive to the importance of his post and to the importance of the problems, a section of which he will handle. I hope that he will seek to build this Department into an effective nucleus which one day will grow to be much bigger.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave many examples of the value of technical aid which is being and has been given. I fully agree with all that he said. Technical aid is highly important. Without technical aid, in many instances capital aid might be wasted. Technical aid prepares the ground for capital aid and capital aid is a preparation for the use of technical aid. Technical aid is necessary even when the capital has been put to work. The new steel mills in India are glad to use the services of steel workers, blast furnace workers and others from this country who have supervisory knowledge. Only recently I read of one such British worker being sent from Tees-side to undertake work of that kind. This is technical aid, as is the aid of soil specialists, agronomists and teachers. Thousands of different specialists can give of their best in this way, and their aid is invaluable if they approach the job in the right spirit.
  When he has to find these experts in response to requests from overseas, the new Minister will be unable to find all he wants. I suspect that if this job is to go ahead as fast as it ought, he will have to determine priorities. He may have to say, "I have only two soil conservation experts on my hands, but I have four requests for such people". He will have to make a decision between the four applicants for the two men. I do not envy him the job of determining these priorities when no central priorities are laid down by a Minister with greater powers. I hope that, at any rate, he will try to obtain directives which will enable him to do his job in the most satisfactory and least wasteful way and that he will not just take it as a Post Office job, take the applications in the order in which they are received and supply the labour force in the order in which it is available.
  264
  The new Minister will have a difficult job, working for three Ministers—and it is undeniable that he will have three Ministers. He will be responsible to three Secretaries of State. There is a danger, but it is not so much that he will not have access to them, will not be able to make his ideas plain to them and to persuade them what they ought to do, or that they will not come to an agreement on what he is able to do with his scarce resources. The danger in this set-up is the danger of what the Civil Service calls consultation. If the new Minister is responsible to three other Ministers, the officials of those three other Ministers will all the time be concerned to see that the interests of their Departments are not interfered with and that any matter which might in the slightest degree trespass on one of these Departments is referred to it before a decision is made. I know that this is a danger, having worked both as a civil servant and as a Minister. I hope that the new Minister will be strongly supported by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in cutting out unnecessary consultation and that he will devise means whereby prompt decisions can be taken.
  The new Minister will be responsible for the Overseas Civil Service provided for in the Overseas Service Act, which we passed a short time ago. As the Colonial Secretary remembers, I warmly welcomed the proposal which he put before the House when he made the statement which was eventually embodied in that Act. It is potentially an extremely valuable service for this country to render—to make available the service of experts who have worked overseas and to pay the overseas Government the difference between the reasonable remuneration of those people and what the overseas Government can afford to pay them. I supported that Bill when it was in the House and wish it well in its operation.
  It is, however, disturbing to read the Answer given on 18th April last by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to the hon. Lady the Member for Hornsey (Lady Gammans), who asked
  "…whether the arrangements recently made by Her Majesty's Government in the Overseas Service Act have been accepted by Nigeria…"

  265
  The Answer was:
  "The Nigerian Federal Government and the Regional Governments decided after careful consideration that they did not wish to avail themselves of the arrangements offered by this scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.85.]
  Why not? This is an occasion on which we would like an answer to that question. It may be an isolated example—I hope so—but Nigeria is one of the most important of these countries. It has a population of 45 million people, and its Northern Region, particularly, greatly needs economic development. How can it be that Nigeria was not willing to accept the provisions made under that Act? Could it have had something to do with the terms on which capital aid was offered to Nigeria?
  What the Government have done is to say that the colonial development and welfare grants shall end, or shall be tapered off as quickly as possible after a Colonial Territory becomes independent, after which the territory becomes eligible for loans instead of grant. But the loans are now being offered at 6½ per cent. interest. Can it be that this very high rate of interest is resulting in a refusal of capital aid, and a consequent refusal of technical aid? We are entitled to know that.
  I can imagine that the representative of the Treasury will say, "You talk of the necessity of priorities in the giving of aid. The way to secure that is through the rate of interest. That is the regulator of the market." With that, we shall never agree. In this particular sphere, above all, we believe that the aid should be offered on terms that are not prohibitive to the recipient country, and that the priority, if priority there is to be, should not be fixed by a high rate of interest and the aid given only to those who can pay that rate. The priority should be granted in accordance with the need for aid of the recipient country. I hope that before the debate ends some light will be thrown on what has actually happened in Nigeria.
  I will not attempt to go into what the Financial Secretary called his catalogue of various agencies with which the new Minister will be in contact—I heard it only a moment or two before I had to speak—but I welcome the fact that the Minister will be in touch with the United Nations organisations working
  266
  in this field, and with the new Organisation for European Co-operation and Development.
  I hope that nothing I have said about the importance of capital aid, about the inevitability of priorities, will cause anyone to think that in any way I underestimate the value of technical aid. Of course, it is highly valuable. As I have already said, at many points it goes with the provision of capital aid, and it is valuable even beyond that, because it assists in creating educated men and women who are able to use the tools of the twentieth century and it assists in building up the health of vigorous men and women who are able to work in the new undertakings that are provided.
  Its value cannot be over emphasised. Nevertheless, do not let the emphasis on the importance of technical aid be in any way a substitute for making the maximum possible effort in the important fields of capital aid and the stabilisation of the terms of trade.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I welcome the Bill as an event of the greatest possible importance. I found myself much in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman said, especially when he referred to India. I read the leading article yesterday in the Financial Times, which pointed out that over the next five years India will require some £2,500 million. That is only one territory in a vast world where aid of every kind is needed. It gives one some idea of the immense task that faces the capital-producing countries, and I believe that it will not be overcome unless the capital-producing countries come together for that purpose. It is absolutely essential that, in some way, our economic policies should be co-ordinated.
  Of the two points on which I wish particularly to dwell, the first is staff. I believe that the staffing of this new Department is to some extent tied up with the reform of the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and the staff of the Foreign Service generally. We may utimately come to some form of common intake, but I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary say that in this new Department

  267
  there should be places for many of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants who are found to be redundant elsewhere.
  My hon. Friend listed them alphabetically, and I am glad that, as a result, administrators come fairly high. For too long administrators working in some of the emergent countries have not been considered to be technicians, and we all know how difficult it is to run government unless those running it are sufficiently qualified. I believe that administrators count with those who deal with education, with medicine, building bridges or roads, and many of them may have to be seconded from either the home Civil Service or from local authorities.
  I only hope that Her Majesty's Government will make it clear to local authorities and to others in charge of or responsible for the careers of these technicians that by going overseas they will not lose their place on the ladder of promotion. One constantly hears from doctors and from teachers of the fear that if they do take a job overseas they will, by the time they wish to come back, be forgotten, and will find it difficult even to get into a place at the same level at which they have left this country.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he has given consideration to the way in which private enterprise in industry can help this technical aid, not only through the trade unions but through the directors of great companies, who might help by seconding their own technicians overseas for a year or two. I hope that this problem can be tackled jointly with various Commonwealth Governments. I should like to see it a joint venture not only in the management of the technical aid but in the provision of the technicians who will be employed in that service. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take technicians from every member of the Commonwealth so that there is the biggest possible interplay of ideas and skills between the various Commonwealth countries.
  I turn now to what the right hon. Gentleman said about Nigeria. Many of us were very fearful during the Second Reading debate on the Overseas Service Bill that this very thing would happen. In my opinion, the aid, great as it is, has been produced too late. Many of us
  268
  have argued for many years about the need for this aid, and it has been fairly obvious that many emergent countries have been frightened that political dominance will be succeeded by economic dominance. In their independence, they are fearful that another kind of Briton will be provided, whose loyalty might be divided between the emergent country's Government and the United Kingdom Government. I believe that is feared, not only in Nigeria but in many of the about-to-be-independent territories.
  This expenditure of £12 million—it was more before Nigeria opted out—is, of course, a magnificent gesture on behalf of this country, and I only hope that if, in a year or two, Nigeria has second thoughts we would be prepared to extend the aid that at the moment Nigeria has refused.
  Then there is the method of the aid. The Financial Secretary likened himself to Hamlet's father's ghost, but I would like to remind him of the words of one about to die. Polonius said:
  "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be:
  For loan oft loses both itself and friend;
  And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."
  There is the danger that a lump sum payment by, say, this Government to another Government can be abrogated and be politically difficult in the years to come. If there is some other way in which the aid can be given, I hope that attention will be given to it.
  Developing countries want not only the infrastructure—the roads, ports, railways, and bridges—but also want to keep up with the Joneses in steel mills and light industry. I believe that it is in that way that private enterprise, in particular, can help. I also think that the old view held in this country by some people that we should export the products of our industry in return for agricultural produce is completely wrong. One has only to see the immense expansion of trade between the United Kingdom and other industrialised countries, such as the United States of America.
  It is a British interest that either alone—or, preferably, in partnership—we should establish new factories in emergent territories. I believe that to be a long-term British interest, and that those factories will come back time and time again to Britain for the plant necessary for the expansion they will probably

  269
  achieve, and for our general "know-how". I hope that the Treasury, when it fears balance-of-payment problems over money invested overseas, will consider that side of the question, because I think that it is there that private industry can help in a major way.
  The trouble is that the historical events of the last decade have militated against that very thing—Abadan, Suez, the Congo, the events in Angola, or even in Rhodesia. Not very long ago, Sir Roy Welensky said that Africa stank in the City of London, and very few private investors, saving their capital, will today want to invest either in Africa or in Asia.
  How have other countries tackled this problem? The United States of America, through the International Co-operation Administration has been able to ensure hundreds of millions of dollars of investments overseas. The Germans now have a similar scheme; so have the Swiss and the Japanese. At the moment, they are all bilateral schemes. I am told that the Common Market countries are now discussing this very subject and that within a few months they, too, will have some scheme of insurance for their industry overseas.
  I believe that it is high time for the Commonwealth countries to get together and establish a similar scheme to insure against two main risks; the fear of nationalisation, with compensation only in an inconvertible currency, and the fear that it will not be possible to remit profits to this country. There are other fears, I agree—civil war, international war, creeping nationalisation—that is to say, discrimination between an externally-owned and an internally-owned concern. There is also the fear that the local currency will depreciate, between the formation of the overseas company and the turning of its cash into bricks and mortar and plant.
  But one cannot insure against everything, and the two main risks, I repeat, are the fear of not being able to remit profits and that of nationalisation. If we could have some form of Commonwealth scheme of this kind, we would be able to get a lot of private capital investment to supplement, or to some extent even to take over from, Government loans. I urge the Financial Secretary to look into that possibility very
  270
  carefully. If only we could get that as a joint approach by the Commonwealth, great good would flow from it.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of three main questions facing the world today. There is another which surpasses them all. It is that capitalism and the mixed economy are on trial, and that at the moment we are losing the cold war. We have to show the uncommitted countries that capitalism can produce the goods which are wanted in the world. It is absolute nonsense that millions should be unemployed in the United States of America when the production of the United States can be immensely greater than it is and when people all over the world are in need of that production.
  The capitalist countries have to co-ordinate their economic policies. It is absolute nonsense that American aid cannot be as generous in future as in the past; for fear of a run on the dollar, and that we cannot invest in the Commonwealth as we would like, for fear of a run on the £, and that gold mounts in the vaults in Germany. We are all in this together, or should be. I hope that we shall tackle it together. There are signs that at last the international bankers are coming together. I hope that they will continue to do so and that they will be seen to do so.
  Finally, I urge that whoever is appointed to this very responsible job should co-ordinate not only the aid of all the Commonwealth countries, but that of all the capital-producing countries of the Western world.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who has a great reputation for his deep knowledge of, and great sincerity in, these matters. I think that the whole House particularly appreciates the continuing interest which he has taken in British administrators overseas. I am not so warm in my welcome of the Bill as is the hon. Member. But for the fact that my intention might have been misunderstood, I would have tabled a reasoned Amendment to reject the Bill on the ground of its total inadequacy in present circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member for Wavertree will forgive me, but it is my intention to leave what

  271
  he said and to attack the Bill and the extent to which it is grossly and patently inadequate.
  I agreed with the hon. Member when he spoke of the future of the mixed system—he called it capitalism and also talked about a mixed economy, but let us refer to it as the "free system"—and the extent to which the free system is on trial in the world today. If, in the British Commonwealth, we cannot show sustained economic growth, if we cannot make the British Commonwealth into a fighting example which will make it self-evident that Communism is unnecessary, then we shall fail in the next decade. And we have only the next decade in which to provide that fighting example.
  To put it in a nutshell, we have to show to the world how the Commonwealth, this Commonwealth of free nations, can share its burdens, irrespective of colour and creed, and united, as the hon. Member would have it, in economic terms in freedom and liberty of action. We have a very short time in which to do that. The challenge of Communism is still growing. It is still eating in at the edge of the British Commonwealth and I shall later be talking of an area in which there is still a danger, not properly noticed in this country, and where we ought to be doing something economically to prevent that from happening.
  I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) was right when he said that the Bill was only half the Measure it could have been if there had been a different agreement in the Cabinet. There could have been a Minister for Aid, as my right hon. Friend called it, and it is a shame and a grave mistake that we have been given only this half Measure instead of the total Measure the virtue of which my right hon. Friend expounded so brilliantly.
  The whole problem is that it is impossible at this stage, effectively and with any sense of satisfying the needs of the Commonwealth, to divorce technical from capital aid. This should have been a Ministry which first did much of the technical work needed to assess the problems and to help to teach people how to solve them. Then the Ministry should have been able to show the
  272
  channels through which to satisfy legitimate demands for capital aid for dealing with the problems which the technical investigations had uncovered.
  In the words of an administrator in one of our Colonies who wrote to me this week:
  "As regards the new Ministry, I fully agree with you that capital needs should be co-ordinated by the same group dealing with Technical Assistance."
  This man is the head of an economic planning department in one of our former Colonies. He went on:
  "I believe that the most telling point here is that so often Technical Assistance means nothing more than defining and putting together what the needs are. All these needs invariably can only be met by capital. There is very little point in sending us technical assistance to study our ports if when the recommendations are made as to what should be done the source which should be providing the capital will be different, and the whole case has to be made all over again to this new source."
  That is very true, but that is precisely what has to happen. We will have a Minister who will be co-ordinating on the periphery of the whole problem, and as soon as a great problem has to be met, he will have to say to the territory concerned, "Go away with the problem which we have uncovered and tout it round"—to put it into the vernacular—"to all the various agencies who may be able to give you capital assistance". That is precisely what is going on today, and that will not provide the example to the world of a Commonwealth developing in harmony and with its plans carefully laid for the next decade.
  Let us consider the position of capital assistance at the moment. There are a number of ways in which developing territories, such as that which I have mentioned, can get capital help. First, there are the colonial development and welfare schemes, except—and one begins to make exceptions as soon as one starts to make a list—as soon as an area becomes independent. There are Commonwealth assistance loans—direct grants made by the Colonial Office. There is the Colonial Development Corporation, all hedged around by what it can and cannot do as soon as independence is in the offing. Incidentally, nobody seems to know just what it can and cannot do when that era approaches in any particular case: there is a vague phrase about it being able to carry on with projects

  273
  which it has been encouraging, but nobody knows precisely what that means or how far the Corporation can step over the boundaries of that definition.
  Through our own subscriptions, there is help from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. There is our own participation in the Development Assistance Group and there is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. There are all these Government and international agencies. In private enterprise there is the Commonwealth Development Finance Company, which is specifically for helping some areas to get capital for projects which would not normally be satisfied directly by direct investment from particular firms. There is access to the London market for loans, and there are individual investment and development projects by individual firms.
  In other words, once one gets to the point of seeing what capital needs for all sorts of problems in our developing Commonwealth there are, one finds eight or more agencies to which the area can turn, one by one, to ask for help in carrying out any project. It is ludicrous that we should go through the 1960s without a Minister helping and guiding the whole process and being available to help an individual territory to go to the best organisation for getting its money. That situation is intolerable.
  I quote to the House what President Kennedy said when he took office and found what was the situation regarding foreign aid from the United States of America. He found just the sort of situation which exists in this country. Indeed, his document to Congress on foreign aid is one of the most inspiring documents which he has issued since he came into office. I quote one section in which he says:
  "For no objective supporter of foreign aid can be satisfied with the existing programme—actually a multiplicity of programmes. Bureaucratically fragmented, awkward and slow, its administration is diffused over a haphazard and irrational structure covering at least four departments and several other agencies. The programme is based on a series of legislative measures and administrative procedures conceived at different times and for different purposes, many of them now obsolete, inconsistent and unduly rigid and thus unsuited for our present needs and purposes. Its weaknesses have begun to undermine confidence in our effort both here and abroad.
  274
  The programme requires a highly professional skilled service, attracting substantial numbers of high calibre men and women capable of sensitive dealing with other governments, and with deep understanding of the process of economic development."
  On the basis of that diagnosis, President Kennedy has proposed a Ministry of Aid for America—just what my right hon. Friend was advocating today for Britain. He has proposed a clean sweep of the board and a winding up of the agencies, co-ordinating the work under one central direction. If that is accepted by Congress, it will be an immense support to the job of the free world in the 1960s in properly helping development in the underdeveloped areas of the free world.
  This is what should have been done in this Bill. President Kennedy hints as much when he says that other nations ought to be taking part in this work. He said:
  "This goal is in our grasp"—
  the goal of preserving the free world—
  "if, and only if, the other industrialised nations now join us in developing with the recipients a set of commonly agreed criteria, a set of long-range goals, and a common undertaking to meet those goals, in which each nation's contribution is related to the contributions of others and to the precise needs of each less-developed nation. Our job, in its largest sense, is to create a new partnership between the northern and southern halves of the world, to which all free nations can contribute, in which each free nation must assume a responsibility proportional to its means."
  This is a challenge to Brtain as well as to every industrialised nation to come in on the great experiment which President Kennedy wants to start—the experiment of doing this job on a proper scale. He clearly wants proper co-ordination and a feeling that it is at least on the basis of proper assessment of our capital needs, and our capital ability to provide help for those areas and then a determination to go forward with a proper plan to get the job done. It is against President Kennedy's diagnosis of the enormity of the problem that this Bill is so puny, hardly worth bringing before the House of Commons.
  I shall give one example of the difficulty—to bring it down to brass tacks—which one has in helping with capital development some of these areas. As the House knows, I have been in Jamaica for some time. I came back determined to see what I could do to help with

  275
  some of that country's requirements. I came back determined to help with the next stage of economic development in Jamaica, a construction boom. There comes a stage in many development territories where the great spurt to economic development, "Operation boot strap" as it is called in some parts of the world, can be provided more by a construction boom than by anything else.
  The big need in Jamaica today is for a housing programme, in view of the shortage of up to 100,000 housing units; and for a start Jamaica needs vast housing finance. She needs help for working class houses and mortgage finance for middle class houses. For the working class housing money Jamaica feels bound to go to America. She has felt that for some time, much though she appreciates the help from Britain. The opportunities of getting help on the scale required for working class houses in Jamaica were probably not here in this country. I leave that aside, because I do not claim to be fully briefed on it. But it is tragic that Jamaica has to rely on America, although I know, of course, of the great interest which America has in the area.
  When I got interested in seeing whether we could get mortgage finance for middle class housing my first job was to write to the Colonial Secretary. He was courtesy itself. He managed to give me a list of the agencies, the private investment companies, insurance companies and banks which, on previous occasions, have provided money for the housing development in the Carribean.
  My next stage is to see whether the Colonial Development Corporation would help with more money. It has helped with the first two middle class housing scheme in Jamaica. I also have to go to the insurance companies which have put money in so far and ask them if they had put in as much as they could in Jamaica, or if they could do more. Then I have to go to those who had not been in this market and say to them, "Your colleagues have been in this field. Do you think that you, as a big insurance company, could come in with a few hundred thousand pounds or a million?"
  I am not complaining about having to do this. I am anxious to show how ridiculous it is that I have to do it and how ridiculous it is that a Commonwealth
  276
  which claims to be sharing its problems in this way has no proper agency in the mother country for helping to guide, counsel and channel these inquiries and needs into the particular places where they may be satisfied. It is intolerable that this should have to go on. Perhaps I made a mistake and should have gone straight to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) who, with his interest in this field, could have put me wise from the beginning.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: The hon. Member has mentioned me. I am fascinated, as I always am, when he speaks as a great advocate of private enterprise. What does he now want? Does he want an enormous bank to act as a great dictator which says that money shall go to Jamaica or Rhodesia? What does he really want?
  Mr. Chapman: Perhaps the hon. Member was not listening to me, or did not quite understand me. That may be my fault. I said that there was a need for a Ministry which having got the assessment of the problem should guide, counsel and advise the particular territory as to whether and where it was most likely to get the capital to satisfy its requirements. Just as a Minister would be co-ordinating technical assistance there should be a Ministry keeping a continual track of the capital needs, as well as of the opportunities for satisfying them, whether by private enterprise or by Government. It would be one Ministry to which these territories could come for advice and help in finding the right source of capital.
  That is my plea. I do not believe that the Bill is satisfactory. I put it as mildly as that. I am as passionate a believer in the Commonwealth as any hon. Member in the House. I believe we have to make it the shining example for the rest of the world. I believe that we can show in this Commonwealth in the next ten years that black need not be against white; I am sure that we can show that the less developed nations of the world need not be jealous of us who, as they call it, have "cushioned living"; I believe that we can show in the example of the British Commonwealth that the former colonial peoples need not hate their previous imperial masters.

  277
  But this is all a problem of economic development—getting the right diagnosis and then satisfying the needs that are uncovered. I believe that this great aim, which so many of us talk about all the time in this House—the future development of the Commonwealth—is worth a better Bill than this. It would have been better, in my view, never to have introduced it than to have gone half-way and got stuck with the small Bill that we are debating today.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I have listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) with great interest. I think that he certainly had a point when he described how difficult it was to draw a clear dividing line between technical assistance provided under the Bill and capital investment overseas. So, also, I thought that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) had a point when he, too, referred to the difficulty which he thought might arise for the new department in assessing priorities. I want to say a word about that later in a somewhat different context.
  It is easy enough to accuse successive Governments, be they Conservative or Socialist in colour, of investing insufficient funds overseas in underdeveloped countries, but the real question we should ask ourselves is a question which we are not very anxious to ask, and certainly one we do not like to answer. It is: how much each and everyone of us as individuals or groups are prepared to forgo of the high standard of living we enjoy in this country to provide a somewhat better standard of living for the underdeveloped countries? Would it—I do not know—be a good General Election programme point for either party to say, "We will cut capital investment here, have fewer roads, fewer railways, fewer hospitals and less capital investment for this, that and the other so that more capital can be made available for investment overseas"? That is a question which neither side of the House—I do not blame it—is anxious to put and neither is very anxious to answer.
  I do not think that anyone could possibly criticise the objective of the Bill. I suppose it is true that the advance in
  278
  technology and science during the last twenty years has been greater than in every comparable period of history. It is also true, as the hon. Member for Northfield and one of my hon. Friends pointed out, that the provision of technical "know-how" is a most important element, weapon, or call it what you like, in the cold war. It is very important indeed, and we would be most unwise to forget that.
  I have never been one of those who think that we can be assumed to have discharged our responsibilities for newly independent countries merely by giving them the tools and symbols of Parliamentary democracy on their independence day. I do not think it enough to send out a high-powered delegation from this House to some particular independence day celebrations and to give them a Mace or Speaker's wig, and so on. Still less do I think that we can be surprised if hands which have never handled those Parliamentary symbols before handle them a great deal more roughly and clumsily than we handle them now after 800 years' experience of trial and error.
  Our duty is not fully discharged in the granting of independence to a territory for which formerly we were responsible if we only give its peoples the tools and symbols of democracy; nor let us be surprised if they misuse them. We must also give them the technical "know-how" without which no independent State can survive in the world today for very long. Let us not forget that the desire for power is an extremely strong desire, and a very natural one. In that context do not let us forget either, that the key to power is industrial and technical "know-how".
  The Bill sets up a new department. All new departments, when they are set up, are bound, with the best will in the world, to have teething troubles. That was the case with the Air Ministry, after the First World War, and with a number of wartime Departments during the Second World War, such as the Ministry of Supply and others. The post-war Commonwealth Relations Office grew up, so to speak, out of the old India Office and Dominions Office, and it is not an easy thing to set up a new department within the rigid ambit of Whitehall.

  279
  We wish the new Department every success, but it is up to all of us in this House to see that we do everything we can to ensure that when the new Department is set up it runs smoothly. We have to see that the wheels are oiled rather than clogged. The best way we can do that is to ensure that its field of activity and responsibility is as clearly defined as possible before the Department actually comes into operation.
  I should have thought, listening to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and reading the Bill, that there were a great many loose ends which ought to be tied up before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book. I want to refer to a number of what I consider to be loose ends in the hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will be able to tie up some of them. Then we can proceed to do more tying up in Committee. The purpose of the Bill, as the Financial Secretary said, is to set up a new Department to carry out the arrangements for furnishing countries outside the United Kingdom with technical assistance, including assistance in the sphere of economic development, administration and social services.
  The first loose end which sticks out is in the field of education. I know that the Financial Secretary is very interested in this. To what extent is education included or excluded from the Bill within the context of the new Department? This is not quite so silly a question as it might appear—in other words, when does education cease to be education in the general sense and begin to be education in the technical sense? So long as it is education in the general sense it is clearly outside the scope of the new Ministry. When it is technical it is clearly within its responsibility. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his statement on 21st March, about setting up a Department of technical assistance for certain countries overseas, he said:
  "Educational assistance through U.N.E.S.C.O. will still be a matter for the Ministry of Education. The work of the British Council in, for example, providing teachers of English will continue. All this, I agree, will have to be co-ordinated…"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1961; Vol. 637, c.215.]
  There is certainly a great deal which will have to be co-ordinated.
  280
  That statement is clear as far as it goes, but leaves in the air all educational facilities other than the teaching of the English language. The Financial Secretary referred to the British Council. Many hon. Members know that it has been my good fortune to be associated with the British Council for some time. I know a little about some of the problems with which it has to deal. I should like to put to the Financial Secretary one or two problems in relation to the functions of the new Ministry to try to explain the kind of way in which I think its functions have to be rather carefully co-ordinated so that we do not get too much overlapping.
  The British Council recruits a number of school teachers for Pakistan. It has been quite successful in that respect. By no means all those school teachers teach English. I cannot give details "off the cuff", but quite a number teach other subjects than the English language; they teach other subjects in English. How do these functions fit into the new Department of Technical Co-operation? Does the British Council continue to recruit school teachers for Pakistan as before, or insofar as certain subjects are technical, is that passed to the new Ministry?
  Secondly, the Financial Secretary referred to the 47,000 students from overseas who every year at any given moment, broadly speaking, are in the United Kingdom. For the most part, they are doing scientific and technical courses.
  Mr. Hale: Are they?
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: A very large proportion in a loose sense. They are not, of course, wholly the responsibility of the British Council. The British Council does what it can for many of them. Sometimes its officers meet the students when they arrive and help them to find accommodation. A few are accommodated in British Council hostels. Also, they are helped to find the right sort of technical courses, and so on.
  In addition to those, there are another 6,000 what I might call advanced technicians. The Financial Secretary probably knows more about these than I do. They are advanced technicians in the sense that they are nearly all doctors, engineers and architects. They are here

  281
  for advanced courses of a far more highly technical nature than those taken by the 47,000. Where is it proposed to draw the line? Where does the field of responsibility of the new Department begin and end in respect of these students in their various categories?
  The third question concerns the Vote. The Financial Secretary told the House that the new Department would have a separate Vote. The British Council funds come under the Votes of the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. I take it that a proportion—I do not know what proportion—of the British Council funds will now come under the Vote of the Ministry of Technical Co-operation. Therefore, there will be a fourth Department sandwiched in with the other three. I make this point quite deliberately, because this is where I think we shall get into great difficulties unless we are careful. Every year one comes up against the perpetual dilemma of priorities. This is a point which was made by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East.
  I will describe to the Financial Secretary exactly what happens. The Foreign Office asks the British Council to step up activities in a certain country for perfectly good political reasons. That can be done within the financial ceiling only if the Council's activities are diminished in certain other countries within or without the Commonwealth. In extreme cases, where the budget had been very severely slashed in former years, it has meant going out of certain countries altogether.
  Thus, one has this perpetual problem—one cannot help it—of deciding whether South-East Asia is more important that Africa, or whether Africa is more important than Latin America. It becomes a three-cornered contest between the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office over which is the right priority. Are we to have the new Department coming in to make this a four-cornered contest? If there is now to be a four-cornered contest on this appalling dilemma about priorities within our financial limits, I can only say that the results will be very much the same as attempts to square a circle.
  Fourthly, I do not understand how the new Department will administer some
  282
  of these overseas service officers. In the same statement on 21st March, the Prime Minister said:
  "The new Department will, as one of its duties, administer the scheme, set out in the White Paper and presented to Parliament last October, for the continued employment of overseas officers. It will, however, not be responsible for the transfer, promotion and discipline of members of the Overseas Service in dependent territories; these matters will remain the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1961; Vol. 637, c.214.]
  I have rarely read a sentence which describes more clearly administrative chaos. I do not see how the new Department can administer a scheme for the employment of overseas officers without being responsible for their discipline, transfer or promotion in the independent territories for which it is responsible and in the dependent territories for which apparently it is not. It seems to me to be an extraordinary situation. Before we go further, this point, which will lead to chaos, ought to be cleared up. The Financial Secretary, who has a very fertile brain and vivid imagination, has only to take an imaginary individual posted to Ghana or some such country and work out where the chain of responsibility for promotion and everything else lies to see for himself the absolute chaos which will result if that statement is put into effect.
  The objectives of the Bill are admirable. I hope that sufficient thought has been given to the details. With regard to the composition of the new Department, I should like to know how many persons will be transferred from the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office.
  I should say that there is very considerable urgency to get something done. The urgency comes from two directions. There are urgent demands—very naturally so—from many overseas countries, both newly independent and otherwise, for technical assistance of this kind. There is an equally urgent need to find employment for a large number of very able officers both from the Colonial Office itself and from former Colonial Territories who have become redundant through no fault of their own. I only hope that before the new Department actually begins to function some of the problems which I have ventured to suggest to my right hon. Friend as being of importance will be thought out so that

  283
  when the bits and pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are finally put together to make a picture, the picture will be both attractive and intelligible. I support the Bill on Second Reading.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) in his interest in the bits and pieces. We are probably all looking forward to some elucidation of the details by means of which the Bill will actually work.
  I thought the hon. Member was unduly pessimistic, however, about the substance of the Bill itself. Indeed, I rather fancied that he was so pessimistic that he appeared to me, in the matter of education, which is my chief interest in the Bill, too, to have misread the intention of the Bill and of the Prime Minister's remarks. I certainly hope that that is so, because if the question which he raises as to the scope of the education which is to be included in the ambit of this Department is a relevant one, then there is an abyss ahead of me which, frankly, I am proposing to ignore. I take it that both general education in the sense in which the hon. Member used the phrase and technical education in the sense in which he used the phrase will be included in the activities of the Department.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I certainly did not mean to give any impression of being pessimistic. What I was trying to do was to point to some of the directions in which I thought there would be a good deal of overlapping between the new Department and the old ones, and I wanted to get the sphere of responsibility quite clear, particularly in relation to the British Council. That was all.
  Mr. MacPherson: Perhaps I should have said that the hon. Gentleman made me feel pessimistic and that it was not so much that he was pessimistic. I had certainly taken a much more hopeful view of the Bill than his questions suggested.
  I agree with my hon. Friends about the questions that arise concerning the separation of capital provision and the provision of technical aid, but I am not
  284
  proposing to develop that line of argument, since other hon. Members have already done so. I agree also that there will be a problem about the relationship between policy-making and the carrying out of policy. This Department will be in a very difficult position. Again, I do not propose to follow up that aspect.
  I wish to raise one or two more detailed questions—though they are broad in application—concerned in the main with education and training. I should like to know, for instance, a little more about the scope of the new Department. The three overseas Departments—the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and the Foreign Office—will obviously be concerned. I understood, I hope correctly, from the Financial Secretary that the activities of the Ministry of Labour which are connected with recruiting for overseas would also be included in the new Department. I am not sure whether I heard him correctly, for he was very quick and short about that.
  The Ministry of Labour acts, for instance, by way of being what I suppose one might call an agency for both the Board of Trade and the Commonwealth Relations Office in recruiting people. When the Board of Trade, for instance, wants to place people, it uses the Ministry of Labour's technical and scientific register as its method. I hope that the whole of that machinery in the Ministry of Labour will be included in the new Department. I hope that the new Advisory Committee on Facilities for Commonwealth Trainees in the United Kingdom, which has been set up under the Board of Trade, will also come under the new Department. The Department seems a natural home for it.
  There is also the Colombo Plan itself. The Minister responsible in this House for that plan is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder whether his interest in that Plan will remain or will be transferred to the new Department. In addition, there are various organisations. In his remarks a week or two ago, the Prime Minister referred to the Inter-Universities Council for Higher Education Overseas. Will this Council become responsible to the new Department? C.O.C.A.S.T., the Council for Overseas Colleges of Arts, Science and Technology, might well also come under the aegis of the new Department. What

  285
  about the Commonwealth Education Liaison Unit, for which the new Department would seem to be a natural and sensible home? There is need to clear up a number of these points in advance so that we may know the scope of the new Department.
  When the Prime Minister made his statement, he concentrated on the necessity of having a single channel for requests for technical assistance. We all agree that that is important. In addition, however, there should be not only the same channel. It is desirable to have the same forms and methods applied in technical assistance. There are differences which, taken together, are probably unjustified, although there may have been good reason for them in specific cases. For example, I do not think that the Colonial Development and Welfare Corporation now pays or subsidises salaries. On the other hand, the payment or subsidisation of salaries is an essential part of other aspects of technical assistance. This kind of thing could well be founded on a uniform principle and the same kind of structure and methods used.
  The question also arises to what extent the new Department will be an exploring or devising Department trying to seek out new methods and possibilities. To make a comparison with something on a bigger scale, when the International Bank began to deal with a similar problem, it devised new methods. It set up the system of making preliminary economic surveys, for example, to obtain information before proceeding with action. Will the new Department be free to go ahead with new ways of finding out and of doing things? It will need, for instance, the co-operation of industry and of various organisations in obtaining personnel for technical assistance. Will it be possible for the new Department to work out different methods of approach to industry and different principles and relationships with industry to achieve this? There have been difficulties about these things in the past.
  I should like to deal particularly with education, largely as it affects training in this country. A good deal of attention has been given lately to the students who come over here for training. The number has been quoted more than once today and various questions arise which, I take it, will come within the
  286
  province of the new Department. In the first place, it is necessary to urge that, within the new Department, the people who are concerned with training and education given in this country should be the same people—interchangeable, perhaps—as those concerned with training and education overseas. We need a strong section concerned with that inside the new Department of Technical Co-operation and a Department especially strong—one does not need to argue the point; it is probably agreed—in the field of technical education.
  The problem of getting firms to give industrial training in the United Kingdom has recently attracted a certain amount of attention and discussion. It is possible to be pessimistic about this. A high proportion of students who seek technical industrial training with firms in this country as part of their general education here manage to get it, but there are some who experience difficulty. A great many students who are here, for example, under their own steam financially, who are not sponsored by any organisation, have great difficulty in arranging industrial training during their university and college vacations and after graduation. They have nobody to speak for them. They must themselves approach the various firms, possibly through the Scientific and Technical Register of the Ministry of Labour, but they experience considerable difficulty. This applies particularly to Indians.
  I understand that the great majority—probably 80 per cent. or so—of Indians who come to this country for education do so by means of their own finances. They are financially self-supporting. These are the people, who are not under the umbrella of an organisation or Government, who find the greatest difficulty in getting industrial firms to accept them for training. It would be unfortunate if we were to fail to give these people the training they need. We need a strong section in the new Department concerned with the industrial training aspect of education.
  There again, we shall run into difficulties. Those excellent people with the experience and the "know-how" about education in the existing Departments and who may be transferred to the new Department will necessarily be people without full knowledge of this aspect because of the very fact that, in the

  287
  developing countries, this kind of facility is lacking or is almost non-existent. While their service may have included a great deal to do with ordinary school and formal education, it will necessarily not have included this aspect of industrial training.
  It will be difficult to establish a strong department of industrial training, but it must be done. As the hon. Member for Windsor said, there must be a certain amount of seconding. There ought to be seconding from industry, if possible, in this sort of situation, and seconding also from other Departments. I suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it is not only the overseas Departments which have an interest and a concern in this matter. During the war, for example, the Service Departments did a good deal, mainly at the sub-professional level of the training of technicians and craftsmen, in training Indians and people from various developing territories inside the Commonwealth. It should not be impossible to recruit a number of the people who acquired that experience during the war to strengthen the new Department.
  Therefore, as a preliminary step, we need a survey of the whole problem. Recently, the Denning Committee surveyed the needs for legal education in the Colonies and overseas. I suggest that an equally strong committee to explore the need for industrial training here and in the developing territories would not come amiss in this setting, because there is a lot that we need to learn in the way of knowledge of possible facilities, and in the way of the needs of the students.
  Another activity of the new Department will need to be research. Many of the students who come to this country do not have great success in their courses. We are faced with the kind of situation which faced the Crowther Committee when it began examining the question of technical education. Figures were given to me about one technical institution, whose name I will not mention, where 56 overseas students were engaged on part one of the degree course in mechanical engineering. Forty-six of them passed in mathematics and smaller numbers passed in the various other subjects, until only 22 passed in engineering
  288
  drawing. The net result is that of those fifty-six students, only 11 passed part one of their degree course, with another 18 referred, to use the technical phrase, in one subject.
  That is the kind of failure and wastage rate that the Crowther Committee was up against. It is a wastage of roughly the same proportions. It is the kind of thing which ought not to continue and in which one would hope that the new Department will feel the responsibility of making an inquiry. That is probably not the only inquiry that the new Department will find it necessary to undertake. A fairly strong research section will, no doubt be a necessity in the structure of the new Department.
  Reference has been made to the activities of other nations, both within and outside the Commonwealth, in these matters. This, again, is something with which the new Department might well be concerned. If the collection together of the people concerned in the new Department facilities co-operation with other nations in dealing with the problem, that itself will be a step ahead. We have the situation that in the next few years, the numbers of students who will want education which their own countries cannot give them will be far more, even in our own family of nations, than we can ever hope to provide with education.
  In the great wave of people leaving India and leaving territories in Africa and elsewhere in search of higher education, there are bound to be an increasing number of people who no matter what endeavours we make, cannot get their higher education in this country. Consequently, they will go to various other places, one of the most obvious of which is the United States. I should like to think that the creation of the new Department will make co-operation, the dovetailing of plans and the fitting together of programmes and the like, with the United States easier and more effective than has been the case so far.
  To give one illustration of the sort of problem that arises and causes a certain amount of anxiety, I refer to the India, Ceylon and Pakistan group of students out of the 47,000 who have been quoted this afternoon. In the last five years, while the numbers of students coming here from other places and Colonies

  289
  have doubled and trebled the total number of students from India, Ceylon and Pakistan has not increased. There was an increase at one stage, but the figure has fallen back to the level of five years ago.
  One asks whether that trend has been occurring elsewhere also. In the United States, however, although I do not have figures going very far back, there appears to be a general increase in the number of Indian students, and a considerable increase between 1958–59 and 1959–60 of, I believe, as much as about 20 per cent., whilst the figure for this country remains at about the same level.
  What is the cause of that? Is there some failure on our part? Could we do better by co-operating in ways that we have not done so far with the United States? Could we correlate our courses or our offers to these people? Is there some way in which we can ensure that we do not fail this group of countries, two of which have been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) as the two most important countries concerned in the need for aid?
  There are other problems also that suggest the necessity of a close working co-operation with the United States. I am glad that that co-operation has been increasing lately. The Ashby Report has illustrated that, as did the conference at Princeton at the end of last year, but there are still instances of failure to dovetail our efforts, and I suggest—briefly, because I do not want to take more time—that we should consider co-operating not only specifically with the United States and, of course, specifically with our own Commonwealth family of countries like Canada, but also with the Scandinavian countries. I believe that, even if one leaves out of account for the moment the multilateral efforts which are being made by us and many other countries, we should still find that the Scandinavian countries might well offer a good deal of useful co-operation with us over and above their multilateral efforts and over and above our own, if we tried to find common ground with them. There is a very considerable problem here of co-operation, not multi-laterally but bilaterally, with whatever nations we think can help our efforts and
  290
  whatever nations can help in this direction. I hope that the new Department will make that kind of thing possible.
  Like so many other hon. Members who have spoken, I feel that the creation of the new Department itself is a good thing, although in the circumstances a smaller thing than one might have expected; but I certainly give it my blessing.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: With the exception of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), who always makes most moderate and constructive speeches upon such subjects as this, I have been surprised by the very cool reception given by the Opposition to this imaginative Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) was most critical, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who speaks so charmingly that one does not always realise how caustic he is being, was quite violent in his attack upon it. It seems to me surprisingly ungracious. After all, one does not turn down a glass of perfectly good champagne because it does not happen to be a magnum.
  Mr. Chapman: One might turn down a glass of cider.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Member was talking of quantity rather than quality. He wanted much more in the glass. He did not complain so much of what was in it, and therefore my analogy was perfectly apt.
  However, we can at least be thankful that we are no longer subject, as we used to be a few years ago, to violent attacks on colonialism. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) does not now even bother to be present on these occasions because there is not much to attack. Perhaps that is a tribute to the administration and policy of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary in his great office. Those days are over, and even our friends abroad do not criticise us on these matters so much as before.
  Sir E. Boyle: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here or not last night, but it is unfortunately not true to

  291
  say that we always have in this House really balanced speeches on Commonwealth relations.
  Mr. Fisher: I was present last night when the debate took place to which my hon. Friend refers, and I must say that if I had a criticism of some of the speeches made on that occasion it would have been directed to my own side of the House rather than the Opposition.
  However, be that as it may, although people criticise the pace, just as hon. and right hon. Members opposite may still think that in some respects we are going a little too slowly, so other hon. and right hon. Members, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who was in the Chamber earlier, may say that in certain parts of Africa at present we are going too fast. I do not agree with him. I think that the timing is probably about right. There would, however, be general agreement now, I think, on both sides of the House and in the country that we are at least travelling along the right road. We have trained and we are training the people of the more backward Commonwealth countries to manage their affairs. That part of our responsibility to them is being steadily discharged.
  This Bill deals with a different but in some ways a really more difficult task: to try to help less fortunate countries to share in the prosperity which we ourselves now enjoy, to match the political progress which we have been making by economic advance. That is the most urgent and vital matter which we could be considering nowadays, because the industrial nations of the world are really quite rich, but the primary producing countries are relatively terribly poor. The worry about it, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East said, is that this disparity between the two is actually increasing. The generation beginning just before the last war has seen world trade in manufactured goods increase by about 60 per cent., while trade in raw materials has increased by only about 30 per cent. and in food by only 10 per cent. Most of the colonial and new Commonwealth countries are, of course, producers of food and raw materials. So the rich countries have been growing relatively richer and the poor countries relatively
  292
  poorer, and that sort of situation plays straight into the hands of the Communists.
  We in this House, I suppose, much prefer trade to aid, but where trade has been inadequate to raise living standards we must supplement it by aid. I would agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) when in his excellent speech he pointed out that the emerging countries—I am quite sure he is right—are watching the two rival ideologies, capitalist and the Communist, to see which will give them the best chance of progress. This is one of the issues upon which we shall and must expect to be judged, and rightly.
  Capitalism, as I think the Prime Minister said so well recently in a remarkable speech in Boston, must expand or expire. And it must think of new ways of helping the economically less fortunate and politically still uncommitted nations, or they will turn in despair to Russia.
  This Bill, at any rate, does provide one of the ways in which we can help countries more backward than ourselves. It has already been done, so far as we can afford it, in the provision of capital, by direct loans and grants from the Treasury, by the C.D.C., where it is allowed to operate, by private investment and through various international agencies. This Bill is not concerned with that, but the form of aid with which it is concerned has been somewhat neglected in the past—the provision not of money but of men. It is true, of course, that most of the under-developed countries need money, but all of them need men. They need teachers, doctors, engineers and scientists; they need technicians of every conceivable kind; and, without that sort of help, much of the purely financial aid we make to them must inevitably be wasted.
  I noticed that Prince Philip pointed out recently in a notable lecture:
  "It is quite useless for the more fortunate countries to offer their help in building dams, power stations and factories if the managers and engineers needed to operate them are not available."
  That is so true. Of course, we have already done a good deal. We have provided both men and money under the Colombo Plan. We have sent out experts from the United Kingdom and

  293
  we have helped to train people locally. I should like to see some sort of plan on those lines developed for Africa.
  We have also educated by now, I suppose, tens of thousands of Commonwealth students at training colleges and universities here in the United Kingdom, and we have spent a good deal of C.D.W. money in educating people in the Colonies themselves; not nearly enough, but still, we have done something; and all that has been helpful. But it is not enough and in the past it has not been properly co-ordinated. Different Government Departments have been working on the same lines, but they have been working independently, and this new Bill is mainly administrative and organisational in character in integrating this form of aid under one Department.
  One of the new Department's important functions, as we know, is to administer the continued employment of overseas civil servants, recruited in this country at a cost of over £12 million a year. It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of this one service, particularly in Africa. The leaders of African opinion—of the Nationalist parties in various parts of Africa—men like Mr. Kenneth Kaunda in Northern Rhodesia, and Dr. Banda—have often told me, and I am sure that they mean it very sincerely, how dependent they are bound to be for a long time to come upon the help of the overseas civil servants, recruited from this country, in administering their territories for a considerable period after independence has been achieved.
  I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East in his disappointment that Nigeria has not thought fit to take advantage of this offer, and, like him, I am rather wondering what is the reason for it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree is not right. I hope that it is not that they think we intend economic domination in place of political domination. I am sure that that is totally wrong, and that the more we say and prove it to be wrong the better.
  After all, we have one great asset which we can make available to the emerging African nations, and to others, and it is the skill and experience of our trained administrators—men who have dedicated their lives to this work, and whose contribution is quite unique and
  294
  will for a long time be quite indispensable. The most valuable export which we can send to the under-developed countries and the most valuable import which they can receive from us is men and women; but we must make it attractive for such people to say on in that service after the devolution of power, not only in regard to their security of employment but also their pension rights after retirement. This, I suppose, will be one of the main responsibilities of the new Department, but there are other ways of helping colonial and Commonwealth development which I hope will also be evolved by the new Department.
  I hope the new Department will promote a closer liaison between the Government and the big industrial and commercial concerns which have been and are being established overseas. I hope that we shall try to help with the training of unskilled and semi-skilled labour in the Colonies, and so help to bring about the economic advancement of these people, which should and must coincide with their political progress.
  I hope that the new Department may be helpful—by training the local populations in British skills and techniques—in diversifying the economies of these new countries, which are now so largely agricultural. I believe that no less than 56 per cent. of all the people of the Commonwealth are engaged in one industry—agriculture. If we can build up their industrial potential we shall not only be helping them, but we shall be providing our own economy with tremendous new opportunities. We shall be creating new purchasing power, new markets and new demands for manufactured goods, and, in raising the standard of living of these people, for whom we are still responsible, we shall also be giving a great new impetus to the improvement of our own living standards in the United Kingdom.
  I was very glad when I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement to the House in March emphasise that the wide range of the new Department did not imply any change in the priority which would be accorded to Commonwealth countries. We may well wish to help foreign countries, particularly, I suppose, countries like the Sudan and Burma, which in the past were associated with the Commonwealth,

  295
  but we have plenty to do both in our own Colonial Territories, for which we are still directly responsible, and also in the new emerging Commonwealth countries, which are still linked to us but which can no longer be helped by the Colonial Development Corporation. I hope that the main beneficiaries of the new form of technical co-operation which will be developed will continue to be the Commonwealth countries.
  This Commonwealth of ours is not at all a static association. It is changing in every generation, in every decade and in almost every year. Of the Commonwealth it is really true to say that the future is happening all the time. This Bill is one of the vehicles of change and the new Department it creates will be one of the agencies which will contribute, not only to the prosperity of the Commonwealth, but also to its cohesion. We are now reaching the point when the ties which bind us together are becoming rather tenuous. I hope the new Department will strengthen these ties and that it will be a uniting and unifying force in the Commonwealth. For beyond independence lies inter-dependence and partnership, partnership not only between the races in multi-racial States, but also between nations in a multi-racial Commonwealth.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: I agree with a very large part of the speech of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and indeed enthusiastically wtih some parts of it, but I would differ from him on one point which he made in the early part of his speech. He was the second hon. Member from the other side of the House who put this question in the context that there was a struggle going on between capitalism and the Communist world, and that capitalism had to justify itself by meeting the needs of the under-developed countries. I hope I may be permitted, as a social democrat, to say that I do not regard this struggle as one between capitalism and Communism, but as a struggle between democracy and Communism. I think that the democratic countries have in many ways to depart from the methods of capitalism if they are to win that struggle.
  The very fact that this Bill is now in front of the House is a confession that
  296
  the private enterprise system on its own will not do this job. In the last century, and in the early part of this century, a great deal of capital was exported to the new countries like Australia, New Zealand, Argentine and elsewhere, where development was carried out entirely on a private enterprise basis. Owing to the fact that private capitalism is no longer so virile, it is necessary for Government action on a bigger scale to take effect. I do not want to pursue that sort of theoretical political argument, but I thought that I should make that point clear at the outset.
  Mr. Tilney: Would not the hon. Member agree that capitalism would be just as virile if the conditions of security of investment were as good as they were in the last century?
  Mr. Prentice: If history would stand still, old institutions might be able to stand still as well, but history is on the move in many ways.
  I should like also to make the point that, although this cold war argument is a very important argument for doing this job of technical aid more effectively, I do not regard it as the first reason for doing so. The first reason for extending technical aid I believe to be a moral reason. I believe that it is something which should be on the conscience of every one of us that the gap is growing between the standard of living which we enjoy in the richer countries and the standards of life of something like two-thirds of the people of the world.
  As we move on in the wealthier countries towards more and more technological advances and find the way to perform delicate operations on the human heart and to send spacemen into orbit round the world, we ought to remind ourselves that two-thirds of the human race are living in conditions of bare subsistence. This is the biggest moral challenge of our time. More people should say this more often and more clearly in public life.
  I am sure that, if given the lead, more people in this country would respond to this appeal and would be prepared to make the greater sacrifices that will be required of us if we are to do this job on a big scale. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir S. Mott-Radclyffe) said that no one seemed ready to ask for these sacrifices. It is a test of leadership that we should be

  297
  ready to ask for them. I should like to see the provisions of the Bill viewed as a means of putting the Government's and the people's will into effect in this respect.
  This is in many ways a disappointing Bill. I agree with my hon. Friends that the new Minister should deal with capital aid as well as technical assistance. I should like to see that Minister one of Cabinet rank and to see him charged with the job of co-ordinating the whole of our effort in terms of aid of all kinds. I should like to see him become a diplomat in these matters so that, on behalf of this country, he would try to stimulate all the richer parts of the world to greater efforts to help under-developed countries. Accepting that this is a limited Measure—and I agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton that we should welcome what it contains while regretting that it does not go further—I should like to speak of some of the problems which I hope the new Minister will face. I urge that he and his Department should plan for a much bigger volume of technical assistance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) quoted the recent analysis made by Mr. Paul Hoffman of the needs of the underdeveloped parts of the world. I should like to refer to some more details in that analysis. Mr. Hoffman pointed out that in the 1950s the under-developed parts of the world increased their resources to the extent of an average rise of 3 per cent. per annum in their national incomes. But that 3 per cent. had to be reckoned against the fact that in those countries there was an average rise of 2 per cent. per annum in population. Therefore, per capita, the rise in income was only about 1 per cent. per annum. He went on to say that if we set the target in the 1960s of merely doubling this rate of growth in income the richer countries would have to pour out additional aid which he estimated at 3 billion dollars per annum.
  The European Economic Community also carried out a survey into this problem with the same aim of doubling the rate of growth in the 1960s. Its estimate was the even larger figure of 4 billion dollars per annum of aid from the richer countries to the under-developed countries. Whichever figure is correct, this is an enormous challenge. We should accept this target as a beginning and we and all the countries involved should
  298
  think in terms of a much bigger volume of aid than we are now giving
  These figures include capital aid and technical assistance, and it is because these two are linked so closely together that I share the disappointment that both are not to be covered by the new Ministry. Accepting that they are not, it seems clear that the Minister will have to plan his technical assistance in relation to the movement of capital as well. We ought to consider the strategy of the West in the matter of capital aid for the under-developed parts of the world. It seems to me that the methods to be used, certainly by the United States Government who will be giving the lead to the new Development Aid Group, will be along the lines which have been developed by Mr. Rostow in his book Stages of Economic Growth. He is President Kennedy's leading adviser in this field.
  We shall have an emphasis on the idea that certain countries have reached a stage of "being sent into orbit", as it has been described. Some hon. Members have used other metaphors. These countries have been described as "breaking through the sound barrier", and so on. The concept is of a State, through its own resources, going forward and increasing its standard of living at a fairly steady rate. It may be assumed that India, Mexico and Brazil have just about reached the threshold of that point and that, given a large injection of capital for the next few years, they will break through and "go into orbit" on their own.
  Countries like Pakistan and many South American countries are a little behind and may reach that point in a year or two. Some of the countries of Africa are still further distant in the queue. It seems that Mr. Rostow's view, and therefore presumably that of the United States, is that there should be a deliberate policy of unfair shares in the distribution of economic aid from the West. There should be a deliberate choice of the countries which are nearly reaching the break-through stage and they should have most of the economic aid so that that aid shall do the greatest amount of good.
  Although this concept is unfortunate in the sense that one would have liked a greater part of the aid to go to the

  299
  poorest countries, there is obviously much to be said for it in terms of results. If this is to be the pattern of events in the next few years, it does not follow, however, that technical assistance should be distributed in the same way—because it has to play a large part in bringing countries up to the point where they are ready for a large injection of capital aid. Technical aid may also be necessary later when the economic aid arrives. It is also needed by the poorest countries in making a beginning on the provision of education, public health services, the building of roads, and so on, which will start them on the road to eventual greater prosperity. It seems to me, therefore, that the Minister must be at least in close touch with the capital aid programme of this and other Western Governments even if he is not to have responsibility for this field.
  I should like to see a bigger proportion of our technical assistance channelled through the United Nations. The preface to the White Paper on "Technical Assistance from the United Kingdom for Overseas Development" states that:
  "…United Kingdom Government assistance…in 1960 will have been in the region of £150 million of which £125 million will have been extended bilaterally, and £25 million multilaterally."
  I am a multilateralist in this as well as in other respects, and I believe that the greater part of this aid should be given multilaterally.
  The White Paper also states that of the £25 million only about £6 million went through the United Nations Technical Assistance Programme. One criticism which we must level not only at our programme but also at the programmes of most of the Western nations is that a large proportion of the aid given at the moment, which is in any case too small in total, is going to specially selected friends of the donor countries. It is true, for example, that a great deal of our aid is going not only to the Commonwealth but to the oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to places where we have a special interest. An enormous proportion of the aid from France is going to Algeria. Much of United States aid goes to the oil countries of the Middle East or to special American allies in the Far East—to
  300
  places like the Philippines and South Korea. While I am not suggesting that any of those countries should receive less, I say that if we are going to plan for an increase, a greater proportion should go through the United Nations and its agencies, for two reasons. First, it seems to me that the United Nations agencies are the right organisations for administering technical assistance. They are not necessarily the right organisations for administering capital aid, particularly if we accept the concept that it has to be concentrated on certain countries which are ready for it, because we cannot get that sort of decision made by the United Nations working under the system of "one nation one vote" in which inevitably all the nations are going to insist upon fair shares. But this difficulty does not occur in relation to technical assistance.
  It is very important indeed that the man who goes to an under-developed country to work there should have the best possible relations with the people on the spot. If one takes into account the very natural feelings of newly-independent countries, the pride that they have in not accepting any sort of disguised version of colonialism, they are most likely to accept the presence of people who go under the aegis of the United Nations, an international organisation of which they themselves are members. That is a very important point and indicates the desirability of the job being done through the United Nations wherever possible.
  Secondly, as a matter of deliberate foreign policy, this country ought to help to build up the United Nations by whatever methods are available. If we want that organisation to play a bigger part in world affairs and to become eventually some sort of federal world government, we must take every opportunity to build up its institutions wherever possible. I was disappointed to see that in the course of the recent General Assembly when the Assembly turned itself into a pledging conference on the expanded programme of capital assistance, it voted 86 million dollars, or something over £30 million, for the expanded assistance programme, which is 14 million dollars less than the target originally set by the 1957 Assembly. I think there ought to be a much bigger effort here and that

  301
  we ought at least to meet the targets which were originally set.
  When the Financial Secretary moved the Second Reading of this Bill, he spoke of the relationship between this new Department and other existing Departments. I was a little disappointed at the way in which apparently the other Departments are still to continue their relations with the United Nations technical agencies appropriate to their work. The hon. Gentleman gave the example of education. I assume that the Ministry of Health, for example, will still have its relations with the World Health Organisation, the Ministry of Labour with the I.L.O., and so on. It seems to me that in recent years there has been far too restrictive an attitude by some of these Government Departments towards these agencies, far too much of an inclination to stick to the rigid formula of the British Government's share in the regular budget—perhaps too much Treasury share is involved—and a reluctance to enter into new projects.
  There was, for instance, the failure of the British Government to make a contribution to the World Malaria Fund other than their regular contribution to the annual budget of the World Health Organisation. However, this is a matter which I hope to raise on the Adjournment tomorrow night, so I will not deal with it in any further detail.
  There was the failure of the Ministry of Labour to make a special contribution to the Institute of Labour Studies which is being established under the I.L.O. We have been told that we should be satisfied with our regular contributions. But in fact a special endowment fund has been created and a large number of other countries are making special contributions to it. Not only relatively wealthy countries like France, the Netherlands and Western Germany but also relatively poor countries such as Chile, Mexico and Tunisia have announced that they are making contributions to the special fund. But the British Government will not do so. We should like to see a loosening up here.
  Paragraph 89 of the White Paper refers to the question of training in United Kingdom industry. The Financial Secretary referred to this aspect of technical assistance. I must
  302
  say that I found this paragraph particularly disappointing. It begins by saying that the whole concept
  "is too broad a term about which to offer significant collective facts and figures."
  It goes on to say that
  "some 9,000 people from overseas obtain experience in United Kingdom industry each year."
  That does not seem to me to be a particularly large figure, especially when one considers that a part of that training is carried out by British firms which have subsidiaries overseas and are training people to go out and take responsibility there.
  The hon. Gentleman said that under the Colombo Plan 2,500 people had come for training within industry. When one considers that this plan has been going for ten years, that it covers several countries with many hundreds of millions of people, this seems a most modest effort, and I hope that this is one aspect of technical assistance which can rapidly be improved. We are shortly to celebrate Commonwealth Technical Training Week, and I should have thought that one way of celebrating it in a practical way would be to initiate a Government survey, to ensure that the Government have a bigger grip of the problem and discuss with other Governments how people overseas can be brought to this country in larger numbers. This seems to me to be a relatively cheap and efficiently method of making a big impact on the economies of developing countries.
  In passing, I should have thought also that one more criticism against the concept of a payroll tax is that it may discourage employers from taking on trainees of this kind. No doubt, this is one of the matters which will emerge on another occasion.
  The last thing that I would suggest is that the new Minister should initiate something like a British Peace Corps similar to that which has been initiated by the President of the United States. This seems to me to be an immensely challenging concept which we ought to follow. It is a way to bring large numbers of young people into the service of technical assistance—not only people who are expert but people who can assist experts, because very often the work of an expert in an underdeveloped country can be much more

  303
  effective if he has assistants to work with him.
  Also I believe that the experience of young people from different nations working together, is of tremendous importance in building up a spirit of internationalism which can be a factor towards world peace. It is now fourteen years since I went as a volunteer to work on the Youth Railway in Yugoslavia. I am still entitled to travel free between Samac and Sarajevo in Bosnia because of the modest contribution that I made in heaving stones and bricks around. I do not think that the foreign help to that project was a very large piece of technical assistance—certainly not my contribution—and when one speaks of a Peace Corps one thinks of something much more effective than that operation. Nevertheless I think that we all learned a tremendous amount from each other and we all became better world citizens as a result of the experience.
  The Peace Corps should be organised by the Government. We all recognise the good work done by certain voluntary bodies in this field, but only the Government can give it the impetus that is needed. The American example should be followed here. These Peace Corps—British, American and the rest—should to a large extent be allowed to operate through the United States agencies.
  Most of us have tended to talk about matters of detail, but I feel that we should regard this problem fundamentally as a challenge to the conscience of this country to do more. It is about 100 years ago that Abraham Lincoln said that the American nation could not survive "half-slave and half-free". It seems to me that the impact of modern science upon our world has made the world a much smaller place than the United States was when Abraham Lincoln used those words. Therefore, unless we accept that our biggest task is to liberate men and women from the slavery of abject poverty our civilised standards will not survive and we shall not deserve that they should survive.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Aitken: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), I am somewhat surprised at the lukewarm reception that this not only imaginative
  304
  but very timely Bill has had. I think that the Bill has immense possibilities which, if exploited, could range far beyond what we are thinking about in the terms of the White Paper.
  I believe that in the next few years the main problem of aid to the underdeveloped countries will not be so much lack of capital as the inability of the under-developed countries to use the amount of capital which could be made available. For that reason, I believe that this new Department could tackle this matter at no great expense, from the point of view of looking at some of the problems we have to face in this revolution of rising expectations. Some of these problems have emerged only in very recent years.
  I do not know how many hon. Members have read "The Ugly American", but I hope that those who have read that book will also read one which is coming out in the next few days, by the same author, called "A Nation of Sheep", because the theme of both these books is the complete and utter waste of money which certain types of direct financial aid or grants can be.
  I believe that one task of this new Department will be to make the best possible use of the much greater degree of expertise that we have in this country in technical aid to overseas countries. There are not only the Colonial Office resources and the Commonwealth Relations Office resources, which will go on, but there is also the vast experience of private enterprises concerns which have worked overseas for many years and know all the difficulties. In some of the less sophisticated forms of aid, that is, both loans and direct grants, we often see the cart put before the horse.
  A good example of that was told to me some years ago by Mahatma Gandhi, when he gave, at Chatham House, a most a glowing description of a new hospital that had been built in India, and which a great contribution from the British Government had made possible. He pointed out that the Indians would not go into it—they were much too frightened to go near the place—and he gave facts and figures to show how many millions of Indians could have been given elementary hygienic training for the same amount of money as had been

  305
  spent on a hospital which could deal with only a few hundred Indians a year.
  Most of the people in the emerging countries for political reasons can only seek, in the form of aid, something which is spectacular. They want something which will make a tremendous impression on their supporters in the country, something that will provide them with the most concrete evidence possible that the country is going right ahead, when half the time what is needed is something on a much smaller scale, covering a much wider area.
  I remember seeing, when I was in Nigeria and again in Malaya, people winnowing grain by the medieval method of throwing it into the air and letting the wind blow away the chaff. For a very few pounds one could buy a small hand-threshing machine which would do the job very much better than they are doing it at present. There are firms in this country already doing a great deal of research into simple machinery that can easily be repaired, if it breaks, mostly hand-powered.
  Then again, we have a problem which is quite alien to the richer countries but not to the poorer countries. In the richer countries the driving force of all our economic system has been production, the desire to provide unlimited supplies of consumer and capital goods. A few years ago Mr. J. M. Keynes said in a speech, "Do not talk to me about over-production until the last Hottentot in the depths of the African jungle has a fleet of Rolls-Royce cars, at least six pairs of shoes, a top hat, and all the rest." That is not true. We have found out recently that in the poorer countries there is a quite different attitude of mind towards production. It is very hard indeed to get people to continue to work beyond a certain wage level, because they do not see any sense in it. They do not require any more. Their wants are not the wants of the richer communities.
  No one has done effective research into how to persuade people, once they get higher wages, to continue to work and produce at the same rate. This is a characteristic in many parts of Africa and Asia. No one has yet been able to tell those countries how to overcome that particular problem so as to get the increased percentage of production every year which is necessary for them to
  306
  break through the barrier into a developing economy. If this new Ministry could provide the answers of giving aid to these under-developed countries without causing inflation and if British organisations could do research and provide the answers to these kind of problems, I think that it would have made a major contribution towards the growth of the under-developed territories, merely because it would have provided people in other countries able to provide aid with the answers on how to overcome the difficulties which make it impossible for many of the receiving countries to use even the capital that is at present available.
  There is only one other point which I want to make. If this new Ministry can give a lead to those parts of the world which are willing and capable of providing substantial assistance to underdeveloped countries, then I should like to see it call in not just technical personnel but also to appeal to those various Commonwealth countries who are able to make contributions—not only contributions in the way of personnel, but also contributions in the form of planned aid, as was done by Commonwealth countries in the Colombo Plan.
  It also seems to me that the fear of economic imperialism can be most effectively dealt with if, perhaps in a year or two, when the Ministry is in being and has had experience, we could persuade Canada, Australia and New Zealand to set up similar junior Ministries to co-operate with us in doing exactly the same thing. One of the curious features about the Commonwealth is that for many years, since we have had an independent Commonwealth, most of its leading countries have strenuously objected to any kind of permanent central organisation such as a permanent secretariat. On the other hand, the attitude is usually quite different when it comes to setting up something like the Colombo Plan which, after all, is a Commonwealth concept and is run by various people from all over the Commonwealth, and under which contributions are made into a common pool and run by a common pool of experts and administrators.
  I believe that if this Ministry can do the research and find the answers which so many countries do not have at the moment, and if we can persuade the rest

  307
  of the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the United States, to set up similar organisations, then it will not only have done a splendid job but, with the comparatively small amount of money available, will have made a major contribution to aid under-developed countries.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I would point out to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) that the unspectacular is perhaps one of the most difficult things to do these days. In science, miracles are performed almost daily, and people expect miracles in their political and social arrangements. These things do not happen. Indeed, most hon. Members on this side of the House, in giving our welcome to the Bill, think that the Bill is timid in stretching out to the future. I confess that I am disappointed that the status of the Minister and of the Permanent Secretary is not higher, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) that it is disappointing that the Bill does not include anything about economic aid.
  May I confine my remarks to the detail of the Bill and ask some questions of the Financial Secretary on how it might work? I have heard in several Colonial Territories of very serious delays in the recruitment of staff, and I have also heard of very serious delays in obtaining equipment. It seems a little odd that in the present situation, when the shipping industry is crying out for trade, it is so difficult to get material shipped from West Africa to England and to get passages on the steamship lines. I feel that not enough attention has been devoted to communications between West Africa, for example, and England.
  If the new Ministry is to suffer from the danger of consultation, it may well be that there will be even more delays in recruitment than at the moment, and there may be important delays in providing equipment. I urge upon all parties co-operating in this Ministry, and I particularly stress to the Financial Secretary, that very special attention should be given to the machinery dealing with recruitment and with the supply and forwarding of equipment, because
  308
  nothing causes more frustration and dismay in the field than to be short of staff and equipment after having made repeated applications for it.
  When the Financial Secretary says that this Ministry will not be doing spectacular things, I hope that he does not rule out the Ministry having ideas. From time to time imaginative pieces of social work are undertaken. I refer to the training of Malayan teachers in England and the recent development of providing English teachers on vacation in Nigeria, for example. I hope that these bright ideas will run right through the new Ministry and that it will not only cultivate these bright ideas but will learn new techniques in getting them over to those people who might benefit from them.
  Ofter an under-developed country is not quite sure about which are the things which it should do. If it is becoming independent, it is in a rather delicate relationship with this Government, and much attention therefore needs to be directed towards how to get ideas which are worked out in England, or in other parts of the Commonwealth, conveyed to newly developing countries in a way which they will accept.
  This particularly applies to Sierra Leone in relation to the training of teachers. Sierra Leone is very short of teachers, but I have not heard of any particularly spectacular or inspiring scheme of ours to help Sierra Leone. I hope that we can adapt the Nigerian scheme to suit Sierra Leone and find more places in our own training colleges to assist Sierra Leone in her very grievous shortage, which is holding up a good deal of development in that country.
  I also hope, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, that very serious thought will be given to the way in which other Commonwealth countries can assist the newly developing countries which are becoming independent. A short time ago I had a very interesting conversation with a Tasmanian education officer who was in England recruiting teachers for Tasmania. I suggested to him that it might be interesting if his Government persuaded one or two Tasmanian teachers to teach in Sierra Leone. I am sure that this gesture from a small country such as Tasmania to a

  309
  small country such as Sierra Leone would have an effect out of all proportion to the numbers involved. If this Ministry can fertilise ideas and make contacts of this description all over the Commonwealth, it will have a much greater impact than would be expected from the amount of money which may be spent.
  In a previous debate, dealing with the Overseas Service Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) put forward what I think was a far-reaching and imaginative idea, and I should like to repeat it. He said that he thought that every professional person in Britain should contemplate at quite an early stage in his career doing a stint of service overseas. I hope that the new Ministry will go to some trouble to produce an atmosphere in which British people, who have had the very great benefit of receiving all the advantages which we have in medicine, education, science, and so on, feel that they are under an obligation to go overseas early in their careers, when they have no family ties, to make a contribution to the Commonwealth. I am sure that this could be one of the most effective ways of persuading territories which are becoming independent that we mean what we say when we say that we want to see them firmly independent and not tied to British capital.
  There is another matter which needs consideration. The terms of compensation for civil servants and officers going out to new territories seem to me satisfactory, but I urge the Financial Secretary to ask the new Ministry to look at the position of some of the universities or the university colleges developing in new countries. I particularly refer to a matter which I have raised previously—the situation in Fourah Bay College. I asked the Colonial Secretary why members of that college should not be treated as public servants, and I was given the orthodox but not very satisfactory answer that Fourah Bay is now an independent institution.
  Since I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman I have had some evidence which points the other way. In the first place, the college was mostly staffed by recruits from England and was in the same category of Kumasi College of Technology, for example. I have been told that members of the staff going to
  310
  Nigeria and then leaving the public service, both in the university at Ibadan and also the public service in Nigeria, have had their service in Fourah Bay College counted as public service. I have been informed that members of the college going into the public service in Sierra Leone have had their service with the college counted as public service for compensation rights. I further learn that before a member of the Fourah Bay College can leave the college and resign he has to make application to the Governor to retire from public service.
  I can take those three sets of facts only at face value, but if any one is right it demands another look at this situation. It also demands a look at the position of other universities as they develop to ensure that this situation is not repeated.
  I hope that the new Ministry will encourage movement from England in the way of conferences and so on in educational matters and industrial matters, so that it is easier for British people to back up conferences overseas. Quite recently, the Executive Committee of the National Institute of Adult Education had a very unsatisfactory interview with the Minister of Education on this theme. We thought that it was very good for this country that our people should be represented when international conferences were held about adult education. The Minister thought that the present situation was satisfactory and that no more encouragement was needed. I hope that here the new Ministry will be more forthcoming than the Ministry of Education has been.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East, I must voice disappointment about economic aid. It is most disappointing that there is at present no suggestion at all that economic aid should be dealt with other than by the sort of complacent attitude that emerges from Cmnd. 974. I looked at the Annex in respect of the two West African countries in which I am particularly interested, and I found that the assistance to Ghana over the last three years has been very small indeed.
  I do not know whether the Government think that Ghana is misbehaving herself, but grants and technical assistance of £·6 million for 1957–58, of £·1 million for 1958–59 and an estimated

  311
  £·1 million for 1959–60 seems very small for such a thriving country, and bears out the idea that has already been voiced about the need to give an impetus to a country that is at last getting on its feet. I know that Ghana is one of the richest countries in Africa, but such small grants seem to be well below the level that we should be giving.
  My criticism of the grants and technical assistance given to Sierra Leone is that they seem to be quite unplanned. I cannot complain that the last sum of £1·2 million in grants and technical assistance and £1·6 million in loans is unreasonable, but the fact that in the previous year the amount was only £·2 million in grants and technical assistance and, in the year before, £·7 million, may explain Sierra Leone's stagnant economy when this is the right moment for that economy to be expanding.
  The Financial Secretary probably very well knows Sierra Leone's difficulties in getting its economy on the move. Apart from agriculture, its only two major industries are diamonds and the iron mines, and it needs very much to diversify. That can be done only by securing foreign capital. Even though the Bill does not deal with this subject, I hope that the Government as a whole will give very serious thought to helping the economic future of Sierra Leone by way of grants and loans.
  In the same Cmnd. Paper there are various tables showing grants and loans made by private industry and by Government, but there is no reference to the rate of interest charged. On the Government side, we should have something equivalent to what local authorities used to have—loans at very much lower rates of interest than the market rate—and on the private side we should know at least what their profits and rates of interest are. Nowhere in this document is there any reference to that.
  It may well be that modern private capital has reformed itself, but it may be that there are companies that still exploit Africa in the bad old way. We have all been rather complacent today on this subject. We have all said that over the last few years private industry—and even the Conservative Party—has learned new methods and that there is no longer any danger of exploitation. I
  312
  sometimes wonder if that is true. If it is true, the facts and figures should be made available, and when the new Ministry is under way it will be of great help to those of us who are interested in the problem to have an annual report, and an annual discussion in this House about methods, and so on, and rather better tables, rather better information than is contained in the two White Papers.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: For the last thirty years I have been one of a team engaged in developing underdeveloped countries, and I ask the indulgence of the House while I put forward one or two points. It is not that I propose to give the new Minister any advice; listening to the whole of today's debate, as I have done, I believe that if he were to accept all the advice that has been given he would be a very busy man before he even started work. In such a situation, a Minister wants to know much more about the problems rather than be given advice on how to deal with them. His own ability will enable him to deal with the problems as they arise.
  We must realise, first, that we are now talking of a world-wide effort. Much has been said about the Commonwealth alone but, as I see it, this is a worldwide project. My own experience leads me to say—and we worked in all sorts of countries in different stages of development—that the same sort of treatment and the same sort of ideas cannot apply on a world-wide scale. There is no one single solution. I very strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) said; he obviously spoke from practical personal experience.
  The new Ministry needs backing up with practical experience. It wants in it men who have worked abroad, and who know the parts of the world with which they are dealing and the individual problems which apply. I could delay the House for a long time speaking of the experience of our own team. I could say how different faces have not fitted in different parts of the world; in some cases for reasons that are quite obvious when one hears them, and in others for quite silly reasons. If I were asked to give a formula for a technical person who was to work in any part of the world, I

  313
  would advise picking the man who can smile, because a smile is the thing that the people of the under-developed countries understand.
  I was very alarmed to hear hon. Members opposite talking about a Minister for Aid. The new Minister will have enough on his plate, if he is to do his present job properly, without making himself a Commonwealth Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a Minister of Education, and without our giving him a colossal control.
  This sort of problem cannot be solved by sitting in a large signal box and pulling levers and saying that we will build a dam in India and something else somewhere else. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) quoted an example of how he went with a private enterprise company to build houses in Jamaica. My own company is working not in Jamaica, but in Barbados, and I fully appreciate the problems of raising finance in such areas. I can assure the hon. Member that it is easier to raise finance in Jamaica than it is in many other parts of the world.
  In spite of what he said, I do not believe that the problem can be solved by one enormous authority, because we would then start to be in the danger of putting too much power in one man's hands and relying too much on his opinion about what was the right thing to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has pointed the value of simple things in simple areas. In my own experience I have found simple things, such as that a slow operating engine works much better in the tropics than a fast-running engine, partly because the natives understand it when it goes "chug chug", and partly because it does not have a lot of complicated apparatus.
  We have heard much about how the new Ministry is to be formed. We have had impressed upon us the importance of a world-wide effort and of world responsibility if this work is to be attempted. The other Ministers whose Departments will be deprived of staff must realise their moral responsibly for giving the best they have to this new Ministry. In my own company, when we are working in a new part of the world and introducing a new company, we find that the success of the team depends upon it getting together and deciding that there is a difficult task to be
  314
  done and that every department will have to make sacrifices, sacrifices which are made gladly because all departments know that their turn will come and that upon their sacrifices depend the experience and reputation of the team which goes. I hope that the same attitude will be taken by the Government Departments which have to make staff sacrifices.
  There are two small points which have not been made. Great play has been made with the question of education. I accept the need for education, but there does not seem to be enough emphasis on the importance of teaching languages in this country. Quite a lot of the world does not speak English and many of the under-developed countries need linguists. At an early stage the new Minister should approach the Minister of Education, not to do his job for him, but to satisfy himself that our schools appreciate the importance of languages.
  There has been some discussion about degrees in technical subjects, and reference has been made to the fact that some students fail examinations in certain subjects and are then not fully qualified. We have to realise that we are training not only for today, but for the future. If we are to train engineers and technicians, let us train them to degree standard, but not only academic but practical degree standard. The Institute of Builders has appreciated that of recent years and now has a system which allows for different levels of engineer, of craftsman and of technician. It is important that there should be those grades and that we should not hold up anyone merely because he is not fully qualified. Let us send out those people who are able to do the task. The definition of "civil engineer" is a man who harnesses the powers of nature for the benefit of mankind. I hope that that will be the motto of this new Ministry.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Throughout the centuries politicians have made speeches about priorities, which are extremely important, and they always talk in terms of settling the priorities themselves, but history has always shown that it settles the priorities for them. I do not know what we shall be talking about next week, but in the last week

  315
  or two we have been talking about unprecedented, unforeseen and rather surprising events in both the Carribean and North Africa. Priorities will continue to settle themselves.
  The Financial Secretary speaks with great sincerity on this subject and I therefore listened to him with great attention. I dislike the Bill and the sort of proposal it contains, and the suggestion that a new Ministry can be staffed with old civil servants, however worthy and able they may be. I am trying to say nothing controversial and no doubt the civil servants will be transferred for respectable reasons, and most hon. Members on this side of the House have great respect for the Colonial Service, but we want new ideas and young men and blokes who can go into this new situation of a world organisation with aspiration and with ideas.
  If the Financial Secretary could overcome his natural modesty and suggest to the Prime Minister that this might be a job suitable for him, most of us on this side would have a good deal more respect for the Ministry, because all we are discussing now is a Bill to create a new Department, and fundamentally that is bad, for there are too many Ministers now. The patronage of a Prime Minister or even a Leader of the Opposition in these days is such that he can buy the votes of about 33½ per cent. of the members of his party, and we do not want any more Ministers, but to have one good Minister at last would be not unadvantageous.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who speaks with not only eloquence and ability, but with a highly reputable record in this matter, made a speech with which I agreed so much that I shall not say more about it. However, the Financial Secretary might have been a little more forthcoming—unless he was so during my short absence when I had to repair the ravages of lack of lunch—about what has happened in Nigeria and the Overseas Service. These debates are apt to concentrate on the non-self-governing Colonial Territories. If the hon. Gentleman takes up this job he may well find that the events have forced the priorities also because the debate to which he referred so felicitously
  316
  and appreciatively which took place last night was concentrated on the southern part of Africa, and Basutoland, Swailand and Bechuanaland may become priorities. That will not be because of some assessment of need—although, heaven knows, their need is great—but because their political importance has become vital.
  There is no decent living available for most of those in the three protectorate territories, or in the three semi-trustee protectorate territories which are adjacent to—indeed, one is included in—the area of South Africa. Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland which we have discussed from time to time ever since I have been in this House (how often have we talked about the Kalahari Desert?) are territories which may force their own priorities on to the Government. Bechuanaland produced the greatest cattle expert in Africa, Tshekedi Khama, who was not consulted by the Labour Government in 1945 when they produced their scheme for cattle raising in Bechuanaland.
  I wish to say a word or two about Nigeria, because I should have thought that on the whole Nigeria is about the least controversial territory in the whole of Africa. It is common ground on both sides of the House that it has about the ablest African leaders to be found on the Continent of Africa today. They are men like the Prime Minister, Balewa, and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the new Governor-General, men of distinction in any society in the world and men of ability in any society in the world. They know their problems. I had the good fortune to be present at the installation of the Governor-General. He would not mind my mentioning that in the past there have been times when his affection for the British Empire has been tempered with a certain amount of polemical rhetoric, but I heard him make a passionate declaration of loyalty to the Queen. One sees that they have done there something which it is not easy for us in this country to do—sunk their party differences in order to work for the common good. Dr. Azikiwe's acceptance of the Governorship surprised most people.
  They have one of the finest European civil services which have existed in Africa. I saw the departure of the late

  317
  Governor and saw the demonstration of popular emotion. I rather expected to hear "Will ye no' come back again?" sung in African dialect as I once heard "On Ilkla' Moor baht'at". There is no question about the good feeling, but one knows of some of the problems. One knows, for example, that Europeans are paid at European rates, although it is fair to add that they must be badly off in the highly inflationary atmosphere of Lagos. It may be that those are not the rates which the Nigerian Government would wish to pay in the future, but their pride would not permit them to differentiate between residents and non-residents in terms of wages.
  That was precisely why the Overseas Service Bill was passed. It was because European civil servants were making arrangements to go at the time when we were there, not in anger or in any dissatisfaction, but leaving spheres of work to which many of them were genuinely devoted. They were uncertain about the future and uncertain about the directives. The provision which had been made by this House was apparently not to be brought in in any circumstances.
  Mr. Costain: I mentioned this point in my speech and I should like to be permitted a short intervention. My impression about these things in Nigeria is that Nigerians are worried that if the British expatriates were to take a salary from Britain they would have dual loyalties. I am told on very good authority that that is the only fear they have. If they are paid by Nigeria a certain sum and by the British another sum, the Nigerians wonder how they could be expected to be loyal to Nigeria. That, I understand, is the only problem. I am quite certain that when they realise that it is because they do not appreciate what Civil Service loyalty is and cannot understand Civil Service loyalty, they will accept it.
  Mr. Hale: I can well understand that that may be the popular view, but I am perfectly certain it could not be the view of those working in the Government of Nigeria. I think they perfectly understand the independence of the British civil servant, with his devotion to his job, free from political affiliations.
  I visited the prisons in Lagos and saw the European director who was leaving the next week and was being replaced by a European second-in-command
  318
  who was expected to leave in a few months' time. Those of us interested in penal reform know that a first-class prison governor is a rara avis. I do not say that in any political sense, but he is a rare chap. A man who can build up the prison service in Lagos in the almost fantastic building circumstances we witnessed there with a building nearly as old as Dartmoor—with the execution shed overlooked by the maternity hospital, and thirty-seven prisoners were under sentence of death—a man who can develop a prison service in those circumstances, is worthy of admiration and respect. I think it a tragedy that these people are leaving.
  I know that the Financial Secretary is deputising at the last moment for someone else who should have presented the Bill, but there are important questions which ought to be answered.
  I come now to my second point. I have always disclosed to the House that I have no economic cards up my sleeve. I do not profess to understand economics, and although I know many who do profess to understand economics, I do not know any who do understand economics.
  The first point that we have to remember in this field is that bunging a heavy industry into an undeveloped territory is not an unmixed blessing. I am not trying to be political. I am trying to quote uncontroversial examples because the atmosphere on both sides so far has been constructive, and I do not want to disturb it.
  In Venezuela I visited the plant of the United Steel Corporation of America. There someone had by chance—I think it was due to an aeroplane accident—discovered an immense mountain deep in the jungle beyond the Orinoco which was mostly iron ore. So they started to develop it. Nothing could have been better than the operations of the company. It is a first-class corporation; something like a world power.
  This is one of the important questions which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) touched on. The company erected ports on the Orinoco, 90 miles of road and railway and the best housing in Venezuela. It provided the best conditions for its men. Its reputation as a developing company was

  319
  as good as one can find anywhere in the world.
  The first results were beneficial. The Venezuelan Government needed revenue, and this provided a taxable income. The Venezuelan Government began to dig very deep into it, and will go on digging deeper year by year. If we wanted to export technical assistance anywhere in the world and we sent a couple of dozen first-class British Income Tax inspectors to Venezuela, they could probably raise a great deal more money for the Venezuelan Government than any other economic operation that one could envisage.
  But round the periphery one is creating a raging inflation and accentuating the poverty of those who are outside the circle. One has created unbalanced conditions. Not only that; with one's raging inflation one has nothing for the people who have money to spend unless one is prepared to provide consumer goods in relation to one's developing industry, and then one is still up against the future.
  This is what I was talking about last week. I do not propose to repeat myself, but, after all, countries in the end have to pay for their exports and not their imports. Every time I say this six people giggle and go out and are slightly distressed, and nobody seems to understand what I mean. But this is the whole problem of world development. It is a problem of one's permanent trade surplus. If one has an export surplus, one is engaged in an act of economic war. One has to divert to investment. The United States has had to face this problem.
  I do not want to impute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) anything which he did not mean, and I am sure he did not mean this, but he talked about co-operation with the United States in this matter, and went on to talk about the free world. I do not know where the free world is. Whether it is the world of General Franco, Dr. Salazar, General Salan, Angola, and so on, I do not know. But I do know that if one is going to embark on world development as a form of political warfare one will fail. One will start on the wrong foot.
  320
  My friends in America, who have a very honourable record in this way, say "We all realise this. We have to tag this on, though, to please the less intelligent voters of Alabama." I hope that those voters of Alabama have a clear conception of the implications concerned. But one cannot do it. A suffering child is a suffering child whether it is Chinese or Nigerian, or wherever it comes from.
  I come back to Nigeria for a moment. I quote it only because it is a rather uncontroversial country and also one that I have fairly recently visited, if only for a short time. The Teal need of Nigeria is for doctors. The real need of Nigeria is for agricultural scientists. They have made great experiments in agricultural development. They have their little stations and their organisation. But what happens? They have got to have a taxable revenue. They have already got inflation in Lagos. They have got to get new industries into the area of Lagos to provide their taxable revenue, and every new industry which goes there increases the inflation and drags the people from agriculture.
  That is why today, if I may go again to Venezuela, the land in Caracas is dearer than it is in the City of London. There is an enormous shanty-town being built at Caracas because one has made a land fit for spivs to live in and one is denuding agriculture and raw material production. This large country, with its vast area of land, is actually importing eggs on a huge scale because it has failed to provide a balanced production. These are the problems.
  I would say again to the hon. Gentleman—I certainly never thought of appealing to him as Hamlet's father's ghost, even in his present streamlined condition, and I hope he will not accept my compliments at a premium—that if we are to have a Minister to deal with this matter, we want someone who really has power and really has, as he suggested, access to the Prime Minister. We want someone who will not be encumbered by a choice of staff which is dictated by other Departments, and someone who certainly has not got to go to another Minister for the promotion of his own men. If he is to do anything with this, he must have the right to say "I want that man and this man to lead this organisation."

  321
  The hon. Member for Wavertree raised several questions of great importance, such as empire co-operation. If one wants knowledge about raw material production, if one wants knowledge of the sort of raw material production that one is likely to envisage in large African territories, one is a great deal more likely to get it from Australia and Canada. Since I was in Canada in 1945, I have constantly raised the question of Commonwealth consultation, of a Commonwealth consultative Parliament, not to take decisions, but to exchange views. During these fifteen years, no one has paid the slightest attention to it.
  I heard the Prime Minister at the Box today say that, of course, we must go to a good deal of trouble to find out all the problems of the Commonwealth in relation to possible participation in the Common Market. We ought to know these things. They ought to be a matter of day-to-day discussion. They should be part of the textbook of every politician. It is certainly from the sentiment and the good will of the Commonwealth that we draw a great deal of the power for good that we have in world affairs. We cannot afford lightly to discard them. That is why co-operation and consultation could take in any other country that is willing to participate or join. Do not let us talk as if we are leading in these matters. We are not. The Scandinavian countries have a singularly honourable record in this sphere.
  I want to say a personal word to the Minister. Nobody doubts his sincerity. Most of us respect deeply his record in this matter. If, however, he is to impress Africa with his good will, two problems have to be dealt with and he must deal with them, answer them and say what he has in mind.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) produced a paper on communications in Africa many years ago, during the time of the Labour Government. It was a secret document. I was not supposed to see it. Therefore, my recollection of it must continue to be a little vague. Where does background expenditure come into the scheme? It will never pay in terms of so much per cent. interest. Communications are vital. Indeed, they dominate some of the amalgamations of countries in Africa. The position of Tanganyika, of Uganda and of Nyasaland,
  322
  if she were to come into an East African Federation, is dominated by the communications of Kenya, and Kenya may not be dominated by the sort of political Government to which they aspire. Communications are essential. Nigeria has tolerable communications on the seaboard and, perhaps, around the Niger delta. Inland, however, up to Lake Chad, much of the communication is still by primitive boat and by water. These problems will not be solved unless somebody is prepared to do a great deal more.
  It is a matter really for a world organisation. That is why I speak with hesitation, with wonder and with doubt at the creation of a new Ministry, which, we are told, will co-ordinate the work of existing organisations and which, apparently, will not have anything to do with the United Nations, which has a splendid record of work in this sphere. Thus we are merely adding another Ministry with limited responsibility, which must co-ordinate with three or four existing Ministries, which must let an existing Ministry run the promotion of its staff and which has access to the Prime Minister, who certainly has many other preoccupations, and we are to have a quite separate agency dealing with the United Nations, its Special Agencies, and so on.
  The second of the two words which I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that there are certain tests of sincerity. If there is one organisation of the United Nations which has won the respect of everybody who has ever been associated with it, it is the United Nations Children's Fund. We continue to give a contribution so contemptible and mean as to put in doubt the sincerity of all the stuff we talk about aid to suffering peoples.
  The infant mortality rate in some of the African countries is appalling. Do not let us fail to face the sort of thing that is difficult to say and chat is open to criticism—that the more young lives we save in some of these territories, the greater will become their economic problems. This is one of the dilemmas which we must face. In some of these territories there is already overpopulation, which is being increased to an enormous extent. The only way of facing these problems—and they must be faced—is to do what we believe to be

  323
  right. I do not have the figures at my command offhand, but a few years ago we were debtors to the Children's Fund. If one computes the niggardly subscription that was taken from our national expenditure, so much of it was being spent in British Colonial Territories that we were actually gaining a profit on our participation in the Children's Fund.
  As the second part of this final paragraph, let me say this. There is another fund. I have not had any communication with it directly for some years, so I do not speak as an advocate. Some years ago, I raised the question of the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind. The problem of blindness in Africa is one of the most moving and most terrible that can be found anywhere in the world.
  When I was a lad, one talked of leprosy as the terrible scourge from which there was no relief. Today, blindness in Africa has reached the stage that up around Lake Chad, there are whole villages of blind people, helpless. Six or seven months ago, I went to a small station run by the Royal Commonwealth Society. Speaking from memory, that station could take, I believe, 24 totally blind Africans, some of whom had come 2,000 miles for treatment and a number of whom, by the sheer force of poverty, were neglected and deserted by their families when this affliction came upon them.
  Under the direction of a lass from Lancashire, that little station was trying to train—and succeeding—24 adult totally blind men to go back to their territory equipped to win a meagre livelihood by clearing a bit of bush. They had to have training which would enable them to clear a little bit of bush and to dig it, and sow it with seeds provided by the organisation. Totally blind they had to do it, and thus to wrest enough from the bush to provide their subsistence, and if they could do it they would then have a higher standard of living than most of those in their villages.
  That is the problem. What do we do for that organisation now? I spent some time a year or two ago trying to get help for it. This is one of the fields in which private enterprise has a very honourable record, because most of the money that organisation was getting, I
  324
  remember, came from a few big firms. From the Government, how much?
  If the Government are sincere, if they really mean that in establishing a new Ministry they are going sincerely to try to fight some of the problems of poverty and suffering and deprivation, why do they not start with a little more help to some of the essentially decent organisations which add to our reputation throughout the world, which provide little bastions of intelligent, decent democracy in every country where they settle? The Government might start that way, and if they were to start that way, I say to the right hon. Gentleman, then at least they might give us a certain guarantee of the sincerity of Her Majesty's present advisers to work conscientiously and effectively in these fields.
  7.52 p.m.
  Dr. Alan Thompson: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very moving and eloquent observations. Indeed, I would not be capable of matching his eloquence.
  I should like to take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), in his excellent speech, in which he queried whether we should set up a Ministry in which technical assistance is divorced from the wider context of capital needs and the provision of capital. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) denied that any Ministry could do this. A Ministry of Aid, he said, was not practicable. I shall deny this proposition, and I think that the Financial Secretary will agree with me. He knows about the work which has been done in recent years by economists and statisticians on investment surveys, and that we are now at that stage of knowledge where it would be possible.
  The proposition for setting up the Ministry was to look at the amounts and kinds of investment suitable for different territories, at questions concerned with the creation of purchasing power, the building up of productive power, and achieving maximum national incomes. We have much more knowledge now on these subjects than we had even ten years ago, thanks to the national-income

  325
  economists and statisticians, and I think that the Financial Secretary, who dips into an economics text-book as nonchalantly as many of his hon. Friends peruse the Reader's Digest, will know that there is a need for a Ministry with this knowledge which can advise upon the needs of the underdeveloped countries.
  Let us just for a moment look at this question of underdevelopment. We have to get out of the habit of thinking that God has divided the world into two immutable sectors, the developed and the underdeveloped. We were all underdeveloped once; and, indeed, looking at the other side of the coin, many countries which are now classified as underdeveloped are richer in natural resources than some of the countries of the West which think of themselves as so developed and so advanced. It can be seen that we have all had to work through certain economic processes, and that our problems have been similar, and that there is no fixed division between the kind of country which needs paternal aid and advice and another more advanced in wisdom. As I said, we all, in our turn, pass through certain well-defined phases towards development.
  There are exceptions, of course. It would, for instance, take a whole army of economists and statisticians to transform the Kalahari Desert by investment policy into a kind of industrial and commercial Holland. An adult rabbit does not grow naturally and inevitably into a baby elephant. But, outside the polar and the desert regions, most of the rest of the world has considerable possibilities of economic development. We have seen, in the work of economic historians, that economic development has not necessarily been confined to specially favoured regions or to areas enjoying a specially favourable climate. The efforts of man have conquered these difficulties.
  In recorded history, industrial and commercial leadership has frequently passed from one region to another and from one country to another. Countries in the Mediterranean area and in Southern Europe, which were once economically advanced, have slipped back, while other nations, once backward, have gone on to economic greatness. Lest we get to benevolently paternalistic, we might remember that
  326
  some of these countries now described as underdeveloped possess such enormous economic potential that one day they may be setting up agencies to help us if we slip back.
  We have seen that natural resources are important to economic development, but, again, possession of such resources cannot be claimed as the sole criterion whether investment should be directed there. In North America, for instance, the possession of vast natural resources did not help the primitive Indians, who wandered about there for centuries without ever doing much about it. There is no evidence that any Sioux or Apache economist ever wrote a book on the problems of an affluent society, although they had the natural resources underneath them and round about them. There are, of course, other factors besides natural resources, such as productive techniques, and a population of a certain size and quality and of a certain educational and technical level.
  I say this to point out that underdeveloped countries comprise a very diverse collection, but there are certain characteristics which they have in common which can guide us in what kind of help to give. The first is the low level of real income per head of the population. When I was in Nyasaland, recently, I was told that the national income per head of the population was £9 per year, which is rather less than a British family spends on its dog. Secondly, these countries are lacking in accumulated capital, and they also have the related problem of the backwardness of their techniques.
  I was surprised to hear some hon. Members opposite extolling, it seemed to me uncritically, the advantages of industrialisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West touched upon this point. I think that we have to approach this mystique of industrialisation very warily. A few economic thinkers of the West are to some extent to blame for applying their analysis based on Western societies to these backward territories. Some of them have misunderstood the basic problems of these backward areas. They have misunderstood the nature of the subsistence economy and the agriculture which is the basis of these countries.
  Some economists have tended to say that industrialisation is the answer to all

  327
  problems. They point out that an industrial country has better social services, has a more efficient army, and has an educational system higher than anywhere else, and that, therefore, as all these benefits spring, in the history of the West, from industrialisation, the country which does not industrialise quickly enough cannot share these benefits.
  This view has, I think, now come to be regarded as mistaken. We should acknowledge that manufacturing industry is simply one type of economic activity and that there is not necessarily any strong reason why it should be given preference. We can have a high level of national income in backward countries based on agriculture. The high national income of a country stems from its natural resources and from its resources of technical and managerial skills, and both can be applied to agriculture as well as to industry. In the past, we have tended to apply them to industry and to neglect them in agriculture. The contrast has been painted between a pitiful subsistence level in agriculture, while industry can have good factories and beautiful new houses. We have to think of developing agriculture in this way, and applying to backward countries some of these managerial techniques which, for over a hundred years, we have applied to industry.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am very interested in the point, but I confess that I cannot altogether agree with the hon. Member's last few words. Does he not think that there is some significance in the fact that if one wants to engage a farm worker one of the first questions that he or his wife asks is what the local schools are like? I should have thought that that was a significant point.
  Dr. Thompson: I do not say that agricultural workers should be held to a lower standard than industrial workers. Our aim should be to see the economy as a whole develop so that the living standards of all these workers should not only be comparable, but should rise.
  When some economic writers apply their techniques to backward countries they should be wary of measuring things by our own yardsticks. Unemployment is a serious problem in these backward countries, but it is not so easily solved as is sometimes thought. It often depends,
  328
  particularly in Africa, on a complex social system, and it is sometimes hard to determine who is working and who is not. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish the involuntarily idle, the unemployed in our sense, from those who have a strong preference for leisure or at least a preference for casual and intermittent employment. These attitudes towards work must be broken down, particularly in Africa. Enlightened African leaders would be the first to admit it.
  When people look at investment possibilities in countries like the African countries too much is made of the so-called lower quality of the African worker. We have seen in our own history that workers can adjust very quickly to new conditions. It is argued that the African worker is lazy, unstable, or has a poor output, and that these failings depend on racial characteristics. The racial argument is nonsense. We had similar difficulties in adjusting workers to the new pace of industrial change in Britain in the nineteenth century. We solved our problems largely in Britain once a stable political and economic environment had been achieved, and once these are achieved in the African territories the African worker will respond very quickly.
  There are complaints, too, that the white overseers tend to be critical and impatient of African workers. As has been said in the debate, the overseers do not smile enough. This is a simple point, but it is true. Secondly, the African worker resents the higher social position of the white worker. This is changing and there is a situation now in parts of Africa where employers and African workers are trying to reach agreement in spite of obstacles put in the way by white workers.
  As one employer in Africa put it to me, there is not only the problem of underpaying the Africans, but that of overpaying the whites. These Europeans came to that part of Africa when it was a white man's grave. They had to be paid a great deal to get them there, but now, with the advent of modern drugs, better health and housing and other advantages, that part of the world is no longer the white man's grave. European workers came there when the white man expected automatically a higher standard of living than that of the Africans. This

  329
  proposition is no longer accepted so simply and uncritically. Indeed, it is bitterly resented by Africans, and we must face this problem.
  In pleading for a Ministry of Aid in the wider sense, I would expect to see a Ministry that would try to strike a balance in help to backward countries between what might be called social investment and productive investment. This is an extremely difficult balance to strike. If we spend too much on social services we divert resources which could be used to expand production. If we expand production without the social services we are surrounded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, said, by poverty on the periphery of plenty. But this is a problem that we must tackle and economists are doing work to try to find this balance. We were lucky in Britain. We built up a tremendous accumulation of capital before the demand for higher social services came as a result of political emancipation. But the African politician of the future must advance the social services alongside productive investments. It is not politically possible for him to hold his people at subsistence level during the period of intensive investment.
  I should also like to have seen a Ministry of Aid examining the problem, of what one might call the dangers of one-sector development, in some of our backward countries. In the Federation of Central Africa, for instance, 40 per cent. of their investment is devoted to transport and 4 per cent. to agriculture. There is clearly imbalance there, possibly because the transport enthusiasts have, so to speak, prevailed in their investment proposals over the agriculturists.
  I am not denying that Central Africa needs communications, but 40 per cent. for transport as against 4 per cent. for agriculture, which is the basic economy of the country and the means of subsistence for millions of Africans, does not seem to be the right proportion. In Sarawak, 54 per cent. of the investment goes to transport and only 14 per cent. to agriculture. This kind of maximum one-sector investment is not always commensurate with an increase to the maximum level of national income.
  All this adds up to a criticism that in the past the allocation of funds by Her Majesty's Government to help these countries has not always followed a consistent
  330
  policy. The Government have been very confused as to what they should spend or lend or give to the social services and what they should allocate for productive enterprise. It is difficult to criticise the Government for this, because these problems are very complex and difficult to solve, but I think that an attempt should be made. I am not sure that this Ministry and its terms of reference are wide enough to investigate these problems.
  Perhaps the Financial Secretary will deny this; perhaps he has powers up his sleeve, but, as I read the Bill, it seems to me that the powers of the Ministry and the range of its staff are not adequate for examining the kind of crucial problems with which I am dealing. I was an academic economist long enough to have a certain slight agnosticism on the whole subject of economics, but I nevertheless believe very strongly in the usefulness of many economic techniques developed in recent years, and I believe that we should use the economic research institutes and other bodies to assist us. Experts in national-income analysis can give us many useful criteria in the allocation of investment to achieve a maximum return. A straightforward allocation to achieve maximum return would involve a ranking by the British Government of all possible investment projects overseas in terms of some criterion of economic return. The central Ministry should be able to draw upon the findings of input-output specialists. It would not always act on its schedules. It would sometimes say, "Social and political considerations demand that we should do this and planning considerations demand that we should do the other" but at least it would have the schedule from which to work.
  Clearly, however carefully we plan, we should never remove all the risks of investment. I hardly need refer to the Tanganyika groundnuts scheme, though I would say that it was not the economist but the meteorologist who was to blame for this failure. The plan failed because of a mis-estimate of the rainfall. That is the kind of thing which can happen, given the best will in the world, and nobody can pretend that every Government will always be free from making mistakes.
  To take another example, let us consider the plans for investment in 1955–60

  331
  which were made when world commodity prices were buoyant. Then came falls in the prices of coffee, sisal, rubber, and groundnuts and this made nonsense of all the predictions. This leads me to the point made by several of my hon. Friends that we cannot do very much unless we have a United Nations agency working for the stabilisation of primary prices through the F.A.O. This can only be done at the United Nations level. This lends force to the argument that the Government must support and positively urge through its delegates on the various agencies of the United Nations measures to try to get some order and economic sanity into world price arrangements, particularly with respect to primary products.
  All this indicates that I am critical of the very limited functions of the new Ministry, and I would prefer that we had a Ministry with much wider and imaginative aims. Nevertheless, limited as the aims are, we wish it well. I should like it to conduct work in the field of education, maintaining close liaison with the universities for the exchange of students, scientists, technologists, and so on. I should also like to see it maintain much closer relations with the various bodies concerned with Commonwealth technical education and international technical education than the Government have done in the past.
  I sit on a committee composed of a number of hon. Members, industrialists and educationists, the Commonwealth Technical Education Committee. We certainly get courteous replies from the Government whenever we correspond with them, but I do not think that we get much action. I hope that this new Ministry will be able, instead of expressing pious interest and hope, to give some concrete help to the various schemes we have put forward. In conclusion, I say that it is not the Ministry I would have liked, but I still wish it well.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: This debate has been going on a very long time, longer than was expected, but, in my view, not too long. I think that the length of the debate and the quality of the speeches have done a great deal to indicate to the Minister and to Her Majesty's Government the importance
  332
  which hon. Members attach to this subject.
  The Bill has received only a qualified welcome, not because it is bad in itself but because we are doubtful whether it will fulfil the aspirations which the Minister has of it. I should like to echo some of the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and other hon. Members on this side of the House in saying how much we hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will be clothed with real energy and we shall have a Minister appointed to this new Department with vision and ideas, and the drive and ability to carry out the objectives which we hope the Government have in mind and which, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Government ought to have in mind.
  Tremendous opportunities are afforded; in fact the opportunities are limitless, but I will try not to duplicate anything said by my hon. Friends. I hope, however, that when the Minister comes to reply he will clear up some of the obscurities with regard to the procedural concept of the Bill. I was not very clear from his opening speech exactly what are to be the limitations and the functions of the new Minister. I shall be disappointed if all that the new Minister does is to recruit staff from the three existing Departments now dealing with these functions.
  I hope that the new Minister and the new Department, vitalised, as I hope they will be, with new blood and new staff, will take a new look at the immense possibilities and moral responsibilities which this House and the country have in giving all kinds of technical aid and educational aid and assistance to overseas countries.
  Would the Minister, when he replies, give us some enlightenment about the financial implications of the Bill? Would he give us some idea of the size of the staff with which this Ministry will be equipped and of the extent of the Vote which this House will be passing in order to enable this Ministry to fulfil its functions? Would he also give us some idea of what Vote will be required not merely for the departmental expenses of the Ministry but for the actual expenditure on technical assistance overseas? Indeed, I hope that we shall not find, when it

  333
  comes to the Vote of this Department, that we are merely asked to vote departmental expenses and that the only object of this Ministry is as the Explanatory Memorandum says:
  "…to co-ordinate, promote and carry out arrangements…"
  I hope that the Minister will be able to initiate financial contributions where they are wanted. Could he, for example, tell us more than he has told us about the valuable functions now being performed by the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Foreign Office which will be taken over by the Ministry? I refer to the Geological Survey in Africa and the Topographical Survey, for example. All these are fundamental to technical assistance in African countries.
  There is one other specific aspect of this problem on which I hope the Minister will enlighten us a little. I refer to the activities of the Inter-University Council for Higher Education overseas which is mentioned in paragraph 9 of the White Paper on Technical Assistance. When the Prime Minister made his announcement about this Ministry on 23rd March he was noticeably reticent about this, although he was asked questions about it by both the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and myself.
  I understand from what the Minister said that educational functions are outside the scope of the Bill and will be channelled through U.N.E.S.C.O., and I gather that health matters will continue to be dealt with through the World Health Organisation, but I am concerned about the valuable activities which have hitherto been undertaken by the Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas. This body was set up by the Labour Government through the inspiration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). It is worth while recording the immensely valuable services which have been rendered by British universities, notably the University of London, in assisting overseas countries notably in Africa, some dependent, and some formerly dependent but now independent, in establishing their own universities and university colleges.
  I gather that the functions of that Council are not limited to Commonwealth
  334
  countries but are intended to apply also to overseas countries outside the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether this new Department will be able to give further assitance in this field where it is urgently required. We should be nattered that people look to us in this country for this kind of academic assistance.
  I will mention a specific example which came to my notice a few months ago. I was in Jordan, a country outside the Commonwealth but with which we have very close, intimate and sentimental ties—a country to which we make a substantial financial subvention to enable her to establish for herself a viable economic life. Jordan is a poor country. The standard of living of many of the Bedouins—particularly in times of drought—is one of considerable hardship. On the other hand, Jordan is a country of which it is true to say that its stability and independence are in large measure essential for the stability and peace of the Middle East.
  When I was there I was struck by the fact that in interviews which I had with His Majesty King Hussein, with the Prime Minister, with the Commander-in-Chief and with others, they all stressed the need for setting up a university in Jordan and they are naturally looking to this country for assistance in establishing such a project. Heaven knows, Jordan needs a great deal of technical assistance and financial help of various kinds, but the enlightened leaders of that country realise the long-term importance of having their own university like all their neighbours. I am not thinking only of the great Hebrew University in Jerusalem, but also of the universities in other Arab countries in the Middle East.
  In Jordan they realise that they have no university, but they have 500 students a year wanting higher education, and those students have to go outside Jordan either to Beirut or to an English university or elsewhere. If any country is to compete economically and also is to develop its own culture and independence, it must encourage and develop a cadre of its best students so that in the coursse of time they can provide ideas for progressive advancement in their own country.
  No country, not Nigeria, not Rhodesia, nor any other of the African

  335
  countries which we have helped in the last few years in establishing universities, can perform that task without assistance from outside. We should be proud that in Jordan they look to us to give them the initial assistance by the provision of administrative expertise, and the supply for short periods of a number of professors and lecturers to enable them to develop their own university, so that in the course of time they can cater for their own students of university calibre.
  This is a sphere in which we in this country, with our great cultural achievements, our great wealth of academic experience and traditions and our supply of skilled professors and teachers, have a duty, an obligation and an opportunity to render assistance to a number of overseas countries, some in the Commonwealth and others, like Jordan, outside it. I have mentioned this as an instance of a pressing need of a different kind, in addition to those in the economic, technical and social spheres which other hon. Members have mentioned, in which there is an opportunity of service. I ask the Minister whether this is the sort of thing which the new Minister and his Department will handle, in conjunction with the Inter-University Council, which has proved as valuable in Commonwealth countries, and is presided over by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds?
  Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will my hon. Friend allow me to underline the great importance of what he is saying by reminding him that the splendid work which the Inter-University Council does is confined to the dependent territories of the Commonwealth and that its work is cut off short and sharp the moment independence is achieved?
  Mr. Fletcher: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is precisely the sort of point that I hope the Minister can clarify. I have, in fact, asked the Chairman of the Council whether they could respond to an official request of the Jordanian Government by giving that assistance, and I understand that in principle the Council would be prepared and glad to do so. There may be a limitation in their resources. They may be asked in
  336
  the first place to give only technical advice and assistance.
  This is the sort of sphere in which we can usefully aid a country to which we are making an annual subvention of some £2 million with very little additional cost, but with great benefit to the future of Jordan. If this Inter-University Council is not in a position to give aid where it is wanted, then it obviously should be. Whether or not it is able to do so, it seems essentially the sort of task that should attract the energies and the interest of the new Minister when he is appointed.
  I have no doubt that other hon. Members know of places where similar opportunities for giving valuable assistance will occur. The opportunities are tremendous. I hope that the Minister will respond to what has been said in this debate, and will impress upon his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the enormous opportunities there are in this sphere; and that we shall have appointed to this office—I would hope, as my hon. Friend said, the Minister himself, but at any rate someone with similar vision and outlook; some one who is sensible of the opportunities that lie ahead.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In debates on this important question of aid to countries less fortunate than ourselves there is a natural tendency to concentrate discussion on large territories with big populations and to tend to neglect the smaller Colonies that are dependent on this country. We concentrate on the countries that are progressing towards ultimate independence, and we forget about smaller territories that will never be able to sustain themselves, but will always be dependent on us. I refer to such places as the Falkland Islands, Tristan da Cunha and St. Helena, which I had the privilege of visiting some years ago.
  There are no riots in these islands. Peace reigns there—but poverty walks hand in hand with peace. I often wonder whether they would be given a better deal if there was more unrest there. There was a time when St. Helena was one of the most important British colonial possessions. The historians say that there would not have been an Empire in the Far East had it not been for the

  337
  existence of St. Helena as a victualling station for ships on their way round the Cape of Good Hope.
  After the construction of the Suez Canal in 1869, the island became unimportant to the British Empire and since that time its standard of living has deteriorated. Even today, when Britain has "never had it so good", British people are living in destitution in St. Helena. I hope that this Bill will help to bring some measure of additional prosperity to these small territories, and that the Minister will give an assurance to that effect.
  St. Helena is a small island of 47 square miles, and has a population of about 4,600 people. The people are descended from the East India Company settlers from this country and are of mixed British, Indian, African and Chinese blood. They are a British people in their attitude, their way of life and their standards.
  The cost of foodstuffs and the necessities of life is roughly equivalent to that in this country. There are two private firms in the island which run the flax industry, and these two, with the Government, are the main sources of employment. What is the level of wages on the island? A worker in the flax industry gets £1 13s. 6d. a week. An agricultural labourer employed privately gets £1 13s. 6d.; if employed by the Government he receives £2 5s. a week. A skilled labourer employed by the Government receives £2 6s. 6d. a week. That is the wage position.
  Because the workers receive so little, their families do not get enough to eat—that is the position in that island today. The only food crop is potatoes, with a few smallholders growing green vegetables. The animal stock there is donkeys—the chief means of transport—and a few horses and goats, 700 cattle. 1,218 sheep, 266 pigs and 9,200 poultry. There is insufficient meat, milk and egg production to meet the demand. The waters around St. Helena abound with fish, but the islanders do not get enough fish to eat. That is the extent of the success of Government administration in St. Helena.
  What are the results of that neglect? The World Health Organisation conducted an inquiry into food and nutrition in St. Helena and reported:
  338
  "It will be seen that the St. Helena children are in general from 2 to 2½ inches shorter than the London children of the same age, and they reach the same height some 12 to 18 months later.
  At 6½ years of age the St. Helena children are 7 lb. lighter than the London children; by 13½ years they are 20 lb. lighter; up to that age the St. Helena children reach the London children weight some 2 to 2½ years later. The difference after 13 years is greater."
  Those are the facts and they speak for themselves.
  Then there is the question of housing. The housing needs of these people are precisely the same as our own, but housing conditions there are extremely poor. The islanders have no money to repair, extend, or to rebuild their old cottages, which would have been condemned out of hand in this country sixty or seventy years ago. Overcrowding is commonplace and when I was there I heard of as many as 12 sleeping in one bedroom. Two hundred and seventy-seven families on the island with two or more children live in houses with three bedrooms or fewer.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Sounds like Glasgow.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that the Bill will assist in providing better housing conditions for those people.
  The education position is very unsatisfactory. I agree that because of the remoteness of the island there are inherent difficulties. There are 12 schools on the island and the figures show that out of a total full-time teaching strength of 62 only two have received university or college education and that, of those, one is the education officer. The standard of teaching therefore cannot be high, although many of the untrained personnel, by virtue of their character and application, are very good teachers. The provision of trained teachers in St. Helena is an urgent necessity, because the children are of a high intelligence.
  In one of his reports the Education Officer for St. Helena said:
  "The general impression obtained is that the standards of intelligence are as high as those in England, and that the proportion of educationally sub-normal children is rather lower than would be the case there."
  But when he deals with the home background of these children he says:
  "Their diet is monotonous, the basis being bread, margarine, fish and tea. Meat is

  339
  expensive and scarce and vegetables are also seasonally scarce. Clothing is poor; shoes being worn only by a small proportion of children and adults, while many children have no change of clothing. As they feel the cold easily, presumably because of their poor diet, it is also usual for the country children to wear all the clothes they possess and for these to be washed at week-ends. It is, in fact, a remarkable feature that, with the exception of one or two areas, children, homes and adults are scrupulously clean, both in person and in clothing."
  I suggest that, under the provisions of the Bill, the Government might consider making arrangements to second teachers from education authorities in this country to St. Helena so that the children may have an opportunity of a higher standard of learning.
  In the Report of the World Health Organisation certain suggestions and recommendations were made. Having regard to the fact that the diet of St. Helenians is so poor, the Report says that certain essential steps should be taken at once to make food available for the people. It goes on to say that if that is not done there will be serious undernutrition and malnutrition in the island.
  On the question of employment, the Report says:
  "There is little doubt that only limited improvements can be brought about unless the economic status of the people is raised. This, in essence, means that some industry, apart from the flagging tax industry, must be established on the Island. However, steps could immediately be taken to increase the production of food, and some public health and educational measures are necessary."
  I have described a few of the problems of this Colony because it gives the House an example of a territory for which the House is responsible and which has no Members of Parliament or elected assembly. The people are governed by a Governor, who is virtually the arbitrary head of the Colony. They are entitled to the protection of this House and to a voice in it and it should be the Government's duty to see that they get fairer treatment.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will give the House an undertaking that the Bill is intended to give succour not only to the larger areas, which have numerous spokesmen in this House to support them, but to the small territories which have no one to take up the cudgels on their behalf.
  8.36 p.m.
  Sir E. Boyle: By leave of the House, I had thought of rising just after half-past eight to reply to some of the points raised during the last four hours, although I fully understand that some hon. Members might not want the debate to come to a conclusion yet. It is four hours since I last sat down, and a number of points have been raised.
  I think the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) spoke with the approval of the whole House—and the point he made was taken up by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—when he pointed out that the gap between the wealthier and the poorer nations was widening at the moment, and when he pointed out the very great moral importance of the whole question of overseas aid. From that time we have had a fairly wide-ranging debate, although this is a subject which we discuss so seldom in this House that I do not think any hon. Member will regret the fact that the debate has gone over a wide field. I certainly did not. Living, as I do, almost entirely on the two sides of Whitehall, it has been a great pleasure, as the Archbishop of Canterbury says, to travel through space, and to have an opportunity I have not had in this House for nearly eighteen months.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East asked what the Government are going to do on the question of aid, and went on to say that we should take our full share in what he called the Hoffman Plan. The figures for Government aid are quite striking. We have doubled our effort in the last two or three years. The Government were spending £75 million on aid in the financial year 1957–58. That rose to about £100 million in the financial year 1958–59, and in the last calendar year the total figure for Government aid was about £150 million.
  I should like to make it absolutely clear to the right hon. Member and the House that there was nothing in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech which suggested that the Government were going to change their policy in this matter. What my right hon. and learned

  341
  Friend said—and I have looked up the relevant passage—was:
  "Our commitments by way of grants to the Colonies and lending to underdeveloped and other countries are likely to continue to increase.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.797.]
  He made that point in the context of that part of his speech which dealt with the export trade. He was pointing out that there was no hope on the invisible side of the account of helping the visible side and no suggestion that we were going to cut commitments in the way of overseas aid.
  The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East made other points to which I want to refer. He said that we should have a system of priorities over the whole field both in respect of Government and private investment. This question which I thought he was raising by implication of whether we should have more control over private investment overseas—[Interruption.] I thought that was the implication of what the right hon. Member was saying. It has been raised quite fairly on a number of occasions in recent years. It has been raised in a well-known and important article by the economist, Mr. Robert Neild in the District Bank Review, and in an interesting exchange by the Leader of the Opposition and the present President of the Board of Trade in a debate in this House on 12th November, 1957.
  All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I think one would have to consider the effect of any such system of priorities—he was envisaging the effect on the sterling area—on the whole political cohesion of the Commonwealth. I see that I said on this matter in 1959:
  "I hope that we shall not underrate the importance of private investment in the more developed parts of the Commonwealth, because I do not believe that we can keep the Commonwealth together as a great political force for good in the world without this flow of private capital to the whole of it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th Dec., 1959; Vol 615, c.1686.]
  I believe there is some truth in that. When one is looking at this from the economic point of view and the broad humanitarian point of view we are considering, obviously it is the underdeveloped parts of the Commonwealth that we have naturally most in mind, but I am a little inclined to question whether
  342
  we would keep the Commonwealth today as a political unit without some flow of private capital from this country to the Whole of it.
  The right hon. Member made an important point when he said that we should have not just a Secretary for Technical Co-operation, but a Minister for aid. He or some other hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), contrasted the proposal in this Bill with the speech made by President Kennedy. I make this point to the House. Do not let us forget the implications of the fact that, as an hon. Member poinetd out, we still have the remnants of a Colonial Empire while the United States has not. There are still more than thirty Colonial Territories left. I suggest that in these circumstances our position is a different one.
  The Colonial Secretary must remain responsible for the thirty colonial countries which are still left. I should have thought that he is the Minister who must decide priorities in the way of aid. I consider that if we were to have a Secretary not merely for Technical Co-operation, but also who considered questions of aid for the remnants of the Colonial Empire, he would have to become simply, as it were, the office boy of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is for that reason that I am doubtful whether it can be right for us in this country to have a Minister for aid. I think there are aspects of aid which must remain the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary.
  The right hon. Member went on to make another point with which I very much agree. He raised the question whether the new Department might result in excessive consultation among officials in the new Department with officials in the existing overseas Departments. I quite agree about that danger. I should have said that it was one of the principal responsibilities of the new Secretary when appointed—whoever he may be—and the Director-General to see that it does not happen too much. It is obviously a danger and certainly one of the most important dangers to be overcome when considering the working of the new Department.
  The right hon. Member also asked a question about Nigeria, and that was

  343
  taken up by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) in a very impressive speech. The right hon. Member asked why Nigeria rejected the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. He seemed to suggest that Nigeria disliked paying interest on Commonwealth assistance loans and that for that reason she rejected even grant aid under this scheme. The answer, I am told, is that Nigeria quite definitely rejected this scheme for her own political reasons and not the reasons which the right hon. Member implied. It was quite definitely political reasons concerning which I do not think it would be proper for this House to speculate. An essential feature of the scheme is that it is entirely voluntary for any territory to join on its own decision. Like the right hon. Member, I very much regret the decision, but to the best of my knowledge—and I should not like to mislead the House—there was no question of rejecting it because Nigeria disliked paying interest on Commonwealth assistance loans after gaining independence.
  Mr. Marqnand: This is perhaps an unfair question, and if an answer is not possible, I apologise for it. Have any other territories similarly rejected the Overseas Service Scheme?
  Sir E. Boyle: No. I have taken advice from another part of the House and the answer, quite definitely, is "No". I think that on a question of that kind it is fair to use that technique.
  I come now to what I thought was the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). I should like to make two comments on what he said. Incidentally, he told me that he would not be able to attend for the whole of the debate, as he had an important engagement at 8 o'clock. He raised the highly important point of how we are to get more investment in Africa. He rightly mentioned the fears of would-be investors in Africa that they would not be able to remit their profits, and also the fear of what he fairly called creeping nationalisation. I should have thought that it was absolutely clear that if there is to be a continuing level of investment in Africa there must be, so to speak, a reasonable code of conduct where investors are concerned.
  344
  Speaking for myself, I very much hope that the international organisations—the World Bank, for instance—might be able to help us here by bringing some influence to bear on those who may soon be responsible for economic policy in Africa. I cannot help feeling that it may be rather easier for them to bring influence to bear on African Finance Ministers than it may be for ourselves or some other individual countries.
  I was interested, too, in my hon. Friend's remark that production in America could be greater than it is. I think his argument about production in America is really the answer to Professor Galbraith's famous thesis about the affluent society. In my view, Professor Galbraith has made a first-class case in his book for the view that America needs a public sector of some size in its economy. I do not agree with his view that higher production in an affluent society soon reaches its desirable limit, and I do not agree precisely for the reason which my hon. Friend suggested—that if agricultural production gets very considerably above the total of domestic needs, surely it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to find some means whereby the surplus agricultural production can be used for the benefit of less fortunate countries elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for Northfield spoke fairly warmly on the subject and made a perfectly fair point about the Bill being inadequate. I was very much impressed with his remark that within the course of the next decade the mixed economies and the free societies of the Western world have to show that Communism is unnecessary. I very much agree with him. It seems to me that we can all too easily in Britain forget just how strong the appeal of Communism can be to many of the new countries.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: St. Helena?
  Sir E. Boyle: Not necessarily St. Helena, but to a great many other countries as well. I felt this appeal very strongly myself when in the Czech Pavilion at the Brussels Exhibition. Going up to the exhibition I saw on the wall a very impressive hymn to man on the theme that man has had a bad deal in the past and deserves a better deal in the future. While I share the mistrust of the economist, up to a point, of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and

  345
  sympathise with the agnosticism of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson), do not let us underrate the importance of taking correct economic decisions and working the economic system as well as we can, because it can be of enormous importance to the whole world. I take note of the hon. Gentleman's specific points about the territory from which he has just come, which he knows so well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), who has very kindly come here from another engagement to listen to me, raised a number of questions, not all of which I can answer tonight. I was interested at the start of his remarks when he asked how much any of us are really prepared to forgo our living standards. Frankly, I believe that few people would be happy about cutting our road programme or our hospital building programme in order to have more to give or lend abroad. On the other hand, I believe it is right that we should have firm budgetary policies, and perhaps not quite such a rapid increase in consumer spending year by year at home, in order to be able to afford a good balance of payments and a higher level of capital investment at home and more capital investment overseas. I would draw a distinction there between capital spending and consumer spending. I think that that view would be acceptable today to the overwhelming majority of hon. Members.
  My hon. Friend asked me about the relations of the new Department of Technical Co-operation with existing Departments, and in particular he asked me about education and about the British Council. Let me try to make this point about the relation of the new Department with existing Departments and with other bodies as reasonably clear as I can. The new Department of Technical Co-operation will be dealing with such a very wide range of work that its responsibilities must border on those of a large number of existing Departments and the British Council as well. Broadly—this is my answer to my hon. Friend—it will stand in just the same relationship to those Departments as the overseas Departments do in regard to technical assistance work at present. Naturally, there may arise between any two Departments a need for marginal adjustments
  346
  of responsibility from time to time. But it is not in general intended that the creation of the new Department should alter the functions and external relations of Departments other than the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office.
  So far as the funds of the British Council are concerned, the British Council will continue to get grants in aid from the Overseas Departments; that is to say, just as now. It will not get any grant in aid from the new Department of Technical Co-operation. On the other hand, I can conceive it quite possibly happening that the British Council might be able to help the new Department in some way by procuring some teachers for the new Department. I can imagine that these relations between the British Council and the new Department might well spring up. In that case, the new Department would, naturally enough, reimburse the British Council for its work. However, so far as I know, there is no reason why there need be any major change in the situation of the British Council under the new relationship. Given good will and co-operation, I am sure that no serious problems need arise here.
  The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) made a very fair point, which was taken up by some other hon. Members, when he asked whether the new Department will be able to consider new ways of doing things and to initiate new ideas. Most certainly, the answer is "Yes". There is no suggestion that the new Department should do exactly the same things in the same way as has been done by the existing overseas Departments. Most certainly, the new Department can adopt new ideas. There is, however, a danger—I felt it during the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member—of the new Department becoming a little too much of a welfare department, dealing simply with personal cases. One must keep a reasonable balance between the individual case work and the rather wider questions of policy.
  I listened with great pleasure to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). I agree with his commendation of the speech by Prince Philip about the importance of managers and engineers. The hon. Member for East Ham, North rightly

  347
  spoke of the relief of poverty in underdeveloped lands as one of the greatest moral challenges—I believe that the hon. Member described it as the greatest moral challenge—of our time. The hon. Member spoke of the importance of bringing more people to Britain for training in skills which would be valuable in their own country when they returned. I very much agree with him. Do not, however, let us think entirely of what I would call engineering and technical skills. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, in an interjection, reminded us, rightly, of a number of people from overseas who are studying law in British educational institutions.
  Mr. Hale: And politics.
  Sir E. Boyle: Politics can be less of a skilled occupation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Aitken) rightly pointed out the importance of the greater use of expertise and drew attention to the danger of inability to use capital aid when one has it. I was glad that he echoed my own remarks about the danger always of wanting to see too many spectacular developments in the capital field when, possibly, a wide range of less spectacular developments might be of greater value.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) raised a number of questions, not all of which I can answer tonight. I have, however, taken a note of the points raised by the hon. Member and I will, if I may, write to him within a few days. The hon. Member, too, stressed the importance of the new Ministry having ideas and developing techniques for getting these studies over. I also wholly share his view that the provision of technical assistance should not be a matter for this country alone among Commonwealth countries, but should be a responsibility shared among other members of the Commonwealth as well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) raised the question of the importance of languages. I once disgraced myself by speaking to the Welsh Joint Committee and speaking to a Welsh audience about the importance of languages, including Chinese. I was told that there was only
  348
  one language to which I should have referred when speaking in Wales. Obviously, however, my hon. Friend was right about this.
  I was interested in his remark that the new Minister should not take too much upon himself. In any Department, the Minister has sometimes to trust his own judgment, and that may be the case in the new Department, too. Circumstances may arise when there is scarce material to go round and a great many people are clamouring for a small number of people of rare and scarce ability. Sometimes, the Minister may have to take an arbitrary view, his own view. That is why he is there. We have to accept that today we have a rather more purposive system of government than we had a generation ago.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke about civil servants and said that he would like to have a young and fresh atmosphere in the work of the Department. One must remember the great importance not only of whoever is appointed as Secretary, but also his Director-General. I agree that it is extremely important that the new Department should be got off on the right foot and should show that it possesses initiative.
  I was interested in the hon. Member's remark that it is not always an unmixed blessing to bring in heavy industry to under-developed territories. I speak subject to correction and I may be wrong, but I sometimes think that, in many of the newer countries, the gap between the more developed and the less developed parts of the country is every bit as striking as the gap between the wealthier and the poorer countries. Reading, for example, Mr. Crankshaw on the subject of Russia, one gets a strong impression of the difference between the living standards in Moscow and those to be found only, perhaps, 100 or even 50 males away. At the same time, I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs when he speaks about the mystique of industrialisation. Obviously, this is far too big a subject to debate now, but when one is considering living standards and the importance of the greater range of freedom and opportunity that goes with rises in living standards, it is remarkable how the importance of industrialism keeps on breaking into one's mind.

  349
  I have mentioned to the hon. Member the example of schools in rural areas. Is it not true in Britain, however, that few people are ready to live and work in a rural area unless they get most of the benefits and amenities of modern civilisation? It is, obviously, much easier in Britain to get farm labourers if there is adequate water and electricity. The idea that people can be satisfied by achieving a high standard of living in agriculture without a considerable amount of industrialisation may be a little misleading.
  At the same time, there is one respect in which I agree with the hon. Member. Experience shows that it is a mistake, and a serious one, for an emergent country to put too much capital into industry and to neglect agriculture altogether. One then has the almost insuperably difficult job of how to feed the towns. That, which was a problem in mediaeval England, has been a problem in all emergent territories in modern times.
  Dr. A. Thomson: I stress the importance of the basic utilities, such as electricity, water supply and transport, in modern agriculture. I do not deny that we cannot have the one without the other. I was thinking, however, of other kinds of secondary and tertiary industrialisation.
  Sir E. Boyle: Obviously there comes a point when, I agree, the extra capital in industry is not so important, perhaps, as the same capital used for some other economic or social purpose.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked me about the question of the staff of the new Department. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is this. It is likely that the staff will number something over 1,000, and about half the proposed staff, in number about 550, will come from the directorates of the Overseas Services and the Overseas Geological Surveys. Most of the Colonial Office advisers will be transferred, but a certain number of Colonial Office advisers, for example, the police adviser and the senior labour adviser, will remain in the Colonial Office.
  As for the Vote, I cannot say more than I said in my opening speech. The total operational expenditure for which it will account to this House is expected to be in the region of £30 million a year.
  350
  As to the other point the hon. Gentleman raised about the Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas, I took careful note of this point, but I am afraid I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. This is typical of just the sort of question which the new Department will have to look into.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), to whose speech I have already referred, did us all a service, I think, by reminding us of a number of countries, important but smaller and, I hope, not forgotten territories, which come within the ambit of the Colonial Office.
  In conclusion I would only say to the House that I fully expected and make no complaint of the fact that many hon. Members would like to see a more radical proposal than this one. Of course, all of us have our own ideas of where we should like to see a larger proportion of the gross national product go, and I can quite understand that many hon. Members would like to see us do more in the way of aid and devote a larger share of our national resources to this problem; but I would say that within their narrow limits, which the Government do not pretend to be wide limits, the proposals in this Bill justify themselves. I believe that the new machinery can be made to work perfectly well, and I commend this Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Department of Technical Co-operation under the charge of a Minister of the Crown, it is expedient to authorise the

  351
  payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an annual salary not exceeding three thousand, seven hundred and fifty pounds payable to the Minister in charge of the said Department and of the expenses of that Minister, including the salaries or remuneration payable to any officers and servants appointed by him.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL

    Clause 1.—(POWER TO SECURE PROVISION OF PARKING FACILITIES UNDER HYDE PARK.)
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert:
    Provided that any such grant shall be subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule (Conditions of grant) to this Act.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the hon. and learned Member's new Schedule, as the new Schedule is not to be discussed separately.

    Clause 1.—(POWER TO SECURE PROVISION OF PARKING FACILITIES UNDER HYDE PARK.)

      CONDITIONS OF GRANT
      1. In this Schedule "the facilities" means the facilities and the services mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of this Act; "the grantee" means the person or persons to whom interests or rights are granted under the said section; "the gross takings" means the gross takings in respect of the provision of the facilities and includes—

      (a) takings in cash;

      (b) takings by way of credit given to any person;

      (c) what would have been cash takings or takings by way of credit, but for any trade or other discount, allowed to any person; and

      (d) the value of takings by way of any other valuable consideration;

      "the Minister" means the Minister of Transport; and the phrases "the cost of construction", "the costs of operation" and "the proper amount" have the meanings attributed to them respectively in paragraphs 3, 4 and 9 of this Schedule.
      2. Not more than one grant shall be made by virtue of the said subsection (1):
      Provided that:—

      (a) a grant may be made to more than one person jointly and may include such provision
      352
      as appears suitable to the Minister for the apportionment between persons of the functions of the grantee; and

      (b) in the event of the termination of an interest, whether by expiration, revocation or otherwise howsoever, the Minister may grant that interest with such modifications, if any, as are required by the termination to a person or persons other than the original grantee, so however that no such grant shall be for a term extending beyond a period of ninety-nine years beginning with the passing of this Act.

      3. The grantee shall procure such works to be carried out as are from time to time agreed between the grantee and the Minister to be requisite or convenient for the provision and maintenance of the facilities. The costs of and incidental to the carrying out of such works, as paid or incurred by the grantee, are herein called "the costs of construction".
      4. The grantee shall procure the operation and management of the said works for the provision of the facilities. The costs of and incidental to such operation and management, as paid or incurred by the grantee, are herein called "the costs of operation".
      5. For the purposes of the foregoing paragraphs and subject to the following provisions of this Schedule the grantee with the consent of the Minister may grant such sub-leases, licences or other rights and on such conditions as appear to the grantee to be requisite or convenient and with the like consent and with the consent of the Council of the City of Westminster (unless that Council is the grantee) may impose such charges on users of the facilities as appear appropriate.
      Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule shall have effect to dispense with any permission or consent required under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 to 1959, or under any other enactment (including this Act) or under any instrument made pursuant to an enactment.
      7. The grantee shall account annually to the Minister in such form and on such date as the Minister may direct and the accounts so directed shall distinguish, as regards expenditure and receipts, between capital and revenue.
      8. The consideration payable by the grantee to the Minister (whether or not it also includes a capital payment or an annual rent) and the terms of any grants, contracts or arrangements made by the grantee in exercise of his powers under the foregoing paragraph 5 shall be such that after the deduction or retention of the proper amount out of the gross takings the Minister shall receive such share (not being less than one-half) of the resulting balance as the Treasury may determine.
      9. The proper amount in relation to an accounting period means the sum of the following:—

      (a) the costs of operation, including such supervisory and managerial remuneration as the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury from time to time agree with the grantee or, in default of agreement or of any relevant provision in the grant, determine, and also including any rent paid to the Minister;

      353

      (b) an amount sufficient to amortise the costs of construction, calculated over the term of the grant made by the Minister and so calculated on the basis applicable at the date of the grant to the amortisation of borrowing by local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners;

      (c) eight per cent. of the last-mentioned amount; and

      (d) any deficiencies (with interest thereon) brought forward under the provisions of the next following paragraph.

      10. If in any accounting period the gross takings are less than the proper amount, the deficiency and any similar deficiencies for previous periods shall (with interest at the rate charged at the end of the period on borrowings for a term of five years by local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners) be carried forward into the revenue account of the following period.
      11. The Minister shall lay before Parliament the accounts rendered to him under this Schedule.
      Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
      The Amendment, which is to add a proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 1, in effect incorporates that rather long new Schedule as to the conditions of grant. The Bill, as the Minister told us on Second Reading, is an enabling Bill, and it enables him to grant interests and rights over land in Hyde Park so far as he thinks it necessary or expedient to do so to provide parking facilities, facilities for fueling cars and other facilities and services such as are, in his opinion, commonly provided—what I might call accessory facilities. That leaves the matter very much at large.
      The Bill has had a rather curious history, which I mention to show the background of this Amendment. When it came before the House on Second Reading, we were told by the Minister that the proposed to grant a lease on a competitive basis fox the purpose of building and operating the garage. By the garage, he meant the underground parking place below Hyde Park. He pointed out in column 1016 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 1st February:
      "The Bill would permit me to grant such a lease either to a local authority or to a private developer. Discussions have already taken place with Westminister City Council, but at the moment it seems unlikely that the Council would be interested in taking a head lease."
      When we came to the Committee stage, he told us that he had come to agreement in principle, though not, of course, in detail, with the Westminister City
      354
      Council, and we had to reshape somewhat our attitude to the Bill. That is the present position.
      On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out twice that the project he had in mind—the operation of a garage at this key site, as he put it, might well prove lucrative. He said in column 1017:
      "In that event, we shall, naturally, take steps to see that the Government participate in the profits."
      The right hon. Gentleman touched in the same subject in the next column, in which he said:
      "But it must be a very fair deal from the Government's point of view, because ultimately, when the heavy capital cost has been recovered, this will be a key site and will be lucrative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1961; Vol. 633, cc. 1016–18.]
      The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the lucre that is to be obtained from the granting of interests in what is a Royal Park—Crown land subject to statutory restrictions, which requires the Bill to enable that grant to be made at all—shall finally accrue to the Government, and not to any contractor or developer.
      When I say the Government, I must mention, also, the position of Westminster City Council. That is the parking authority, and it is in many ways, in our view, the most suitable authority to deal with a matter of this sort. Since the two right hon. Gentlemen primarily concerned, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Works, have united with apparently little difficulty in disclaiming any intention or power to run the garage themselves, in these circumstances, all that the Amendment which I am now proposing does, or can do, is to provide that half the lucre goes to the right hon. Gentleman; and we must leave it to Westminster City Council and himself, as the responsible Minister, to see that the other half goes, as I hope it would go, to the Westminster City Council.
      What I am concerned with is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to contractors in the matter. I think that the simplest way in which I can deal with it is to go shortly through the Schedule, which contains the meat of the proposals, say what it is that we suggest, and point out as I go that, though this is a rather long Schedule, and may appear at first

      355
      sight to be rather tightly drawn, it is, in fact, very much the opposite. It gives the right hon. Gentleman ample power to treat the contractor very fairly indeed, provided only that at the end of the day the lucre, which is what I call the ultimate proceeds, the equity of the transaction, remains with the Minister and does not go to some enterprising contractor.
      Since the grant in this case is a very big one which requires a Bill to authorise it, it is made by a Minister who has no connection whatever with Hyde Park except what he assumes under the Bill to give away what he does not possess, and he is doing it because he is performing a public function. This is, therefore, no ordinary grant and it is signalised as something out of the ordinary by the very terms of the Bill. There are in the proposed Schedule definitions which for the moment I shall leave except to refer to the new definition of "gross takings", and "gross takings" is a phrase taken out of the Minister's own contracts in another connection. I think that that has some bearing on what we are talking about.
      The Minister has a habit of building large motorways all over the country and on these motorways he provides service stations. He does it by arranging for the contractor to do the work and to pay a fixed rent or a percentage, or a combination of the two. That is all very well when one is dealing with service stations on motorways but, for the reasons I have already outlined, we are dealing, in Hyde Park, with a rather different matter.
      A paragraph in the Schedule contains provisions on one side of the picture for making one grant instead of making half-a-dozen, which, I suppose, would be technically impossible in the language of the Bill, and on the other side of the picture for allowing the grantee to share his powers and make the necessary arrangements. The third paragraph deals with what are called costs of construction which, surprisingly, after they have been defined remain the costs of construction. They include digging the garage and, in this case, its maintenance. Then we have the costs of operation. Again, by attempting to obscure the issue by saying what they are, we come back to the fact that they are the costs of
      356
      operations—the cost of managing and working the garage, the petrol pumps and the ancillary facilities.
      The fifth paragraph provides for the machinery of the matter by giving the grantee power to grant sub-leases, licences, and so on. It contains, slipped in at the end, what I trust the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will welcome warmly. It is a provision that, though he may dislike the burden put upon him, the Minister should be responsible for the charges imposed by the grantee on the users of the garage. The Minister is performing a public duty and it is right and proper that he should see that the grantee who is given power to impose charges should impose only reasonable charges.
      The right hon. Gentleman, with his peculiar faith in private enterprise, believes, as I gather from what was said on Second Reading, that, prima facie, what Selfridges does is right and reasonable, but whatever his views he should discharge his responsibilities by saying that the person to whom the grant is made is not the sole person who should impose charges on the people who use the garage. They are, I believe, the class of people known as "essential long term parkers", E.L.Ps., people who have to come into London and leave their cars for some considerable time underground in Hyde Park. We all have considerable sympathy for them. I will not go into all that now, but, clearly, the least the Minister can do is to see that the charges are reasonable.
      9.15 p.m.
      Paragraph 6 preserves the need for planning permission, which I think is right, and paragraph 7 provides for annual accounts. Then we come more particularly to the meat of the matter. The grant, as the Minister told us on Second Reading, is to be in the form of a lease. The lease implies rent. It implies, as lawyers would say, some consideration or another. This provides that the consideration under that grant and the terms of any arrangements made by the grantee—those are the arrangements made under paragraph 5—
      "shall be such that after the deduction or retention of the proper amount out of the gross takings the Minister shall receive such share (not being less than one-half) of the resulting balance as the Treasury may determine."

      357
      I said, "one half", but we know that the Treasury, if it scents some lucre about—and we were told twice by the right hon. Gentleman in a comparatively short speech how lucrative this is to be—might conceivably want a larger share. That, I think, is a matter in which I would not wish to interfere.
      I repeat:
      "…shall receive such share (not being less than one-half) of the resulting balance as the Treasury may determine."
      Clearly, all that will depend on what is the proper amount to be allowed. The proper amount was defined in the following paragraph in this way—first of all, the costs of operation. These will include the supervisory and managerial salaries and percentages, whatever they may be, that are reasonable in the circumstances. Their reasonableness is to be ensured by the Minister agreeing with the grantee and doing so with Treasury consent from time to time, or, if they cannot get an agreement, then something has to be fixed by the Minister himself.
      I can see no difficulty about this. I do not know whether the Westminster City Council, so far as it may be concerned, and the Minister, so far as he may be concerned, intend to have one person to do the actual work of excavation and incur what are called the costs of construction, and whether they intend that same person to go on with the costs of operation. It may be that for this purpose some arrangement will be made by the Westminster City Council; I do not know. All I am concerned with is that when we come down to the actual cost of operation they should be the proper costs of running the place and they should be a reasonable amount for supervision or management, however one likes to put it. I can find no possible objection to that. One is always blind to one's own faults; at least, I am.
      Secondly, what about the costs of construction? What is suggested about those—and this is in paragraph 9 (b)—is that they should be amortised year by year—this, I imagine, is good practice both officially and I suppose even in commercial circles—and that the amortisation should be over the period of the grant. There has to be a rate of interest for the purpose, and the rate of interest should be the rate charged to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Commissioners at the time when
      358
      the grant is made. That seems to me to provide for them.
      Then it is said that those who do the construction must be allowed a proper remuneration for the work they do, and on that basis they are to be allowed 8 per cent. of the annual amortisation charge. I must say I see the point of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that 8 per cent. is rather good.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: Good for whom?
      Mr. Mitchison: Good for the people who are doing the work and are getting that rate of interest. Be that as it may, there are other instances, and what I am concerned with is not so much whether it should be 8, 7 or 6 per cent. but that the final lucre should not rest with the people who have done the construction or with the people who do the actual management.
      The next two paragraphs, in effect, provide for this. There is little doubt, I should have thought, as a matter of common sense, that at the beginning of the operation it will not be very profitable. For the first year or two, however, we deal with the accounting, it is, at any rate, possible, let me put it that way, that there will be no great profit. This simply provides for carrying forward the losses and in due course writing them off in the annual accounts. It is perfectly simple and, I trust, perfectly clear.
      Finally, there is the provision that the Minister should lay the accounts of "the grantee", the accounts which will contain all this stuff, if I may put it that way, before Parliament. They will be, of course, annual accounts. That is the intention.
      I should like to point out to the House that this does not preclude some arrangement about rent, which may be broadly similar to the kind of arrangement that is made in respect of the service stations on the motorways. This is something that goes beyond that. We have to leave it to the Minister and to the Treasury, which takes a very proper interest in these matters, to see that the final result in the annual payments is not excessive. But it does not tie the right hon. Gentleman to any particular form of agreement with the contractors or with "the grantee", as he is called

      359
      here; it simply lays down the conditions which must be fulfilled.
      If this Schedule were accepted by the right hon. Gentleman as, undoubtedly, he will accept it, the only result would be not that he would be cramped in his negotiations or arrangements, but that at the end of it if this were, as he confidentally expects it to be, a lucrative proposition, the benefits would accrue to the public. He is performing a public duty in this matter and he is dealing with a public site of a somewhat unusual and special character. I cannot believe that it is right, in these circumstances, so to arrange the Bill or the Schedule in it that the final result was that the gross takings went to the contractor. I think it right, in a case of this sort, where we are dealing with Crown property and acting in the interest of the public, that the final result, the ultimate lucre, should come to the responsible Minister of the Crown. That is the object of the Amendment.
      No private Member has the facilities which, properly and rightly, are open to the Government, and if the Minister proceeds to pick this Schedule into bits on small and niggling points he will do something which I do not expect him to do and which will serve no useful purpose. What he has to answer is the substantial point: will he do what he has done in connection with service stations on motorways, allow the contractor to reap the ultimate fruits of the enterprise, or will he see that he gets the ultimate profits—in this case half of them, because of the position of the Westminster City Council?
      That is the broad question which has to be answered. I repeat for the third time, with my apologies to the House for doing so, what I believe to be the common sense and the justice of the matter. When a Minister of the Crown is taking action which is required and can be justified only by a public need; when, for that purpose, he is dealing with public property of a special kind; when, for that purpose, he intends to mess about with a resort of the public such as Hyde Park, and intends to do things which require some justification and which we in the House nevertheless believe should be done, then be must see
      360
      that the public, who are carrying the burden of this, and for whom it is being done, receive the final proceeds of the transaction. At whatever rate the service charges are fixed, the ultimate beneficiary should be the public.
      I urge the right hon. Gentleman to get out of the contractors' frame of mind which, from time to time, seems to afflict him like a political disease and to treat this matter as it ought to be treated—as something which arises out of his position as Minister of Transport.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I assure the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that I do not intend to approach his Amendment and the new Schedule in the niggling frame of mind which he thought I might have. It is true, as he acknowledges, that there are certain drafting defects in the text of the Schedule, but I propose to deal with the issue which he raised on the basic arguments.
      It is clear to anyone who has followed our proceedings both on Second Reading and in Standing Committee that the Opposition's attitude throughout has been to ensure that if private interests are to run the garage, whoever builds it and whatever may be the leasing arrangements, the profit which these private interests are allowed to make must be limited to a reasonable figure. The Opposition say—and rightly—that this is public property, this is Hyde Park, this is a most valuable site in the centre of London and therefore, quite apart from any issue of amenities, which is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, there must be no question of profiteering.
      Perhaps they are a little encouraged in this attitude by a misunderstanding, which has been repeated tonight by the hon. and learned Member, of what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading about the possibility that the operation of the garage would be lucrative. It is true that my right hon. Friend said:
      "Nevertheless, we shall bear in mind that the operation of a garage at this key site may well prove lucrative".
      With respect, I think that the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends have not given equal weight to what my

      361
      right hon. Friend said in the next sentence, because he continued:
      "In that event, we shall, naturally take steps to see that the Government participate in the profits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1961; Vol. 633, c.1016–17.]
      If I may sum up what I conceive to be the attitude of the Opposition, it is that fetters must be placed upon the Minister's power of leasing and on the terms of the lease to ensure that the profit which comes into private hands as a result of the operation of the Bill is not excessive and also to ensure that the Exchequer receives any excess.
      9.30 p.m.
      If I may quote what the hon. and learned Member said on 1st February, on Second Reading, he summed it up in this way:
      "This is a case in which the Government might reasonably say to the contractor, We shall have the profits once you have made a reasonable return on a percentage basis on whatever you spend on doing the job for us'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1961; Vol. 633, c.1025.]
      I do not think I am over-stating when I say that that has been the Opposition's attitude throughout. To achieve this end they moved a number of Amendments in Committee. Anyone who knows the hon. and learned Member will not be surprised that those Amendments, which bore traces of his own fair hand, exhibited various degrees of artistry and ingenuity. The fact is that they all had one common feature; they all restricted to a greater or lesser degree the Minister's freedom to negotiate with the potential lessees of this garage.
      For example, at one stage an Amendment was moved that all the proceeds from the garage operation, other than the expenses and a fixed percentage on the capital, would have to be paid over to the Minister. Another Amendment said that the grant would have to be made to the Westminster City Council and no one else. Another Amendment said that it should be made to a local authority and not to a private interest. A further Amendment said that the terms of any lease would have to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
      We now have the Schedule. I freely admit that it comes closer to our own position than did some of these earlier variants on the theme. It does not re
      362
      strict us in the choice of a grantee, nor does it prescribe Parliamentary control of the terms of the lease, nor does it reserve all the profit in the transaction to the Minister. But—and this is the essential point—it still refuses the Minister a free hand in the negotiation of the terms of the lease. This, I am afraid, we cannot accept, and that is why I cannot accept the Amendment.
      I must therefore tell the House why we ask that the Minister should be given a free hand. In the Bill and in the whole of the operation we have two principal objectives, and in these objectives we are, I understand, fully supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends. The first is to get a good garage in being for public use as soon as we possibly can. The second is to get as good a bargain as we can for the public purse. Nothing divides the two sides of the House on these objectives. But to achieve these objectives, as we see it, our need is the maximum flexibility in negotiation. We cannot tell until the negotiations proceed further what sort of reaction we shall get. For example, we hope, as has been said before, to agree terms for a head lease with the Westminster City Council, but it is possible that we may not succeed. Terms that might be acceptable to private enterprise might not prove to be acceptable to a local authority, and vice versa. Again, terms that may be suitable for the first grant might not be suitable for subsequent grants which would fall to be made a good many years from now under conditions that none of us can now foresee. Again, until we actually test the market we shall not know precisely what length of lease is necessary.
      As to the division of the profits—the financial terms, if I might so call them—there are two possible extremes. On the one hand, we might ask for a small ground rent and a substantial share of the profits—and this is the sort of thing that is outlined in this proposed new Schedule. On the other hand, we might ask for a large ground rent and a very much smaller share of the profits. In between those two extremes there are all manner of possible situations.
      One might speculate at some length on the different variations possible, but in all these essential points—and this I want to impress on the hon. and learned

      363
      Gentleman—the Schedule, were we to accept it, would bind our hands. Let me explains how. As drafted paragraph 2 (b) limits the duration of the power to lease to 99 years or less. Paragraphs 8 and 9 taken together would bind us to receive at least half of what I might call the net revenue; that is to say, the gross takings less the cost of operation, the rent, amortisation provisions and an 8 per cent. profit. The deficiencies are to be carried forward from year to year at the Public Works Loan Board rate of interest.
      I am advised that it is most unlikely that the Westminster City Council or a private developer would agree to such terms. If that were the case, if the proposed Schedule were added to the Bill, and if we were bound in this way to offer only those terms then, should we find that nobody would accept those terms, we would be in a very great difficulty. We would have only two alternatives; either to come back to this House and ask for amending legislation—with all the consequent loss of time that that would entail—or to have no garage at all. I must, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends that on that ground alone we must resist this Amendment. It is true that there are various minor drafting faults, and I shall not take up time in mentioning them.
      That is not the only ground on which we object to what is proposed. It is true that this project for an underground garage at Hyde Park is in some respects unusual. We are dealing with a Royal Park, and there must therefore be special provisions and safeguards for amenities, but once that point of amenity is taken care of—and I claim, and I do not think that the other side disagrees, that the Bill does protect the amenities—in essence this is nothing more or less than another letting by the Crown.
      A number of precedents and examples of similar Crown letting were given in Committee. I shall not traverse them again, but the fact that this site is a valuable one is not something that, in our view, requires the type of treatment proposed by the new Schedule. Much Crown land is extremely valuable. I remember being told a couple of years
      364
      ago, when I had somewhat limited responsibility for civil aviation matters, that the most valuable land in the whole of the United Kingdom was not, as one might imagine, in the centre of the City of London but the central terminal area of London Airport. That is the case.
      In all of these lettings of Crown land, Government Departments, with the watchdogs of the Treasury behind them, are trusted by Parliament to fix the best terms that they can for the public purse, and Parliament—the House of Commons in particular—through the Public Accounts Committee has always the power to call the Department to account if it thinks that the Department has behaved improperly. I suggest to the House that these safeguards have always been proved to be sufficient in the past and can therefore be treated as sufficient for this project.
      I come to the central point of the argument, and it is a point relevant not only to this discussion but to everything that has gone before, both in the Standing Committee and on Second Reading. This is an enabling Bill. Its purpose is to give the Minister of Transport limited powers for letting land in Hyde Park. If the House decides to write into this enabling Bill all manner of controls over the Minister's powers of negotiation, I must frankly and truthfully warn hon. Members that it will jeopardise the prospect of obtaining the best results for the public purse. That is one of the objectives with which the Opposition as well as ourselves are in sympathy.
      If, of course, the Opposition say that they just do not trust my right hon. Friend and his Department to play fair with the public interest, or if they really and honestly think that on some vague ideological grounds he wants to give some large and unconscionable profit to private enterprise, we shall not only have to deny that that is a favourable and fair imputation but will also have to ask our hon. Friends to support us at the appropriate time.
      I do not, however, honestly think that that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends really want to say. I do not think they really go as far as that. When it somes to the point, I think that they will accept that we wish to do right by the public interest, and that for these reasons we should not

      365
      have our hands tied in the negotiations on which we are about to embark. If, on consideration, the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the same conclusion, I suggest that he considers withdrawing the Amendment. If not, we shall have to resist it.
      Mr. John Diamond: I was not one of those who had the good fortune to be a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, and I am, therefore, unable to know precisely what was said. I hope that I shall not weary the House if, by mischance, I refer in principle to one or two matters which were fully argued at that time.
      That is inevitable and, presumably, on Report it is understood that there are those who cannot serve on every Committee, and that is part of the reason for having this part of our procedure. Listening with a fresh and completely unbiassed and objective mind, I was very disappointed by the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. He dealt with certain arguments relating to the Schedule and the Amendment, but not with the other side of the case.
      I do not have HANSARD with me, but I understand that on Second Reading the Minister undertook that in certain circumstances the Government would participate in the profits. The Minister is unable to say for certain that the profits will not be of such dimensions that those circumstances ought not to apply. Nobody can say at this stage that whatever arrangement is made may not be too cautious and too conservative and based on forecasts of traffic development which might not mature, or which might be totally inadequate, but very considerable profits might result from a lucrative arrangement.
      Nobody, even with the greatest possible judgment and ability to forecast, can say for certain that those circumstances will not arise, putting it very modestly indeed. We therefore thought that in that situation in either the first or future grants—and that does not affect the principle—considerable profits might accrue to the contractor. The Minister said, on Second Reading, that the Government would participate in the profits in those circumstances.
      That is not an enormous Bill, and although I have not studied it in detail I
      366
      cannot find any provision giving legal effect to the Minister's undertaking. Nor can I find any provision in which the Minister is limited in any way as to the kinds of terms which he can impose and the way he shall approach the contract. In short, I can find nothing in the Bill which limits the Minister in any way.
      It is going far too far for the Parliamentary Secretary to resist the Amendment just because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), whom I support in this matter, wants certain provisions which might not be appropriate for every possible contractor and in which there might have to be a slight variation—a contractor preferring 49 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. With his typical elasticity and breadth of mind, my hon. and learned Friend would be willing to adjust from 50 per cent. to 49 per cent., but that does not affect the principle of what we are discussing.
      What we are saying is that there is a prospect, or at least a possibility, of large profits being made on a Government letting or grant as a result of limiting the rights of individuals, namely, the nation. As it is impossible for human beings to be sure of what will result, the only way to deal with the matter is to share the profits. But the Bill does not mention sharing profits in any way. The Parliamentary Secretary's arguments were totally unconvincing and in some ways irrelevant. I do not understand his complaint about the period of ninety-nine years, for that is mentioned in Clause I itself, and I do not understand why he criticised my hon. and learned Friend for repeating words already used in the Bill.
      9.45 p.m.
      The Government are requiring a completely free hand to do what they like and I do not see why they have consulted Parliament at all, except to get the powers. I do not see how the Minister regards his position and responsibility vis-à-vis Parliament.
      The example of London Airport has been quoted, and it so happens that I was concerned with this matter. London Airport was run by a Government Department and had certain facilities to let and grants to make—I am referring especially to a news theatre. So as to

      367
      get the greatest competition, it advertised the fact that facilities were to let. It was suggested—and I know that it was because before I was a Member I wrote the letter suggesting it—that the proper way to deal with the grant was for the Ministry to retain the profits out of running the news theatre. That suggestion was turned down, presumably on the ground that the Ministry did not feel that it could accept a contract in which the contractor carried out his duties for a fixed sum, as we now propose, the Ministry retaining the profits.
      It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary quoting that as an example, for that is an example of precisely what we fear, namely, that terms will be made deliberately preventing the accrual of a portion of the profits to the people from whom the rights and amenities and enjoyment of facilities have been taken away. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply was totally unsatisfactory and does not meet the main complaint that there is nothing in the Bill in any way to limit the Minister.
      Mr. Norman Cole: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in rejecting this Amendment. This is a new project to put an underground garage under a Royal Park. If we were to try to exhaust all the possible business alternatives—and this is a business proposition—and put them in various Schedules as instructions to the Minister we would have a Bill of about 50 pages. To attempt to include one constricting Schedule clearly to tie the hands of the Minister is a quite impossible situation.
      If we were to pass this Schedule and attach it to the Bill not only might the contractor lose in the long run, but so would the Minister, because we would so limit the number of people who would look at the proposition. I doubt very much whether Westminster City Council would take it on. I certainly should think twice about it. We would be saying to the public that they should take on a very visionary project. I do not think that there would be many takers.
      There is sometimes in this House and among many people outside the attitude that the Government should say, "Heads I win, tails you lose." That will not do at all. No one wants to see a developer
      368
      getting a disproportionate amount of the profits. I am not supporting that in the slightest, but, on the other hand, I do not want to see anyone putting capital into venture and then having to ask after two or three years to be released from his lease because he is not making enough for it to be worth while. All these things could arise under a constricting Schedule and it would be a drawback to the Bill.
      Over and above everything else, the one thing I would have expected from the Opposition, if they wanted to serve the public—and, after all, the purpose of the Bill is to provide off-street parking—would be to put handcuffs on the wrists of my right hon. Friend, and to include in this Schedule the maximum charge for cars in the garage. There is no mention of that. This Schedule starts nowhere and gets nowhere. I very much support the view that we should reject it. If we go into the Lobby, I should be happy to vote against it.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister, of all members of the Government, has experience by which he can bargain for a good deal on behalf of the Government. I am prepared to trust my right hon. Friend, as a business man, to get the best possible deal for the Government while bearing in mind that, unless there is some livelihood to be made by other people, there will be no one to pay taxes.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: I certainly hoped when I heard the very convincing case put from the Opposition Front Bench that the Government spokesman would announce acceptance of this proposed Schedule. Instead of that, we have had all sorts of pettifogging reasons against it which failed to answer what I thought were the absolutely convincing arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I hope that when we go into the Division Lobby hon. Members opposite will have second thoughts.
      This, after all, is purely public enterprise and public initiative. This is an underground facility which, if it had not been for the fact that there is a publicly-owned park, it would not have been possible to develop. The park above being public and Crown property, I fail to see any logical reason why the benefits should not accrue to the public. The

      369
      difference between the two sides of the House is that we are public-minded and hon. Members opposite are contractor-minded. In my association with public life I have always found, in discussing such matters as are contained in this Schedule, whether in a town council, in a county council or in the House of Commons, that the contractor is hoping to make the best bargain for private vested interests while the Socialists are arguing for public enterprise.
      The background of the Minister of Works is public contracting. I apologise, I mean the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Works has the background of landowning. The Minister of Transport has a land speculating background.
      The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples) indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hughes: I apologise if I have done the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, but I was aware that at one time when he spoke from the Opposition side of the House he was very enthusiastic about private contracting enterprise because he used to be associated with it. He is now a Minister of the Crown and I thought he would use his influence on the Government for the acceptance of this Schedule.
      It is no good the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) pretending that there is to be any possibility of a loss in this enterprise. It is going to be a gold mine. Here will be garage facilities in the very heart of London which is crying out for those facilities. There are to be underground park facilities with a petrol filling station and ancillary services. Will there not be a profit, a very big profit, to be made out of the petrol filling station? Of course there will be. The vultures are there already. I submit that the House is perfectly entitled to insist that this Schedule should be put into operation.
      Indeed, I am surprised at the Ministry of Works which is prepared to spend so much public money in other parts of London not very far away from the site of this underground garage. We have heard recently at Question Time about this. I wonder why the Minister of Works has not used this opportunity to say "Here we have this underground garage and a possibility of making a very big income for the Government,
      370
      in order to offset the balance on the expenditure which some of us think is unjustifiable not so very far away." We hear of the possibility of a return on capital of 8 per cent. Here at several points in this operation we have financial interests, contracting interests, oil and petrol vested interests and every other kind of harpy, vulture and parasite which preys on private enterprising. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course they do.
      The more I have read this Schedule—I have studied it very carefully; I do not think I could have improved upon it if I had drafted it myself—the more reasonable it becomes to me. So I hope that when we vote on this matter there will be a revolution on the part of the publicly-spirited hon. Members opposite and that the Government will be forced to accept the Schedule.
      Mr. Mitchison: I should like to reply to what the Government have said on this matter. First, let us be quite clear that there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman himself not only thinks that this may be a lucrative proposition but thinks that it will be. I should have thought that we could really count on that even without the right hon. Gentleman's assistance. He picked up confidence as he went along.
      In column 1017 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman said only that it "may" well prove lucrative, but in column 1018, after a few more minutes of his own eloquence, he said:
      "But it must be a very fair deal from the Government's point of view, because ultimately, when the heavy capital cost has been recovered, this will be a key site"—
      I should have thought that it was one already—
      "and will be lucrative. It must be a fair division between the Government and private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1961; Vol. 633, c.1018.]
      If Parliament is not allowed to intervene to say what a fair division between the Government and private enterprise is, then I submit that we are not doing our duty as a House. It is our business to see that there is a fair division, and it is not enough to pass an enabling Bill leaving a question of this sort, dealing with this particular piece of property, entirely within the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman.

      371
      When the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary gets up and says, "You will never find a contractor to do it on those terms", my first reply to him is that there is not a jot or tittle of evidence that he has ever tried, and he has had every opportunity of telling us so. Every time the Minister concerned gets up and says, "This is impossible", but never does he get up and say, "I have approached various persons on these lines, and they say that this is not good enough." If the Minister asks me to accept, as a matter of common sense, the proposition that nobody will incur the costs of construction when all he gets is an 8 per cent. return on his outlay, I find it very difficult indeed to accept it.
      When one is further told that nobody will incur the costs of management un less he gets something more than what the Minister and the Treasury agree with him is reasonable remuneration for supervisory and managerial services, my reply is that I do not believe that businessmen are all quite such vultures as the Government would have us believe. We are talking about vultures tonight. The birds are topical. I simply say that I think that the Tory Party is not doing justice to the business community. Hon. Members opposite tell us that nobody will do any work for the Government unless he is—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood Adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put, That the Procedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Marples.]
  The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the Ayes had it, one Member only who challenged his decision having stood up.

  HYDE PARK (UNDERGROUND PARKING) BILL
  Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. Mitchison: I was engaged in saying, with not unusual eloquence, that if the Government ask us to believe that nobody would undertake the work of construction or of management on the basis of getting a fair return by way of interest on his expenditure and fair payment for his managerial and supervisory purposes, I, for one, did not share the Tory Party's views about the business world and I did believe that it was possible to find people who would do it in that way. I am confirmed in that opinion in that no representative of the Government has ever told us that they have tried to find somebody on that basis and have failed.
  Therefore, if that were the position, I should be happy and confident that the Government, did they so choose, could find a contractor on that basis. That, however, as I pointed out when moving the Amendment, is not the whole of the story. I have deliberately left room in the Amendment for the inclusion of a percentage to the contractor. I have left it to the Minister to deal with what that percentage should be. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) obviously knows the Minister very well. He pointed out to us that the Minister could be trusted to deal with the contractor. I agree. I have left the Minister power to do so in the Amendment, subject only to the safeguard that the final lucre should go to the Crown and not to the contractor.
  On the other hand, we were told that the right hon. Gentleman could not be trusted to fix the maximum charges. The suggestion was made that they should have been specified in the Amendment. I assure the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South—
  Mr. Cole: What I said was that I should have thought it characteristic to have found such a point in the Schedule, not that I wanted to see it there at all.
  Mr. Mitchison: That is a speculation about my character or the character of the Opposition which is a little broad for the purposes of the Amendment. All

  373
  I can say to the hon. Member and to the House is that we have left it, as, in my belief, we should, to the discretion of the Minister subject to a Treasury check in certain cases. That is the position.
  Having heard what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to say and what was said in support of him and having listened to what was said in Committee, I remain of opinion that the only question between this side of the House and the benches opposite is whether the final lucre, which may be considerable and which the right hon. Gentleman thinks will be considerable, is to go to the contractor or to the Crown. There is nothing else. There is nothing that I can find in the Amendment to tie the right hon. Gentleman's hand, nor did the Joint Parliamentary Secretary point to anything.
  The practice in the service stations, which I mentioned earlier, is often to take a percentage rate. There is nothing in the Amendment that would prevent a percentage rate, but the percentage is only a matter of 10 per cent. or 12 per cent., which was the highest figure in the instances given by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. It is a quite small figure. We are asking, not merely that there should be a fair return—we agree to that; not merely that there should be proper remuneration for supervision and management—we agree to that—but also that at the end of the day the profits from dealing with Crown property in the public interest should go to the Government and to the people and not to a contractor.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the way that you took the view of the House on the last two Questions. On the first occasion you asked those here in favour to rise in their places. I did so. I would like to ask whether my dissent could be recorded in the proceedings of the House.
  My second point is this. I understood you to adopt a different procedure in the
  374
  second place, as compared with the procedure in the first place. I think that the new Schedule is a very good Schedule. I believe it to be an attempt to secure—
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I am not able to allow the hon. Member to argue the merits about this. I will listen to what he has to say about the point of order.
  Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to have your guidance because these circumstances may arise again. I support the Opposition's official Amendment. So far as I can see I am the only one who is prepared to vote for it. As this situation is likely to be repeated I would submit that this is a most unprecedented situation. I was convinced by the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who made an excellent speech and who completely convinced me.
  Then I proceeded to what I thought would be additional arguments of my own which, I thought, would completely convince hon. Members opposite. Then I discover that I am the only person who is prepared to vote for the excellent new Schedule. In view of this procedure, which may be repeated, and as one procedure was adopted in the first place and a different proceeding adopted in the second, and as I am interested in the protection of private Members, I would ask you, since, in the last quarter of an hour, we have had two different procedures, which will be the proceeding of the House in future?
  Mr. Speaker: I should like to express sympathy with the hon. Member for finding himself in a solitary state in supporting some proposition on the merits, but that, of course, is not a matter for me. What is for me is the choice of the procedure which should be adopted in certain circumstances. The House has conferred on me the power to say that a Division is unnecessarily claimed if, in my view, that is so. Without any discourtesy at all, I thought that the circumstances in which the hon. Member alone in the House rose to require a Division was an instance of that kind and I so declared, as a servant of the House. Being slightly an enemy of monotony, and the circumstances being at the first Division that there were no

  375
  Tellers on that side of the House, I did not mention the fact.
  On the second occasion I relied upon the other limb, when there were no Tellers on the side supported by the hon. Member. The House confers an option upon me and I adopted, in the one case, one method and, in the other case, the other, I hope without irregularity.
  Mr. Hughes: I gather that this is a very interesting constitutional precedent, that two different kinds of procedure may be adopted within a quarter of an hour. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what remedy an innocent private Member like myself has on these occasions who wishes to record his vote for a Schedule. For example, I rose and it was obvious that by rising I had voted—
  Mr. Speaker: I hate stopping the hon. Member, but I have a duty to other hon. Members. In the first place, by reason of what the hon. Member said to me, it will be apparent, on the face of history as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, that he was the only hon. Member who rose in favour of this proposition on the first Division.
  So far as the second Division is concerned, I say only this—that the responsibility of the hon. Member who is apparently the only one desiring to support the proposition is to try to procure someone who will tell with him. If he cannot find one, I am powerless to assist him in the matter, because there are not two Tellers, not sufficient Tellers, to provide for a Division under the ordinary procedure of this House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Mitchison: There is one matter which I desire to mention and which I hope to get cleared up before we give this Bill a Third Reading. I was struck on Second Reading and when I saw the text of the Bill by the omission of any provisions about the money which the right hon. Gentleman is to receive in respect of the works in Hyde Park. A grant is made in a case of this kind for money, and the right hon. Gentleman, as appears in the text of the Bill or by
  376
  necessary inference from it, is to receive sums of quite a substantial character.
  If I understand the procedure as it is at present, what is to happen to the receipts in question is that they will not be paid into the Consolidated Fund, but that they will be received by the Department and will be subject to directions by Treasury Minute under the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891. Under these directions, they may be appropriated in aid of the Department's Estimates. This is not the position when there is, in what I believe is the more usual course, a Money Resolution and money provision in the Bill itself.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading and again in Committee why it was that the usual procedure was not followed, and the right hon. Gentleman has waved me away and has said that he was told that it was not necessary. One reached the conclusion that whatever may be necessary for other people, the right hon. Gentleman thought that he could get away with anything when it came to money provisions. Let me be perfectly clear—and let there be no doubt about it—that I am not for one moment suggesting anything but that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with this money perfectly properly, but he will have to deal with it, as I see it, under the Statute which I have mentioned—the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, which was intended to deal with fees and sales and so on and hardly ever with receipts of this magnitude arising out of the disposal of very substantial rights over Government property.
  I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope we are to get a proper answer on this point this time, that if in fact this kind of procedure is to be followed in this case, then Parliamentary control is quite considerably removed. There is no question of being able to go into the appropriations-in-aid, which are matters beyond inquiry in Committee of Supply of this House. Assuming that the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman were to be so minded, the Treasury could direct him to spend the receipts as appropriations-in-aid for some purpose or another of which the House as a body would not at all necessarily approve. This is an encroachment, as I see it, by the Executive on the Parliamentary control of money, and, therefore, it is something to be criticised, and,

  377
  if I am right in my suggestions, to be deprecated.
  I take the passage about the Public Accounts and Charges Act from page 711 of Erskine May, but, as I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury opposite, the same information could no doubt be obtained more fully and with equal authority from him. It may be that he is going to tell us what is the answer to the conundrum which I am putting now.
  On the remaining parts of the Bill I have little to say. I share, with great respect, the sympathy which I can now express in his absence with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who was so anxious to have a Division on the last Amendment. I may be a little out of order in saying so, but my feelings are too strong for me and I feel bound to express my sympathy.
  Substantially, there the Clause is, and we are now left in the position that we have to trust the Minister and the Treasury between them rather further than we on this side of the House would nave wished to trust them in a matter of this character. It is not because we think the Minister of Transport is untrustworthy. The right hon. Gentleman is looking pained, but there is no need for it. This is simply a matter of constitutional propriety.
  As to the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind as a whole, we have always supported the Bill and have taken no steps whatever to delay it. We have tried to raise proper criticisms of it, but with its object to deal with the essential long-term parker we are in full sympathy. As for Clause 2, which deals with the amenities in Hyde Park, in view of what was said in Committee—and perhaps I am trespassing on the Rules of Order in mentioning them—and in view of the terms of the Bill which I may mention, we are broadly satisfied that all possible steps are being taken and, as we believe, will be taken, to protect the amenities of Hyde Park and to defend the interests of the public in the matter of aesthetics, even if they cannot be properly defended in the matter of contracts. Therefore, we shall certainly not oppose the Third Reading, subject to the point which I have mentioned and which I hope some member of the Government will elucidate.
  378
  Will the Government spokesman say at the same time whether the practice in the Bill will be followed in other cases or whether there will be proper Money Resolutions and proper arrangements for Parliamentary control in those cases? It is the Appropriation-in-Aid aspect that frightens me.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): It is not that I wish to shirk the point at all, but I am not certain how far I should be in order in replying to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on Third Reading. The question whether a Money Resolution is or is not required in a particular case is not, as I see it, strictly for the Government to decide. It is a matter governed by the rules and practice of the House of Commons and it is thus really the responsibility of that part of the House which, Mr. Speaker, falls within your jurisdiction. I should like to ask your guidance, therefore, before I speak further on that subject.
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly, a Money Resolution is not required at this stage. We receive the Bill as it is on Third Reading. So far as I was not failing to listen to him, being occupied with other duties, I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was out of order, because he seemed to be discussing the effect of the provisions in the Bill, which is in order. As to the necessity for a Money Resolution, that inquiry is out of order on Third Reading.
  Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Sir, I did not intend to suggest that a Money Resolution was required for the Bill. The suggestion was that this method of procedure and the use of the 1891 Act, while no doubt legitimate, was open to other objection on the grounds which I tried to indicate. I trust that the Financial Secretary will be able to answer that point of substance, which, I submit, arises on the form of the Bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker: If I may help, I respectfully agree with that. I think that it is quite right. I think that on Third Reading it is possible to criticise the form of

  379
  the provisions of the Bill which we discuss on Third Reading. I think that that is a permissible matter to argue.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am not sure that I have quite understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's point—if I may say so, not through having failed to listen to him. Is he complaining about the procedure that has been used? I wonder whether he would put the point once again?
  Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to take up the time of the House. It was undoubtedly my fault. I am sure that I cannot have made myself clear. My point is—and here I am quoting from page 711 of Erskine May—that
  "the receipts which arise in the course of business of a department (through fees or sales, etc), are, instead of being paid into the Exchequer, directed by Treasury Minute under the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, to be appropriated in aid of the department's estimate as if they were money provided by Parliament for that purpose."
  What I am suggesting—I may be wrong—is that that is what is bound to happen in this case. We cannot just have a Minister receiving money and the disposal of it left absolutely at large. When we look for the appropriate statutory provision, that is the appropriate arrangement and that is the arrangement under which the miscellaneous receipts of departments, as I see it, are accounted for.
  When we get to small things like fees and minor sales of calendars or something of that sort, one can have no objection, but when we get to the very substantial amounts which seem likely by the terms of this Bill to accrue to the Ministry, I suggest that it is regrettable that they should be so dealt with because, as appropriations in aid—quoting again from the same passage in Erskine May—
  "…the Committee of Supply cannot discuss the application, or reduce the amount, of appropriations in aid."
  If they are appropriations-in-aid, I repeat what I said before: the Committee of Supply—that is the organ of this House for the purpose—cannot discuss the application. The result is that the monetary control of the House is very much loosened—indeed, somewhat absent in cases of this kind.
  When we get a Minister asking for a free hand for negotiations, and getting an enabling Bill in these very broad
  380
  terms, then I suggest that it is a really serious infringement of Parliamentary control if the practice is used—legally, no doubt, but from a Parliamentary point of view I would suggest somewhat wrongly—to get the money dealt with in this way. I hope that I have made my point clear.
  Sir E. Boyle: I apologise for not following the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier. The short answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the power to direct appropriations in aid does not depend upon whether the Measure as we now have it on Third Reading says specifically that the money is payable into the Exchequer, but on whether it is, in fact, so payable.
  I have looked at this passage which the hon. and learned Member has quoted from Erskine May. It is true that the normal way in our procedure of accounting fox receipts is to pay them into the Exchequer, though it is possible for the Treasury under the 1891 Act to direct their appropriation in aid. It certainly is the case that many Acts make express provisions for the payment of receipts into the Exchequer. On the other hand, I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are some precedents the other way.
  To give one or two instances, fees payable to the Board of Trade under the Patents Act, 1949, or under the Films Act, 1960, are not expressly directed to be paid into the Exchequer. Section 39 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, deals with expenses, but not with the receipts arising from the provision of aerodrome facilities under Section 16.
  There is also the case of the special roads which are now dealt with under Section 11 of the 1959 Highways Act, but were originally constructed under the Special Roads Act, 1949. Among the facilities provided for the M.1 by the Ministry of Transport as the highway authority are service stations and restaurants. These are leased to private contractors much as the garage under Hyde Park might be. Naturally, the rents for these places come in the first place to the Minister and then to the Exchequer, although there is nothing specifically in the Special Roads Act, 1949, which says so. While I take note of the point made by the hon. and

  381
  learned Gentleman, and agree that he can quote a number of precedents, there are also a number of precedents for dealing with this matter in the way proposed in the present Bill.
  Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the precedents which he quotes are neither close nor desirable? It is somewhat late at night to go into a subject which, I hope, will attract the attention of the Treasury in due course, not only in connection with this matter but with other Bills.
  Sir E. Boyle: By leave of the House, may I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I certainly take note of what he says. I do not agree that the
  382
  facilities which I quoted are not analogous to the present case. I should have said that they were analogous. I do not think that there is anything peculiar about the way we propose to proceed under the present Bill.
  Mr. Mitchison: If I may, with the leave of the House, say one sentence to the hon. Gentleman, surely service stations on M roads, which, I think, was the instance he had in mind, are a very different matter from disposing of considerable interests in a very valuable piece of Crown property, and attracting large sums of money by doing so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  SHERIFFS' PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 6.—(RETIRING AGE.)
    10.34 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end to add:
    (2) The provisions of the last foregoing subsection shall apply to a sheriff who is not restricted by the terms of his appointment from engaging in private practice and who is appointed after the commencement of this Act.
    It might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we consider the two following Amendments to Clauses 9 and 10.
    These Amendments apply to the retiring age of sheriffs not restricted from private practice. The object is to apply the retiring age of 72 to part-time sheriffs as well as to full-time sheriffs. It applies to those appointed after the commencement of the Act. An Amendment was moved in Committee stage by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I gave an undertaking to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time to put into effect the extremely good idea of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having accepted the Amendment and for framing it in a much more satisfactory manner for inclusion in the Bill. It deals with what was obviously an anomaly, that in one case there could be a sheriff of 75 or 80 years of age and in the other a sheriff had to be under the age of 72.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want a more precise reason why the age 72 is included in the Bill. What is the justification for it, in preference to 70 or 75? I should like an assurance that the members of the judiciary in Scotland are not being treated in an inferior way to those in England.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not find those words in the Amendment, nor do I understand how they are governed by the Amendment. I should welcome the Member's assistance, if he submits
    384
    that he is in order on this Amendment, but at the moment I do not follow him.
    Mr. Hughes: I regret that I do not follow the Amendment. I should like a further explanation, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Member can talk only about what is in order on the Amendment, and I do not follow why that can be said to be in order on the Amendment. That is my difficulty.
    Mr. Hughes: My difficulty is that I am trying to ask an innocent question to which I want a plain answer.
    Mr. Speaker: The question, however innocent, must be within the rules of order on the Amendment. If the hon. Member can help me I shall be grateful, but if not, I must declare what he said out of order. I am open to persuasion.
    Mr. Thomas Fraser: On a point of order. The Amendment says:
    "The provisions of the last foregoing subsection shall apply to a sheriff who is not restricted…"
    and the provisions of that subsection are that a sheriff must retire not later than the age of 72. The Amendment applies the age of 72 to a category of sheriffs who would not be covered by the Clause as originally drawn.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I apologise to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that he was just in order, and I am sorry that I stopped him.
    Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for having in any way put you in a difficulty. All I seek is a simple answer to the question.
    The Lord Advocate: There is no golden magic in the age of 72, but it is the retiring age for judges in England who are as far as possible comparable to sheriffs. It was the age recommended as the retiring age by two Royal Commissions. Admittedly the first was in 1913, but as we live longer now the argument would be for extending the age rather than keeping it at 72. One must exercise a certain amount of judgment in the matter; one person may suggest 70, another 72 and another 75. We

    385
    discussed this in Committee and the Committee thought that 72 was an appropriate age for the compulsory retiral of full-time sheriffs and sheriff substitutes. We have chosen the same age for the part-time sheriffs, who are doing the same work, although only part-time, as are the full-time sheriffs.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(OPTION FOR EXISTING SHERIFFS.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 11, after "years", insert "subsection (1) of".—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Clause 10.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 20, after "sheriff", insert:
    "except in subsection (2) of section six".—
    [The Lord Advocate.]
    Bill read the Third time and passed.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (STAFF)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]
  10.39 p.m.
  Mr. Llywelyn Williams: It might be helpful if I made clear at the very beginning why I have chosen to speak tonight on the question of the employment of coloured persons by the House of Commons. My belief in the Commonwealth is tremendously powerful and my desire to strengthen it is very sincere. Coloured people are very sensitive to insult—and who can blame them if they are? Some of the recent speeches which have been delivered in this Chamber have been very unfortunate. On the other hand, I have found coloured people to be touchingly grateful for and responsive to friendly and imaginative gestures.
  We are always proud to claim this to be the Mother of Parliaments, and London to be the greatest city in the world. This Palace of Westminster, and Big Ben, in particular, evoke very great admiration throughout the world, not least among the coloured people. After all, millions of coloured people in Africa and the West Indies have reaped great social and economic benefits,
  386
  guidance and education culminating in political freedom as a result of what has been done here under the watchful shadow of Big Ben.
  This place is also the mecca of hundreds of thousands of people each year. It am sure that no legislative chamber attracts as many visitors as do the Houses of Parliament. Compared with this legislative assembly, the House of Representatives in Washington, the Chamber of Deputies in Paris, the Bundestag in Bonn, and its counterpart in Moscow, are not nearly so popular with visitors.
  That is why I respectfully ask the Minister of Works to extend, as far as it lies in his power, the right hand of fellowship to coloured people from Africa and the West Indies. I believe that there is a fellowship here, not only between hon. Members but between hon. Members, members of the public and the various staffs represented here—messengers, police officers, post office officials, waiters, waitresses, and so on.
  I know that the responsibility of the Minister of Works for employing personnel here is very limited. The Serjeant at Arms, the Commissioner of Police and the Lord Great Chamberlain, among others, also come into the picture. That is why I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and, through you, to Mr. Speaker himself, as my representative in these matters, to come to my aid, so that if I offend procedurally or in allocating responsibility you will appreciate that I seek only to establish a principle.
  In the very nature of things, the Minister of Works must have quite a deal of power of persuasion and influence in the making of appointments. Could I therefore enlist his good will in future appointments to various posts in this Palace, in either a direct or an indirect fashion, so that a few coloured Commonwealth persons may be appointed? I feel certain, and this is the gist of my case, that such a gesture, imaginative and generous, would bring an added sense of pride and affection to those who regard the House of Commons as the embodiment of everything that is best in the democratic way of life. Who knows but that that type of gesture might not also be emulated in other Royal Palaces?

  387
  I beg the House not to believe that this matter is much ado about nothing. These gestures speak more eloquently than any words about our belief in the equality of man and the qualities of harmonious, multi-racial relationships. By and large, both sides of the House have a genuine concern and respect for our coloured friends from Africa and the West Indies. If this were visibly revealed to us, as Members of the House, and to the public when they visited us, by the presence amongst us of a coloured police officer, or messenger, or clerk, then our moral authority in these matters would be considerably enhanced.
  Justice to our fellow members of the Commonwealth in the Palace of Westminster would not only be done but would be seen to be done. Action on these lines would pay handsome dividends. More important, it would give great satisfaction in Africa and the West Indies, and a sense of real pride to the occupants of such future appointments. What I am asking for does not need a lengthy and elaborate presentation as a case. I only know that I feel instinctively that this step would be practical and progressive and morally right.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I fear that it is a little anti-social to seek to catch the eye of the Chair for the second time in one Parliamentary day, and also on a Commonwealth matter, but I would like to support wholeheartedly the suggestion put by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams). We in this House, on both sides, support the concept of the multi-racial States, of multi-racial societies in our multi-racial Commonwealth. That is the whole basis of our Commonwealth policy under successive and different party Governments.
  All of us claim that we are totally devoid of any colour prejudice. If we are really sincere in that claim, then we cannot possibly object to this plea. Indeed, we should welcome it. Every year, every month, almost every day, as the hon. Member has pointed out, coloured visitors, whether they be visiting ministers, or members of Commonwealth or Colonial Parliaments, or whether they be students here, or immigrants from the West Indies or elsewhere, make their pilgrimage to the House of Commons.
  388
  We entertain them to meals here; they attend Commonwealth Parliamentary Association courses here—one such course is now taking place; we see them in the Visitors' Gallery—though there is none here tonight, which is an exception rather than the rule, for almost every day there are coloured visitors listening to our debates, absorbing our democratic traditions and learning our Parliamentary procedures so that they can practise them in their own countries.
  Thus, this Palace of Westminster is the heart of the Commonwealth. How little difference it would make to us if one or two policemen, or perhaps badge messengers, or a few members of the catering staff, were British citizens from Africa or the West Indies.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of going further than he is entitled to, because the Minister of Works is not responsible for the people whom he is now mentioning.
  Mr. Fisher: In that case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should, perhaps, not have gone into so much detail. Indeed, it is irrelevant to do so.
  The main object which the hon. Member for Abertillery and I have in mind is to give these many visitors who come here what I believe would be a splendid and encouraging sign of the unifying spirit of the Commonwealth—the sight of some of their compatriots taking their place as part of our parliamentary life. That is our purpose in raising this matter tonight. So far as I can see, it would do not possible harm, but it would do an immense amount of good throughout the Commonwealth when it became known that we accepted this very imaginative innovation.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works has himself been Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, so he fully understands the arguments we are putting forward and I do not think that we need elaborate them. I hope that he will seize the opportunity of the hon. Member's suggestion and thus show the Commonwealth, and, indeed, the world, that by our example, in this Palace of Westminster, we really practise what we preach when we say there is no colour

  389
  bar and no colour prejudice in the daily life of the United Kingdom Parliament.
  10.52 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Richard Thompson): The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Ll. Williams), in his concluding remarks, said very properly that there was no need for lengthy and elaborate presentation of the case he had to make. By the same token, I believe that he will not think me discourteous or in any way unmindful of the importance of the case he has argued, so well supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. N. Fisher), if I reply quite briefly, because, of course, some of the things which have been raised tonight do not fall within the precise ambit of my Department. I think, however, that I can give the hon. Member certain general assurances which, I hope, will be very satisfactory to him.
  First, as I think he well knows, we operate no colour bar of any sort. Provided that applicants for the jobs available are British subjects, they are all considered on an equal footing without discrimination of any kind. Naturally, of course, they have to meet necessary educational requirements, but that is only to be expected. I would want the hon. Member to be quite sure that there is no question of a colour bar here at all. He might like to know that we already have on our staff four West Africans.
  I can quite see the point he made that it might be helpful if some of these employees were employed more in the kind of posts where perhaps the public would see more of them. I see what he means, but I can speak only of the employees for whom my department has responsibility and the nature of our responsibility is such that most of our people work relatively unseen, behind the scenes. They do a very good job,
  390
  sometimes at times when the general public, indeed, when hon. Members, are not about.
  They are not very much in evidence and there is not very much that I can do about that, because the Ministry of Works employs only a small fraction of the people who work here. It is not for me to speak for any other department, but, as the hon. Member readily agreed, the Serjeant at Arms, the Lord Great Chamberlain and all the others are ones for which I could not give him any reply.
  Mr. Ll. Williams: I appreciate that the sphere of the Ministry of Works is limited, but I particularly stressed the possibility of persuasion and influence. I thought that that would be in order.
  Mr. Thompson: I have no doubt that those concerned will take note of what has been said in the debate. I can say once again that in the matters which fall within my responsibility we operate a completely non-colour bar policy.
  Indeed, if one considers the Ministry of Works in a wider context it will be seen that we have a number of coloured people spread over a variety of grades. It is not our usual practice to recruit people for employment specifically here, and very often they have come here after acquiring experience elsewhere. In so far as these matters affect my Department, we pursue a policy which is in entire harmony with the views expressed this evening and with what the two hon. Members would wish.
  As for the other authorities involved, as I have already said, no doubt they will take note of what has been said so well in this short debate and, I hope, will be as broadminded as we are in our relations with our own people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Repayments)
  Income Tax (Repayments)
  Surtax Payers
  Surtax Payers
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Surcharge
  Surcharge
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Union of South Africa
  Union of South Africa
  B.O.T.A.C. (Applications, Cornwall)
  B.O.T.A.C. (Applications, Cornwall)
  School Holiday Tours
  School Holiday Tours
  Brewery Companies
  Brewery Companies
  Film Quota
  Film Quota
  COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM
  COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (TALKS)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (TALKS)
  SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
  SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  New Government Offices
  New Government Offices
  Military Knights' Houses, Windsor Castle
  Military Knights' Houses, Windsor Castle
  Buckingham Palace
  Buckingham Palace
  Marlborough House (Garage Block)
  Marlborough House (Garage Block)
  Kensington Palace
  Kensington Palace
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Flooding, Hull
  Flooding, Hull
  Skyscrapers, London Area
  Skyscrapers, London Area
  Swimming Pools (Health Regulations)
  Swimming Pools (Health Regulations)
HOUSING
  Council Houses (Resale)
  Council Houses (Resale)
  Houses, Wales (Piped Water Supply)
  Houses, Wales (Piped Water Supply)
  Houses, Merioneth (Piped Water Supply)
  Houses, Merioneth (Piped Water Supply)
KENYA
  Annual Report
  Annual Report
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Building Programme
  Hospital Building Programme
  The Census (Enumerators)
  The Census (Enumerators)
  Sheriff Substitutes
  Sheriff Substitutes
  Education (Day-Release Courses)
  Education (Day-Release Courses)
  Road Programme (Schemes)
  Road Programme (Schemes)
  Secondary Education (Sparsely-Populated Areas)
  Secondary Education (Sparsely-Populated Areas)
  GERMANY (TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  GERMANY (TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  SPACE EXPERIMENTS (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION)
  SPACE EXPERIMENTS (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 (Section 1 (1))
  Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 (Section 1 (1))
  Civil Defence (Nuclear Attack)
  Civil Defence (Nuclear Attack)
  Prisoner, Dartmoor (Transfer to Brixton)
  Prisoner, Dartmoor (Transfer to Brixton)
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
EMPLOYMENT
  Barnard Castle Area
  Barnard Castle Area
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rivers Humber and Hull
  Rivers Humber and Hull
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis, Ipswich
  Poliomyelitis, Ipswich
POST OFFICE
  Telecommunications Equipment Industry
  Telecommunications Equipment Industry
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  New Installations, Merioneth
  New Installations, Merioneth

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

DESTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS OF ARCHITECTURAL MERIT
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any gain or benefit to the community is created when such bodies as the Crown Estate Commissioners destroy or allow to be destroyed perfectly satisfactory buildings of some architectural or historical merit, even when they form an effective part of a larger architectural grouping, and permit these to be replaced by far less attractive structures which in time inevitably become a magnet for many road vehicles in the already overcrowded traffic arteries in their neighbourhood.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the replacement of some of our older buildings is inevitable as part of the redevelopment of central areas. While there may sometimes be room for argument about the appearance of the new buildings which replace them —for on these matters people can hold widely different views—the machinery of the Planning Acts provides for consideration to be given to the design and external appearance of the proposed new buildings at the plan stage, and to the provision of adequate car-parking facilities. In appropriate cases there is consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he does not feel that it would be much more desir-
746
able that the Government should make a recommendation to the Crown Commissioners to set an example to other people and thereby preserve the good things we have had in the past? In this case I have to declare that at one time I had an interest in this matter, for the Crown Commissioners decided to pull down my own home; but I have no longer that interest because I have left that property altogether.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, buildings in which the Crown (including Government Departments) has an interest are not listed, but if such a building has such merit that it would be listed but for the Crown interest the Government Department concerned are informed and their co-operation requested in securing preservation of the architectural or historic features of the building. If works were proposed that would normally be notifiable under Section 30, the Minister of Housing and Local Government would expect to be consulted. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, contains no provision for contributions from public funds towards the cost of preservation, but steps are taken to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission about the matter and about any new buildings which may replace the old ones.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may ask my noble friend two questions? He will have noticed that the importance of Carlton Gardens is recognised in paragraph 49 of the current Report of the Royal Fine Art Commission. In view of what they say, can my noble friend assure the House that the approval of the Royal Fine Art Commission will be sought for any development proposed in Carlton Gardens? Secondly, is it really Government policy to replace residential by office building in this area in order to increase the number of those who have to travel into and out of London daily?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the first question, the Royal Fine Art Commission will be consulted about the architecture and scale of this new building. My noble friend's other question raises matters which I think might be more the concern of the local authority than of the Government, and the question of whether or not we want

747
more offices in London is a much wider one than that which arises out of the Question on the Paper.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, may I inquire of my noble friend whether he is aware that many ambassadors of art, if they could rent this property, would thereby keep it in good condition and make it equally paying to the Government? May I also point out that similar provision which took place for Eaton Square has been done with great satisfaction and great benefit to the community without destroying the good-looking appearance of that part of London?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly represent that to my right honourable friend. I was not aware that offers of that nature had been received or considered.

TRADE WITH EASTERN BLOC COUNTRIES
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th April that to meet the large increase in the import bill and our other commitments we needed a substantial increase in exports but did not get it, they will initiate in COCOM at an early date steps to abolish—except for arms, munitions, military equipment and machinery specially designed for their production—the embargo on exports to China and other Eastern bloc countries which seriously hampers British exporters in those markets.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the Embargo List is kept constantly under review, in consultation with our Allies. As the noble Viscount is well aware, the List is confined to items of strategic significance and does not appreciably inhibit trade with the Sino-Soviet bloc. Such trade has been expanding steadily
748
during recent years, and is limited more by the amount of sterling available to the bloc countries than by these controls.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. Arising directly out of it, is he aware that in 1956 the Government decided, in the face of opposition from America, to introduce the exceptions procedure, to the great advantage of British exports with China? And is he further aware that in 1957 the Government decided to part company with America in so far as COCOM was concerned and to reduce the China embargo, with the result that British exports to China increased from approximately £10 million per annum to over £30 million per annum to-day? Would the noble Marquess be kind enough to suggest to his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade that he should again adopt what has now become a traditional British solution to these problems?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I looked out some figures of our trade, as I thought they would be of interest to the noble Viscount particularly. In 1959, our exports to China were running at £24·4 million, and by 1960 they had increased to £31·4 million. As I said in my original Answer, the COCOM restrictions really are not an inhibition in our trade. The principal inhibition is the lack of sterling. I think the noble Viscount is well aware of that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess to define in some detail articles of strategic significance?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Baroness knows what that term means. It means, surely, certain items that it would perhaps not be desirable for these countries to hold. I think the noble Baroness knows quite well what I mean. The list is being steadily reduced, though there may Abe additions made to it as new inventions become available.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: What I meant was: to what extent are they raw materials?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: They are not raw materials.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether there is a difference of opinion between this country and America as to the Embargo List? My noble friend has provided for the exclusion of what might be called security items; but, surely, there are many other items which ought not to be excluded on grounds of security. We recognise China, and America refuses to recognise China. Are we to be governed by American requirements in this matter of trade?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite appreciate the point the noble Lord is making. As the noble Lord knows, the Embargo List is an international list agreed by us all. It has been reduced from 350 items in 1954 to 20 items at the present time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to ask a question on that point, if I may. We are glad to hear the figures as to the improvement given in reply to the noble Viscount who put the Question. But is it not a fact that, having regard to the two speeches that President Kennedy has recently made called "Pan America" with regard to the possible development of an American Common Market like the Six over here, we need something special to step up our exports? And ought not this matter to be entirely reconsidered, so that we may certainly improve upon the disastrous results last year in our balance of payments?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Chinese capacity to import more depends entirely on whether they can get some more credits from Russia? The position of their credit, in view of the need to import heavy shipments of wheat, is a very parlous one.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a further question with reference to what he has said? I repeat the words of Mr. Erroll in the House of Commons yesterday—he is a Minister, so I may quote him. He said that the controls are still necessary, and they are not a significant factor in trade. That, with great respect, is what the noble Marquess said. But, to take the electronics industry, is he aware that the Chinese do not apply for electronics from this country? They
750
do not come into this market, because they know what the answer will be; but they are getting them elsewhere. Why should not British manufacturers of electronics be able to supply them as well as other countries?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I have already said, but I should like to say to the noble Viscount how glad I am to see him again in robust health and again attacking me.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Would the noble Marquess agree that the sum of his replies to the noble Viscount's Question is that it has been answered in the negative?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think that was rather sneaking up on me on the inside. I will certainly take note of what the noble Viscount has said.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In that case, may I say how happy we are to see the Foreign Secretary in his place, and I hope that he has been taking due note of the pros and cons which have been put to your Lordships.

WEST GERMAN NAVAL ARMAMENTS
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the West German Government propose to build 6,000-ton destroyers which would be double the size and tonnage permitted to West Germany under the Treaty of 1954; and whether they have any information as to the proposed armaments of these projected vessels, and whether the matter has yet been considered by the Council of N.A.T.O.]
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, amendment of the provisions of the revised Brussels Treaty of 1954 with regard to the manufacture of certain armaments in the Federal German Republic is a matter for the Council of

751
Western European Union, where certain proposals with regard to the manufacture of German destroyers are under consideration. As discussion in the Council is confidential, I cannot reveal details until a decision has been reached.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that this is rather disturbing news? I should have thought that already we have lost our place as the principal naval power in the world, but there is no one more experienced than this country in naval matters. I should have thought that this marks an entirely new departure in German naval rearmament. We ourselves have four ships on the First Lord's construction programme: the "London", the "Kent", the "Hampshire" and the "Devonshire". These ships now proposed are certainly going to be no less heavy. Cannot we know to-day whether this means that they are going to be built specially with great speed, of a similar length of 520 feet and a beam of 57 feet, and whether they are going to carry, perhaps, nuclear missiles? Ought we not to know this in the House to-day?
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether my noble Leader's question does not indicate that there is to be an alteration of the agreement under the Bonn Conventions? And are we to understand that these Conventions, which were agreed upon some years ago, can be altered without Parliament being informed before the decisions are taken?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, your Lordships know that the Federal German Republic is a full member of the North Atlantic Alliance and of equal status with the United Kingdom, and the rearmament of German forces committed to N.A.T.O. has the full support of Her Majesty's Government because it is necessary for Western defence.
LORD HENDERSON: But may I again press this point? Are we to understand that N.A.T.O. decisions can be taken which abrogate the Bonn Conventions without Parliament having any say in the matter or without being informed before decisions are taken?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess with regard to what was said about the Bonn Conventions whether the Government have not admitted in reply to me with regard to questions that I have put relating to Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach that Law 27 of the Bonn Convention is still obligatory upon the Federal Government? Is this not a similar case?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, this is a matter which is under discussion in the Council of Western European Union. But, of course, if a decision is reached and if Her Majesty's Government agree with it, that decision will be brought to the attention of Parliament.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I must say this is a very extraordinary position altogether. I have put certain naval descriptions of these proposed vessels and I have had no answer as to whether my description is correct or not. I think one might deduce from our own naval documents that that is probably what the Germans are asking for. What has been the advice? Is not Parliament entitled to know? What has been the advice of the Admiralty and Chiefs of Staff to our representative at the N.A.T.O. Council? Are not we to know that? Is not Parliament entitled to know?
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I wonder whether I can ask the noble Marquess—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I want an answer, please, if I may.
LORD BIRDWOOD: Could I ask—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There will be plenty of time, I think. I want to stick to the point.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite appreciate the point made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition. I am not in a position to give a detailed reply to the question but if the noble Viscount so wishes perhaps he would be good enough to put down a special question and I will do my best to see that the answer is provided.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The First Lord of the Admiralty is in his place. Cannot he answer? He certainly knows. I must say this is very unsatisfactory. However, I shall return to it.
LORD BIRDWOOD: In view of the fact that we face to-day an enormous submarine challenge from a potential enemy, should we not be grateful for any naval improvements placed at the disposal of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance?
VISCOUNT EUBANK: My Lords, is that any reason why Parliament should abdicate its responsibilities in this matter?

LAOS
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely, whether any statement can be made upon the position in Laos.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have some information which I may add to the statement made in another place yesterday. Your Lordships will already be aware that I have now been able to reach agreement with my Soviet Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference on the next steps in Laos. The texts of the three communications on this subject, which were made to various Governments by the two Co-Chairmen yesterday, were published in this morning's Press. These communications were an appeal for a cease-fire, a request to Mr. Nehru to reconvene the International Control Commission for Laos, and an invitation to certain Governments to attend a Conference beginning in Geneva on May 12.
These texts are the result of a good deal of bargaining, and I am aware that, by themselves, they leave a good many questions unanswered. I have, however, received categoric assurances, given to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow by the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Gromyko, that the Soviet Government themselves are genuinely anxious for an immediate cease-fire in Laos and fully understand that Her Majesty's Govern-
754
ment will not be prepared to conduct negotiations at Geneva under the threat of military action. This means, in our view, that effective steps to achieve a cease-fire must begin on the ground in Laos now.
We have already discussed with the Laotian Government in Vientiane how it should set about making a cease-fire work. We understand that the Soviet Government are taking similar steps with the authorities with whom they are in touch on the other side in Laos. We shall then have to get the International Commission to Laos as quickly as possible to verify the arrangements. It is essential that there should be no doubt about the urgency or sincerity of the efforts on both sides for a cease-fire, otherwise the prospects of the Conference will be endangered.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that shortly after receiving the Co-Chairmen's appeal for a cease-fire, the Laotian Government issued a declaration in which they expressed their gratitude to the United Kingdom and their satisfaction about this move to bring about peace and a policy of general reconciliation. They declared themselves ready to establish contact with the opposing forces at any moment in order to reach agreement on a time for the cease-fire. I hope that there will be a similar response from the other side. Now that the first difficult step has been taken, and with the aim of a peaceful, united and neutral Laos clearly before the Conference, we must work towards successful negotiations. But I do not underestimate the difficulties. There is a residue of suspicion on both sides and it may be hard to arrive at arrangements that will put that suspicion finally to rest.
I should like to express on behalf of Her Majesty's Government gratitude to the Swiss Government, who, I have just learnt, have agreed to the Conference taking place at Geneva and to provide the necessary facilities.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, for his statement and I would repeat what I said last week; that we greatly appreciate the efforts that the Foreign Secretary, with the support of Her Majesty's Government, has made in trying to get peace in this very

755
difficult situation. It is unhappy for us to consider that if his early efforts, well before Christmas, had been met more spontaneously by other parties (and in this I do not, of course, include Mr. Nehru) we might not have seen the situation now. It seems to me to call for such tentative language regarding certain aspects in the Foreign Secretary's statement. I therefore hope that, now that Russia has declared her great interest in having an immediate ceasefire, she will do what she can to support the efforts which have been so specially made by the Foreign Secretary. The only other thing I should like to ask is whether the Foreign Secretary—who was recently in the United States—feels that in this matter he has the support of the United States in this situation to-day.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I think the statement of the Laotian Government, that they will do everything they can to bring about an immediate cease-fire, is of extreme importance in this matter. If there is a response from the Pathet Lao that should ensure a cease-fire in a very few days, and that should become effective very quickly. The answer to his second question is, Yes. The United States Government are now working as hard as we are, I think, for a political settlement.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is confident that, in the light of the developments that are in prospect, there will be cessation of the introduction of further arms from both sides into Laos?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am quite sure that one of the essential tasks of the Conference will be to set up international machinery to prevent the importation of arms, and in future to channel all aid and arms through an international body in Laos. Surely that is the task of the Conference. In the meantime, I am confident (I think I can use that word) that both sides will exercise the necessary restraint while the cease-fire takes place and the conference is going on.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I ask the Secretary of State whether, during the substantial period which has elapsed since the
756
British proposals for a cease-fire were made, arms or other assistance have been sent to Laos by Communist Powers and whether he is satisfied that between now and the cease-fire, the date of which we do not know, the supply of arms will be stopped?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said in your Lordships' House a few days ago, the Communist arms lift to Laos continued until, I think, Saturday last.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: There you are!
THE EARL OF HOME: Not quite "There you are". Since Saturday the air-lift has stopped—at least, so my information goes—and I firmly hope that it will continue to be stopped; otherwise, of course, it will prejudice the results of any Conference that may be held.
LORD MORRISON of LAMBETH: My Lords, does that mean that if the Communist Powers were to delay their reply to the British request, and the delay was substantial, that would leave them free to continue the supply of arms and, therefore, the maintenance of a state of civil war?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, that has been our great anxiety. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the anxiety: that between now and the date when the Conference assembles, the Communist forces on the ground may make considerable and decisive headway. But I am hoping that as the Russians agreed to a quick cease-fire, and as I have reason to believe the Laotian Government also wish that, we may get an actual cease-fire on the ground in a matter of a very few days.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, does the noble Earl expect that with this supervision of the cease-fire there will also be international supervision of the importation of arms? Will the two go together? Because I think that it is very important that we should be clear that arms are not going in when there is a cease-fire arranged?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords; I am sure that if we get the International Control Commission on the spot as quickly as possible to supervise the actual functioning of the cease-fire, they will also keep their eyes on the importation of arms from outside.

CUBA
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, while he is here, whether he is able to make any further statement about the situation in Cuba? Information has been coming in rapidly and the statement made yesterday by Mr. Kennedy seems to me to be very important. I was wondering whether the Foreign Secretary could tell us any more about that.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I had thought that the noble Viscount was not going to ask this Question, and I had not prepared myself with any answer. But so far as I know, the invasion of Cuba is over—the reports coming from Cuba are to that effect—except for a certain number of people who are left in the hills. So far as I know, British subjects are all safe, although we have further investigations to make about two or three of them who are still held. One or two—I think one —have been released. Apart from that, I think that I should like notice of a Question on Cuba before giving a further Answer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. The difficulty is that people are talking widely about the situation. No doubt President Kennedy was taking the right line by saying, "I am responsible" "—but responsible for what? That is the question being asked over here. At least, it is worth raising the matter to-day to let Mr. Kennedy know that there is a good deal of anxiety as to what he is taking responsibility for and as to how far the United States, actually and officially, were behind the invasion.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have no doubt that there is a great deal of anxiety in the United States about the Cuban situation, on every score; but it must be for President Kennedy to answer for American policy, and not for me.

KENYATTA INTERVIEW: PERSONAL STATEMENT
3.4 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a personal statement on behalf of my noble friend Lord Perth, in connection with a reply he made on April 13 to my noble friend Lord Albemarle. As my noble friend Lord Perth is now out of the country, and will be away for the next two weeks, I am taking this opportunity to make the statement for him, rather than to await his return. I will now read the statement which the noble Earl would have made himself to your Lordships.
"My Lords, I wish to make a personal statement arising out of my replies to supplementary questions on April 13, about the tape recording of Kenyatta's voice. I was asked whether an official of the Government of Kenya was present when the tape recording, which was subsequently played at Cairo, was made. I said that I understood one was there. I was not, however, certain about this and I asked the Governor whether my understanding was correct. The Governor has now informed me that no official was present at the time. I apologise for having misled your Lordships."
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his statement and, through him, the noble Earl, who with his usual courtesy, has now provided this corrected answer?

HOLY TRINITY BROMPTON BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
SHELL BRAZIL BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
CARRIAGE BY AIR BELL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HOME SAFETY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
OATHS ACT, 1888 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRINTER'S IMPRINT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PRIVATE STREET WORKS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT, 1959 (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1961
3.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your Lordships' House on March 27. The convention establishing the European Free Trade Association is an agreement between its seven initial members—the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal —aimed at an expansion of economic activity and an increase in co-operation between them. It provides for the reduction, and the eventual elimination, of the tariffs on industrial goods between members.
Article 35 of the Convention, which was signed on January 4, 1960, provides that a Protocol should lay down the privileges and immunities to be granted by Member States in connection with the Association. A Protocol was accordingly
760
drawn up and signed last July. The scale of immunities was carefully considered, both in relation to the precedents existing in the cases of other international organisations and to the provision of what seemed necessary to secure the effective operation of the European Free Trade Association. The present Order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Protocol of July 28, 1960, according legal capacity, immunities and privileges to the European Free Trade Association. The Protocol came into force as regards Denmark, Norway and Austria on March 22, 1961, when in accordance with Article 21 of the Protocol, the third signatory State had deposited its Instrument of Ratification.
The scale of immunities and privileges conferred under this Order is no different from that already granted to the majority of other international organisations in respect of which Her Majesty's Government have signed a Status Agreement. The Association has a small secretariat of about 50 officers, of whom only the Secretary-General enjoys a full diplomatic scale of privileges and immunities. If, as is now the case, the Secretary-General happens to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, these full-scale benefits will of course not be accorded. In such circumstances, the status of the Secretary-General varies only from that of the other officers of the Association in that his documents relating to the work of the Association are inviolable.
The Headquarters of this body is in Geneva. There is to be a Ministerial meeting in the United Kingdom in June, but such an event is unlikely to occur more often than once in three years or more. There is no intention to establish an agency in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 27th March last.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Motion. I am conscious of the fact that things of this kind were

761
done under the Labour Government and, therefore, one must exercise certain restraint. However, I am a little worried about the growing number of organisations of an international character which, by our decision and the decisions of other Governments, are allowed these immunities and privileges. The immunities and privileges are considerable and extend to the reckless driving of a motor car, duties imposed upon intoxicating liquors and other matters. If we go on at this rate, we shall have a substantial proportion of the foreign population of London exempt from British law. I really feel that the Government ought to try to put the brakes on the number of these immunities and privileges Orders which are brought before Parliament. Otherwise we are sacrificing not only revenues, but rights of British citizens against these people. I think we have reached the point where they are becoming a little too numerous and are going too far. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he can give some undertaking—not that the Government will reverse engines; that would be too much to expect him to do—that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Government with a view to reconsidering the situation.
3.15 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth has said, and to point out that these full immunities are enjoyed by nearly 6,000 persons, including some 1,800 wives. This occasions considerable and growing public concern. With regard to this particular Order, the noble Marquess said that this was only a small addition, and that, in so far as complete immunity was concerned, it would apply only to the Secretary-General. But if one studies the Order, it is not only the representatives and their alternates, but an army of advisers, technical experts, secretaries, and even trade experts employed on a trade mission who will be immune from local process in respect of their words and deeds, and immune also from arrest or detention. Further—and this, I think, is important—for taxation purposes, although living here, they will be treated as though they were living in the stratosphere: in other words, their salaries will be tax free. It applies not only to the Secretary-General but to all the people
762
I have mentioned. Therefore it is useless to say that only the "top brass" will enjoy these extraordinary privileges. Paragraph 10 of this Order makes it clear that any officer of the Association, except those recruited locally and paid by hourly rates—and that means everyone except the porters, the lift men and the "Mrs. Mopps"—will be immune from legal process in respect of their words, their writings or anything they do, and exempt from income tax.
It is all very well to say that the office is in Geneva, but since we are parties to this Protocol it is possible that there may be an office here; and even if not, there is no purpose in having the Order unless it is expected that some of these officers will come here. I should like to put some questions to the noble Marquess, and I hope that I shall have rather more luck than my noble Leader had a few minutes ago. First of all, will the noble Marquess say what possible justification there can be for treating the entire clerical staffs of a trade mission as respects the immunities I have mentioned—because that is what it amounts to—at least in part, in the same way as we treat an Ambassador at the Court of St. James? Secondly, has any estimate been made of the number of persons likely to be granted immunity under these Orders? —and in saying that I do not mean only the Secretary-General, but all these people I have mentioned.
Can the noble Marquess say, further (and this, I think, is the matter of main public concern), what steps are being taken to ensure that these extraordinary privileges are neither usurped nor abused? For example, C.D. plates can be bought almost anywhere; they are almost as numerous as G.B. plates, and every other large, sleek, black, chauffeur-driven car around these parts seems to carry one. Do the Government propose to control their issue? Otherwise, we shall have bank robbers with a big black car putting C.D. plates on it and getting immunity from arrest: indeed, I know of one elderly gentleman who is rather nervous in traffic who intends to fit one to his car under the impression that C.D. means "careful driver". It is not fair to the police or to the public for these privileges to be extended without limit and virtually without supervision.

763
Finally, will the noble Marquess clarify the position under this Order of our representatives and the members of the staff who are United Kingdom citizens? Is it the case, as paragraphs 9 and 10 appear to indicate, that if the head of the Secretariat Association is a United Kingdom citizen he will enjoy immunity from legal process and exemption from income tax? And does paragraph 10 confer a like immunity and exemption on any established officer who is a United Kingdom citizen? If my reading of those paragraphs is correct—and I can see no other possible reading of them—what is the justification for this, and what is the precedent? This is a matter of serious public concern, and I do not think that it should be allowed to go by default.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on previous occasions, when similar Orders have been placed before the House, it has been my duty to raise this same question, and I am grateful to my two noble friends for having stepped in and put the position which on other occasions I have done. I do not wish to add or qualify anything that they have said, but I should like to point out to the House what this really means in practice, and to give one or two examples.
It means that these 8,000 people, or whatever the number is, can drive cars dangerously and can inflict damage on citizens of this country, without being answerable for the consequences. No action for damages can successfully be brought against them. They may inflict grave injury, and the persons who suffer from those injuries will have no remedy at all for damages caused by them. Secondly, it has been the case unhappily in the past that some of the people who have had these immunities have been involved in criminal offences, shoplifting and so on, and the short answer has been "Diplomatic immunity", and therefore no action has been taken. This sort of thing illustrates the danger of granting immunity on a large scale, and I would ask the Government to be very careful in granting this immunity, bearing these cases in mind. The last thing we want to do is to inflict injury on our own people. To leave them without a remedy at all where serious injury has been inflicted is, I think, going very far indeed.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said with regard to the extension of this right. It is not so many years ago that the late Lord Jowitt and I took this matter up and it was discussed thoroughly, as some of your Lordships may remember. It was already a bad abuse, and it is getting worse all the time; I do not think anybody can have two views on that. We were answered at great length by the late Lord Reading, who was then Under-Secretary, in his usual convincing and persuasive way, but it was not really an answer at all. I personally think that he and the Foreign Office were probably rather glad that we raised it. The answer was that you must look out for reciprocity. That is a foolish answer. It is an answer, it is true—but I will not go into it any further. I have only recently come into the House, but as a member of the Foreign Service for quite a number of years, and having seen this question at first hand with my own staff abroad, where, I may say we were very careful whom we had on the diplomatic list—we went through it with a fine comb—I am delighted that this attitude has been taken by noble Lords.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I well remember the late Lord Jowitt saying, many years ago, that the next time one of these Orders came before the House he would advise the House to reject it. Since then there has been a constant stream of this type of Order, and we have swallowed each of them with reluctance, promising greater resistance next time. But "next time" never seems to come.
The arguments which have been deployed have been various. Once the argument used to be that with an international organisation it was necessary that its people should have this immunity in this country in order that ours should have immunity and a degree of protection in the other countries concerned, having regard particularly to the many countries in the world where law and order and the courts do not function in quite the same way as they do here. In this particular case, however, it seems to me that we are concerned with a small number of highly civilised European countries, whose courts and police are probably the best

765
run in the world. I should have thought that, from that point of view, diplomatic immunity was absolutely unnecessary for any of these people.
I have not compared the terms of this Order with those of the ones that have gone before, but there is one phrase in Article 10 which strikes me (I may be wrong) as being unfamiliar. It gives immunity to
"any officer of the Association, with the exception of one who is recruited locally and assigned to hourly rates…"
I should like to know the significance of that. It seems to me that, on the face of it, any British citizen who happens to be paid by the month by this organisation has complete immunity from the courts and from taxation. It is a particular imposition, as Lord Jowitt used to say, on the rest of the citizens. Because suppose that a British citizen cannot afford to insure his motor car for other than third party risk, and is run dawn by one of these gentlemen—it is not his fault, and he wishes to sue him. He has no recourse to an insurance company for damages, and in being unable to sue this man, who pleads diplomatic immunity, he has suffered a wrong which is irredressible. I would ask the noble Marquess whether Her Majesty's Government have any remedy for that state of affairs. I would suggest to him that, if he cannot satisfy us with his answers, he ought to withdraw this Order and have another look at some of the phraseology.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I think your Lordships might like to know of a small incident which occurred a few months ago in London. Two small boys, aged 12 and 13, pleaded guilty in court to shoplifting in the Kensington area. Their own account of the incident was as follows: "We went to the Saturday morning pictures and the picture was rather boring. So Tom said to Bobby 'Let's go out and do some nicking'"—"stealing", in brackets, in case the court could not understand what that meant. "So we rang up the chief, and the chief said to Bobby, 'You take everything blue' and to Tommy, 'You take everything red'". So they went out in the Kensington area, and Tommy stole some blue diaries and Bobby stole some red notebooks. They were detected and, as [say, they were brought before the court. Being rather young and naive,
766
they included "the chief's" telephone number, and the court therefore asked the police if they had followed up the telephone number. The answer was, "Yes, but he has diplomatic immunity". I hope that we may have an assurance that this Order is not likely to inflate criminal statistics further.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, as I have assured your Lordships on previous occasions, are just as jealous of the privileges and immunities as. Is any other Member of your Lordships' House. Of course one understands the anxieties that have been expressed this afternoon—indeed, the warning and anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness. I tried to make it clear to your Lordships, in explaining this Order, that there is nothing in it which does not conform with the normal type of procedure which we have adopted in respect of previous Orders of this kind.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: That is what we are worried about.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and others have put up apply with equal force, of course, to other Orders which your Lordships have had to accept—
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is time we stopped it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: —for the sole reason of making it a practical proposition for these organisations to work. It has always been our endeavour—and I think we have succeeded—to cut down these privileges and immunities to the minimum..
LORD CHORLEY: Does the noble Marquess seriously contend that if this Order were not granted this organisation could not be made to work? That seems to me nonsense.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is my belief; that is why this Order is presented to your Lordships, and for no other reason at all.
There is one point that I should mention, and many of your Lordships are aware of it: there has never been, I am told, a case of a person being unable to sue because of one of these Orders. That has never happened. That is the advice I have received; I will certainly

767
check it, but that is the advice I have received from the experts in this matter. I think the points that have been raised, some of them, are complicated and technical, but I would only say to your Lordships that there is nothing here concealed, nothing sinister and nothing that does not conform with the normal practice. So I hope your Lordships will approve this Order.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Marquess? He has said that if we do not approve this Order this organisation will not work. Does he realise the logic of his argument? That this organisation must be composed of potential criminals.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Marquess answers, may I remind him that he did not answer my question, except in a roundabout way? Will he tell me if Her Majesty's Government have any arrangements by which they can recompense one of our citizens unable to sue one of these people for damages because diplomatic immunity has been proved?
LORD STONHAM: Perhaps I may put this to the noble Marquess. Surely he could answer me and say whether my interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 is correct, and if the Government are going to do something to control "C.D." plates?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I may take the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, first, I do not know the answer, but I will endeavour to find out and see that he receives it. As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that referred to Article 10 in Part III; I think that is correct. As I understand it, this Article covers all the officers of the agency other than those recruited locally. Its intention is to secure for the individuals concerned a proper freedom and independence in the exercise of their official duties, and, of course, exemption from income tax on their salaries. That is the interpretation of that Article. Exemption from taxation, as I think the noble Lord is well aware, is also normal in international organisations, because otherwise the member countries who share the cost of the salaries would in
768
fact be contributing large sums in taxes to the Exchequer of the host Government. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
LORD HAWKE: I do not think it does, because paragraph (b) of Article 10 surely applies to British citizens, provided they are paid otherwise than hourly rates; so that a British citizen employed at so much a week or so much a month would be free of income tax and free from any damages. Furthermore, I do not think that we ought to pass an Order when the Government are unable to tell us whether there is any method of indemnifying our citizens for damages done by these people for which they are unable to be sued.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, a great many of us on this side of the House as well are disturbed about this matter. Would it not be possible to delay the passing of this Order to-day, so that we can have a little more information? I have listened most carefully, and I do not think the noble Marquess's answers have been satisfactory.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I quite appreciate the anxiety that has been expressed by your Lordships, and I will certainly arrange that this Order be postponed and will have the matter further looked into. I will endeavour to satisfy your Lordships on a later occasion.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in the circumstances, may I move that this debate be adjourned. I think that is the correct procedure.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1961
3.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it is possible that some of the criticisms that have been made by your Lordships about the previous Order might be applied to this

769
second Order. I myself have no anxieties about this Order. I should like to present it to your Lordships to-day and I hope you will be able to give it your sympathetic approval. I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on March 27 last.
This draft Order is necessary to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Convention establishing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development signed at Paris on December 14, 1960. When the Convention comes into force, O.E.C.D. will be set up and will replace the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. The O.E.C.D. will in fact be the O.E.E.C. remodelled to meet the tasks of the 1960s.
The United States and Canada will join the eighteen Western European O.E.E.C. countries as full members of the new organisation. The aims of the O.E.C.D. will be to promote policies designed to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment in the member countries, to contribute to sound economic expansion in member and non-member countries in the process of economic development and to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral non-discriminatory basis. Co-operation and consultation between member Governments will lie at the heart of the work of O.E.C.D., as in its predecessor O.E.E.C.
Supplementary Protocol No. 2 of the O.E.C.D. Convention of 1960 provides for the same privileges and immunities to be accorded in the United Kingdom as were contained in Supplementary Protocol No. 1 of the O.E.E.C. Convention of 1948. Her Majesty's Government are not, therefore, asked to extend more privileges and immunities for O.E.C.D. than were required for O.E.E.C. The O.E.C.D., like O.E.E.C., will have its headquarters in Paris. All its meetings will normally be held there. The present O.E.E.C. has a staff of 931, of whom 178 are British nationals. The numbers are expected to remain about the same when O.E.E.C. becomes O.E.C.D. The O.E.E.C. has only very rarely held any meetings in London. We expect that this will also be the case for
770
O.E.C.D. So far as we can foresee, no O.E.C.D. staff will be stationed in this country. No O.E.E.C. staff are resident in the United Kingdom at the present time.
The Secretary-General and the senior officials of the Organisation will have to pay short visits to this country from time to time on official business. I would not expect that more than five or six officials of the Organisation would be here at any one time—normally they will be in Paris. All this means that only a few people at a time will enjoy the privileges and immunities under this Order in the United Kingdom, and that only at infrequent intervals. The draft Order confers privileges and immunities no greater in extent than those required by the Protocol to the O.E.C.D. Convention or those authorised by the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950. It revokes and will replace the existing Order referring to O.E.E.C. The immunities to be enjoyed under it by the Organisation itself do not differ from those enjoyed under existing Orders by most other international organisations to which we belong. Of the international staff only the three higher officials—that is to say, the Secretary-General and his two deputies—will enjoy a diplomatic scale of privileges and immunities.
Although the Protocol did not require it, the 1949 O.E.E.C. Order did confer a diplomatic scale of privileges and immunities on the families of the Deputy Secretaries-General. This will not be the case in the new Order. The remainder of the staff will enjoy immunity from suit and legal process only in respect of their official duties and exemption from income tax on the emoluments they receive from the Organisation—that is to say, they will enjoy no more than the necessary immunity to do their jobs as international officials without interference from national authorities. This is normal in all international organisations. Exemption from taxation is also normal in international organisations, because otherwise the member countries who share the cost of the salaries would be contributing in taxes to the Exchequer of the host Government. The Order specifies that only established members of the Organisation's staff will get the privileges and immunities.

771
Expert advisers employed on missions for the Organisation other than regular staff will enjoy the immunity from jurisdiction in respect of official acts and from personal arrest or detention and seizure of their baggage. These are the normal immunities accorded to such people. Such expert advisers have only occasionally been employed by O.E.E.C. and we should expect that visits to this country by persons in this category employed by the new O.E.C.D. would be equally rare. Representatives of member Governments with the principal and subsidiary organs of O.E.C.D.—that is to say, the Council and its various committees—will enjoy a diplomatic scale of privileges and immunities. As O.E.C.D. meetings would normally take place in Paris, this section of the Order will apply only occasionally. On the other hand, the permanent United Kingdom delegation to the O.E.C.D. in Paris will benefit from the relevant provisions of the Protocol. My Lords, as I have tried to explain, this is very similar to what was granted in respect of O.E.E.C. and is applied only to the proposed new Organisation, the O.E.C.D. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on March 27th last.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
3.44 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I must say that these various initials that we are increasingly throwing about in international affairs become a little confusing, but one does ones best to follow them. This reminds me of a little doggerel that we had in the Labour Movement when we were very young, which I cannot fully remember, but of which I know part. It said
"They tell this tale in the I.L.P.
And the S.D.F. says it's true"—
and the something, and something and something—
"the W.S.P.U."
We really need a modern edition of this doggerel to describe these various international organisations.
772
I must say that I was surprised at the action taken by the noble Marquess in regard to this Order. He was good enough—and we greatly appreciate his action—to say at the end of the discussion on the previous Order that he would agree that it should be deferred. In the circumstances, I must say that I should have thought that he would not have moved this second Order, because now we are wasting time. If he defers the first Order, then I should have thought it was logical and courteous to the House that he should not come forward and move the second Order, which is substantially to the same effect. I would urge upon the noble Marquess, whose courtesy I appreciate very much in relation to the first Order, that, having had his say, he might now consent to the deferment also of this Order—of course without prejudice to the views of Her Majesty's Government after consideration of the debate which your Lordships have had. I hope that the noble Marquess will agree that the consideration of this Order might be deferred.
3.46 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, surely This Order is entirely different from the first, and in regard to the principle on which objection was made. It seems to me—I will try not to use alphabetical terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, does not like them—that the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is ceasing because it has been re-formed or redeveloped with certain changes, and has added to its numbers Canada and the United States. Therefore it has become the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—we have added the "D". It is the same Organisation extended. Therefore, it seems to me that this Order differs entirely from the other one, because here you are simply saying that you wish to carry on what you have already agreed to, but you have taken off one letter and you have put on a "D", and you have brought in America and Canada as full members of the Organisation.
I see the difference in the last Order. There, reference was made to a new Organisation. Certainly, I have been in favour for some time of examining as a whole the various Organisations in regard to which there is diplomatic

773
immunity, because it is extremely hard on a new and good organisation if, just because already there are so many existing organisations, it cannot get certain privileges. I would have said a word in favour of E.F.T.A., but I quite see that that is an addition. It seems to me that this Order is entirely different. Here, we are simply renaming and slightly altering an Organisation that already has these privileges. I think all of us who are interested in this Organisation and wish to bring it into existence as soon as we possibly can, want to see this change ratified as soon as possible, because we feel that it is not only for the good of European co-operation but also is extending beyond that. I hope that, because this is a different Order, it will be agreed to.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I endorse what the noble Lady has said, and say that I think this is quite different from the other Order which we hope to have explained later on. This is something that we have passed before for this Organisation, and I really think that we can pass it this time.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, as one who has been associated with O.E.E.C. for a long time, and familiar with the negotiations leading up to its organisation, I entirely agree with the noble Lady in distinguishing between these two Orders.
3.49 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, would the noble Marquess explain a little further one point which he made—namely, that exemption from taxation is necessary, otherwise the Governments represented in one of these Organisations would be paying the taxation due to the Government of the member country in which the Organisation is located? Surely liability for taxation is the liability of the individuals employed; it is not a liability of the Government which appoints them. Therefore, if this exemption is given, is it the case that the salaries of the individuals employed, and who enjoy this immunity from taxation, are fixed in the light of that—in other words, are at a lower rate than they would be if these individuals were liable to taxation, because they are apparently not liable to taxation either in this country or in the country in which they serve?
3.50 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, has said, I should like to make it perfectly clear that nothing I have said, and I am sure nothing anyone else on these Benches has said, is in any way in opposition to the principle of O.E.E.C. or O.E.C.D. Any objections that have been raised have been merely to the machinery. I hope that that is absolutely clear.
There is just one point on this particular Order that I would put to the noble Marquess. In moving the earlier Order he said, I believe, that some 50 persons would be involved. The present staff of O.E.E.C. numbers 931, of whom 178 are British. Thus nearly 1,000 persons will get full immunity. That is no mean number. I should have thought that for that reason alone—and also because at least the broad principles of the full immunities and partial immunities which have been given under these two Orders are very much alike—as the noble Marquess has graciously agreed to take back the other Order and look at it again, the noble Marquess should look at this Order, too, and after consideration, give the House a somewhat fuller explanation than he has been able to give this afternoon.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, at the risk of being accused of levity, perhaps I may inform the House that while "I never use a big, big D", if I did I should be tempted to use it on this occasion.
3.52 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, with great respect, I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have supported this as against the other Order, apparently on the ground (and it is common ground with all of us—and I would say that emphatically) that its predecessor has a very good name; that we like it very much, and wish to see it continue and carry on its good work. But that is not really the point at issue.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I think the names of both organisations are appalling. I do not like the names at all, but I think the organisations are good. If it is the same organisation that is to continue, we hope improved. I suggest that we should no on with the same scheme of immunity.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, the noble Lady has misunderstood me. I never mentioned the merits or demerits. My point was that which the noble Lady has repeated. She wishes to give these immunities to employees of an organisation which we all know and honour, and for whose work we have a great deal of admiration; but that is not really the point. What most of the noble Lords who resisted the last Order were concerned about was the giving of immunities which might have the result that citizens of this country, British subjects, might find themselves in a position where they could receive no compensation for damage inflicted by members of these organisations who were enjoying such immunities.
That, of course, is a common state of affairs under ordinary diplomatic immunity. I have always understood that in those cases, whilst the matter did not Came to count, an ex gratia payment is commonly made by the Government of the person who has caused the damage. To my way of thinking these Orders are rather alarming, for this reason: there is no parent Government who could make an ex gratia payment to anybody suffering damage. I should like very much to know —and perhaps the noble Marquess can tell us—what would happen in a case of this kind. Supposing somebody suffers a serious damage from an officer of one of these agencies who enjoys special immunity, can that person make a claim, or would the parent organisation, or the employing organisation if I may call it that, be prepared to make some contribution towards the damage suffered?
3.55 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, for explaining to your Lordships with greater clarity than I could have commanded the relationship between this Order and that which applied to the previous organisation, O.E.E.C. As I drew to your Lordships' attention, this Order —succeeding the arrangements that were necessary for the O.E.E.C.—has one small difference, in that there is a reduction in the privileges and immunities. Those are now withdrawn from families. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will not consider that these two Orders which I have
776
presented to your Lordships fall into the same category. This later one is simply succeeding that which went before, although I can quite see, as I said initially, that the criticisms and anxieties of your Lordships have a general application to all these Orders; of that I am fully aware. But I hope your Lordships will approve this second Order.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not dealt with the interesting point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I apologise. It is a point into which I am afraid I shall have to go further. I am not now in a position to give a full reply which would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Then defer it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If I may, I would rather give a full and proper reply than give an inadequate answer now. Perhaps the noble Lord will agree that I should go into this matter and reply to him fully.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the noble Marquess is not in a position to deal with the rather substantial and important point raised by my noble friend Lord Faringdon, with which he says he will deal on some future occasion. But it is relevant to this Order. Is that not an additional reason why the noble Marquess should do with this Order what he did with the previous one—namely defer it? Nothing will be lost, and Her Majesty's Government have time to look further into it; and the noble Marquess can give a considered reply to my noble friend before a decision is taken, later, on the Order.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with great respect, I quite see that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, is one of interest, but I do not think it affects what I have already said: that this Order is simply the replacement necessary for the O.E.C.D. I do not feel that the point should make your Lordships consider it necessary to delay the passing of this Order. I hope you will not take that action.
3.57 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, speaking in support of Her Majesty's Government on the present Motion, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, with respect, that this is not an entirely new point. I think that the noble Lord Is very optimistic in assuming that where diplomatic immunity applies it is the practice of the Government whose servant claims diplomatic immunity to make an ex gratia payment. I am not aware of any such custom, and I am certainly aware of many cases where that has not been done.
There is also an example—and this I would mention very particularly, in view of the line taken, somewhat belatedly, by the Opposition in your Lordships' House to-day, although we very much welcome that line. That was not the line they took when they sought, and sought successfully, when they were in power, to obtain diplomatic immunity for the International Postal Union. I hope that I am remembering the name of the organisation correctly. That was a body which had functioned quite happily for very many years without any such immunity. Nevertheless, by an Act of the Labour Government immunity was conferred upon that body. The reason why I believe Her Majesty's Government should be supported on this occasion—and we shall have the opportunity of developing our main arguments on these matters in the postponed debate —is that it will be observed that this particular Order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify a Convention. I do not believe that there is anybody in this House, in any quarter, who desires that the ratification of the Convention should be unnecessarily delayed; and for that reason, if for no other, I suggest that this Order should now be approved.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not think that that intervention is really helpful to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess said on the earlier Order that he knew of no case where diplomatic privilege had been used to resist a claim. I did not want to prolong the argument, but I do know of cases. However, I was hoping that, since we deferred the matter, we should be given a fuller explanation of that point. But
778
if the answer is what the noble Lord says it is, that in every case an ex-gratia payment is made where there is a claim—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He did not say that.
LORD CONESFORD: I said precisely the opposite.
LORD SILKIN: If that is the case, I am bound to say that the British subject who is injured is at a very great disadvantage. After all, an ex-gratia payment is something given, not in order to meet a claim in full, but, having regard to the fact that the maker of the payment is not liable in law to meet the claimant. The British claimant who knows that he has no case in law is obliged to accept something less than he is entitled to. That is the significance of an ex-gratia payment. If that is the position, the subject is at a great disadvantage. There still arises the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and to which we should be glad to have an answer—namely, is there any way by which a British subject who suffers injury at the hands of somebody who has diplomatic privilege can be compensated by the Government itself for injury done to him if he cannot recover from the person who has the immunity? I myself should be quite willing to let this Order go, on the assurance that we shall have all these matters more fully explained to us. But I am bound to say that the answer given by the noble Lord was not at all helpful, and rather made me doubtful whether we ought to pass this Order at all.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think perhaps I ought to do what I can in this situation. Surely there are two or three separate issues here. The first question, which all of us who practise in the Common Law Courts recognise, is that to confer diplomatic immunity on anybody, from the Ambassador downwards, may, at any rate in theory, and therefore sooner or later probably will in practice, give rise to a juridical problem, and perhaps to injustice. That is quite clear. Of course, we all know—we have all had experience of this., whether we have served in Parliament, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has, or whether we have practised as a I solicitor for many years, or practised at

779
the Bar for many years—that since the war, particularly (though I think the process had begun before the war), diplomatic immunity of one kind or another has been conferred not only upon the accredited representatives of sovereign States but upon a great number of other people.
I think that Parliament, certainly in my experience (and I am probably speaking also for noble Lords who have sat here for much longer than I have), in one House of Parliament or another, has again and again expressed its anxiety both about the extent of privileges given and about the number of organisations on which privilege should be conferred. The gradual increase of the number of diplomatically privileged persons has, quite rightly, been made the subject of debate.
In the previous case I came in only towards the end of the debate, but I heard more or less what was going on. And I had heard it on other occasions, when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was in the Government and I was in another place, or what was technically another place. At any rate, we had a new organisation with a new set of privileges. I agree with my noble friend behind me that this is quite a different case from the present Order, which really replaces an old Order and is necessary, as my noble friend Lord Conesford reminded us—absolutely necessary—for the Government before we can give our ratification to an instrument which I am perfectly confident the whole House would desire us to give our ratification to.
I am perfectly well aware—no one more so—that the general question—that is to say, the question of whether diplomatic privilege ought to be as extensive as it is—is one which fully merits the attention of Parliament and Government and, indeed, international discussion. There are important juridical issues. What I would think, though, with respect to noble Lords who have spoken, and what I would ask them to consider, is this. To refuse to allow this particular Order, which is necessary for a particular purpose, is not perhaps the best way of ventilating the general issue. It has come to light and it is bound to receive further discussion, if only when
780
the E.F.T.A. Order comes up again. It may deserve a more general discussion, in which case we can have that. But I would ask the House to pass this Order to-day, for the reason given by my noble friend.
Moreover, I would ask the house to remember how, in deciding the extent of diplomatic immunities, Her Majesty's Government are up against a problem which they have to face from time to time and which all British Governments have to face—namely, that these Orders are international in scope and have to be negotiated universally on the basis of a good deal of trading and compromise. Particularly in juridical matters, we represent a system of law which, though it is very common in other continents of the world, in Europe is rather one peculiar to this island; and sometimes our own judicial conceptions do not fit in very well to what European Powers wish. Therefore, I would ask the House to pass this Order, and I certainly give them my own assurance, on behalf of my noble friend, that he will come briefed to deal with the general issues, if need be, when the E.F.T.A. Order comes up again.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES AND SUB JUDICE RULE
4.8 p.m
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY rose to call attention to the practice which restricts debate on matters which are sub judice in the courts and to the application of that practice to debate on the proceedings of a Departmental Inquiry; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper I think it would probably be most convenient to your Lordships if I referred, very shortly, to the circumstances which led me to put it down. As some of your Lordships will remember, on December 1 last my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth

781
endeavoured to persuade the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to refer to the Council on Tribunals all the circumstances of a local public inquiry which had been taking place at Banbury into an application to develop ironstone working in North Oxfordshire. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was concerned not with the merits of these proposals at all, and did not make any attempt to discuss them; they were, indeed, quite irrelevant to the objective which he had in view, which was to get the methods which were being used, or had been used, by the applicants in connection with putting forward their case referred to the Council.
But in the course of the ensuing discussion the noble Lord, Lord Salter, while supporting Lord Lucas of Chilworth in the case that he was making, mentioned a number of reasons why, in his contention, this application should be rejected: that is to say, he did, to some extent, go into the merits of the application which was under review. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor then rather castigated him for dealing with the merits of a matter, which, he submitted, was sub judice Most of my speech to-day will take the form of a commentary on the speech of the Lord Chancellor on that occasion, and I am quite sure he will not take amiss what I say.
My Lords, so far as I have been able to discover, this is in fact the first time that it has been suggested that the so-called sub judice rule applies to these local inquiries, or, indeed, to any matters which are up for decision by a Minister of the Crown as opposed to some matter which is up for decision by a judge in a court of law. The Lord Chancellor's statement of views on this subject, in my contention, breaks new ground, and breaks it on a matter which seems to be of considerable importance. At any rate, that is the view I take of it, and I am hound to say that it is a view which a number of other Members of your Lordships' House have taken, too. Therefore, I felt that the statement made by the noble and learned Viscount ought not to be allowed to pass undiscussed—I would even say, ought not to be allowed to pass unchallenged, because, on consideration, I personally have come to the conclusion that it goes too far, at any rate in the light of the position as
782
it has so far been laid down. Indeed, when I discussed it with a number of authorities on constitutional and administrative law, among whom I found that the statement made by the Lord Chancellor had given rise to much interest, I found that they, too, were of the opinion that the sub judice rule does not apply to these local inquiries.
It occurred to me also that the noble and learned Viscount himself might welcome an opportunity of reconsidering his opinion—or, at any rate, of reformulating it, because he spoke on that occasion, as we say, "off the cuff". Although, if I may say so, the noble and learned Viscount is noted for his ability to express very clearly a point of law (or a point of politics, for that matter) impromptu, it is not easy to formulate a view on a matter as important as this without some preliminary consideration; and I must say that, having studied his speech on that occasion carefully, and having read it through more than once, I find that there is perhaps a certain amount of ambiguity in it which I will endeavour to indicate as I go along, although I think the substance of his contention is clear enough.
Your Lordships will doubtless agree that if the sub-judice rule is to be extended to these local public inquiries, the limits of the extension ought to be formulated very carefully indeed, because these matters, as I am sure we all agree, are matters of considerable importance. I have referred to the statement by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. It was an authoritative statement up to a point, but, on the other hand, I do not wish it to be thought that I am conceding that the matter is one which, so to speak, is to be decided from the Woolsack. That is to say, I think the matter is quite clearly a matter rather for your Lordships' House as a House of the Legislature to decide than to be decided by a member of Her Majesty's Government, however authoritative and however well-versed he may be—and, on this occasion, obviously is; both as the leader of the legal profession and as a Parliamentarian of a very long experience.
My Lords, this sub-judice rule is curiously elusive in many ways. Curiously enough, when one begins to try to find

783
out something about its history, one discovers that it is very difficult to find any firm ground. I do not want to take up too much time with its historical side, but I am inclined to think that it was originally introduced in order to prevent juries, which played such an outstanding part in the administration of our law for so long, from being influenced by irrelevant considerations. Of course, in criminal cases, where the jury is still in the centre of the picture, that is still its most important application, and is one with which every lawyer is familiar. But I think it is a little unrealistic to suggest at the present time that judges (who now try practically all civil cases, at any rate) are going to allow themselves to be influenced by what is said outside the courts, by matters which are not given in evidence in the court itself, though the rule as to sub judice is still often said to operate on that sort of a basis.
I should myself have thought, at any rate as far as Parliament is involved in this problem of sub judice, that it is more a question of good manners and of the proper comity which should exist between the great organs of State, such as the Legislature and the Judiciary—that each should not trespass on the proper sphere of the other. But, of course, an inspector engaged in a local inquiry is engaged in what is essentially, in my submission, a policy decision: that is to say, a matter which is basically a political matter, and one which should not fall within the sub-judice rule—which, as its very words indicate, is something which is being decided by a judge, something which is decided in a court of law. Nor, I think, is it realistic to say that pressure is being brought to bear on the inspector, as I think the noble and learned Viscount rather suggested, when it is in fact a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Executive, who makes the decision, and often makes it (as the Saffron Walden case, which has been a little in the public news in the last few days, shows) in the teeth of the advice which has been given to him by his own inspector.
Now I have said that the sub-judice rule has not so far been applied, as far as I have been able to discover, to these local inquiries—or, indeed, to anything
784
short of a judicial inquiry proper. This, I think, appears clearly enough from Erskine May's great work, and I do not feel it requires a great deal of elaboration, although, perhaps, as it is at the very centre of the discussion, I ought to indicate shortly what Erskine May says about it. Before doing so, however, I should like to say this: although good sense no doubt requires that the sub-judice rule should be observed in this House, I have not been able to find anything which expressly says so. I have not been able to find any express decision to this effect. So far as I have been able to look at them, the authorities in Erskine May all appear to have been given in respect of matters which have been raised in another place.
As a matter of history, my Lords, it seems that for a very long time the High Court of Parliament did take upon itself the duty of supervising the workings of the Judiciary, the workings of the King's Court, certainly if they impinged in any way on what Parliament felt was within its own cognizance and jurisdiction. It will be familiar to many of your Lordships that as late as 1689 Parliament actually brought before it two Judges of the King's Bench and committed them for contempt because it disapproved of the decision which they had come to in the case of Gay v. Topham. In your Lordships' House, of course, this supervision of the Judges was eventually concretised, as you know, in the establishment of the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House.
The working of the sub-judice rule is considered by Erskine May at various stages in Parliamentary procedure, as he deals with them in his book, notably in the Chapter which is entitled "The Process of Debate", where he says:
"A matter which is under adjudication by a court of law should not be brought before the House."
He does not define what he means by "a court of law"; but in a later passage on the same page I think he shows fairly clearly how far he would go in considering what is a court of law, because he says:
"Anything reflecting upon the conduct of a person holding the position of a Judge, such as a Judge in a court of bankruptcy, or in a county court, or a Recorder"—
must not be brought into debate.
So it is clear enough that he has in mind persons who are actually performing a judicial function; and I should have thought it clear enough that an inspector holding an inquiry clearly does not perform that. As I have said, the expression "sub judice" itself is indicative that the rule is concerned with a judge who is actually in the course of deciding some matter which comes before him as a judge in a court. According to Erskine May, the sub judice rule applies to Questions put down to be answered in another place; to Motions for the Adjournment of another place, as well as to problems which are raised in debate.
My Lords, I think it can hardly be contended that these local inquiries, if one looks at them in a realistic way, are courts of law, or judicial hearings, or anything of that nature. I submit that it is clear enough that they are one of the methods by which a Minister prepares himself—informs himself—of the situation and of the facts in order to come to a decision upon some matter of administrative policy. The decision of the Minister in these cases is not a judicial decision, or even a quasi-judicial decision. There may be a few cases where that is not so. I believe that there are cases where the Minister is constituted under an Act of Parliament as a court of appeal in respect of the dismissal of certain types of public servant. There it might well be said that his function was a judicial function, or certainly a quasi-judicial function, and it might be contended that the sub judice rule should apply in a case of that kind; that in principle it would, although so far as I have been able to discover that has not in fact been done previously.
The type of local inquiry which was being held on this particular occasion was not in any sort of way a judicial inquiry; nor was the Minister's decision a judicial decision. That, of course, was finally and authoritatively established by your Lordships' House, sitting in its appellate capacity, in the Stevenage case, in which my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin, who I am sorry is no longer here, was involved as Minister of Town and Country Planning. That was the case of Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, in 1947, in which the appellant attempted to persuade your Lordships that the Minister had been
786
acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and that his conduct should therefore, be brought before the court. It was held that that was not so; that the decision was a policy decision and not reviewable.
The Minister, in coming to a decision of that kind, is not, therefore, acting as a judge, or even acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and if that is so I fail to see how it can be said effectively that the inspector, through whom he is gathering the information and material upon which to come to his policy decision, is acting as a judge, or is holding a court of law, or is bringing the proceedings within the sub judice rule. Indeed, my Lords, many of the procedures which are adopted by these courts of inquiry would not be tolerated for one moment in any court of law; yet they are perfectly proper procedures for the purpose for which these local inquiries are held.
One of them which occurs to me is the sending of a letter about the matter, which I am sure many of your Lordships frequently do if you are not in a position to attend the inquiry yourself; and these letters are read at the inquiry—and very properly read. One of the points which the noble and learned Lord was making, I think, was that the noble Lord, Lord Salter, should have gone to the inquiry, and there given evidence and subjected himself to cross-examination. So he could. Or he could have written a letter. Or, in my submission, he could have done what he did, which was to come and discuss the matter in your Lordships' House. Therefore, although the statement which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made on December 1 might be taken as implying that there is an existing sub judice rule relating to these local inquiries, in my respectful submission that is not really so. I think that what he was doing was to say that a rule of this kind ought to be established; that there had been, as the result of the Report of the Franks Committee and the passing of the Act, a new situation; that the inquiries were now being held in a different sort of way, that the sub judice rule ought to apply, and that therefore the noble Lord ought not to have discussed the matter here upon the merits.
It is at this stage, my Lords, that I must say I feel that the noble and learned Viscount has not quite made it clear how far he thought this rule

787
should go. I do not think he can have intended to say that the whole subject matter under inquiry at one of these inquiries is to be regarded as sub judice until the Minister concerned has published his decision on the matter; I do not think he intended to go so far as that. For one thing, I think it is now generally accepted that the Minister may take into account all sorts of matters which do not come up, and which could not properly come up, at the inquiry— matters of policy which clearly cannot come before the inspector who is investigating into local facts. Also the Minister may, as has been made very clear by the noble and learned Viscount himself in the Saffron Walden case, consult his own civil servants who have not appeared at the inquiry to give evidence there, not only civil servants in his own Department but also in other Departments.
To go back a step in my argument, it is obvious that no judge in a court of law could possibly behave in this way. I suggest that this completely differentiates what is happening here from what happens in a court of law. When he comes to make his decision, the Minister is not in any way limited by the facts which have come out in the inquiry and which have been included in the inspector's report, as, of course, a judge would be in coming to a decision in a court of law. If a judge took into consideration in reaching his judgment anything which had not been given in evidence in court, clearly his decision would be reversible on appeal. And this is another way in which, I suggest, the two types of inquiry are fundamentally different.
However, I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount really intended to go so far. He discussed the dates very carefully in his speech and I took it that he thought that what one might call the sub judice period was a narrower one. He did not indicate exactly where it should begin and where it should end—no doubt, for the purpose of his argument on that occasion, that was not necessary. If there is such a rule, does it begin at the time when the inquiry starts or at the time when the Minister announces that he is going to hold an inquiry? And does it last during the inquiry or, as I think the
788
noble and learned Viscount intended to say, does it last until the time the inspector has drawn up his report; or possibly—perhaps more likely—does it last until the time when the inspector has delivered his report into the hands of the Minister?
As your Lordships will see, this is not very clear and it ought to be clear, because, as I say, this is an important matter.
At one point in his speech the noble and learned Viscount referred (col. 1239) to "potential attacks in Parliament before a matter is decided," which may be taken to indicate that it went right on until the Minister had given his decision. On the other hand, in the light of the dates he gave, I think that the other is the correct view of it. But the noble and learned Viscount is listening to what I say, as is also the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who is to reply, and I should be very grateful if some further light could be thrown on these matters, because obviously, how long this sub judice period should last is a matter of considerable importance. If it goes on too long, the time for relevant public discussion is short, as I shall indicate more closely in a minute. I think that the noble and learned Viscount was contending that until the inspector had actually reported to the Minister, the matter is to be regarded as sub judice. Even if we regard this as desirable—and I think that it is more than doubtful whether this sub judice rule should be applied at all in these cases—then I submit that it should be applied as narrowly as possible.
Obviously, there are considerable practical difficulties in the way of applying it, and I should like to indicate some of these. The first difficulty is that normally one does not know when an inspector has reported. His report is usually published with the Minister's decision; and until the Minister's decision is given, nobody outside the Ministry knows whether the inspector has made his report or not. Sometimes, when Ministers are asked questions in Parliament about whether they had decided or whether they are going to decide on some point, they make some remark to the effect that they are still considering the report, which would be an indication that a report had been made by the inspector. But there is never any open statement that a report has been

789
made. So that the time when public discussion can be held is not clearly known; and obviously this is a serious drawback.
Secondly, did the noble and learned Viscount mean that there should be no public discussion of any kind until the inspector had made his report? Of course, if this were a court of law, the rules of contempt would bar any sort of public discussion, in the Press, on the T.V. or elsewhere, and the sub judice rules of Parliament would then prevent discussion here. But I imagine that nobody would contend that this was a case where the contempt rules apply. They certainly do not apply as they stand at present, certainly not without a considerable, radical and unwelcome extension of the rules as they stand.
So that if there is not to be a contempt rule for preventing discussion of these matters in newspapers and in broadcasting and outside, is discussion to be forbidden only to Members of Parliament, who are more concerned with these matters, which are matters of policy and politics, than anybody else? Indeed, is it not significant that in this North Oxfordshire case the argument was going on in the Press contemporaneously with this inquiry? The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to articles in the Economist and the Sunday Times, and there were other articles in newspapers such as the Observer. In practice, whenever an inspector makes an inquiry in a controversial case, he does so in the middle of an absolute hubbub of discussion and public comment. Your Lordships have only to cast your minds back to the Piccadilly case, in which all the newspaper continuously carried comment from beginning to end; to the Oxford roads case, in which comment has accompanied every inquiry that has ever been heard, and to any other important inquiry of this kind. Or are we to go back to the sort of rule, which has been established by the Broadcasting Council, limiting discussion to six months in regard to matters to be debated in Parliament? This is really my third point.
To sum up, it seems to me that the fallacies (if I may so describe them), in the argument of the noble and learned Viscount are these. First, with great respect, that he misapplies the sub judice rule on the lines I have explained;
790
secondly, that be assumes that other organs of expression, such as the Press, are silent; and thirdly, that he seems to accept that in drawing up his report an inspector would be influenced by what was said in Parliament but not by comments made elsewhere, which seems to me to be very doubtful indeed.
The matters which come up for decision in this way are matters, I repeat, of public concern. They are matters upon which opinions are strongly held. The independence of judgment of a person who is appointed to report on these matters is not improperly attacked, I think, by expressions of opinion in regard to the policies on which he is called upon to collect material and information for his Minister; and a person who wishes to express his opinions should be left free to decide according to his own judgment whether he can best do so by attending the inquiry or by writing articles in the newspapers or, if he is fortunate enough to be a Member of Parliament, by raising the matter in Parliament. Why should he not do so? And why should an inspector be embarrassed if he does do so?
It appears to me that there is an increasing tendency, which, indeed, I think is exemplified in the argument in this case of the noble and learned Viscount, to judicialise (if I may use that rather awkward word) as much as possible of the administrative process. Some aspects of that tendency are no doubt commendable, but I yam afraid it is being combined with an attempt to restrict discussion and criticism on the ground that the process has become judicial in nature and, therefore, the sub-judice rule applies. This seems to me both specious and dangerous. The inspector is a civil servant, responsible to a Minister, making recommendations, collecting information on questions of policy for which his Minister is responsible to Parliament. This is a political set-up, which is essentially different from a trial in a court of law, and, in my submission, it should be kept so. Criticism should be free and open at every stage. Governments always tend to be rather desirous of escaping criticism, and their attempts to do so are often ingenious and ought to be kept under close scrutiny. It is the duty and, I submit, the privilege of Parliament to see to it that all matters which come within its own purview are brought out

791
clearly into the light of day, and to consider, carefully, and, indeed, to hesitate long, before allowing such a rule as that of sub judice, invented and developed for a completely different purpose, to impede it in its essential work.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that I very much appreciate that the noble and learned Viscount spoke under the impulsion of a deep and, indeed, passionate reverence for the Common Law, for which he is held in the highest respect and regard throughout the legal profession; and I hope that I share this reverence with him. But this feeling, I fear, has sometimes impelled lawyers to apply Common Law doctrines to situations of a kind for which they were not devised. That is what I think we are rather in danger of doing here. It is just as important that the law should not push too far into politics as that politics should not interfere with the administration of the law. Parliament no longer summons judges to its Bar when it dislikes their decisions—it has more sense—but tidies up the Statute. Of course there is no complete separation between the powers of the different sides of the State in matters of this sort; there must always, in practice, be a certain amount of interplay. The Franks Committee and the noble and learned Viscount between them have, I entirely agree, effected considerable improvements in the technique of departmental administration by strengthening what one might call the atmosphere of justice in which these inquiries should be held. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount and the Government will not wish to go too far along this road in an attempt, under the banner of the Common Law, to fetter free discussion of what are, in my view, and in the view of many people, essentially political problems: because if they succeed in doing that, the cure will be worse than the disease. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord? With what he said about the matter not being in a legal sense sub judice I find myself in general agreement, but I think that what he has not dealt with, and what I should like to know from him, is how he conceives the problem of the Minister if this matter is raised
792
in Parliament. On the occasion referred to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was replying, and was known to be going to reply, to the debate. While I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said on the constitutional principle of the right of my noble friend Lord Salter to raise the matter, I should like to know from the noble Lord what he thinks my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack should have done, if the question of merits was to be debated in the debate. If he had dealt with the question of merits, I think that objection could have been taken in every quarter to the possible influence that was being brought to bear on the inspector. On the other hand, if he were completely silent, again that might have been open to misinterpretation. I think this is an extremely difficult problem, but I wonder what the noble Lord would like the Minister to do if the matter were raised in this House in that way.
4.46 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, the noble Lord who opened this discussion said that the origin of his Motion was the comment made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on an intervention that I had made in the debate on December 1. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, then raised a certain procedural question about an inquiry that had taken place in north Oxfordshire, and as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said truly, I did not then limit myself to a discussion of procedure, but discussed the merits of the case that had been before the inquiry. I do not propose now to say a word either about the merits of that or any other case, but to limit myself entirely to procedure.
The reasons which made me think at that time that I was free to discuss the question of merits are, I think, relevant to the discussion we are now having on procedure. They were roughly these. I was not aware then, and, indeed, am still not aware, that up to that date, December 1, there had been any authoritative statement of a rule or recognised practice that a question that had been before a public inquiry should be regarded as sub judice until a verdict had been given. In the second place, I was aware that only a few days before that debate a Member of another place had asked a question of a Minister on a matter that

793
went to the heart of the problem discussed by the inquiry, and the Minister had not told him he should not have asked the question, but had, in fact, given a substantial reply.
In the third place, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has already remarked, I had observed that in a number of responsible organs of the Press there had been a discussion on the merits of the question; and I had never heard anyone suggest that they were acting improperly, still less that they should be had up for contempt of court in so acting. It certainly did not occur to me that, if it was right and proper for organs of the Press to discuss the merits between the holding of the inquiry and the verdict or report of the inspector, it was improper for me as a Member of your Lordships' House to do so. After all, we are not an organ of the Executive, and although we are part of the Legislature, now with considerably restricted functions, our main function, I think it is proper to say, is as an organ for the expression of public opinion. For all those reasons, I thought I was perfectly free on that occasion to discuss the question of merits.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord. Lord Chorley, into his technical and learned argument, for which, indeed, I am not professionally qualified; I propose only to add a few comments from the practical and administrative point of view. I can perhaps best put the kind of attitude that I should have thought was most reasonable and in the public interest, by referring to a more recent discussion in this House on March 1 on B.B.C. and I.T.V. questions which were, and are, under consideration by the Pilkington Committee. On the occasion of that debate, the Lord Chancellor in effect said that he, as a member of the Government which had appointed the Pilkington Committee, was necessarily to some extent—I am paraphrasing; I do not remember his exact words—inhibited in the expression of his opinion on the merits of the questions being considered by that Committee. But he added that he was sure that the Committee would be helped by the expressions of views taking place in this House on the occasion of that debate. I should like to see the same attitude taken with regard to discussions of problems that have been referred to
794
a public inquiry, or on which a public inquiry has been sitting, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
I appreciate there are differences. A body like the Pilkington Committee is, of course, composed of public people and is a composite body. In those respects, it is different from a public tribunal presided over by an inspector, normally a civil servant or an ex-civil servant. However, with great respect, it does not appear to me that those differences are of decisive importance or that they alter what seems to me the fact, that there is a much closer analogy between such a Committee and a public inquiry than there is between a court of law and a public inquiry.
Take, for example, the kind of questions that come up before a public inquiry under the Town and Country Planning Act. You have, on the one hand, normally and typically, a definite economic proposal with certain economic advantages, and with all the help of the relevant experts, and not infrequently with the involvement in some degree or another of a particular Department of the Government with its own experts. On the other hand, you have the public interest in the possibly threatened amenities of the countryside. Somehow or other there has to be a weighing of those not very easily commensurable considerations on the one side and the other. That seems to me extremely like the kind of question that is considered by a Royal Commission or by such a Committee as the Pilkington Committee, and very unlike the typical question before a court of law, "Is X guilty of this offence or not".
I think, therefore, that it is logical, and reasonable to assimilate the public inquiry rather to a Royal Commission than to a court of law. I think also that this is very much in the public interest, for this reason. I have said something of the advantage that the applicant for permission to develop a certain area has in having a concentrated interest and in having experts at his disposal. Against that, you have the dispersed public interest which is very hard to mobilise effectively, except at a time when it has been aroused by the announcement of a public inquiry; and at the inquiry itself it is very difficult to have the general public interest expressed in such a way as to be equipollent

795
to the presentation of the case of the applicant for the development. Therefore, as I say, I should have thought that if you were to get the best possible working of the public inquiry system it was desirable to allow and, indeed, encourage, a free expression of views, even after the inquiry, by those who are concerned with the general public interest and have some particular knowledge, either of the region concerned, or of the working of the Town and Country Planning Acts, that is relevant.
In those circumstances, I should have liked to ask the Government to make a somewhat different statement as to the proper guiding rule than that which the Lord Chancellor made on December 1. I am not going as far as that now. I would say only this: I think it is clear that some interpretation and supplementation of what he then said will anyhow be necessary. I am not quite sure, for example, whether it would result from what he then said that the closed period was from the time of the inquiry to the report of the inspector or, further than that, to the date at which the Minister gave his verdict. I am not sure whether he implied a distinction between this House, on the one hand, and organs for the expression of public opinion, such as the Press outside, on the other. But in any case, of course he had to speak, as Lord Chorley said, "off the cuff." I had given him no notice that I was raising a question of principle for the simple reason that I had not realised I was doing so, or was going to do so. Therefore he spoke at once without any such notice.
There have also been certain further developments which I think make it clear that there must be some further consideration of procedural matters in regard to these inquiries. I think, for example, that in a Written Answer the Lord Chancellor himself gave a few days ago with regard to the Saffron Walden case, the last sentence indicated that the Council on Tribunals would be considering not only the immediate relevant question to that case of third parties, but also other questions of procedure. All I am going to ask now is that, if that is, as I believe it to be, the case, a sufficient time should be allowed and encouragement given for those individuals or institutions which
796
have relevant experience of the working of the Town and Country Planning Acts, and of these public inquiries, to consider the procedural problems involved and express their views, whether in public or in representations to the Government, before any definite and final line is taken which will govern procedure in future.
5.0 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I was present upon the occasion which has given rise to this debate, and I must say that I was considerably surprised when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack administered such a sharp rebuke to the noble Lord who has just spoken; because it also had never occurred to me that what he was doing was discussing a matter which was sub judice in the general way in which lawyers understand that expression. I have still a considerable amount of difficulty in thinking that the proceedings before an inspector appointed to hold an inquiry on a town planning matter are quite on a par with judicial proceedings as we understand them. There is no definite point of law to be decided; there is not a claim by A against B, or an allegation that somebody has broken the law—which is the kind of point that judicial bodies have to decide. What has to be decided, in the end, is what is or is not to the public advantage in a particular case, having regard, no doubt, to a certain extent to the expectations of individuals who happen to own land and are hoping to develop it in a certain way.
My experience of such an inquiry has shown me that it is very far from being a judicial proceeding, in the way in which we understand such things, because I have a vivid recollection of being pulled up by an inspector conducting one town planning inquiry. When I was cross-examining a witness I was told that I had not the right to ask any questions at all—which I believe was a statement of fact—and, still more embarrassingly, was asked to justify the questions which I was asking. And nothing can be more ruinous to a cross-examination than to have to reveal to the person being examined the purpose of the questions which you are gradually leading up to.
However, to come back to what happened in this House, although I would not accept the general proposition that

797
this was a matter which was sub judice and in regard to which any comment, either here or in the Press, or anywhere else, was virtually contempt of court, I do understand, and I think it is correct, that it is a very difficult thing for such a question to be raised at that stage in either House of Parliament. After all, the Minister, or the person who speaks on behalf of the Minister, is not in a position at that stage to say anything at all; and therefore there cannot be a reply on his behalf to the points which have been raised. He is seized of the matter upon which he has to give a decision as impartially and honestly as he possibly can, and I think that the only way in which he can come to his decision is in the quietude and privacy of his own Department, without being subjected to speeches, pro and con, in this House or in the other.
That seems to me to be a practical reason why speeches dealing with the marks of something which has to be decided by a Minister after a public inquiry ought not to be made in Parliament, because there they cannot be answered on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the Minister, and they can be distinctly embarrassing to the quietude of mind and the impartiality with which he ought to consider his inspector's report and approach a decision. On that account, I think it is correct that these matters ought not to be discussed here when they have reached that stage.
LORD SALTER: Might I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that his argument would have been equally applicable to the debate on March 1, when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said quite frankly that he could not speak as freely on the merits as he would in other circumstances, but also said that the fact that the debate had taken place was likely to be of advantage to the Pilkington Committee? I suggest that while we all recognise the point raised by the noble Lord, it does not, on balance, tip the scales to the point of making it desirable to lay down a rule that, while other people are free to discuss, neither House of Parliament should say a word.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: With all respect to the noble Lord, I do not think those things are on a par at
798
all. A Committee of Inquiry or a Royal Commission, or some body of that kind, is appointed in order to collect evidence and to present a conclusion for the benefit of Ministers, for the benefit of Parliament, for the benefit of the country generally; and that is all. There is no question there of the kind which arises in a town planning inquiry where, in the end, a decision has to be given which affects the rights of a particular individual. I have said that it is not in the nature of a litigation between one person and another, but it does affect the rights of an individual who happens to own land and who desires to develop it in a certain way. In that sense it is much more analogous to a judicial proceeding than anything which can take place before a Royal Commission or some other body appointed to conduct in a more or less abstract way a general inquiry on a matter of public policy.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion and I think it falls to me to answer it, not because, for reasons I shall give, I have any authority to lay down and define rules, in spite of the numerous invitations which have been directed to me to do so, but because this is a matter of the practice of the House and not really a legal question at all. I think it should be looked at in that light.
I should emphasise this point: that in a court of law rules, as they are called, tend to crystallise out into technical doctrines which can be formulated, put into textbooks and made the subject of judicial decision and appeal. And for quite separate sets of reasons the decisions of the Speaker in another place tend to crystallise, too, and to reach an almost legal clarity. This has never been so with the so-called Rules of practice in this House, al though they are capable of enforcement. This House is the guardian of its own Rules of Order; and, except where it has laid down those Rules in the terms of a Standing Order (which even then it is at liberty to interpret reasonably, or even by Resolution to suspend), I think it is and should remain presumptuous of anyone to seek to lay down general rules in advance of cases.
I start from the premise upon which the noble Lord, Lard Chorley, founded a good deal of his argument. His Motion

799
began, and I thought rightly began, by referring to the practice which restricts debate on matters that are sub judice in the courts. But in the course of his speech he constantly referred to it as the sub judice rule I think it is my duty to point out that this practice itself is not referred to anywhere in the Standing Orders of this House. In fact, quite unlike the parallel position in another place, which I think should never be referred to as a binding or even a persuasive precedent upon ourselves, it has never been referred to at all. In a sense, therefore, there is no sub judice rule to interpret in this House—in a sense, because it has never been formulated at all, even in relation to the courts.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount is in effect repeating what I said: that it has never been applied in this House but as a matter of good sense.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that I was going quite so far as that, but I was going at least as far as this: I have made great efforts to find in Erskine May, for instance, any reference to a rule in the House of Lords known as the "sub-judice rule". The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, quite rightly pointed out that all the instances he had found related to another place. I think that is in fact significant. But, since it has never 'been referred to before, I myself have no doubt that there is in fact a rule of practice recognised by this House, and that this House would in fact enforce a rule of practice if it felt it desirable to do so in the circumstances of a particular case. The absence of reference in the books and in the previous debates is due, I should have said, not to the fact that the practice does not exist, but to the fact that it has been universally observed in relation to the courts of law.
I notice that there is one exception to what I have already said, but I think it confirms it. I notice that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack referred to the existence of a general sub-judice rule on July 23, 1959, in relation to the case of Podola, and that his reference was endorsed on that occasion by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition and was not questioned by anybody at the time. That is to say, the
800
reference was before the incident which gave rise to the present Motion. I should myself say that it refers to a universally recognised, but never previously referred to, and never previously defined, practice in this House which noble Lords in fact observe, and which the House would enforce if it thought that a sufficiently grave case of breach had arisen.
The convenience of such a Rule in any House of Parliament is obvious, because in order that justice may be done it is important that two things should happen: first, that the courts, whether they are juries or judges, should be left to form their own conclusions free from political or external pressures of any kind; and secondly, that they should found those decisions upon evidence heard or tested at the trial, and not on matters given contemporarily but extraneously to the trial, because if they founded their conclusions upon the latter kind of material the parties would have no opportunity of answering it, and justice would therefore not be done.
The question which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has raised is whether, and, if so, to what extent, this rather indefinite but almost universally recognised practice applies to a debate on the proceedings of what he refers to in his Motion as a departmental inquiry. This is clearly a wider question and a somewhat different question, and it is one upon which I personally am quite unable to find any precedent at all, apart from the particular incident on December 1 last which gave rise to the Motion. It is, I think, worth while my stating, although, as I have said, it is not a precedent for us, that so far as I can find out the other place, too, has not as yet developed a crystallised ruling on the matter. It is fairly plain, and I think it has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the hearings of such inquiries have not been protected by contempt of court procedures, which have a certain analogy although they are not the same; and I believe that, in actual practice, comment, at least in the localities where they are held, is fairly uninhibited. In these circumstances, I think I should he wrong to try to attempt anything like a crisp ruling on this matter, even if I were entitled to do so, which I am not.
The Motion refers to departmental inquiries. These may, of course, take many

801
forms, from the most private and informal to the most formal and public, and I think it would clearly be wrong to expect a single practice to cover them all. In what I am saying now I am confining myself to public local inquiries set up by a Minister, usually, I think, the Minister of Housing, under Parliamentary sanction. It is about this that the debate has in fact revolved, and it was probably what the noble Lord intended. Certainly, it was such an inquiry which gave rise to the debate last December to which he referred. But even these must have quite different subject matters, from the most general to the most particular; and this, I think, is a fact which, to some extent, explains some of the differences of opinion that have emerged during the course of the few speeches. For instance, one cannot really compare, as I think my noble friend Lord Salter tried to do, the kind of inquiry which could conceivably be the subject of a Royal Commission, like broadcasting and commercial television, with something like the case of a man who wants to convert the front room of his house for the purposes of trade which is to be carried on from his home.
I am told that this has been the subject of a recent public local inquiry instituted by the Minister of Housing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, quite rightly pointed out, in such a case, and in many of these public local inquiries you have something which in some ways is almost analogous to the situation in the courts. You have a man trying to defend 'his rights against either another man, or sometimes against a public authority. He wants to argue his case; he wants to call witnesses and to deal with evidence. It may be that the evidence is not the formal kind of oral testimony upon which the courts of law will insist at Common Law, but, none the less, he wants to ensure that he is dealing with the matters which will really influence the position of the case—indeed, I do not suppose he would bother to come to an inquiry, or that the inquiry would have any validity for him or for the public, if he thought that he was going to argue one set of arguments but that somewhere else, where he did not get access, where he could not deal with it, somebody else was going to put forward another set of arguments to which he had not opportunity of replying, and these were going
802
to carry the day against him. I should think that that should give one cause to reflect.
Moreover, although I would agree that there is a certain analogy with contempt of court, I think one has to be pretty careful about applying that here, too. It may be desirable for public opinion to manifest itself in various ways, but it may happen that at the same time it is out of order to discuss this kind of matter in Parliament. The obvious case where this may be so is in the reprieve cases, where public opinion is often extremely vocal about the desirability or otherwise of the prerogative of mercy; but, certainly in another place, and I suspect also here, it would be considered improper to canvass it before a certain event. Other things are debatable in Parliament which cannot be freely discussed outside. Sometimes subjects cannot be debated on television. There was at one time a 14-day rule of which we have all heard. Therefore, I think one should be careful of taking too many analogies in this matter, and that we should really work out our own salvation according to our traditional methods.
In the particular matter, if viewed from this point of view, looking at it not as a question of law but rather as a question of common sense, there were a good many arguments in favour of the line taken by my noble and learned friend as a guide for practice. To begin with, I am sure that the debates on the Franks Committee in your Lordships' House will be fresh in your memory. In those debates the local public inquiry loomed rather large, as I remember well. Noble Lords on all sides of the House—and I remember particularly the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but there were many others—pressed my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack very hard on that occasion to equate inquiries with the judicial rather than the administrative in various ways; partly that he should insist that his own Department rather than the Minister should appoint the inspector. But there were many ways in which the argument was then put.
It was strongly supported in many quarters that the procedure should be treated as a judicial rather than an administrative device, and in any case

803
as a judicial rather than a political matter. In the end, the House accepted my noble and learned friend's advice, which was that the Franks Committee had been right to draw a balance between the administrative, political side of this matter and the judicial side; and I would say that the truth is that these public local inquiries are nearly always hybrid procedures, taking some of the elements from both types; and it is rather difficult to generalise because, in fact, it may be in relation to one case rather than another that the judicial may come out on top and be more prominent and the more important side, while in another case the matter may turn on an issue of policy, as to which the judicial is less important.
I should have said that my noble and learned friend has attempted to keep a balance between these elements and there is at any rate one set of factors which I believe tells strongly in his favour. It is, if I mistake not, that set of factors put forward partly by my noble and learned friend, Lord Conesford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. After all, Parliament has set up the machinery under which these inquiries function, and I am sure that neither House of Parliament would seek by its own action in debate to stultify what it has quite deliberately, by Act of Parliament, set out to achieve; and I am very sure that no Member of either House would wish, by his speeches, to be the means of that happening.
The object of these inquiries is to enable individuals and public authorities and, indeed, whole communities, and in extreme cases the national community, to get a fair hearing and have their case put where their own or public interests are affected—and before the Minister makes up his mind. It follows that the wells of justice should surely not be poisoned by intervention. After all, the inspector is a paid official. He is far more vulnerable in that way than a High Court Judge. A High Court Judge is protected by his professional training. Also, he is protected by the Constitution from removal; and I should have thought that the inspector ought to be to a great extent allowed to operate and continue his inquiry in an atmosphere free from lobbies and pressures.
804
I am sure that whatever else is true, my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford was right in suggesting that at least the Minister should be silent on matters until the evidence is complete. I understood that my noble friend Lord Salter, agreed with that. After all, people who feel strongly can come and give evidence, and others who feel strongly in the opposite direction can then argue with them, and the thing can be assembled, marshalled, brought together and finally determined. Surely, that is a better course than for some to seek to influence the decision from a point of vantage from which they cannot be answered, whether that place be the columns of a newspaper or Parliament itself.
If my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is to be pressed, as he is currently being pressed in relation to the Saffron Walden inquiry, as noble Lords will have seen in the columns of The Times newspaper to-day, to enforce upon his colleagues the view that in many respects they must not go to private and extraneous sources for information and advice (and up to a point he agrees, although in the particular case of the Saffron Walden inquiry he thought that the advice sought was reasonable)—if he is to be pressed on those lines, then surely it must be right, as a matter of practice and personal responsibility, that noble Lords and honourable Members of another place (although I have no right to speak about them) and those who want to discuss the merits should do so before the start of any inquiry and not use Parliament as a forum to ventilate their views.
I am neither authorised nor prepared to lay down a hard-and-fast rule in these cases, and I think precedents would give me small justification for trying to do so; but I should simply think, as a matter of sense, that when these inquiries are pending the House would do well, on the whole, to respect the independence of the inspector and do its best to ensure that the result of that inquiry is not only fair but is seen to be fair.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount to confirm or correct two points. In the first place, if I heard him aright, he is making a distinction between the freedom to discuss in the period

805
in question in this House and the freedom of the Press or other organs of public opinion to do so. In the second place, may I ask him whether it is not true that on December 1 last there had been no guiding rule or precedent to limit discussion in this House in the circumstances in question?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as regards the second question, that is certainly true. There has been no precedent or ruling. As regards the first, I would say as a matter of general observation that I should think this House ought to decide its own conduct without particular reference to the other kinds of public expression of opinion which may or may not be desirable, and which do not depend so much as the practice of this House does upon the sense of responsibility of individual people. They have to be curbed, if they are curbed at all, by legal processes which sometimes are worse than the disease.
5.29 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, and I am gratified by the general course of the discussion. I do not want to take much more of your Lordships' time. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that I was glad to find him in agreement with my general argument. I do not think the difficulty he raised is in any sense insuperable. I believe it will be handled by a Minister when it comes up—which will not be very often—in the kind of way in which the noble and learned Viscount handled the broadcasting case. He will say that the arguments have been listened to, and that he will bring them to the attention of his right honourable friend—as so often happens; indeed, as has happened at an earlier stage here this afternoon, once if not twice. The matters that have been brought forward will be before the Minister when he comes to make up his mind, and that is, after all, what this type of political decision requires: that the Minister should have all the relevant material before him; what comes out of the inquiry being just a rather important group of facts forming part of the dossier.
I think that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has
806
really put the matter in proper perspective when he says that it is a matter for the good sense of the House; that different types of case will require a different attitude from noble Lords. That obviously is so. In the sort of small case in which a man's residence is the whole subject of the inquiry, clearly nobody is going to initiate a debate in this House. But in a case like the North Oxfordshire iron case or the Piccadilly Circus case, or cases of that type, the interests of a very large section of the public are concerned; and the matter is one of real political significance in which it is not only right that Members of Parliament should express their views but, in my submission, their duty to do so. This, I think, is the answer to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. Some cases should be treated with a kind of sub judice approach; others not.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for yielding. He has two or three times referred to the Piccadilly Circus case. I took a fairly prominent part in that, but all the interventions in this House were before the inquiry had been set up. There was no discussion in this House after the appointment of the inspector.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not saying that there was. I was saying merely that that is the sort of case in which I should have regarded it as apparently legitimate that there should be, and it differentiates it from the sort of case to which my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch was referring.
I was a little sorry that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, did not discuss in more detail the limits of the period of abstention. He seemed to carry it right down to the time when the Minister gives his decision, which I would have thought takes it too far. However, these matters will no doubt come out in the washing. I am sure that the discussion which we have had this afternoon is of very considerable value in regard to these matters; and I hope, for that reason, that the Motion, which I now beg leave to withdraw, has been a useful one.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TOXIC CHEMICALS AND WILD LIFE
5.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the catastrophic casualties caused to game and wild life, especially during the last few weeks, which are attributable to the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture, and to ask what immediate steps they propose to take to deal with this urgent problem. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question on the Order Paper. I realise that its words are very strong, and I shall do my best to justify them and prove, as I hope, that they are not too strong. I should like, first of all, to say how glad I am that my noble friend Lord Walston is to make his maiden speech. With his wide knowledge of this subject I am sure that his contribution will be of great value and interest. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who has been so active in this field, is not able to be here; but I have his blessing, as your Lordships would expect, in regard to this matter. I am also extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has apparently been silenced or is, for some reason, unable to take part in this debate.
My Lords, I am very conscious that this is an extremely difficult and complex matter and that there is nothing to be gained by scaremongering or attacking farmers or attacking manufacturers, or even attacking the Government, although I shall have something to say later on about the Government. But the situation is a very dangerous one. I say this in the full knowledge that these chemicals have been of very great value to agriculture, not merely in this country but throughout the world, an4 that it is of profound importance that we should be able to have these aids to greater productivity. I believe that something like 80 per cent. are weed killers and are not dangerous, at least to animal life, in the majority of cases.
I raised this matter in the debate on science last November in which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke. On that occasion he made no comment at all about the
808
dangers of the situation that were arising or my plea for a greater emphasis by the Government in regard to scientific research in the field of ecology. I would stress again what I am sure all your Lordships are aware of: that it is dangerous to interfere with nature without some regard to the consequences of your action. Of course any agriculture or forestry, or any of these activities, involves such interference. Nobody is suggesting that that is undesirable, although it carries its own dangers. Noble Lords are as well aware as anyone of the dangers of the wrong sort of agriculture and of the total destruction of large areas of the world by bad husbandry. I am well aware that much has been done in this matter and that a great deal of responsible action has been shown by many people, whether they be farmers or manufacturers or the Government. This does not, however, conceal the fact that we are faced by a really critical situation.
In the Report of the Nature Conservancy last year they made reference to, and a warning about, the wild life casualties that occurred, particularly in the spring, and to the mysterious deaths of large numbers of birds, allegedly due to the use of toxic sprays. They went into great length on the question of the heavy mortality of foxes, which is a matter I referred to in the debate last November, and which at that time was believed by many people to be due to a virus disease. The Nature Conservancy, on the investigations they then made, said that
"…this investigation, though by no means conclusive, suggests that seed dressing with dieldrin and similar chemicals may well be a cause of the heavy Fox mortality."
They gave descriptions of unusual events, of sick foxes being found wandering in such unlikely localities as the yard of a master of a particular fox hunt. But there was no conclusive evidence, although there was strong circumstantial evidence at the time, of the cause of these fatalities.
The Government took action and an Inter-Departmental Advisory Committee was set up, then later a special Committee was set up to study the need for further research into the effect of the use of toxic chemicals. But the atmosphere hitherto has rather been one of, "This may be a serious problem, but we

809
cannot interfere with processes of agriculture and we hope that everything will be all right." Sir William Slater, who was formerly Secretary of the Agricultural Research Council, wrote an article in the New Scientist, which, on the whole, took the point of view that these chemicals were of such value that we must, within reason, be prepared to put up with some disadvantages. He did say, however:
"Any signs of widespread destruction of wild life attributable to the use of a particular chemical would bring an immediate demand from farmers for an alternative, and a fall in sales."
He went on:
"The manufacturer also knows that any evidence of serious risk to the human population would result in the prohibition of the use of the substance responsible. A part from these weighty commercial considerations, the chemical manufacturer is as anxious as anyone, for purely humanitarian reasons, not to cause unnecessary pain or suffering."
My Lords, for the second year in succession heavy casualties have been reported, both of birds and, to a lesser extent, of mammals, and they have been reported from all over England. Significantly, they have coincided with the spring sowing. There is undoubted proof that, in 19 out of 20 samples analysed through the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, death has been caused by seed dressings, and there is good circumstantial evidence for the same causes for most of the others. On one estate in Lincolnshire the number of wood pigeons killed went into thousands. Agriculturists may say that that is a good thing—although it is, of course, forbidden to kill pigeons by poison bait of that kind. But it was not only pigeons: 33 pheasant, 14 partridge, 14 long-eared owl, 5 tawny owl and 5 sparrow hawk were also killed. It is probable that the bird predator population in this area has been virtually destroyed.
There is also new evidence which has been collected by the Game Research Association, and I should like to read out the list of dead birds that were collected, in the space of 11· hours, on one well-known estate in Norfolk. There were 32 pheasants, 15 red-legged partridges, one partridge, 284 wood pigeons, 59 greenfinches, 24 chaffinches, 5 blackbirds, 1 song thrush, 5 skylarks, 5 moorhens, 11 bramblings—whidi, in-
810
cidentally, are specially protected; they are in the First Schedule—and many other birds, including the predators. A total, of well over 600 birds was picked up in the course of that 11·-hour search on one relatively small area of about 500 to 1,000 acres.
I have in my hand (I will not go through them all) no fewer than 30 reports of a similar kind from all over the country. In one report, for instance—from Tunby, in Lincolnshire—there were found 39 pheasants and many other birds which again are protected, among them 2 racing pigeons. It has been alleged that disappearance of some racing pigeons has been due to the activities of predatories; but the evidence, I am afraid, is circumstantial. Indeed, the evidence of the actual analyses that have been made of some of the birds, shows that they were killed by toxic chemicals. In these circumstances I think the word "catastrophic", if we were to extend this all over the country, would certainly not be excessive. There are, I admit, existing arrangements for voluntary co-operation to prevent these difficulties, but the fact is that they do not seem to be effective. The agricultural chemists seem to have achieved a record in regard to the countryside that the Borgias would envy.
My Lords, this is a very serious matter, because we are interfering, to a degree that has not been equalled since the inclosures, with the course of nature. Indeed, the chemicalisation of the countryside may have as profound an effect as the inclosures did. The only difference is that we do not yet know, nor have we any idea, what the long-term side-effects of the use of certain of these materials will be. Another striking thing is that if it were not for the action of private individuals, and of organisations like the British Ornithological Trust and the other bodies that I have already mentioned, the public and the Government would not have been provided with the information necessary to assess the seriousness of the situation. It seems that the situation is truly deplorable. There are real implications of wholesale poisoning; and, my Lords, existing arrangements do not seem to be adequate in regard to putting pressure on chemical firms to produce less toxic seed dressings. Under present arrangements, there does not seem to be

811
much hope that the situation will improve.
My Lords, those of us (and I am quite sure they include the great majority of the people in this country, and certainly in your Lordships' House) who refuse to tolerate the present situation do not wish to do any damage to agriculture; but the fact that we are now seeing wild life eliminated quite unnecessarily—and I stress the words "quite unnecessarily"—gives us very serious grounds for complaining and urging the Government to take this matter a great deal more seriously than they appear to have done so far. Quite apart from the æstbetic and humanitarian grounds, there is a real economic risk in the extermination of wild life. We do not know what the ultimate effect may be of the use of these chemicals. The destruction of wood pigeons on a particular estate does not necessarily mean that the farmers will suffer any the less from wood pigeons. The long-term effect of preservation measures (and those of your Lordships who are involved in agriculture will know this extremely well) cannot always be foreseen, and merely wiping out a particular species in a particular area at one time does not mean that they may not be bothered by the same species or, indeed, by others.
The schemes which exist are not, in my opinion, adequate for dealing with the situation, and my first concern is with the attitude of the Government themselves. When the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, asked a Question earlier this year, the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in a long reply, and in the series of replies which followed, made a statement in which he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 229, No. 50, col. 512]:
"…my information is that the manufacturers are doing a great deal of research on this subject and that the Government research organisations are co-operating with them in that research."
I would ask the noble Earl to justify that statement this afternoon, because it is my information that in fact the chemical manufacturers are doing practically nothing in the way of long-term ecological research. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to withdraw that remark, but that is my information and the result of my research. In fact, a very well-known chemical supplier remarked to a
812
friend of mine, a well-known ecologist, that they did not regard it as their responsibility to investigate the side-effects of their chemicals, which, he said, could be tested only in practice.
My Lords, when it comes to the Government, the situation is really pathetic. Only in the last two years has any research been set in train at all, and it is at the moment being done by two people in the Nature Conservancy. I think there may be four or five others concerned in the Agricultural Research Council, but this is very different from the reply that the noble Earl gave when he said that there had been
"a great deal of research on this subject and that the Government research organisations are co-operating with them".
I only wish that there were some Government research organisations to provide that co-operation. By "research", I mean real research on the lone-term effects: not merely a committee deciding what might be done. The situation was made a little worse by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who suggested (I do not wish to press him on this point, because he was speaking during one of his more philosophical moments) that this was not the responsibility of the Agricultural Research Council at all. We should like to know what the Government's attitude in this matter is, and whether they will, in fact, face up to their responsibilities.
The question, then, is: What in fact can we do? I have already said that it is no part of my case to make a general attack on the use of chemicals, but there is little doubt that the use of seed dressed with dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor or similar products is responsible for this massacre in the countryside. When we look at the agricultural chemical scheme we find that it is there laid down that certain highly desirable and worthy objects should be achieved. It is laid down in a particular paper, which is called Notification of Pesticides; Scheme agreed between Government and Industry, that in the voluntary notification of chemicals the manufacturer is required to state whether there is any risk, or extension of risk, to the user of the product, or the consumer of the dressed crop, or to wild life. In the actual details of the notification scheme, wild life is specifically mentioned—birds, mammals and beneficial insects. When

813
we look at the actual list of chemicals, there is no mention at all of risk to wild life, except in regard to bees, and one D.D.T. product in relation to fish.
I should like to know how it is that these items have appeared in the list and have failed to fulfil the requirements of the voluntary scheme. Either the information was not given, or false information was given, or it was ignored. I understand that this is a matter to which the Government have given some attention, and that arrangements have been made that the effects on wild life with new chemicals will be notified. But it is of profound importance that notification should be made at the earliest stage, and that the long-term consequences should be backed up by some real understanding of the questionable effects, from a long-term point of view, of the use of these chemicals.
We have now to consider what is to be done, and whether in fact we can wait for the Report of the Government-appointed Committees. There are a number of courses of action which I should like to urge upon the noble Earl and which I would ask the Government, even if they cannot give an answer today, to consider. First of all, there may be some interim administrative measures they could take, including, above all, publicity, so as not only to avoid the disasters which have occurred in 1960 and 1961 but to prevent an even worse disaster in 1962. They may have to consider additional control by legislation of the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture. Above all, they must provide finance for long-term research instead of the miserable amount which is at present available in regard to this matter.
There may be certain other things which might be done. It might be possible that there could be some voluntary abandonment of the use of certain toxic seed dressings, but I suspect that this is not the right way to approach it. It would be far better if there were some reasonable restriction on their use, particularly the use of the dual-purpose seed dressings, the ones which include not only dieldrin but possibly mercury as well; they should be used only when there is a definite indication of the need for their use. I understand that at the present moment—and my noble friend Lord Walston and the noble Earl
814
will be able to confirm whether this is so—many farmers do not know what dressings they are using, and the corn merchants, whose job it is, after all, to push up their sales, are selling some of these products without regard to their needs. We would not tolerate any chemist doing this with regard to drugs for human beings.
It may be argued that there is a difference between the two. But would it not he possible to treat this matter in the same sort of way and allow its use where there is a real need; where, for instance, an official of the National Agricultural Advisory Service recommended it? If there were an undoubted high presence of wireworm or wheat bulb fly infestation, then it would be used, but not used indiscriminately, as it is now a great deal. If some of these chemicals were even then found, after experience, to be exceptionally dangerous to wild life, then either they should be withdrawn voluntarily, as has been done by the chemical manufacturers already in regard to the arsenites, or they should be prohibited by law. Other proposals, with which I will not weary your Lordships, have come from other bodies. The Game Research Association has again set forward definite proposals for dealing with this problem, and it is clear that something is going to be expected from the Government and from the industry.
I do not myself see how we can ask the individual farmer to solve this problem by himself. He is not in a position, in many cases, to do so. It has been argued by some (and I am not in a position to judge) that the good and very efficient farmer does not need to make much use of toxic chemicals. There is no doubt that the good farmer has a proper attitude of trusteeship to his land, and regards it as a trust of which he is going to make the best use. There is a need to help him. There are other methods of control. For example, there was one which was evolved, but which, I believe, came to nothing, by Sir Alexander Todd for producing a synthetic potato juice which would mislead the eel worm into producing at the wrong time of year, when the potatoes were not there, and as a result the land was cleared. This came to nothing, as I say, but it seems to me to be the type of biological control which would be

815
much more preferable. Then there is the specific control, the material evolved by, I think, Doctor Picket, for controlling the codling moth in apple orchards, and this was specific only to the codling moth.
What has happened this year, and in the last two years, is the first of the big outbreaks. I am told by friends of mine who are biologists that it is just pure luck that there have not been others already, but that we shall certainly not succeed in avoiding new ones in the future. If the Minister were to think the use of the word "catastrophic" excessive, then I should like to point out that this is a word used recently by the Nature Conservancy. There is a possibility of outbreaks of many kinds as a result of using chemicals of the long-term effects of which we are unaware.
My Lords, I should like to sum up. The position seems to me to be this. That it is wrong to destroy wild life heedlessly, I think we should all agree. In my youth I used to collect birds eggs. Nowadays nobody collects birds eggs. It will progressively make the country a great deal duller if we destroy everything which is part of the nature of the countryside. Most serious of all, the effects on life are only partly known, indeed, are largely unknown, and it is going to take a long time, I admit, to understand the full consequences of the use of these chemicals. I stress again that these consequences are very long in their effect. There is a report from America—I do not think I have it with me—of an investigation carried out with regard to the destruction of robins in one area. It was found that they had largely been wiped out as the result of eating worms which had themselves eaten insects which had been attacked by chemicals for a perfectly valid agricultural reason. We do not know what these long-term effects will be; and if we are to criticise the destruction of game in Africa, then I think we have to make sure that our own hands are clean in this matter.
In the last century, a great deal of damage was done to this country during the Industrial Revolution—I have mentioned this in the House before. We look back now and wish that it had not been done. We have now moved into the age when we can say that chemicali-
816
sation of the countryside is taking place. It is because these chemicals are being used everywhere. We do not know yet what the long-term effects will be, but I am sure that subsequent generations will not forgive us if we do not take some forethought as to what we are doing. I should like to make a plea that, whatever short-term steps the Government take, they will give more support to ecological research. This involves much more support and a complex approach to our problems. If we are introducing these complicated things, then complications are bound to follow, and the effects are of a kind which will soon arouse a good deal of feeling among the public.
I have a letter here, which I will not read to your Lordships, on the horrible effects on birds of some of these chemicals. Many of your Lordships will have seen it in Country Life. And we all remember the public reaction to myxomatosis. I am fully aware of the value of these chemicals, but we are playing with dangerous things. To-day the public are fully conscious of the dangers of radioactivity and the Government have taken every sort of step to limit them, but these chemicals may be equally dangerous. I will not go so far as to say that they are dangerous to human life, but certainly dogs have been killed through eating birds that have been poisoned in this way, and I know people who have already decided never again to eat pheasants and partridges. For my own part, I should be extremely sorry if I were deprived of that pleasure, but unless something is done, we shall be confronted by a real public reaction. We cannot go on, whether in the name of freedom or anything else, irresponsibly destroying what is part not only of our heritage, but of the heritage of posterity.
6.2 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is the convention, I am told, on the occasion of one's maiden speech, to ask for your Lordships' indulgence. It is probable that some who speak for the first time in your Lordships' House have had experience elsewhere and ask for that indulgence purely as a matter of form, and for no other reason. They have served their apprenticeship elsewhere. I can assure the House that in my case these are no idle words that I use. My task is made easier by the great friendship and kindness which, in

817
the relatively short time I have spent among your Lordships, I have already encountered from all sides. I suppose that my task is also made easier because this subject, on which I am happy to follow my noble friend Lord Shackleton, is one which is of real importance.
Some people may say that it does not matter much if a few birds die here and there: there are plenty in the country, and in any case nobody looks at them. I do not know what are the actual implications of this slaughter that is going on. In a matter of percentages, I do not know whether it is 1, 5 or 10 per cent. But I do know that in certain areas it is large, and I would suggest to the noble Earl, when he eventually comes to answer, that he might tell us what steps, if any, are being taken to secure more statistical information about this, so that we know just where we are: whether we are dealing with a few isolated outbreaks, which have been blown up into large importance by a small number of people, or whether this really is, as I strongly suspect, a national problem.
The point of my noble friend's speech which I should like to follow is not the question of the extinction of bird life in the countryside. I confess that, as a farmer, I should be delighted if I found far fewer birds about, just as I was delighted when I found that there were far fewer rabbits. I might even say that I should be delighted to see fewer hares: and the loss of foxes, too, would not upset me very much. It is not this question that I want to deal with, but the whole question of the balance of nature, which is quite clearly being interfered with at the present time.
My Lords, I am not against interfering with the balance of nature. You cannot be a farmer and not spend your whole life interfering with it—that is what agriculture is. Nature gives us fen country, swamps and marshes; we drain them, and they become fertile. Nature sends us a drought, and we irrigate. And nature certainly never intended the common cow to do anything other than munch a few mouthfuls of grass and suckle one calf every year. It was no part of nature ever to stuff that animal with all sorts of cattle foods and feeding-stuffs, so that she will produce enough food for ten or twenty calves every day. So let us not be put off by talk about "interfering with nature," let us go on
818
interfering with nature. But the more we do it, the more careful we must be to see that the results we are achieving are the results we wish to achieve.
My noble friend has already referred to some mistakes which have been made in the past by interference with the balance of nature. The dust bowls of America, the eroded mountains of the Dalmatian Coast and of North Africa—all in their days highly fertile cultivated areas producing food for the world, have gone; and it will require a great deal of effort and a great deal of cost to bring them back. That is something which this country—and indeed, the world—cannot afford to allow to happen. At the present time, with the methods of communication, of mass dissemination, of advertising, public and private, and of Governmental instruction, the results of a mistaken policy are 10 times-100 times—worse than they would have been 50 years ago. That means that our care must be very much greater, to make certain that we do not get off on the wrong foot.
Chemical fertilisers, chemical sprays, hormone sprays—all these things are to-day an essential part of modern agriculture, and without them we could not make even the very poor attempt we are making at the moment to banish hunger from the world. But this is not the sort of thing about which we can sit back and say, as Sir William Slater suggested, that we can leave it to the manufacturers not to produce something that is harmful or that they will not sell it if they do. To a limited extent, that is true. They will not deliberately put on to the market something that they know is going to be harmful; and they certainly will not expect to sell, for instance, to the farmers of East Anglia, any form of compound which is going to reduce the partridge and pheasant population. To that extent, Sir William Slater is correct in what he says. The problem, however, goes much deeper than that. The implications of the use of these modern methods is so much greater that we cannot sit back and leave it to private enterprise to get on with the job.
This fact was recognised by Governments in the past. I expect that we shall be reminded, as many noble Lords themselves will remember, that in the late '40s a Committee was set up, under the

819
chairmanship of Sir Solly Zuckerman, to inquire into the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture. That Committee made three reports. The first one was simply on toxic chemicals in agriculture, published in April, 1951. There was a second one, dealing specifically with residues in food, in April, 1953. The last one, published in June, 1955, dealt specifically with the risk to wild life. But even the last one was published nearly six years ago. Its recommendations were designed to make sure that the sort of thing which is happening to-day would not happen.
My Lords, I do not want to find fault with the findings of that Committee. They seem to me very sensible. And, with the little knowledge I have, I do not want to find fault with the work of such inter-departmental committees as may have been set up as the result of the recommendations of that Committee. But it seems to me to be clear that whatever steps were taken to implement the findings of this Committee have so far failed, just as it also seems fairly clear that such work as is being done (and there is some work being done, as your Lordships may know: Professor Blackman at Oxford is and has been for many years carrying on a general ecological study of these problems) is not sufficient for what is happening to-day.
I do ask your Lordships not to sit back and say: "Well, this is a tiresome problem; but, after all, we may enjoy our pheasants over-ripe, or high or low; we may enjoy our foxes; we may not like to see the song birds and thrushes lying dead in the hedges (and, in fact, we do not think many of them do), so let it go through the normal channels. It is only a small problem, and we have more important things to think about." Looked at in that way, there are more important things to think about. But looked at simply as one symptom of the results which can come about through fighting nature; through unbalancing the existing balance that has established itself; through ignoring the ecological implications; through ignoring the vast chain reactions which can be set up through one comparatively simple application of one comparatively simple chemical formula—looked at in that light, this surely is a problem on which the Government must take positive
820
action of their own, and must enlist all that body of technical help that exists—the manufacturers themselves; the Agricultural Research Council; the universities and, one might even hope, the Royal Agricultural Society, which should be intimately connected and concerned with this matter. I do ask your Lordships to regard it in this light, and to make sure that the damage which to-day is being seen so clearly in certain of our fields and in certain parts of our countryside is not allowed to spread wide into far greater fields, which can have a far more serious effect on the whole rural life of this country and upon its whole food-producing potentialities.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on his maiden speech, which I think we all realise was a remarkable speech. He is a well-known farmer, and he has brought out his points extremely well. I found his speech intensely interesting in every way, and it was no less remarkable for the fact that he only once, and that I think for a matter of seconds, looked at a note of any description. I can assure the noble Lord that speeches of that description are always welcome in this House, and I hope that we shall hear him on many more occasions, and soon.
There is no doubt that, as has been said by both noble Lords who have spoken, this is an important matter. The bird life of our country has been seriously affected. Many noble Lords will remember the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, which came to be known as the Tweedsmuir Act, because it was taken through the other place by Lady Tweedsmuir and through your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir. We spent a long time on the Bill in this House, and many of your Lordships will remember that it caused a lot of discussion and there were high feelings as to the birds that should or should not be protected. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that same of the birds found to be destroyed are what in the Army were called "top of the roll" of this list. It is strange to think that we bring in Acts of Parliament to prevent people from destroying birds, and yet by other means far more of them are destroyed than would have been in the normal way.

821
I am not an expert on these matters, but it seems to me that, whereas in most discussions there are two sides to the argument, in this case there are not, and no one is fighting anyone else. The farmers want to use aids for their production, and they want to use aids which are economical, but they have no desire to kill off the bird life or animal life of the country. The people who produce these toxic chemicals have no desire to kill off the wild life of the country. The Government are anxious that all parties should do well—the farmers and the people who make the chemicals. Again, the general public want to see the bird life and animal life protected; and they want to see the farmers happy, in order that they may reap the good of the earth for their pleasure and for eating and for the general health of the country. So that really no one is against anyone else.
What we want to ask the Government to do as a matter of urgency is to collect together the experience of all those concerned and really get down to the problem in both the short term and the long term. Both noble Lords who have spoken have said that we do not know what is going to be the result of using all these chemicals; nobody knows. So far, it has not attacked many mammals. The noble Lord mentioned a dog. I have also heard of the case of a dog; and, strangely enough, only last week my own labrador appeared from somewhere with a dead and rather mangled pigeon in his mouth; I do not know where he had got it from. The first thing I did was to wash out his mouth, because I was terrified that this bird might have died through one of these chemicals. We do not know what is going to happen, and that is why, as the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Walston, have said, the whole position is serious. I would beg the Government to treat this matter as one of urgency and collect together all the agencies who are going in for research and really get out some plan.
6.19 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, has already said about the great pleasure it has been to listen to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Walston. When he started his remarks he made the
822
conventional remark about the nerves of maiden speakers. I did not share his apprehension, however, because for many years we have worked together on various agricultural projects, and I had same knowledge of the kind of speech that we were likely to hear from him. As a maiden speech it was a speech that had almost everything, in complete knowledge and grasp of the subject and in its presentation. I am sure that we shall all look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
I should also like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in his plea for urgency in this matter, so far as the Government are concerned. None of us wants to halt or handicap the farmers in the use of chemicals which will destroy pests or weeds, and thereby make cultivation and production easier and more prolific. But it seems to me that it is indiscriminate destruction. In other words, manufacturers invent a chemical which will do a certain job, without, apparently, finding out what other destruction it will cause. It is not merely a case, of course, of the cruel destruction of birds and mammals; it is the case that many of these sprays do a great deal of damage to crops in adjoining fields. It may be that farmers are careless, and do not judge the wind properly. Also, they may feel, "We are insured, anyway, so it does not matter". But a great deal of destruction can be wrought in a very short time. I had a personal experience of that myself, when a neighbouring farmer was spraying toxic chemicals to destroy weeds. He destroyed about four acres of a willow plantation of mine, at a cost of something like £2,000, in about half an hour. It was covered by insurance, but it is a most unpleasant business to have to prove these things, and it seems so utterly senseless not to find out first the possible damage which may be caused. That seems to be the core of the trouble.
One thing, I think, must be said. I know that my noble friend's Question deals with toxic chemicals. I do not know whether they could be described as toxic, 'but a great many of these chemicals are not harmful at all, except for the specific purpose for which they are intended. For example, every year, round about the end of May, my plantations are visited by billions of very pretty,

823
little golden beetles, and if they were left unattended in the space of three or four days they would virtually destroy the crop. We spray with a D.D.T. emulsion which takes the beetles away like magic, and the wilting crops recover. The D.D.T. emulsion, although it does the particular job, is not only not a bit harmful to the plant, but is not in any way harmful to any other form of life, even to the birds who eat the beetles. It seems to me that that should be the way in which the Government should ask that inquiries should be directed—not that there should be any intention of hampering investigation and research into the use of chemicals to assist agriculture. When a new chemical is produced it should satisfy certain requisites.
We have had discussions in your Lordships' House about new drugs, and it has been suggested—in my view very properly—that before their indiscriminate sale and use is allowed there should be a considerable volume of experience: a great many tests carried out before it is thought safe to launch these things on a suffering public, so that, in curing, or attempting to cure, one particular disease, we can avoid setting up many others. I should have thought that the same kind of thing ought to apply when dealing with crops.
There is also the other point, which has been touched upon, or implied, in the speeches of my noble friends Lord Shackleton and Lord Walston. That is that we do not know what the long-term harm may be to human beings from the use of some of these chemicals applied to growing food which we are going to eat. That is another thing which I think needs looking into. I will ask the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, not necessarily to deal with this point to-night, but to consider, through his Department, dealing with the known toxic chemicals like phenoxylene and dozens of others which are poisonous. I cannot accept the manufacturers' claims that they are not going to do any harm to other things, because I believe they are. They are a virulent poison, and it is difficult for me to believe that they are not going to do long-term harm. If it is found that chemicals of that kind do vicious harm to other crops and, as it were, go far beyond what they are intended to do, and are poisonous to birds and mammals,
824
then their use should be prohibited. It is no good messing about with the problem, otherwise we are merely using words. If these chemicals are found to be vicious, then they should not be used.
I do not think that that is contrary to my view (and I believe it is the view that everyone holds) that farmers should be permitted the full use of suitable chemicals to help them in food production. It is quite certain that, with a little extra research, it will be possible to and a suitable chemical to do the job without these extra harmful effects. For example, we use hormones on our lawns. That does not harm birds or animals. We use weedkillers on our paths, and they do not do any harm to animals, although admittedly they may kill the grass if they get on the grass from the gravel. It merely needs a short step from the weedkiller which will do its job and not harm animals, but does harm other plants, to the weedkiller which does its job without harming either.
My Lords, the final point I should like to make is to support the plea made by all noble Lords who have spoken so far: that there should be much greater research, a greater sense of urgency and drive on the part of the Government, to find out what are not only the most harmful chemicals but also suitable substitutes to do their job. I hope that the Government will at the same time consider taking suitable powers. The noble Earl will remember that some few weeks ago a Question was put to him upon which there were many supplementary questions. One supplementary question I put was whether if the Committee reported that it was necessary to prohibit the use of certain chemicals the Government had the power to do so. The noble Earl said that there were no such powers. I should think that, if we really mean business, when all the research has been carried out and a decision has to be taken, then the Government should be armed with powers to prohibit the use of those things which are considered improper and harmful. I therefore hope that the Government will consider, at the same time as the research goes on a suitable form of powers which they can take in order to end this evil to which my noble friend has drawn attention.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I had not intended to say even a few words, but as one who lives in the country I have been immensely affected by noxious chemicals. I want to say two things. For six years I have been wondering why a directive was not given by the Government—by whichever Department whose duty it is to investigate certain notified diseases of crops—as to what should be done. To put it shortly, it occurs to me that we have fallen, as it were, between two stools—between the Minister for Science, who has surely a great number of ad hoc committees which he is gradually bringing together at his command, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is in charge of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Doctors notify diseases throughout the country and it is somebody's business to deal with it. The Ministry of Agriculture N.A.A.S. notifies diseases among crops. Why is it not somebody's business to get on to the E.R.U. from the N.A.A.S and say that certain crop diseases need to be attended to? And why does not the Minister for Science (I suspect he has really too much on his shoulders) give a directive of his own free will, as I would if I were in that position, saying, "I want that seen to. That is a directive". He is Minister for Science. How is it—if lie is not too busy—that he has not during the past six years given a directive that he wants this matter attended to?
6.31 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, first I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend, Lord Walston, on the ease, the clarity and the balance with which he addressed your Lordships, and I am sure we shall look forward to hearing him again on other occasions.
I want to add just a few words in support of the views which have been put forward on all sides of the House that this matter is of extreme importance and urgency. What has brought it into special prominence at the moment is the large destruction of birds and animals as a result of the dressings applied to seeds in the spring. That is perhaps a more spectacular example than many others of the evils which may follow from the use of chemicals in agriculture, but we must remember that chemicals
826
are being used more and more extensively. In the United States it was estimated recently that the amount of pesticides used in agriculture amounted to some 5 or 6 lb. per head of population. I asked some time ago whether some figures could be given of the total amount of chemicals used in agriculture in this country, but I was told that there was no information available. But this is information which we should have.
It is perfectly true that the most obvious results are upon wild life and upon the larger forms of it, but there are many other recondite results which have to be considered. I call to mind one illustration. It was found at the University of Michigan some years ago that the thrushes were disappearing, and when careful investigation was made it was found that the reason was this: the elm trees had been sprayed with D.D.T. in order to combat an elm disease. The leaves fell off, of course, in the autumn; they were eaten by earth worms; the thrushes ate the earth worms and they were destroyed. That is only one out of many illustrations of the effects which can occur and which are not at all obvious at first sight.
Another one which I recollect, also in the United States, where perhaps they have had a wider experience so far of these things than we have, is where the water in a certain lake was sprayed with a chemical in order to kill a gnat which affected those who went to it in order to bathe and fish. The insecticide was carefully chosen for the purpose so that it would not affect the fish, and that appeared to be the case. But after a time it was discovered that certain fish-eating birds which used to frequent this lake were disappearing, and although the fish were not visibly affected it was found that they were storing up this chemical in their fat in very large quantities, and this was killing the birds. Incidentally, it presented an added peril for the people who resorted there to fish. That is one more illustration of the unexpected ways in which these things may act.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to correct him? The birds that were destroyed at the University of Michigan were robins, not thrushes.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The Americans call them robins; we call them thrushes. That is the explanation.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but do not let us forget that part of the environment which has to be considered and which must be protected is human beings. There is, I think, little doubt that the constant use of chemicals in agriculture tends to build up a residue of chemicals which may appear in quite unexpected ways, and the longterm effects, as I have said, are something which simply cannot be predicted. This is the reason why the utmost caution must be adopted before new chemicals are admitted into agricultural use. It has been estimated that to test fully the effects of a chemical which it is intended to use in the manufacture of foodstuffs it may cost perhaps £50,000, in order to conduct the whole of the experiments which are considered necessary. There you are perhaps upon a narrower field where the effects are likely, at any rate, to be more direct. But when you come to the use of chemicals in agriculture you are in a field in which the ramifications are extremely wide. There is the destruction of insects, such as bees and others which are pollinators; there is the destruction of weeds—and do not let us jump to the conclusion that all weeds are necessarily objectionable. I think there is good evidence that in pastures certain weeds are necessary for the health of the cattle which eat the herbage.
I feel most alarmed about this situation, because it is perfectly certain that the Government are not spending sufficient money in order to ascertain what the facts are, and the manufacturers are inventing fresh chemicals with great rapidity. For certain purposes in which I am interested, I happen to see the records of new patent specifications which are filed. Week after week I find that there are being patented new chemicals which are intended for some kind of use in agriculture or in the food industry but which may affect the lives of human beings. I do not for a single moment suggest that the manufacturers are wantonly throwing these things into public use, knowing that they are going to have disastrous effects—naturally, they are not doing that; but they themselves are probably not conducting the
828
long-term researches which are necessary in order to discover whether, after many years, the results may be injurious to human beings or to the environment upon which human beings depend. This matter is therefore extremely serious.
6.42 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having raised this matter to-day and for giving me an opportunity to answer this extremely important Question. I am grateful to him for the moderate way in which he developed his argument and for the constructive approach that he has made to the whole subject. He was only immoderate, I think—he is quite entitled to be—when he was attacking the Government rather than attacking agriculture or the agricultural chemical industry. I take no exception to that.
A number of noble Lords have contributed to this debate and have kept it on a high level. I should very much like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his maiden speech. If other noble Lords had not intervened I should have been in order in speaking for rather longer on that point (I thought I was on the list of speakers as the maiden after the maiden), but I have been deprived of that pleasure. The noble Lord gave us a good contribution and we hope that we shall hear him frequently in the future. He knows the subject of agriculture and science, and he is knowledgeable about other subjects as well.
My Lords, first of all, the Government are not complacent. We are aware, in the terms of the Question, of the damage that is being done to wild life, though I am afraid that I must join issue straight away with Lord Shackleton on the use of the word "catastrophic". I will not argue with him strongly about that, but "catastrophe" is a serious word, and we must not over-exaggerate a serious problem.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? What would he call a catastrophe? If there is evidence that wild life, running into probably hundreds of thousands on the basis of these samples, has been destroyed, what would he call that—a minor incident?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords; but we must be careful about the use of words. It is late and we must not be too long. If my nose was suddenly to bleed I should think it a catastrophe; but if a bomb were to fall on this Chamber that might be regarded much more reasonably as a catastrophe. "Catastrophe" is a strong word that we use, but we must not use it lightly. But on complacency I am on very sure ground. Only last week, in another place, my right honourable friend used these words to one honourable Member who asked a Question on this subject:
"I assure my honourable friend that my Department and I myself take this matter extremely seriously."
As to the nature of this problem of toxic chemicals in agriculture, I may say that an enormous range of chemicals is used in agriculture, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, narrowed the field to a certain extent to the particular problem which is facing us at this moment. I think that on all sides this is agreed to be chiefly connected with a comparatively new form of insecticidal seed dressings which has lately been much more widely used than ever before. If we were to range fully over the whole subject we should have to take much more time. That is not in any way to deny the point made, for instance, by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, or the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that other chemicals can do damage or have deleterious side effects. But let us continue to confine ourselves to this question of the new insecticidal seed dressings which are probably causing the great problem.
The chemical seed dressing of cereals, sugar beet and vegetable seeds has for a long time been widely practised in the United Kingdom, and all over the world, as a defence against fungus diseases, and the value of the organo-mercury dusts which were discovered in the early 'thirties is widely known. It is only, I believe, since 1945—and timing comes into this problem—that there have been two major developments. One was the introduction of dual-purpose seed dressings. First of all, they added to the organo-mercury compound the chemical benzine hexachloride, and then, about 1956, they added the chlorinated hydrocarbons, of which the best known are
830
dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor. There has been a second development, which is to use these things in liquid rather than in dust form.
These dual-purpose (insecticidal as well as fungicidal) seed dressings, have of course proved most valuable to agriculture; that is admitted on all sides. It is because the more well-known forms of organo-mercury compounds were not fully effective against insect pests—of which two are especially damaging to cereals, namely, wireworm and the wheat bulb-fly—that these other substances came to be used. Rarely do we get an unmixed blessing. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for one, seems to have found an unmixed blessing in the treatment that he gives to his willow which appears to do no harm to anything else. But it is rare that that should be so; and some scientists may even wonder whether or not there were side effects to the beetles attacking the willows—but I do not know. We certainly have not an unmixed blessing in these dual-purpose seed dressings, and I do not for a moment wish to imply that we have. It has been found that dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor, in particular, carry serious risks to birds which eat the dressed seeds. The deaths from this cause first began to be noticed in 1956, but it was not until the 1959–60 sowing season that the deaths were reported on a wider and a heavier scale than in previous years; and that was, I think, the first time that deaths were reported of animals suspected to have eaten poisoned birds.
My Lords, I want to emphasise, when we are accused of not having completely solved this problem with which we are dealing, that it is very largely a question of timing; and the problem is a comparatively new one. A great deal more evidence has recently been received—and much of it has been given to-day—about deaths from these causes, particularly seed dressings. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted, I believe, from the report (of which I have a copy in front of me) of investigations carried out by the Game Research Association. I should like to return a little later to the point made by the noble Lord in that connection.
What are we doing about this problem? As a result of deaths reported to us in 1959–60 my Department put in hand two main efforts: first, experimental

831
feeding trials. That was done in cooperation with the Government Chemist's Laboratory which is now part of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research under my noble and learned friend, the Lord President of the Council. The trials were started to find out more about the lethal doses of dieldrin and about the quantities of poison occurring in the bodies of birds which might be detectable by chemical analysis. The basic work has been done. Secondly, from October, 1960—and this is very important—the Ministry's pest officers throughout the whole country have been instructed to investigate and report on unusual deaths of birds and mammals, with particular reference to poisoning by seed dressings.
With this programme in hand, the Ministry arranged for a meeting of all interests concerned (referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton) to discuss the problem and, if possible, to agree on the right course of action to deal with it. That meeting was held on December 20 last. It had a very broad attendance, being attended by representatives of manufacturers, merchants, land owners, farmers and the bodies concerned with nature preservation—that is to say, the Nature Conservancy, the Council for Nature, the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I believe, led the delegation from the Council for Nature.
I should like to read to your Lordships what that meeting agreed, because I believe it is very important. I quote from the Press notice which had a very wide publicity throughout the country. They agreed that seed dressings play a valuable part in agricultural production—they used the words "very valuable". They then said that not all seed dressings present a hazard to wild life, but
"There is evidence that seed dressings containing dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor, which in other respects are particularly valuable in present circumstances, can kill birds that eat dressed seed; and there is strong circumstantial evidence that deaths occur from this cause, particularly when sowing conditions are difficult."
It was agreed that further experimental work should be done and that there should be collaborative experimental work by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government Chemist's Labora-
832
tory, including examination of birds and foxes whose bodies would be sent in through this survey; and we were to investigate the local circumstances.
All that has been agreed. And yet we have been asked this afternoon on many occasions what we have been doing. This is what we are doing. Collaborative research is continuing between the manufacturing companies and the Ministry of Agriculture, and publicity has been arranged by the Ministry and all parties concerned so as to warn farmers about the risks to wild life. I think that this is very important, and it is not generally known how much we have done in this sphere. We have also given warnings against illegal spreading of poisoned grain, which is contrary to the Protection of Birds Act. Our publicity has drawn attention to the care needed in disposing of any surplus seed and warns against mixing it with undressed seed or feeding it to livestock. Finally, the Department undertook to review the whole position after the spring of 1961, when further information would be available. We are just coming to the end of spring, 1961. The further information is available, and I hope that this meeting will be convened in the very early summer. So all this programme has been put into effect.
There was one other point that I should have stressed, and it came out in that Press release which received wide coverage. We recommended—and that meeting agreed—that advice issued by manufacturers with the dressings should be modified so as to ensure that wheat bulb fly dressing is employed only when there is real need to use it to control that pest. Seed merchants and manufacturers of dressings would continue to warn users of the risk from dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor dressings and draw attention to the extra risk from higher doses of insecticide; and would thereby enable landowners and others to use their judgment more critically than hitherto when deciding on the choice of dressing. I cannot emphasise too much that we are wholly against these particularly dangerous kinds of dressing being used wholesale, whether required or not.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? He said a few sentences ago that spreading poisoned seed is an offence, but I

833
take it that seed dressed with the three substances he has mentioned several times (I will not attempt to repeat their names), is not regarded as poisoned seed.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, yes, that is poisoned seed; but it is illegal, and a contravention of the Protection of Birds Act, to use such seed deliberately as a bait. A large number of incidents have been brought to light by this survey, which have been investigated and reported upon; and analyses are being done on the bodies of more than 200 dead birds which have been received. Those analyses have been commenced, but to detect the quite small traces of these particular chemicals the analytical procedure needed is very complex and lengthy, and we shall not get the results immediately. The largest number of birds reported to have been killed is of pigeons.
Noble Lords will have seen reports in the Press showing the progress of the survey being made by the Joint Committee of the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Here, again, a large number of incidents have been reported and my Department's scientific advisers are keeping in close touch with the officials of that Joint Committee; and, of course, we now also have the advantage of the Game Research Association report. I am not suggesting for a moment, and I hope nothing I have said will lead anyone to believe, that we are complacent about this problem and do not regard it as a serious one. But we really must not exaggerate it; and, further, we must not jump to unjustifiable conclusions.
I have already said that I doubt whether the word "catastrophic" would be a proper one to use, but leaving that aside for the moment I feel we must be careful to distinguish between those chemicals which appear to have this serious side-effect on wild life and those which, over a large number of years, have been used and have not, so far at any rate, given evidence of producing those or any other such serious effects. It would be a serious disservice to agriculture to condemn all chemicals out of hand—and nobody has suggested that this afternoon—because evidence is accumulating that certain chemicals are much more dangerous than others.
834
That brings me to the question of the Game Research Association's report. If it were widely circulated in the form in which I have it in my hand parts of it could conceivably be misleading. I say no more than that. In the case which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted of Tunby, Lincolnshire, where this holocaust seems to have taken place, this very large number of dead birds was found, the seed dressings alleged to have been used in the neighbourhood, and therefore by inference to have been responsible for this, are all in fact (my scientific advisers have translated their names for me) the old-fashioned organo-mercury dressings, which would be, I am advised, extremely unlikely to have had that effect, Therefore, there is something missing in this evidence, I think, on that particular case. There was something, perhaps, that had not been discovered which caused these bird deaths. But we must beware of drawing a false conclusion, that B always follows A; and I think that is only fair to the manufacturers of the chemicals which have been used for a long time and have not been proved to do much harm.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl is the one who is drawing the conclusion. This is an objective report which is only at a very early stage and the value of which has yet to be assessed; the Association merely state certain information. There is no doubt about the large number of birds which have been killed, or which have died, and they mention quite honestly the information they have with regard to the chemicals. If they happen not to be the particularly toxic ones, they still honestly put them in. The report is not complete in this sense, and I do not think anyone, except the noble Earl himself, is attempting to misunderstand the Game Research Association and Dr. Ashe, who does all this work.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I very much hope that I shall not be misunderstood on this. I did not for a moment suggest any form of deliberate misleading or dishonesty, because I am sure none is there. I say simply that if this report in this form gets into the hands of people who may not take a great deal of care to read all the footnotes, they will see this heading "Poisons" and then four

835
trade names, not of the dieldrin type, and a long list of birds that have been picked up. I think someone might make the inference that one follows the other. We could empty out the baby with the bath water, and so condemn perfectly innocuous chemicals, if this were misunderstood. I am only drawing attention to that, because I am sure that there was no possible intention to mislead, and I think it is a very valuable report.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that the organo-mercury compounds are nonpoisonous?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, indeed. I am not saying that they are nonpoisonous. But I am saying that they have been used for a number of years, and the evidence accumulating to measure damage being done to seed-eating birds does not point to those compounds but to the newer ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, implied in his Question. We agree with that.
Many noble Lords have said that we should tackle this problem in various ways. Perhaps the first should be by publicity and education, so that we use the right chemical at the right time and not at the wrong time. I should like again to quote what we have issued in the Press, as a warning to farmers. We issued a Press notice which had a very wide coverage in the Press; I have it here. It is headed "A Warning to Farmers" and I think we covered in it a great many points which noble Lords have raised this afternoon. It says that seed dressings are of great value. The notice continues:
"Seed dressings containing dieldrin, aldrin or hep achlor can kill birds that eat the dressed seed, and may prove fatal to animals that eat the bodies of such birds. Farmers using seed treated with these dressings should take the greatest care, both in storing and when sowing the seed, to ensure that none of it is left where birds or animals, whether wild or domestic, can get at it.
"The higher dosages of these three insecticides designed to guard against wheat bulb-fly are particularly dangerous to wild life. This strength of dressing should be used only where there is a real need for it, and not as a routine measure of protection. In practice this means that it should be used only on winter wheat, and then only in areas where there is a real danger of attack from wheat bulb-fly."
That, I think, goes a long way to meet the point made by, I believe, Lord
836
Stonham, that these chemicals should not be used regardless, unless they are really necessary.
It continues:
"It is dangerous to feed any creatures with food containing seed dressed with insecticides and such seed should not therefore be mixed with untreated seed. The spreading of poisoned grain as a bait is an offence under the Protection of Birds Act.
"If there is any doubt about the need to use dressed seed in particular circumstances, farmers should seek the views of their district advisory officer."
The chemical manufacturers, the merchants and the farmers have been active in their co-operation. The National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants, for instance, has recommended to its members that a warning to farmers should be on the label of any sack of seed treated with these dressings. One large firm of manufacturers had its labels over-printed with a special warning after they had been printed. Another firm has had special meetings with merchants who sell its dressings, to explain the policy and warnings to them. The National Farmers' Union has publicised these warnings in its periodical the British Fanner.
When your Lordships' House discussed this matter on March 9 (when I answered a Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank), the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I think it was, suggested that all these warnings ought to be embodied in the next issue of the list of chemicals approved under the Agricultural Chemicals Approval Scheme. Not only will this be done, but we have meanwhile issued an Amendment to the current list so that it can be interleaved in the approved list now. Next year the Amendment will be part of the list.
So far, I have talked of the short-term and immediate steps to deal with the problem. What of the longer-term research which I think is clearly needed, for instance, on the general ecological effects of these casualties, or on the long-term effects or side effects of agricultural chemicals? Many noble Lords have spoken about that question, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Walston, and Lord Douglas of Barloch. These long-range aspects fall to be dealt with in the report of the Research Study Group, under Professor Sanders, which was set up by Ministers to examine the need for further research into the effects

837
of toxic chemicals used in agriculture. Their report is expected this summer, and we cannot anticipate what this report will say. But the group have taken extensive evidence, and I can assure noble Lords that we shall take this report very seriously and that we have no intention of shelving or delaying this subject.
The Research Study Group, of course, will cover all these wider aspects of the problem which have been raised by so many noble Lords. But in addition to this Research Study Group, which is working on the problem at the moment, we have the Nature Conservancy themselves, who have established a unit to attempt to elucidate the more urgent ecological problems—and, of course, as the Lord President pointed out to your Lordships on March 9, this is a proper field of study for the Nature Conservancy.
I would remind your Lordships of the very far-reaching existing scheme that we have—the voluntary notification scheme. Before all new chemicals, or new uses for existing chemicals, come on to the market, they have to be screened against risks, not only to operators and to consumers of the treated crops, but to livestock and, in these latter years, to wild life as well. Under the voluntary notification scheme the chemical manufacturers submit details of all new toxic products to the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage. This is a Standing Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Dodds, who is Courtauld Professor of Biochemistry at the University of London: it is an effective Committee and an effective scheme. It is under this voluntary scheme, for instance, that the manufacturers recently agreed to withdraw the alkali arsenites both from manufacture and from use. That was a very big step forward. So, my Lords, this scheme does work. It was after the Report which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to (the Third Report, I think it was, of Sir Solly Zuckerman's Committee) that risks to wild life were brought into the scheme. Moreover, a joint panel of the Committee, the Nature Conservancy, the Ministry and the industry has reported on the guidance to be given to manufacturers about the sort of information that is required, and how it should be experimentally obtained, in
838
relation to the wild life risks, so that this scheme can be fully operated.
Now, my Lords, I acknowledge, and it is widely acknowledged, that certain of these insecticidal seed dressings can, and do, kill wild life. But it is acknowledged that these seed dressings are very valuable to agriculture. This risk to wild life we must cut to the very minimum; and I am sure that one of the best ways of ensuring this—it is an absolute sine qua non, whatever else we do—is that everyone concerned should know about the dangers, and do his best to avoid them. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that we may have to go further than that and, by means of new legislation, or by existing legislation if it does exist (but I doubt whether it is comprehensive enough), have prohibitions.
My Lords, I cannot give any indication of what may have to be done in the future. We are at a comparatively early stage in this matter. This Research Study Group, to which we attach the greatest importance, will probably be reporting in the next months; we have these various schemes going; this matter is of urgent importance and has been widely canvassed in both Houses of Parliament and among the public; and I do not think that it is right now to anticipate what will or will not be necessary to bring about the end which we all desire. The one suggestion in the opening of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, which I absolutely rebut, is that we are doing nothing about it and are complacent. That I cannot accept. We may have to do more; but we are certainly not complacent, and we are certainly doing a great deal about it. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do their utmost to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits—and they are very real benefits—of these agricultural chemicals with only the minimum of the serious toll to wild life which so seriously mars the picture at the present time.

ALLHALLOWS STAINING CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.] RIO TINTO RHODESIAN MINING LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  EUROPEAN TAXES ON COFFEE
  EUROPEAN TAXES ON COFFEE